































   Advancements in Agricultural Development 
  Volume 4, Issue 4, 2023 
  agdevresearch.org 

 

1. Chistopher Boyer, Assistant Department Head of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Tennessee, 302I 

Morgan Hall, 2621 Morgan Circle, Knoxville, TN 37996, Cboyer3@utk.edu,  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1393-8589 
2. Christopher Stripling, Department Head of Agricultural Leadership, Education, and Communications, University of 

Tennessee, 320 Morgan Hall, 2621 Morgan Circle, Knoxville, TN 37996, cstripli@tennessee.edu,  

 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5045-3492 
3. Kendall Martin, Former Graduate Student of Department of Agricultural Leadership, Education, and Communications, 

University of Tennessee, 320 Morgan Hall, 2621 Morgan Circle, Knoxville, TN 37996, kenomart@vols.utk.edu  
1 

 

Incentivizing E-Learning Agricultural Professional 
Development Content for Tennessee Secondary Teachers  

 
C.N. Boyer1, C. T. Stripling2, K. Martin3 

 
 

Article History 
Received: June 6, 2023 
Accepted: September 28, 2023 
Published: October 5, 2023 
 
 
Keywords 
life-long learning; stipend; 
motivation; workforce development; 
Tennessee 
  

Abstract 
Teacher professional development is seen by many as a cornerstone for 
initiating educational change. Yet, there are many challenges to 
participating, such as family commitments, high workloads, poor-quality 
content, high program costs, and frequent travel. Financial incentives can 
be an effective tool to overcome these challenges. However, setting up 
incentives to motivate participation can be difficult, since several factors 
can influence the optimal payment level. This study investigates how 
content, time commitment, and stipend payment influences willingness 
to participate in an agricultural professional development program. Data 
were collected by surveying participants. Most of the participants joined 
the program based on the content and stipend, indicating both were 
influential for involvement. The $500 stipend offered to teachers 
exceeded the compensation for which they were willing to participate, 
and they indicated they were willing to dedicate additional hours to 
professional development. Based on the results of this study, we 
recommend stipends for professional development be at rates 
comparable or higher than local instructional rates to maximize 
participation and persistence.     

 

mailto:Cboyer3@utk.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1393-8589
mailto:cstripli@tennessee.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5045-3492
mailto:kenomart@vols.utk.edu


Boyer et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.361   2 
 

Introduction and Problem Statement 
 
There is strong and growing demand for jobs in agricultural-related fields in the United States 
(US), and the agricultural job market is currently outpacing the new US graduates with 
agricultural-related degrees (Fernandez et al., 2020). The expected shortfall of college 
graduates with agricultural-related degrees is especially concerning in Tennessee. A report by 
the Tennessee Department of Education (TDOE; 2017) projected robust growth in Tennessee 
jobs for college graduates with agricultural degrees with demand growing nine to 21% 
depending on the field (TDOE, 2017).  
 
Research suggests taking agricultural courses in high school could increase the number of 
students entering postsecondary agricultural degree programs (Stair et al., 2016). In Tennessee, 
secondary agriculture education programs of study areas are disproportionately offered, and 
current offerings are not reflective of projected demand (TDOE, 2017). A lack of teacher 
proficiency in specific content such as agribusiness (Dossett et al., 2019; Sanok et al., 2015; 
Stripling & Roberts, 2012) may partially explain why program of study offerings do not reflect 
employment demands.  
 
Teacher professional development is seen by many as a cornerstone for initiating educational 
change (Guskey, 2002; Shoulders & Myers, 2014; Supovitz & Turner, 2000). Yet, there are many 
challenges to participating, such as family commitments, high workloads, poor-quality content, 
high program costs, and frequent travel (Krille, 2020). Financial incentives can be an effective 
tool to overcome these challenges (Miles et al., 2003; Odden et al., 2002). However, setting up 
incentives to motivate participation can be difficult, since several factors can influence the 
optimal payment level. This study investigates how content, time commitment, and stipend 
payment influence willingness to participate in an agricultural professional development 
program, which provided secondary agriculture teachers with online modules and instructional 
resources aligned with the Tennessee agribusiness program of study standards. This research 
may help developers of other professional development programs maximize their impact by 
reaching the largest number of teachers with a limited budget for stipends. 
 

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework 
 
The professional development program was developed using Guskey’s (2002) model of teacher 
change. Guskey posited the “three major goals of professional development programs are 
change in the classroom practices of teachers, change in their attitudes and beliefs, and change 
in the learning outcomes of students” (p. 383). Guskey stated that the key component of 
successful professional development is changing teachers’ attitudes and beliefs. 
Correspondingly, teachers need to see that changes in classroom practices have a positive 
impact on student learning. Guskey also purported instructional change is gradual and a 
difficult process as learning something new and finding meaning requires time and effort. 
Guskey stated teachers need regular follow-up, feedback on their efforts, support, and 
occasional nudging to persist.    

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.361


Boyer et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.361   3 
 

 
However, before a teacher’s attitudes, beliefs, and actions can be influenced by a voluntary 
professional development program, the teacher must agree to participate. Krille (2020) 
provided an overview of reasons for teachers not participating in professional development 
opportunities. They cite several reasons such as high workload, timing, and family 
commitments. Additionally, there is discussion about issues with previously attended 
professional development such as poor-quality content, high costs, and difficulties traveling to 
programs.  
 
