
































Microsoft Word - 117-Manuscript-1323-1-11-20210520.docx


Eck  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
  Volume 2, Issue 2, 2021 
  agdevresearch.org 

1Christopher Eck, Assistant Professor of Agricultural Education, 253 McAdams Hall, Clemson, SC 29634, eck@clemson.edu,     

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1645-3632  

25 

 

Implications of the COVID-19 Pandemic on School-Based 
Agricultural Education Teachers in South Carolina 

C. Eck1  
 

 
  

Abstract 

Understanding a complete school-based agricultural education (SBAE) program and the many tasks 
at hand for the teacher are critical in determining the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on SBAE 
teachers. The human capital theory was used to undergird this study, focusing on the components 
impacting the effectiveness of SBAE teachers. The purpose of the study was to determine the 
implications of the COVID-19 pandemic on SBAE teachers in South Carolina (SC). This non-
experimental survey research study reached 46.5% of SBAE teachers in SC through the electronic 
distribution of a 27-item survey instrument implementing a then-now design. SBAE teachers in SC 
felt less prepared to deliver relevant classroom instruction, supervise supervised agricultural 
experiences - projects, advise FFA members, and train Career and Leadership Development Events 
teams now than they did prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, while they feel more prepared to teach 
student virtually than ever before. The pandemic impacted the preparedness and self-efficacy of 
SBAE teachers, impacting both their career and personal life satisfaction. Moving forward SBAE 
teachers should evaluate their roles and responsibilities associated with their career and determine 
how to best bring balance into their lives. Additional research on the roles and responsibilities of 
SBAE teachers post-pandemic should also be considered. 

 
 

Keywords 

human capital, then-now design, teacher preparedness 

 



Eck  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.117  26 
 

Introduction and Problem Statement 
 
The World Health Organization declared the COVID-19 outbreak as a global pandemic on March 
11, 2020 (World Health Organization, 2020). This announcement cased a ripple effect as 
schools, businesses and government agents across the country had to adapt normal day-to-day 
operations to limit in-person contact (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2020). 
In the case of schools, K-12 teachers, regardless of subject area, had to modify their 
instructional strategy overnight to begin teaching using virtual platforms (Daniel, 2020). 
Unfortunately, most school districts were not prepared for this abrupt shift, leaving students 
and teachers unprepared for this new instructional delivery method (Daniel, 2020). In contrast 
to in-person course delivery, many “teachers were devoting what would have been 
instructional time to tackling technology challenges, whether struggling to get up to speed 
learning the intricacies of a learning management system or fixing access problems on Zoom 
calls” (Bushweller, 2020, para. 19). 
 
School-based agricultural education (SBAE) teachers were not immune to these changes, as 
they also experienced an immediate interruption in their daily functions (Lindner et al., 2020).  
Although SBAE teachers have a primary teaching responsibility (i.e., classroom/laboratory 
instruction), they are also tasked with roles associated with their National FFA Organization 
(FFA) chapter, and students supervised agricultural experiences (SAE) (National FFA, 2015). To 
effectively deliver a complete program, SBAE teachers assume many roles to engage students in 
all three components (Terry & Briers, 2010). These diverse roles require additional time 
commitments over a traditional classroom teacher (Torres et al., 2008). Understanding a 
complete SBAE program and the many tasks at hand for the teacher are critical in determining 
the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on SBAE teachers. Given the sudden change in 
instructional delivery and demand for technological proficiency from SBAE teachers (Lindner et 
al., 2020), the questions of what implications did the COVID-19 pandemic have on SBAE 
teachers in South Carolina (SC) to deliver a complete program arose.  
 

