
































Microsoft Word - 119-Manuscript-1689-1-11-20210921.docx


Kreifels et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
  Volume 2, Issue 3, 2021 
  agdevresearch.org 

1. Matthew S. Kreifels, Associate Professor of Practice, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 233 Filley Hall, Lincoln, NE 68583-

0947, matt.kreifels@unl.edu, http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6519-8711  
2. Nathan Conner, Associate Professor, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 236 Filley Hall, Lincoln, NE 68583-0947, 

nconner2@unl.edu, http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6519-8711  
3. Bryan A. Reiling, Associate Professor, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, ANSC C204a, Lincoln, NE 68583-0947, 

breiling2@unl.edu, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5913-0614  
4. Christopher T. Stripling, Professor, The University of Tennessee, 320 Morgan Circle Drive, Knoxville, TN 37996-4511, 

cstripli@utl.edu, http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5045-3492 
5. Mark A. Balschweid, Professor and Head, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 143 Filley Hall, Lincoln, NE 68583-0947, 

mbalschweid2@unl.edu, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8009-4486  
14 

 

Teacher Perceptions of Facilitating Inquiry-based Instruction 
Following a 12-month Professional Development Experience 

 
M. Kreifels1, N. Conner2, B. Reiling3, C. Stripling4, M. Balschweid5 

 
 

  

Abstract 

Using inquiry-based learning instructional strategies as a way to integrate science into secondary 
classrooms is a common approach in education. This study documents agricultural teachers’ 
perceptions of science integration using inquiry-based learning as an instructional method when 
teaching animal science after participating in a on professional development program. A focus group 
(n = 10) was used to collect data which were analyzed using the constant comparative method. The 
following six themes emerged: (a) perceived value in inquiry-based learning, (b) alignment to state 
and local expectations, (c) value and challenges of a 12-month program, (d) challenges in engaging 
science teachers, (e) confidence in teaching technical content, and (f) integrating science concepts. 
Teachers in the focus group described positive experiences and attitudes when using inquiry-based 
learning techniques in their classrooms and described an appreciation for the 12-month program, 
including how the approach helped to meet state standards and local administrative requirements. 
Logistical challenges of a 12-month program existed, but also provided accountability for teachers. 
The program increased teachers’ confidence in both instruction of technical content and their ability 
to engage students while integrating science concepts. 
 
 
Keywords 

Science integration, animal science, training 



Kreifels et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i3.119   15 
 

Introduction and Problem Statement 
 
In 2015, 78% of high school students in the United States lacked proficiency in science (Desilver, 
2017), and in Nebraska, 45% of 11th grade students lacked proficiency in science during the 
2018-19 school year (Nebraska Department of Education, 2019). Traditional instruction is 
oftentimes reliant upon direct and unilateral instruction originating from the teacher and 
ending with the student, leaving students sometimes uninvolved and uninterested (Abdi, 2014) 
“Inquiry-based teaching is a teaching method that can be used to combine the curiosity of 
students and the scientific method to enhance the development of critical thinking skills while 
learning science” (Warner & Myers, 2011, p.1). According to Thoron and Myers (2011) and 
Wells et al. (2015), inquiry-based learning assists students in the process of discovery.  
 
Agricultural education teachers oftentimes possess a unique ability to integrate core academic 
subjects (math, science, reading, and language arts) into their curricula based on teaching this 
content within the context of the agriculture, food, and natural resources-related industries 
(Warner & Myers, 2011). In a 2015 literature review focused on the infusion of inquiry-based 
learning, Wells et al. concluded that agricultural teachers should continuously seek out 
methods to integrate inquiry into their coursework. This suggestion is also supported by Parr 
and Edwards (2004), Phipps et al. (2008), Thoron and Myers (2011, 2012), and Washburn and 
Myers (2010). Additionally, Baker et al. (2000) found professional development can enhance a 
teacher’s content knowledge level. This study aims to enhance science literacy in Nebraska by 
providing teachers with a rigorous professional development program that teaches science 
through the context of genetics, muscle biology, microbiology, and nutrition, while utilizing 
inquiry-based instructional practices. 
 

