
































Microsoft Word - 109-Manuscript-1307-1-11-20210519.docx


Barry & Easterly  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
  Volume 2, Issue 2, 2021 
  agdevresearch.org 

1. Debra M. Barry, Assistant Professor, University of Florida, 1200 N Park Rd, Plant City, FL, 33563, dmbarry@ufl.edu,
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9579-3872 

2. R. G. (Tre) Easterly III, Assistant Professor, University of Florida, 305 Rolfs Hall PO Box 110540, Gainesville FL 32611, 

tre.easterly@ufl.edu, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2807-512X  
15 

 

Comparing the Self-Efficacy of Florida School-Based 
Agricultural Education Teachers Delivering Online and In-

Person Instruction  
D. M. Barry1, R. G. Easterly2 

 

  

Abstract 

The purpose of this study was to examine the self-efficacy of Florida SBAE teachers for in-person and 
online instruction. The methodology included a descriptive survey approach to determine the self-
efficacy of Florida SBAE teachers. A census of SBAE teachers was conducted in the Fall of 2020 and 
Spring of 2021. The population included a total of 500 SBAE teachers in the Florida. Major findings 
included a significantly different self-efficacy score for in-person instructors (M =4.22, SD = 0.48) 
when compared to instructors who taught online (M = 2.98, SD = 0.67). Navigating online platforms 
for teaching, coupled with the conditions in which teachers had to move to online instruction during 
COVID-19 could have reduced the self-efficacy of teachers. Recommendations include training for 
teachers on how to navigate online platforms, as well as professional development to enhance 
skillsets of teachers in pedagogical practices for engaging online learners. Teachers should look for 
support from their peers who are proficient in online teaching. Preservice teacher education 
programs should consider integrating online delivery instructional practices into existing coursework 
and moving back to in-person instruction when it is safe to do so. 
 
Keywords 

Agriculture teachers, online teaching, COVID-19, United States 



Barry & Easterly.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.109   16 
 

Introduction and Problem Statement 
 
In early 2020, the coronavirus began to make impacts in the United States, with the World 
Health Organization (WHO) declaring COVID-19 a pandemic by March 2020 (World Health 
Organization, 2021). The pandemic caused a major shift in the modality of teaching in a matter 
of days (Cardullo et al., 2021). Teachers were faced with the challenge of moving their 
instruction from in-person to teaching in an online setting almost overnight (Easterly et al., 
2020). Despite the motivation or familiarity with remote instruction, teachers were required to 
deliver their instruction in a remote setting (Lindner et al., 2020). The impacts of COVID-19 
continued to affect education through 2020 and into 2021, leaving many educators with the 
challenge of teaching a mix of in-person and online in the 2020-2021 school year.  
 
The diversity of subject matter in school-based agricultural education (SBAE) and the 
responsibilities of managing the FFA organization and supervised agricultural experiences (SAE) 
add additional complexities to the role of teaching agriculture (Talbert et al., 2014), while 
recent shifts in teaching modalities in education likely compounded this challenge. While 
teachers had to make swift changes in their content delivery, they also had to adapt their 
pedagogical approaches to help support the ability to teach online (Cardullo et al., 2021). 
According to Cardullo et al. (2021), many teachers were trying to learn how to navigate online 
platforms while also adapting to the pedagogical shift in online instruction. This study sought to 
determine the self-efficacy of Florida SBAE teachers for in-person and online instruction, as well 
as compare the self-efficacy of those teaching each modality. 
 

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework 
 
Self-efficacy was the theoretical framework for this study (Bandura, 1977a). Self-efficacy 
determines whether coping behaviors will be initiated, as well as the effort put forth when 
facing challenging experiences (Bandura, 1977a). Self-efficacy has developed as an important 
predictor of success for a wide range of tasks, including those of teachers (Bandura, 1995). 
Teachers reporting higher self-efficacy were found to be more likely to stay committed to 
teaching as a profession, with lower burnout rates and exhaustion (Klassen & Chiu, 2011; Zee & 
Koomen, 2016). Further research grew from the work of Bandura (1977a); thus, teacher 
efficacy was acknowledged as a type of self-efficacy (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998).  
 