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework 
 
Human capital theory was used to undergird this study, as human capital aims to evaluate the 
education, skills, experiences, and trainings (Becker, 1964; Little, 2003; Schultz, 1971; Smith, 
2010; Smylie, 1996) necessary for gainful employment (Becker, 1964) as an SBAE teacher. An 
individual’s human capital and human capital needs differ based on personal and professional 
characteristics (Lepak & Snell, 1999). Wilson and Ball (1996) identify one grand challenge in 
teacher education as understanding where teachers are and where they want to be, as 
prospective teachers often come into a teacher education program with years of experience. 
Additionally, “reform efforts have focused mostly on improving teacher effectiveness and 
student achievement, ignoring the roles of school organization and teacher job satisfaction, 
which are critical for student success” (Banerjee et al., 2017, p. 234). Furthermore, Banerjee et 
al. (2017) conclude the need for career satisfaction and a positive environment as being pivotal 
factors in overall teaching effectiveness, ultimately leading to student achievement. 



Eck  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.117  27 
 

 
When considering human capital development in agricultural education, Eck et al. (2020) 
developed the conceptual model of effective teaching for SBAE teachers, which takes into 
account an individual’s current human capital along with the identified components of effective 
SBAE teachers (i.e., intracurricular engagement, personal dispositions, appreciation for diversity 
and inclusion, pedagogical preparedness, work-life balance, and professionalism) and personal, 
professional, and environmental factors (i.e., career tenure, program size, certification 
pathway, and personal attributes), all of which lead to effective teaching in SBAE. The 
conceptual model developed by Eck et al. (2020) was adapted for this study to include 
additional factors related to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic (i.e., marital status, family, the 
COVID-19 pandemic, and grade levels taught). Together, the human capital theory and the 
conceptual model of effective teaching for SBAE teachers (Eck et al., 2020) provides a lens to 
evaluate the preparedness, self-efficacy, work-life balance, and motivation of SBAE teachers in 
SC during the COVID-19 pandemic. The factors being evaluated in this study are woven into the 
human capital (i.e., education, skills, experiences, and trainings) SBAE teachers have developed 
to be effective in their chosen profession, although the pandemic has caused many teachers to 
question their preparedness (Bushweller, 2020; Daniel, 2020). 
 

Purpose 
 
The purpose of the study was to determine the implications of the COVID-19 pandemic on SBAE 
teachers in SC. Understanding SBAE teachers’ perceptions prior to the pandemic and now, 
amidst the pandemic, will help to inform agricultural teacher educators and other stakeholders 
of the specific needs in preparing and supporting SBAE teachers. Four objectives directed this 
study:  
1. determine the preparedness of SBAE teachers to deliver a complete SBAE program before 

and during the COVID-19 pandemic, 
2. establish perceived levels of self-efficacy prior to and during the pandemic, 
3. determine the work-life balance and satisfaction of SBAE teachers prior to and during the 

pandemic, and 
4. identify the motivational factors driving SBAE teachers in their careers. 
 

Methods 
 
This non-experimental survey research study aimed to reach SBAE teachers across SC (N = 155). 
The survey frame used publicly available email address for the SBAE teachers, where they 
received an email invitation to participate in the research study. To increase response rate the 
tailored design method was followed for electronic survey design and electronic distribution 
(Dillman et al., 2014), resulting in a 46.5% (n = 72) response rate. With over half of the 
population of interest not responding (53.5%), non-response bias was of concern. To address 
this concern the recommendations of Lindner et al. (2001) where followed and a comparison of 
early to late respondents was conducted, resulting in no statistically significant differences 
between the two groups (i.e., early and late respondents). Therefore, the 46.5% of SBAE 



Eck  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.117  28 
 

teachers in SC  who responded were considered to be representative on the population of 
interest. A 27-item researcher developed survey was used for data collection. The instrument 
was developed using a then-now design to allow participants to reflect on their experiences 
prior to the COVID-19 pandemic (then), while also reporting their current experiences teaching 
SBAE during the pandemic (now) on the same items. A then-now design (John & Robbins, 1994) 
was chosen due to the nature of the pandemic, as researchers did not anticipate a pandemic to 
collect data prior to the onset. Prior to distribution, the survey instrument was evaluated for 
face and content validity by three faculty members in agricultural education at [University], 
following the recommendations of Privitera (2020). The 27-item survey instrument was divided 
into eight sections including, preparedness to teach, teaching self-efficacy, hours worked, 
motivation to teach, work-life satisfaction, instructional delivery, COVID-19 impacts, and 
personal and professional characteristics. 
 