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework 
 
The conceptual framework for the 12-month professional development program and this 
research was Guskey’s (2002) model of teacher change. Guskey’s model indicates teachers alter 
their attitude and beliefs on a particular teaching approach after they use the approach and 
personally see how the approach positively impacts student learning. According to Guskey 
(2002), improvements in student learning outcomes “typically result from changes teachers 
have made in their classroom practices” (p. 383). Changes may take the form but are not 
limited to the use of new content/curricula or the use of different teaching 
methods/approaches (Guskey, 2002). The professional development experience is an example 
of where a teacher could be exposed to new content/curricula and teaching methods for which 
they are unfamiliar, and the opportunity to use their new knowledge/skill set in their own 
classroom allows for implementation, evaluation of student learning, and the change in beliefs 
and attitudes (Guskey, 2002). 
 
 

 



Kreifels et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i3.119   16 
 

Purpose 
 
The purpose of this case study is to describe the perceptions of agricultural teachers’ science 
integration using inquiry-based learning as an instructional method when teaching animal 
science after participating in a 12-month professional development program. Research 
questions include: 
1. How did teachers perceive the 12-month professional development program? 
2. How did teachers perceive their ability to utilize genetics, nutrition, microbiology, and 

muscle biology during science instruction? 
3. How did teachers perceive their ability to facilitate inquiry-based instruction? 
 

Methods  
 
The data collected for this study were part of a larger research study. Criterion-based sampling 
was utilized to select participants to participate in the study, which consists of both a 12-month 
professional development experience and a culminating focus group interview. Participants had 
to be a high school agricultural or science teacher in Nebraska and complete the entire 12-
month professional development program. Ten high school teachers participated in this study 
(nine agricultural education teachers and one science teacher). This 12-month long professional 
development experience (July 2017-July 2018) focused on educating teachers on how to use 
inquiry-based learning techniques in their courses through the context of genetics, muscle 
biology, microbiology, and nutrition. To ensure teachers from the entire state had the 
opportunity to attend, three two-day sessions were delivered (western region, central region, 
and eastern region). Additionally, a joint one-day session was facilitated upon completion of the 
12-month professional development program. Participants were expected to participate in six 
online video conferencing meetings using the Zoom conferencing platform. Participants were 
asked to incorporate four inquiry-based learning labs into their curriculum. Participants also 
used their new knowledge and skills to design and teach an inquiry-based lab of their own. 
 
A case study approach was selected as the design for this study in order to more completely 
understand the perspectives of the participants regarding inquiry-based learning. Due to the 
structure of the professional development program, the researchers consider this an intrinsic 
case study, as it focuses on the case itself and serves well as a method of program evaluation 
(Creswell & Poth, 2018). Ten teachers participated in a focus group that was conducted at the 
end of the 12-month professional development at a Nebraska high school and the focus group 
was facilitated by one of the professional development facilitators. The focus group session 
lasted approximately 80 minutes and utilized a semi-structured protocol. An audio recording 
was manually transcribed verbatim. Researchers also took handwritten notes as a form of 
secondary data collection that was also utilized for analysis. (Conner et al., 2014; Creswell & 
Poth, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).  
 
Data were analyzed using a thematic analysis method, which reduced the data in order to 
identify and focus on repeated phrases and words that related to the case study (Grbich, 2007). 



Kreifels et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i3.119   17 
 

The constant comparative method of analysis was also employed (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). 
Open coding, axial coding, and selective coding (Corbin & Strauss, 1990) were utilized in the 
coding system. Themes were identified, then reexamined, and titles were developed for each 
theme that emerged. 
 
To ensure and enhance trustworthiness, triangulation and member checks were used in 
addition to dependability and confirmability audits (Dooley, 2007; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Data 
from the focus group were triangulated between participating investigators. Additionally, 
member checking was done throughout the focus group through verbal confirmation. 
Methodological decisions were also recorded in a journal to provide a dependability audit and a 
confirmability audit so findings could be connected directly to the collected data. The five 
researchers involved in this study include (a) two associate professors of agricultural education, 
(b) one associate professor of animal science, (c) one professor of agricultural education, and 
(d) one associate professor of practice of agricultural education who is also a doctoral student. 
All five researchers have between 12-18 years’ experience teaching at the secondary and/or 
post-secondary level and strive to adapt their teaching techniques to address student needs, 
which may influence the choices.  
 