Self-efficacy and teacher self-efficacy are developed through mastery experiences, vicarious 
experiences, social persuasion, and physiological and emotional states (Bandura 1977a, 1986). 
A teacher with low self-efficacy has a belief that there is modest influence on the motivation of 
students, with the teacher’s influence being limited by their environment. Teachers with higher 
self-efficacy would be more likely to create learning experiences that engage students, with the 
belief that their extra efforts will successfully influence the learning environment and their 
students (Bandura, 1997). It is more likely that a teacher with high self-efficacy would 
implement a new strategy or approach to teaching (Guskey, 1998). 
 



Barry & Easterly.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.109   17 
 

Within the framework of K-12 education, teaching self-efficacy has been studied, with the 
common theme that teachers with high self-efficacy showed positive correlations with the 
desired outcomes that benefit student learning (Bandura et al., 1996; Goddard et al., 2000; 
Humphries et al., 2012; Swan et al., 2011; Wolf, 2011). Recent changes in technology illuminate 
opportunities that seek to understand teacher self-efficacy through the lens of in-person and 
online instruction, as well as how these modalities affect teacher self-efficacy. Although 
previous research has explored self-efficacy in school-based agricultural education (McKim & 
Velez, 2016), little is known about agriculture teacher self-efficacy in a COVID-19 influenced 
teaching environment. 
 
The computer and online self-efficacy of learners was explored by Wei and Chou (2020), finding 
that the perceptions of self-efficacy affected learning readiness. While research has explored 
the self-efficacy of teachers (Easterly & Simpson, 2020; McKim & Velez, 2016; Thornton et al., 
2020;), as well as teachers’ remote teaching self-efficacy (e.g., Easterly et al., 2020), at the time 
of this study there had not yet been a study that compared teacher self-efficacy of in-person 
and online instruction.  
 

Purpose 
 
The purpose of this study was to examine the self-efficacy of Florida SBAE teachers for in-
person and online instruction. The research was guided by the following objectives: 
1. Determine the self-efficacy of Florida SBAE teachers for in-person instruction 
2. Determine the self-efficacy of Florida SBAE teachers for online instruction 
3. Compare the self-efficacy of Florida SBAE teachers for delivering instruction online and in-

person.  
 

Methods 
 
This study used a descriptive survey approach to determine the self-efficacy of Florida SBAE 
teachers. A census of SBAE teachers in the state of Florida was conducted in the Fall of 2020 
with final data collection in the spring of 2021. These data were collected as part of a larger 
study. The population frame was developed by agricultural education faculty in the Department 
of Agricultural Education and Communication at the University of Florida in collaboration with 
the state agricultural education supervisor and the Florida FFA Association office. A total of 515 
teachers were contacted. Fifteen teachers were removed from the population because they no 
longer taught at that school yielding a corrected population frame of N = 500. The tailored 
design method described by Dillman et al. (2014) was used. A pre-notice letter with a $1 cash 
incentive was mailed to the participants. The initial contact email with the links to a Qualtrics 
instrument was sent out when the pre-notice letter was expected to arrive. Additional reminder 
emails were used to encourage responses. Four teachers opted out of the study. Usable data 
was provided from 248 respondents yielding a response rate of 49.6%. An archival analysis 
technique was used to test for non-response bias (Johnson & Shoulders, 2019; Rogelberg & 
Stanton, 2007). Chi-square tests were conducted with known variables of the non-respondents. 



Barry & Easterly.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.109   18 
 

No significant difference was found for gender (X2 (1, N = 500) = 1.18, p < .05) and FFA district 
(X2 (5, N = 500) = 1.52, p < .05). The data was considered to be representative of the population 
in the study. 
 
The 12-item short form of the Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES) was used (Tschannen-
Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). The individual items are available on Table 1. It has been 
determined to be a valid measure of self-efficacy when used in the short form (Tschannen-
Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). According to Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001), the 
short form of the instrument was a reliable measure with a Cronbach’s alpha of α = .90 when 
tested with inservice teachers SBAE teachers were engaged in in-person and online instruction 
when the instrument was completed. We asked the teachers to rate their efficacy on the scale 
as it related to their teaching in-person and teaching at a distance (online) using side-by-side 
matrixes. The scale asked participants to rate their influence on various teaching practices. The 
anchors of the scale were (1) Nothing, (2) Very Little, (3) Some Influence, (4) Quite a Bit, (5) A 
Great Deal. Real limits were established for scale interpretation. The real limits were 1.0–1.49 = 
Nothing, 1.5–2.49 = Very Little, 2.5–3.49 = Some Influence, 3.5–4.49 = Quite a bit, 4.5–5.0 = A 
Great Deal. 
 