The preparedness to teach section asked participants to score five-items on a four-point Likert-
type scale (1 = strongly disagree; 4 = strongly agree) based on their preparedness pre-COVID 
and currently (during pandemic). Teaching self-efficacy was measured using two-items, asking 
teachers to indicate their pre-COVID self-efficacy for classroom/laboratory instruction, SAE 
supervision, and FFA advisement, each on a zero to 100 sliding scale, the second question was 
the same except teachers reported current (during pandemic) self-efficacy. The third section 
addressed hours worked pre-COVID and during COVID using two questions, where teachers 
indicated the average number of hours per week spent lesson planning, teaching, grading, 
supervising SAE projects, advising the FFA chapter, and on personal/family time. Motivation to 
teach SBAE was evaluated by asking teachers to rank four-items (i.e., teaching agriculture, 
advising FFA members, working with SAE projects, and preparing Career and Leadership 
Development Events [CDE/LDE] teams) based on their motivation, where one is the greatest 
motivator and four is the least motivating. To address work-life satisfaction, teachers selected 
their career and life satisfaction both pre-COVID and currently on a five-point Likert-type scale 
with 1 being extremely dissatisfied and 5 being extremely satisfied. Three questions addressed 
instructional delivery, including “how are you currently delivering classroom instruction?”, “did 
you ever deliver online instruction prior to the COVID-19 pandemic?” and “do you feel prepared 
to deliver online instruction?”. To determine COVID-19 impacts on SBAE, teachers indicated 
their greatest challenges, greatest benefits, and how [University] could further support them 
moving forward. The final section of the survey instrument included nine personal and 
professional demographic questions (i.e., sex, ethnicity, age, marital status, certification 
pathway, grade levels taught, years of experience, program size, and if they have children).  
 
Among the respondents, 58.3% (n = 40) were female, 90.3% (n = 65) were white/Caucasian, and 
they ranged in age from 21 to 65 years old. Additionally, 75% (n = 54) were married and 31.9% 
(n = 23) had children under the age of 18. Sixty-one (84.7%) were traditionally certified through 
either a bachelors or master’s degree in agricultural education with a student teaching 
experience and ranged from first year teachers to those with 36 years of experience. When 
considering grade levels taught, 84.7% (n = 61) taught only high school students (grades 9–12), 
while the remaining 15.3% taught either middle school (grades 6–8) or a combination of both 
middle and high school students. Twenty-eight (38.9%) respondents reported teaching in a 



Eck  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.117  29 
 

single teacher program, with the remaining teaching in multiple teacher programs ranging from 
two to three teachers.  
 
The data were analyzed using SPSS Version 26 and included descriptive and inferential 
statistics. For objectives 1, 2, and 3, paired-sample t-tests were implemented to compare SC 
SBAE teachers self-reported mean scores prior to and during the pandemic to further 
understand the educational impacts of COVID-19.  
 

Findings 
 
Findings for Research Question One: Determine the Preparedness of SBAE Teachers to Deliver 
a Complete SBAE Program Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic 
To determine the preparedness of SBAE teachers in SC, five-items (see Table 1) were scored on 
a four-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree; 4 = strongly agree) for pre-COVID 
preparedness and current (during pandemic) preparedness. Table 1 outlines the five items, 
item means, and standard deviations along with the results of the paired-sample t-tests and 
calculated effect size. 
 