Findings 
 
The participants that completed this study were high school agricultural or science teachers in 
the Nebraska. For the purposes of this study, we are going to refer to the 10 participants that 
completed the 12-month professional development as agricultural teachers because the only 
science teacher was also a certified agricultural teacher. 
 
Six themes emerged from the data, (a) value and challenges of a 12-month program, (b) 
challenges in engaging science teachers, (c) confidence in teaching technical content, (d) 
integrating science concepts, (e) alignment to state and local expectations, and (f) perceived 
value of inquiry-based learning. The themes are organized by the corresponding research 
question and the participating teachers are labeled as “T1” through “T10”.  
 
Value and Challenges of a 12-month Program (Research Question #1) 
Multiple teachers cited the value of participating in a 12-month professional development 
program, in particular the accountability and continued support aspect over a schoolyear. 
Similar statements were made by T1, T3 and T6, which indicated that the teachers were held 
accountable over the course of the 12-month professional development and the program 
expectations were designed for the teachers to complete the entire program. Other teachers, 
including T7 and T8 felt that a time period of 12 months allowed them flexibility to “work the 
lessons in” to their curriculum. Others enjoyed the monthly Zoom group video calls between 
teachers, with T2 citing, “I like the Zoom [group video calls], the Zoom was easy, it was not a 
hard technology [service] so I liked that. It was positive,” and T4 stated, “I was a first-year 
teacher, going into my second year, so just having that basic feedback and bouncing ideas off of 
each other, I think was really good for me.” Many teachers also emphasized the tangible 



Kreifels et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i3.119   18 
 

benefits of the 12-month program, including lesson and laboratory plans, provided supplies, 
equipment, stipend, and optional graduate credit. 
 
Other teachers discussed challenges involved in a prolonged professional development 
experience, including the potential to strengthen the monthly Zoom group video calls. Teacher 
T8 expressed herself by stating, “Sometimes it felt like it was just kind of “So what have you 
done?”, I think [the Zoom calls] could be strengthened by maybe each session having a focus 
question or something that we get ahead of time so that we come prepared.” Others indicated 
that the monthly zoom calls were difficult to attend, due to a difference in time zones (T3), 
Wednesday evening church activities (T9), and a scheduling conflict with National FFA 
Convention (T7). 
 
Challenges in Engaging Science Teachers (Research Question #1) 
Given that the project was originally intended to engage science teachers in addition to 
agricultural teachers, many commented on the challenges related to science teacher 
involvement in professional development. Many reasons surfaced, including that science 
teachers do not typically attend professional development during the summer months (T1, T8), 
the agricultural teacher was new to the school and did not feel they were in a position to 
encourage the science teacher to attend (T4), or that the science teacher had changed from the 
previous year (T1). Others suggested potential solutions, including offering, or advertising the 
workshops through the regional Educational Service Unit (T1, T5, T7) or by offering graduate 
credit (T2). Teacher T5 identified herself as a science teacher and emphasized her appreciation 
for the experience, saying, “I would say thank you to the [agriculture] teachers for helping to 
teach that also because if kids can get it more than one way, it will help them to understand the 
material better.” Many participants agreed that more science teacher participation would be a 
positive addition. 
 
Confidence in Teaching Technical Content (Research Question #2) 
An increase in confidence when teaching technical content was expressed by several teachers. 
Teacher T1 initially stated, “I’ll be the first one to tell you, muscle biology, I don’t go there 
because I don’t know enough,” however, she continued by discussing how the professional 
development reminded her that there are many resources that can be used to infuse muscle 
biology into the classroom. Teacher T7 identified herself as a younger teacher who appreciated 
having laboratory activities that she could add to her courses rather than solely rely on 
“textbook learning.” Conversely, Teacher T5 identified herself as someone who’s been teaching 
for a long time and someone who often teaches a concept the same way each time because 
that is how she has always taught it. Additionally, T5 appreciated the curriculum that this 
professional development provided because it boosted her confidence.  
 
Teachers also emphasized the benefit of university animal scientists as resources that 
empowered them to teach technical content with more confidence. Teacher T2 stated, “I would 
have Dr. [university animal scientist] do more as he’s an expert and [all] his comments he was 
giving throughout were worthwhile, critiquing our lessons, into more of the science side,” 
adding, “But more comments about this is what we’re doing at the University, this is an 



Kreifels et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i3.119   19 
 

application of what your lesson is, [helps] to reinforce that [what] we’re teaching is correct.” 
Others agreed that expert presence and university involvement increased the relevance of the 
content with students (T1, T7). 
 