The post-hoc reliability was found to be α = .90 for the in-person scale and α = .89 for the online 
scale. If multiple items were incomplete from the scale, or the entire scale was missing, the 
data were omitted from analysis. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 27. Means and 
standard deviations were calculated for objectives one and two. A paired samples t-test was 
conducted for objective three. The data were analyzed as a sample data and inferential 
statistics were calculated to compare the means to reduce the likelihood that differences were 
due to stochastic error as a complete response rate was not achieved. 
 

Findings 
 
A total of 248 respondents participated in the study. Of the respondents, 30.2% (n = 75) were 
male, and 69.8% (n = 173) were female. 89.9% (n = 213) indicated there were white, non-
Hispanic, 4.2% (n = 10) were Hispanic/Latinx, 2.8% (n = 7) were Black/Non-Hispanic, and 2.8% (n 
= 7) indicated they were another race or bi/multi-racial. The respondents had an average of 
12.8 (SD = 10.3) years of teaching experience. Of the respondents, 2.1% (n = 5) reported 
teaching completely online, 19.0% (n = 45) completely face-to-face, and 78.9% (n = 187) 
reported teaching a mix of face-to-face and online students.  
 
Objective 1: Determine the self-efficacy of Florida SBAE teachers for in-person instruction 
The teachers were asked to respond to questions on the TSES scale for their in-person 
instruction. There were valid responses from 246 teachers. The mean reported self-efficacy for 
the overall scale was 4.22 (SD = 0.48) which corresponds to quite a bit of influence on the scale. 
The values ranged from 3.00 to 5.00. 
 
 



Barry & Easterly.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.109   19 
 

Objective 2: Determine the self-efficacy of Florida SBAE teachers for online instruction 
The teachers were also to respond to questions on the TSES scale for teaching online. The mean 
reported self-efficacy for teaching online was 2.98 (SD = 0.67) which is aligned with some 
influence on the scale. The values ranged from 1.00 to 5.00.  
 
Objective 3: Compare the self-efficacy of Florida SBAE teachers for delivering instruction at a 
distance and in-person.  
The individual items used to determine the self-efficacy scale are displayed in Table 1. The 
items were treated as scale data, therefore comparisons between individual items were not 
calculated. The self-efficacy of teachers for in-person and online instruction were compared 
using a paired samples t-test. There was a significant difference (t (234) = 24.5 p < .01) between 
the TSES for teaching in-person (M = 4.22, SD = 0.48) and teaching online (M = 2.98, SD = 0.67). 
There was a large effect size (Cohen’s d = 0.79). 
 
  



Barry & Easterly.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.109   20 
 

Table 1  
 
Teacher Sense of Self-Efficacy Scale for in-person and online teaching 
 In Person  Online 
 n M SD  n M SD 
Overall Self-Efficacy 246 4.22 0.48  237 2.98 0.67 
How much can you control disruptive 

behavior? 
246 4.24 0.75  240 2.90 1.14 

How much can you do to motivate 
students who show low interest in 
schoolwork? 

246 3.88 0.78  239 2.27 0.74 

How much can you do to get students 
to believe they can do well in 
schoolwork? 

246 4.18 0.68  239 2.79 0.88 

How much can you do to help your 
students value learning? 

246 4.02 0.78  237 2.79 0.89 

To what extent can you craft good 
questions for your students? 

246 4.28 0.68  237 3.74 0.94 

How much can you do to get students 
to follow classroom rules? 

246 4.35 0.68  238 2.93 1.00 

How much can you do to calm a 
student who is disruptive of noisy? 

246 4.24 0.72  237 3.03 1.24 

How well can you establish a 
classroom management system with 
each group of students? 

246 4.38 0.63  237 3.08 1.13 

How much can you a variety of 
assessment strategies? 

246 4.39 0.68  237 2.88 1.10 

To what extent can you provide an 
alternative explanation or example 
when students are confused? 

246 4.48 0.58  237 3.48 1.04 

How much can you assist families in 
helping their children do well in 
school? 

246 3.93 0.78  237 3.07 0.93 

How well can you implement 
alternative strategies in your 
classroom? 