Table 1 
 
South Carolina School-based Agricultural Education (SBAE) Teacher Preparedness Prior to and 
During the COVID-19 Pandemic (n = 72) 
Itema  Pre-COVID Current    

I am prepared to  M SD M SD t p d 
deliver relevant classroom  
     instruction (in-person) 

 3.94 .31 3.39 .77 4.88 .001** .69 

teach students virtually  2.24 1.1 3.04 .69 -4.68 .001** .66 
supervise students'  SAEb   
     projects 

 3.72 .60 2.76 1.1 5.50 .001** .78 

advise FFA members  3.72 .61 3.00 .87 5.68 .001** .80 
train CDE/LDE teamsc  3.70 .68 2.73 .94 6.61 .001** .94 
Note. aItem stem – I was (Pre-COVID) / am (Current) prepared to; bSAE = Supervised Agricultural 
Experience; FFA = National FFA Organization; cCareer and Leadership Development Events 
[CDE/LDE] teams. *p < .05 or ** p < .01. 
 
Each of the five items related to the preparedness of SBAE teachers in SC resulted in a 
statistically significant (p < .01) difference prior to and during the pandemic, with a decrease in 
preparedness on all the items expect teaching student virtually, which resulted in a statically 
significant increase in preparedness. To further understand these differences effect sizes were 
calculated using Cohen’s d, resulting in medium effect sizes (.50 < d < .80) for preparedness to 
deliver relevant classroom instruction, teach students virtually, and supervise students’ SAE 



Eck  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.117  30 
 

projects, while a large effect size (d > .80) was found for advising FFA members and training 
CDE/LDE teams.  
 
Findings for Research Question Two: Establish Perceived Levels of Self-Efficacy Prior to and 
During the Pandemic 
SBAE teachers in SC varied based on their self-perceived levels of efficacy related to a 
completed SBAE program (i.e., classroom/laboratory instruction, SAE supervision, FFA 
advisement) prior to and during the pandemic. Self-efficacy was measured on a sliding scale 
from 0 (low self-efficacy) to 100 (high self-efficacy) for each of the three components. Scores 
ranged from a low self-efficacy of 5 for FFA advisement during the pandemic to a high self-
efficacy of 100 for classroom and laboratory instruction pre-COVID. Table 2 provides the mean 
and standard deviation for each of the three components prior to and during the pandemic 
along with the results of the paired-sample t-tests and calculated effect size. 
 
Table 2 
 
Self-Efficacy of School-based Agricultural Education (SBAE) Teachers in South Carolina Prior to 
and During the COVID-19 Pandemic (n = 72) 
Item   Pre-COVID  Current t p d 
  M SD  M SD    

Classroom/Laboratory  
     Instruction  

 88.43 10.54  74.21 19.58 5.70 .001** .82 

SAEa Supervision  76.19 17.86  50.02 26.66 7.20 .001** 1.06 
FFAb Advisement  88.38 11.84  61.56 24.12 7.04 .001** 1.01 
Note. aSAE = Supervised Agricultural Experience; bFFA = National FFA Organization. *p < .05 or 
** p < .01. 
 
Participants experienced a decrease in perceived self-efficacy across the three components, as 
shown by statistically significant decreases (p < .01) and large effect sizes (d > .80).  
 
Additionally, 51.4% (n = 37) of respondents felt prepared (probably yes of definitely yes) to 
deliver online instruction during the pandemic, while the remaining 48.6% felt that they were 
probably not or definitely not prepared for the change in instructional delivery. Only 19.4% (n = 
14) of SBAE teachers in SC that responded had experience prior to the pandemic in delivering 
online instruction. These factors lead to some of the greatest challenges’ respondents faced 
teaching during the pandemic, including “a lack of hands-on teaching in a virtual environment” 
which leads to the challenge of making the course “exciting and fun”, ultimately impacting 
student motivation. 
 