Integrating Science Concepts (Research Question #2) 
Based on participation in the professional development program, teachers described how they 
were able to integrate science concepts into their classes. Teacher T7 stated, “It made me think 
a lot more about forcing students to [do] some research and come back with an answer the 
next day, … whereas sometimes I maybe struggled with that in the past.” Teacher T8 agreed, 
saying, “when I went through UNL, I had to take more science classes … so I knew this 
information but some of it I hadn’t taught for a while—just because I don’t teach science every 
day.” It’s good to bring [science] it back to my classroom and refresh a little bit” (T8). Others 
were more explicit, including Teacher T1, explaining, “I knew how it [science] connected to 
animals and, you know, digestion and this is how the stomach works, and this is how it breaks it 
down, but now I know more of the science behind it.” She went on to describe how that 
impacted what she shared with students, stating, 

[Because] I knew more of the science behind it, I didn’t just kind of gloss over that and 
talk about strictly the animal and the digestive tract, but I was able to go into the 
science, so I would say [my integration of science] was better than it was. 

Others described how integrating science into their classes helped to connect their content to 
that from other classes, including the scientific method (T6), independent/dependent variables 
and graphing (T2), and scientific vocabulary (T2, T6, T7). Teacher T8 summarized the ability to 
support other scientific content as follows, 

So I think this is where, we as [agriculture] teachers have a really cool opportunity, I 
have students that come to my classroom and they’ve already learned about genetics, 
maybe in biology class, but they haven’t got to do anything hands-on or apply that. 
Really, so a lot of times, like when I taught this genetics lesson, it was like a brief 
refresher, they knew how to do Punnett squares, they knew all of that, but they hadn’t 
done any sort of hands-on inquiry-based lab and so I was able to spend my time doing 
that just to reinforce something that they had already learned. And we have the 
opportunity to do that I think a little bit more in the [agriculture classroom]. 

 
Some teachers identified ways that integrating science benefited the critical thinking process of 
students, including Teacher T1, who said, “So giving them an outlet to be able to communicate 
that and realize that science is not always a black or white answer, like there’s a lot of gray 
areas, and there’s not really a wrong answer necessarily.” Teacher T3 discussed how students 
struggle to effectively justify their findings, while Teacher T8 described how her students tested 
more than one variable in an experiment and then were not able to determine which variable 
was responsible for tenderizing the meat. She added, “I think by letting them make that 
mistake, and then if I would’ve had time, go back and do the lab again, reinforcing that you 
want to have just one variable would’ve been good.” 
 
While many benefits of integrating science were discussed, challenges were also identified, 
including a reluctance of students to complete laboratory reports thoroughly (T1, T4, T5, T7), 



Kreifels et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i3.119   20 
 

hesitance to diagnose possible errors in an experiment (T5), and difficulty using scientific 
literature as a resource (T2, T7). Teacher T2 indicated that there is not enough time to have 
students connect their findings to science experiments that have already been done.  
 
Alignment to State and Local Expectations (Research Question #2 and #3) 
Several teachers discussed how both the focus on science content and integration within the 
agricultural lessons in addition to inquiry-based instruction addressed local school and state 
expectations. Teacher T5, who teaches science, noted that “Inquiry is such a new, or big—huge 
part of the new standards and so, [I enjoy] facilitating the use of more of that in my classroom.” 
She extended her thought, stating,  

…the new science standards are heavily inquiry-based and the new science assessment 
that’ll come about 2021 … may have a text dependent analysis component, so to push 
yourself to have kids analyze data and analyze a research project and things is good for 
them. 

Teachers also agreed that they can help to meet state and local requirements, including local 
curricular requirements, including stated learning objectives (T6), approved teaching methods 
(T2), and helping prepare students for the ACT exam through the use of vocabulary (T7). 
 