246 4.28 0.69  237 2.86 0.98 

Note. Real limits for the scale are 1.0–1.49 = Nothing, 1.5–2.49 = Very Little, 2.5–3.49 = Some 
Influence, 3.5–4.49 = Quite a bit, 4.5–5.0 = A Great Deal  
 

Conclusions, Discussion, and Recommendations 
 
Our first conclusion is that teachers who taught in person courses had a relatively high self-
efficacy (M = 4.22, SD = 0.48) with values that ranged from 3.00 to 5.00. Our second conclusion 



Barry & Easterly.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.109   21 
 

is that teachers who engaged in online instruction had a significantly lower reported self-
efficacy rating than their in-person peers (M = 2.98, SD = 0.67), with values that ranged from 
1.00 to 5.00. Our third conclusion is that when comparing self-efficacy scores for delivering 
instruction in-person versus online, the self-efficacy rating was an average of 1.24 points higher 
(scale of 1.00-5.00). 
 
This difference is supported by Bandura’s (1977b, 1986, 1997, 2001) social cognitive theory and 
the interactions of personal, behavioral, and social/environmental factors. Self-efficacy shapes 
how individuals respond to their environment, as well as the belief that one is capable to 
execute a course of action when faced with challenges (Bandura, 1977a). As teachers addressed 
challenges due to the COVID-19 pandemic in both their personal and professional lives (WHO, 
2021), the modality of instruction had strong impacts on self-efficacy (Cohen’s d = 0.79). The 
results in this study align with previous research that identified challenges teachers faced at the 
onset of the pandemic, including changes in teaching approaches, educational experiences, and 
teacher well-being (Easterly et al., 2021). Cardullo et al. (2021) identified factors such as 
perceived usefulness and system quality as predictors for teacher self-efficacy, or the belief that 
teachers can successfully motivate students while teaching online.  
 
When looking at types of experiences that are critical in the development of self-efficacy, the 
areas of mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, social persuasion, and physiological and 
emotional states should be examined (Bandura 1977a, 1986).  The most powerful of these 
experiences included mastery experiences, by which an individual finds success in attempting a 
given behavior, and in turn be more likely to attempt the behavior again, ultimately finding 
themselves successful (Bandura, 1986). In the case of online learning, the frustrations shared by 
teachers presents a hurdle for mastery experience to occur (Cardulla et al., 2021; Easterly et al., 
2021). Additionally, vicarious experiences provide the opportunity for observation of others and 
their success in completing a given behavior. With common struggles among teachers in the 
online delivery modality, this reinforcing experience may not have been present for online 
teachers. The last two experiences presented by Bandura (1986) include social persuasion and 
physiological and emotional states. Although we do not know the exact social persuasion that 
was exerted on educators, we can connect the idea that internal feelings and emotions when 
completing a task can inherently influence self-efficacy (Bandura, 1986; McKim & Velez, 2016). 
Although teachers are flexible by nature, the emotional distress of navigating online learning in 
an already altered environment may have further reduced teachers’ self-efficacy (Cardullo 
et.al., 2021; Easterly, 2021). In addition, teacher attitude and the facilitating conditions in which 
they teach can influence self-efficacy (Cardullo et al., 2021). Technology issues surfaced in 
recent research related to remote instruction during COVID-19 (WHO, 2021), and remains a 
challenge for educators (Easterly et al., 2021). On the contrary, the familiarity of teaching in-
person was reflected in a higher reported self-efficacy score for in-person instructors, despite 
factors that may have provided challenges for this modality (i.e., masks, social distancing, 
limited teaching practices). 
 
We recommend schools move back into in-person format when it is safe to do so. If online 
instruction is necessary for a protracted period, or for groups of students in vulnerable 



Barry & Easterly.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.109   22 
 

populations, increased support for online teachers, including training on how to navigate online 
platforms, and professional development on pedagogical practices for engaging online learners 
is needed. In addition, teachers should seek teachers who are proficient in online delivery and 
learn more about successful practices that can be implemented. Practitioners should consider 
offering teachers training and support in both online pedagogical practices, as well as how to 
navigate the extra stressors during a global pandemic. Preservice teacher preparation programs 
should consider including practices to deliver online instruction as part of their coursework. 
 