Findings for Research Question Three: Determine the Work-Life Balance and Satisfaction of 
SBAE Teachers Prior to and During the Pandemic 
Participants were asked to input their approximate hours worked during an average week on 
five work related items including, lesson planning, teaching class, grading assignments, SAE 



Eck  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.117  31 
 

supervision, and FFA advisement, along with the amount of time dedicated to personal and/or 
family time. Hours reported ranged from a low of one hour a week spent grading pre-COVID to 
11.1% (n = 8)  of respondents indicating over 90 hours a week dedicated to family time during 
the COVID-19 pandemic. Table 3 outlines the mean and standard deviation for hours spent pre-
COVID and during COVID-19 (current) for each of the six items along with the results of the 
paired-sample  t-tests and effect size. 
 
Table 3 
 
Average Hours Spent by South Carolina School-based Agricultural Education (SBAE) Teachers 
Prior to and During the COVID-19 Pandemic (n = 72) 
Hours Spent  Pre-COVID  Current t p d 
  M SD  M SD    
Lesson Planning   11.00 11.79  18.18 17.52 -3.86 .001** .61 
Teaching  34.60 17.69  31.85 13.80 1.90 .070 .30 
Grading  8.98 10.56  11.57 11.85 -2.71 .010* .43 
SAEa Supervision  10.34 12.41  8.23 13.69 1.24 .220 .21 
FFAb Advisement  18.05 19.24  13.38 20.07 3.52 .010* .56 
Personal/Family Time  30.62 25.35  32.62 27.46 -1.22 .230 .19 
Note. aSAE = Supervised Agricultural Experience; bFFA = National FFA Organization. *p < .05 or 
** p < .01. 
 
The sample of responding SBAE teachers reported an increase in hours spent lesson planning (p 
< .01), grading (p < .01), and personal/family time (p > .05), while they indicated a decrease in 
time spent teaching (p > .05), SAE supervision (p > .05), and FFA advisement (p < .01). In 
addition, a medium effect size (.50 < d < .80) was calculated for lesson planning and FFA 
advisement, while the other four areas resulted in a small effect size (d  < .50).  
 
To further understand the work-life balance of SBAE teachers, two questions were asked to 
address their career satisfaction and life satisfaction pre-COVID and currently (during COVID). 
Each item was ranked on a five-point Likert-type scale of agreement, where 1 = extremely 
dissatisfied and 5 = extremely satisfied. Sixty-one (84.7%) participants were either satisfied or 
extremely satisfied with their career prior to the pandemic, which was then reduced to only 
48.6% (n = 35) of SBAE teachers being satisfied or extremely satisfied with their career during 
the pandemic. Similarly, 81.9% (n = 59) of respondents were satisfied or extremely satisfied 
with their life prior to COVID-19, while only 68.1% (n = 49) reported to be satisfied or extremely 
satisfied during the pandemic. Table 4 provides the mean scores and standard deviations for 
career and life satisfaction prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic along with the results of 
the paired-sample t-tests and effect sizes. 
 
 
 
 



Eck  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.117  32 
 

Table 4 
 
Satisfaction of South Carolina School-based Agricultural Education (SBAE) Teachers Prior to and 
During the COVID-19 Pandemic (n = 72) 
Satisfaction  Pre-COVID  Current t p d 
  M SD  M SD    
Career   4.15 1.01  3.10 1.25 4.53 .001* .72 

Life   4.24 .97  3.84 1.10 2.07 .050 .34 

*p < .05 or ** p < .01. 
 
Both career and life satisfaction were reported to be lower during the COVID-19 pandemic than 
before by SBAE teachers in SC. Career satisfaction resulted in a statistically significant difference 
(p < .01) with a medium (.50 < d < .80) effect size. Life satisfaction was also statistically 
significant (p = .05) but had a small effect size (d < .50), making the difference negligible.  
 