Perceived Value of Inquiry-Based Learning (Research Question #3) 
Teachers that participated in the 12-month professional development program felt that 
learning and practicing inquiry-based learning as a teaching method was a strength of the 
program. Teacher T8 said: 

…we get so busy in teaching and kind of sometimes it feels like you get into a rut of 
doing the same thing or just surviving sometimes. And so to have this to challenge you 
or challenge me to do more inquiry, you know, kind of just brought it back. I’ve done it 
in the past but it kind of brought it to the forefront and I’m going to say forced me to do 
more of it, which is good.”  

Teacher T4 appreciated a different approach as a second-year teacher, saying:  
I think that first year was really more, you know, book discussion and lecture type thing. 
And part of [it is] different types of classes because I didn’t have any animal science 
lessons my first year, but going into this and having to think about the inquiry-based 
lessons and trying to keep myself from just guiding them down the path every lesson 
and letting them work through some of the questions and materials at times, rather 
than being their shepherd.” 

Conversely, Teacher T6, who had experience with inquiry-based learning emphasized the 
accountability of the 12-month program, saying, “I think this [professional development] helped 
a lot with learning how to do inquiry because a lot of other [professional development], they 
touch on it and they give you lessons and they’re like [this professional development] here, do 
this”. Additional teachers also felt that the professional development taught them how to use 
inquiry in their courses, with T3 and T7 emphasizing how the focus on inquiry-based learning in 
one course encouraged them to think about how they approach content and instruction in 
other courses. 
 



Kreifels et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i3.119   21 
 

Some teachers felt that inquiry-based learning did present some challenges, citing a difficulty 
when teaching multiple ages or grade-levels in the same class. Teacher T8 stated, “I had 
different ages in the same class and I found that the seniors actually struggled the most with 
inquiry because they haven’t had to do it, and they just want spoon fed.” However, “the 
younger kids seem to do better with it, and so having that mix in the classroom was a little bit 
different and difficult and made it hard” (T8). Teacher T3 discussed the possible advantages of 
including difficult content for younger students, including the potential to “expose [students] to 
what’s taking place in the digestive system, which sparks their interest for some higher-level 
[thinking] in some of the classes, such as vet science and so forth.” 
 

Conclusions, Discussion, and Recommendations 
 
Research Question #1 
The 12-month nature of the professional development program that spanned an entire school 
year allowed teachers to slowly integrate these practices over time. Integration of inquiry-
based lesson into teachers’ classrooms over a one-year period aligns with Guskey’s (2002) 
model of teacher change. Teachers had the opportunity to teach using the new content and 
inquiry-based learning method at least five times over the year. Then, they were able to 
evaluate how the new content and teaching method impacted student learning in their 
classroom (Guskey, 2002). When considering the longitudinal nature of a 12-month program, 
teachers identified both positive and challenging aspects, including accountability and flexibility 
to implement the lessons in addition to difficulties involved in scheduling monthly group video 
calls. Additionally, given the 12-month length of the program, the online zoom meetings may 
be better timed to accommodate as many teachers’ schedules as possible and by having a 
clearly defined purpose with assignments that help prepare the teachers to continue to move 
forward. 
 
Research Question #2 
Teachers described an increased confidence in their ability to teach technical content in 
agriculture, crediting access to prepared lesson materials and university expert support. Finally, 
teachers also indicated an increased ability and appreciation for the integration of science 
concepts, including helping students connect to science content taught in other classes and the 
development of critical thinking skills, as previously supported by Warner and Myers (2011). 
 
Research Question #3 
The professional development program successfully helped agricultural teachers gain 
knowledge and skills that were used in their classrooms to facilitate inquiry-based instruction. 
Using Guskey’s (2002) model to design the 12-month professional development created an 
environment where teachers engaged students in their classrooms with scientifically oriented 
questions and required students to collect evidence and make decisions. This inquiry-based 
process aligned with Pedaste et al.’s (2015) visualization of inquiry-based learning. The focus of 
infusing inquiry-based learning into the classroom also helped to meet the call of researchers 



Kreifels et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i3.119   22 
 

that posit that agricultural teachers should regularly use inquiry-based learning in their courses 
(Parr & Edwards, 2004; Phipps et al., 2008; Washburn & Myers, 2010; Wells et al., 2015). 
 