References 
 
Bandura, A. (1977a). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological 

Review, 84(2), 191–215. 
https://www.academia.edu/10120982/Bandura1977_Self_efficacy_toward_a_unifying_
theory_of_behavior_change_psychological_review_84_2_191_215 

 
Bandura, A. (1977b).  Social learning theory. Prentice Hall. 
 
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. 

Prentice-Hall. 
 
Bandura, A. (1995). Self-efficacy in changing societies. Cambridge University Press. 
 
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman. 
 
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of 
 Psychology, 52, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1  
 
Bandura, A., Barabranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (1996). Multifaceted impacts of self-

efficacy beliefs on academic functioning. Child Development, 67(3), 1206–1222. 
https://doi.org/10.2307/1131888  

 
Cardullo, V., Wang, C., Burton, M., & Dong, J. (2021). K-12 teachers’ remote self-efficacy  during 

the pandemic. Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning, 14(1), 1-
14. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIT-10-2020-0055  

 
Easterly, R. G., Humphrey, K., & Roberts, T. G. (2021). The impacts of COVID-19 on school-based 

agricultural education teachers in the U.S. Advancements in Agricultural Development, 
2(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i1.79  

 
Easterly, R. G., & Simpson, K. (2020). An examination of the curricular resource use and self 

efficacy of Utah school-based agricultural education teachers: An exploratory study. 
Journal of Agricultural Education, 61(4), 30–45. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2020.04035   

 



Barry & Easterly.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.109   23 
 

Goddard, R. D., Hoy,W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2000). Collective teacher self-efficacy: its meaning, 
measure, and impact on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 
37(2), 479–507. https://doi.org/10.3102%2F00028312037002479  

 
Guskey, T. R. (1998). Teacher efficacy, self-concept, and attitudes toward the implementation 

of instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4(1), 63-69. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/0742-051X(88)90025-X 

 
Humphries, C. A., Hebert, E., Daigle, K., & Martin, J. (2012). Development of a physical 

education teaching efficacy scale. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise 
Science, 16(4), 284–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/1091367X.2012.716726  

 
Klassen, R. M., & Chiu, M. M. (2011). The occupational commitment and intention to quit of 

practicing and pre-service teachers: Influence of self-efficacy, job stress, and teaching 
context. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(2), 114–129. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.01.002  

 
Lindner, J., Clemons, C., Thoron, A., & Lindner, N. (2020). Remote instruction and distance 

education: A response to COVID-19. Advancements in Agricultural Development, 1(2), 
53–64. https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i2.39   

 
McKim, A. J., & Velez, J. V. (2016). An evaluation of the self-efficacy theory in agricultural 

education. Journal of Agricultural Education, 57(1), 73–90. 
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2016.01073  

 
Schunk, D. H. (2012). Social cognitive theory. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, T. Urdan, C. B. 

McCormick, G. M. Sinatra, & J. Sweller (Eds.), APA handbooks in psychology®. APA 
educational psychology handbook, Vol. 1. Theories, constructs, and critical issues (pp. 
101–123). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13273-005  

 
Swan, B. G., Wolf, K. J., & Cano, J. (2011). Changes in teacher self–efficacy from the student 

teaching experience through the third year of teaching. Journal of Agricultural 
Education, 52(2), 128–139. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2011.02128  

 
Talbert, B. A., Vaughn, R., Croom, B., & Lee, J. S. (2014). Foundations of agricultural education. 

Pearson-education, Inc. 
 
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive 

construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783–805. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00036-1  

 
Thornton, K., Easterly, R. G., & Simpson, K.A. (2020). Curricular resource use and the 

relationship with teacher self-efficacy among New Mexico school-based agricultural 



Barry & Easterly.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.109   24 
 

education teachers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 61(4), 343–357. 
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2020.04343  

 
Wei, H., & Chou, C. (2020) Online learning performance and satisfaction: Do perceptions and 

readiness matter? Distance Education, 41(1), 48–69. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2020.1724768  

 
Wolf, K. (2011). Agricultural education perceived self-efficacy: A descriptive study of beginning 

agricultural education teachers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 52(2), 163–176. 
https://doi/org/10.5032/jae.2011.02163  

 
World Health Organization (WHO). (2021, March). R&D Blueprint and COVID-19. 

https://www.who.int/teams/blueprint/covid-19  
 
 
 
© 2021 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/). 
 