Findings for Research Question Four: Identify the Motivational Factors Driving SBAE Teachers 
in their Careers 
When SC SBAE teachers were asked to rank potential factors that motivate them to teach, 
72.2% (n = 52) reported teaching agriculture as the motivating factor. Advising FFA members 
was the second highest with 25.0% (n = 18) of teachers selecting it as the top factor and 
another 47.2% (n = 34 ) identifying it as the second factor. Preparing CDE/LDE teams was only 
ranked first by one teacher (1.4%) but was ranked third by 45.8% (n = 33). No teachers 
indicated working with students SAE projects as being the top motivating factor, instead 41 
(56.9%) identified it as being the least motivating of the four potential factors.  
 

Conclusions, Discussion, and Recommendations 
 
SBAE teachers in SC feel less prepared to deliver relevant classroom instruction, supervise 
students’ SAE projects, advise FFA members, and train CDE/LDE teams know then they did prior 
to the COVID-19 pandemic, while they feel more prepared to teach student virtually than ever 
before. This aligns with previous research identifying teachers and their school districts as not 
being prepared for the shift to online or hybrid instructional models (Daniel, 2020). Although 
the more teachers interacted with learning management systems and virtual teaching 
platforms (i.e., Zoom or Google Meets) the more prepared they felt, unfortunately, in most 
cases this was taking away from their time and preparedness in other areas (Bushweller, 2020). 
When evaluating SBAE teachers’ self-efficacy of a complete SBAE program (i.e., 
classroom/laboratory instruction, FFA, and SAE), statistically significant decreases (p < .01) and 
large effect sizes (d > .80) were found across all three components. The pandemic forced a shift 
in many of the traditional roles of an SBAE teacher, as identified by Terry and Briers (2010), as 
these roles morphed, teachers felt less efficacy than before, which brought about many 
challenges for the teachers. Thus, teachers began to question what they were doing and how 
effective they were in their chosen career. The human capital including the education, skills, 



Eck  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.117  33 
 

experiences, and trainings (Becker, 1964; Little, 2003; Schultz, 1971; Smith, 2010; Smylie, 1996) 
they have received over the years that was essential for their daily job functions, was perhaps, 
no longer adequate.  
 
These sudden changes in the job duties impacted the preparedness and self-efficacy of SBAE 
teachers, impacting both their career and personal life satisfaction. Career satisfaction 
experienced the greatest impact and resulted in a statistically significant difference (p < .01) 
with a medium effect size. This aligns with the recent work of McKim and Sorenson (2020) who 
found a significant decrease in SBAE teaching satisfaction because of the COVID-19 pandemic. 
Conceivably this relates to the increase in time needed to lesson plan and grade student work 
during the pandemic compared to pre-pandemic and the reduction in time spent teaching, 
which was found to be the primary reason participants selected a career as an SBAE teacher. 
Life satisfaction on the other hand resulted in a negligible difference (p = .05, small effect size), 
which perhaps can be related to the reduced time spent teaching, conducting SAE visits, and 
advising the FFA chapter along with the additional time reported for personal/family time. For 
many, teaching SBAE is life, linking the impact on both work and life satisfaction found in this 
study.  
 
The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted SBAE teachers in SC in a variety of ways, from their 
instructional delivery methods and FFA and SAE responsibilities to time spent teaching versus 
time spent with family. SBAE teachers look forward to returning to a sense of normalcy with in-
person teaching and FFA events, but this is also a time to reflect on potential positive outcomes 
from the pandemic (i.e., reduced weekly workload and increased personal/family time). Moving 
forward SBAE teachers should evaluate their roles and responsibilities associated with their 
career and determine how to best bring balance into their lives, as the environmental factors 
(see Figure 1), including the COVID-19 pandemic caused a disruption in the status quo of the 
necessary human capital required for their career. Therefore, SBAE teacher educators, 
agricultural education state staff, and school administrators should consider the demands 
placed on SBAE teachers and determine how to best support them, preparing teachers for 
longevity in a successful career. Additionally, functions that became essential during the 
pandemic (i.e., virtual program delivery, effective online instruction, hosting virtual meetings, 
and operating learning management systems), should become an integral part of teacher 
preparation programs in the future to better prepare future teachers for an ever-changing 
educational climate.  
 