Some teachers found difficulty with getting students to formulate explanations after 
summarizing evidence that was collected. Integration of the inquiry-based teaching method 
into the teachers’ classrooms gave the teachers the opportunity to critically examine how 
learning outcomes were impacted, thus shaping the teachers’ attitudes and belief towards the 
inquiry-based learning method (Guskey, 2002). Advancements can also be made to help 
teachers facilitate and critique student connections to scientific knowledge, noting specifically 
that teachers and students did not utilize scientific or peer-reviewed journals as sources of 
information.  
 
Future professional development trainings should be modified to help teachers equip students 
to reflectively formulate explanations and utilize scientific literature. Further research should 
be conducted to capture student perception of inquiry-based learning as a teaching method, 
how scientific content is utilized within an agricultural course, resistance to inquiry-based 
learning due to students’ responsibility to find answers, challenges in using inquiry-based 
learning in classes with mixed grade levels, and the ability for inquiry-based learning to make 
science concepts relevant by giving students choice in the context of their learning.  
 

Acknowledgements 
 
We would like to acknowledge and the thank Nebraska’s Coordinating Commission for 
Postsecondary Education for funding this research.  
 

References 
 
Abdi, A. (2014). The effect of inquiry-based learning method on students’ academic 

achievement in science course. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 2(1), 37–41. 
https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2014.020104  

 
Baker, D. L., Lewis, E. B., Uysal, S., Purzer, S., Lang, M., & Baker, P. (2011). Using the 

communication in science inquiry project professional development model to facilitate 
learning middle school genetics concepts. Professional Development in 
Education, 37(3), 453–468. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2010.509945  

 
Berg, B. L. (2001). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Allyn and Bacon.  
 
Conner, N. W., Rubenstein, E. D., Dibenedetto, C. A., Stripling, C. T., Roberts, T. G., & Stedman, 

N. L. (2014). Examining student perceptions of flipping an agricultural teaching methods 
course. Journal of Agricultural Education, 55(5), 65–77. 
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2014.05065  

 



Kreifels et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i3.119   23 
 

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative 
criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00988593  

 
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among 

five approaches (4th ed.). Sage.  
 
Desilver, D. (2017). U.S. students’ academic achievement still lags that of their peers in many 

other countries. Pew Research Center.  https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-
tank/2017/02/15/u-s-students-internationally-math-science/ 

 
Dooley, K. E. (2007). Viewing agricultural education research through a qualitative lens. Journal 

of Agricultural Education, 48(4), 32–42. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2007.04032 
 
Grbich, C. (2007). Qualitative data analysis: An introduction. Sage.  
 
Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching, 

8(3), 381–391. https://doi.org/10.1080/135406002100000512  
 
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage. 
 
Merriam, S., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation 

(4th ed.). John Wiley and Sons.  
 
Nebraska Department of Education. (2019). Nebraska public schools state snapshot [Science-

percent proficient by grade]. https://nep.education.ne.gov/State/Index/00-0000-
000?DataYears=20182019&type=state#nesa-scores 

 
Parr, B. A., & Edwards, M. C. (2004). Inquiry-based instruction in secondary agricultural 

education: Problem-solving – An old friend revisited. Journal of Agricultural Education, 
45(4), 106–117. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2004.04106  

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

public schools (6th ed.). Sage.  
 
Thoron, A. C., & Myers, B. E. (2011). Effects of inquiry-based instruction on student 

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

 
Thoron, A. C., & Myers, B. E. (2012). Effects of inquiry-based agriscience instruction on student 

scientific reasoning. Journal of Agricultural Education, 53(4), 156–170.  
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2012.04156  

 
Warner, A. J., & Myers, B. E. (2011). What is inquiry-based instruction? IFAS Extension. 

https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/WC/WC07500.pdf  



Kreifels et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i3.119   24 
 

Washburn, S. G., & Myers, B. E. (2010). Agriculture teacher perceptions of preparation to 
integrate science and their current use of inquiry-based learning. Journal of Agricultural 
Education, 51(1), 88–98. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2010.01088  

 
Wells, T., Matthews, J., Caudle, L., Lunceford, C., Clement, B., & Anderson, R. (2015). The 

infusion of inquiry-based learning into school-based agricultural education: A review of 
literature. Journal of Agricultural Education, 56(4), 169–181. 
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2015.04170   

 
 
© 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/). 
 