Additional research on the roles and responsibilities of SBAE teachers post-pandemic should be 
conducted to better understand the impact of COVID-19 on the profession. Online instruction 
was immediately implemented for teachers across the country, therefore, further investigation 
into effective online delivery for SBAE programs is essential. Finally, this study should be 
adapted to evaluate teachers post-pandemic through a then-now design, allowing participants 
to reflect on their experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic (then), while also reporting their 
current experiences teaching SBAE post-pandemic (now) on the same items. 

 



Eck  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.117  34 
 

References 
 
Banerjee, N., Stearns, E., Moller, S., & Mickelson, R. A. (2017). Teacher job satisfaction and 

student achievement: The roles of teacher professional community and teacher 
collaboration in schools. American Journal of Education, 123(2), 203–241. 
https://doi.org/10.1086/689932 

 
Becker, G. S. (1964). Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis with special reference 

to education. National Bureau of Economic Research. 
 
Bushweller, K. (2020). How COVID-19 is shaping tech use. What that means when schools 

reopen. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2020/06/03/howcovid-
19-is-shaping-tech-usewhat.html 

 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC]. (2020). Situation summary. 

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/summary.html 
 
Daniel, S. J. (2020). Education and the COVID-19 pandemic. Prospects, 49, 91–96. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-020-09464-3 
 
Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode 

surveys: The tailored design method (4th ed.). Wiley. 
 
John, O. P., & Robins, R. W. (1994). Accuracy and bias in self-perception: Individual differences 

in self-enhancement and the role of narcissism. Journal of Personality and Social 
Psychology, 66(1), 206–219. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.66.1.206 

 
Lepak, D. P., & Snell, S. A. (1999). The human resource architecture: Toward a theory of human 

capital allocation and development. Academy of Management Review, 24(1), 31–48. 
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1999.1580439 

 
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 

 
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/jhae.2001.04043 

 
Little, J. W. (2003). Inside teacher community: Representations of classroom practice. Teachers 

College Record, 105(6), 913–945. 
https://www.tcrecord.org/content.asp?contentid=11544 

 



Eck  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.117  35 
 

McKim, A. J., & Sorenson, T. J. (2020). Agricultural educators and the pandemic: An evaluation 
of work and life variables. Journal of Agricultural Education, 61(4), 214–228. 
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2020.04214 

 
National FFA Organization. (2015). Agricultural education. https://www.ffa.org/agricultural-

education/ 
 
Privitera, G. J. (2020). Research methods for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Sage. 
 
Schultz, T. W. (1971). Investment in human capital: The role of education and of research. The 

Free Press. 
 
Smith, E. (2010). Sector–specific human capital and the distribution of earnings. Journal of 

Human Capital, 4(1), 35–61. https://doi.org/10.1086/655467 
 
Smylie, M. A. (1996). From bureaucratic control to building human capital: The importance of 

teacher learning in education reform. Educational Researcher, 25(9), 9–11. 
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X025009009 

 
Terry, R., Jr., & Briers, G. E. (2010). Roles of the secondary agriculture teacher. In R. Torres, T. 

Kitchel, & A. Ball (Eds.), Preparing and advancing teachers in agricultural education (pp. 
86–98). Columbus: Curriculum Materials Service, The Ohio State University. 

 
Torres, R. M., Ulmer, J. D., & Aschenbrener, M. S. (2008). Workload distribution among 

agriculture teachers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 49(2), 75–87. 
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2008.02075 

 
Wilson, S. M., & Ball, D. L. (1996). Helping teachers meet the standards: New challenges for 

teacher educators. The Elementary School Journal, 97(2), 121–138. 
https://doi.org/10.1086/461858 

 
World Health Organization. (2020). Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) situation report–

51. https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-
reports/20200311-sitrep-51-covid-19.pdf’sfvrsn=1ba62e57_10 

 
 
 
 
 
© 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/). 
 