Furthermore, Odden et al. (2002) noted that teacher stipends are a key cost for professional 
development programs to attract teachers to participate. Miles et al. (2003) showed these 
stipends will range, which is anticipated since salaries and cost of living differ regionally. In 
developing the professional development program, we recognized the need for providing 
teachers with a proper incentive for them to persist and participate outside of the regular 
school day and year (Miles et al., 2003; Odden et al., 2002). A more detailed description of the 
professional development program is provided in the methods section of this article.  
 

Purpose 
 
The purpose of this study is to understand what incentives teachers to participate in an 
agricultural-focused professional development program. Specifically, our objective was to 
determine how content, time commitment, and stipend payment influences willingness to 
participate in professional development. Data were collected by surveying Tennessee 
secondary agriculture teachers who participated in the first year of a professional development 
program. Results will inform future years of the professional development program and provide 
those who are considering similar programs with lessons learned regarding participation, 
content, and stipend payment.   
 

Methods 
 
Our goal was to recruit 60 agriculture teachers to participate in the first year of the University 
of Tennessee Agribusiness Academy and provide each participant a $500 stipend. An email 
invitation was sent out across the Tennessee agricultural education teacher listserv to recruit 
participants, and the invitation described the importance, goals, and scope of the professional 
development program. A total of 63 teachers signed up to participate. Sixty teachers signed up 
to participate with a stipend and three others without a stipend. Fifty-seven of the 60 teachers 
that signed up to participate with a stipend completed the first year of the program, which 
allowed us to provide a stipend for the three that were originally participating without a 
stipend. Our recruitment efforts targeted teachers located in schools that do not currently offer 
the agribusiness program of study and teachers that currently offer the agribusiness program of 
study. The program was designed to provide three years of professional development related 
to the second-, third-, and fourth-year courses in the high school program of study. The first-
year course is agriscience, which is common to all high school agriculture programs of study in 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.361


Boyer et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.361   4 
 

Tennessee. The format of the program is for yearlong professional development to be delivered 
for each of the three courses beyond the first-year course in the program of study. Each year, 
the professional development consists of e-learning modules (designed as 12-hours of 
instruction) with technical content and student learning activities to be completed during the 
summer, a face-to-face meeting at the summer teachers conference (most teachers in 
Tennessee regularly attend this conference) to discuss challenges and demonstrate some of the 
student learning activities, and on-demand instructional support provided by university faculty 
during the school year as the teachers implement student learning activities and content.  
 
We collected data on how stipends (or incentives) impacted their decision to participate using a 
survey. We emailed the survey to all participants who completed the first year of professional 
development using QuestionPro. A total of 42 (70%) of participants completed the survey. Of 
the respondents, 60% were female and 40% male, and 54% described their school district as 
urban and 46% described their school district as rural. Respondent indicated they teach on 
average 128 students per year in their various secondary agriculture classes. The survey asked a 
series of questions about initial motivation to participate, the stipend amount, hours spent on 
the program, willingness to participate at a lower stipend level, and maximum number of hours 
they would spend on the program for a $500 stipend. Descriptive statistics were used to 
summarize the findings. Readers should use caution when interpreting or generalizing the data, 
since a convenience sample was used.   
 

Findings 
 
Teachers were asked what initially motivated them to participate in the agricultural 
professional development program. The vast majority stated both the content and stipend 
were motivating factors (Table 1). Seven percent indicated the stipend was the motivating 
factor, and 12% indicated they were motivated by the content. As mentioned, these teachers 
were told of the content, anticipated time commitment and dates, and stipend amount before 
they agreed to participate.  
 
Table 1 
 
Motivating Factors to Participate in the Program 
Factor Percent 
Content 12% 
Stipend 7% 
Both 81% 

 
Table 2 shows the hours respondents reported they spent on the first year of the professional 
development and would be willing to spend for the $500 stipend. The respondents indicated 
they spent on average eight and a half hours engaging with the program, but the hours 
engaged ranged from four to 30 hours. Around 81% spent less than 10 hours, but another 14% 
spent between 10 hours and 20 hours. Dividing the $500 stipend by the average hours spent 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.361


Boyer et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.361   5 
 

per person, teachers were paid on average $59 per hour to participate in professional 
development. We also asked respondents to indicate how many hours they would be willing to 
spend for a $500 stipend. The respondents indicated they would be willing to spend an average 
of 16 hours. At the $500 stipend rate, this is equal to about a $31 per hour rate for professional 
development, which is lower than participants were paid for year one of the program. Teachers 
indicated they were willing to spend more time on the program for $500.  
 
Table 2 
 
Hours Spent and Would be Willing to Spend on the Program for $500 Stipend 
Hours Did Spend Would be Willing to Spend 
1 to 5 42% 15% 
6 to 10 39% 22% 
11 to 15 12% 24% 
16 to 20 2% 20% 
21 plus 5% 20% 

 
Table 3 shows how their professional development experience aligned with their expectations 
in terms of time commitment. Over half (59%) indicated the program time commitment was 
about their expected time going into the program. Of the remaining percentage, 36% indicated 
the program took less than expected, while 5% said it took longer than expected.  
 
Table 3 
 
Participates Actual Time Spent on the Program Relative to What They Anticipated 

Time Percent 
More than anticipated  5% 
Less than anticipated  36% 
About what you anticipated  59% 

 
Figure 1 illustrates the percentage of participants that would participate in the program at 
various stipend rates. When the stipend goes up, more people would be willing to participate. 
With no stipend, about 33% of the respondents said they would participate. This is higher than 
the percentage who said they were motivated by content only (see Table 1). Figure 1 shows 
that going from zero to $100 resulted in four additional respondents indicating they would 
participate. Going from $100 to $200, six more respondents indicated they would participate. 
The number of respondents willing to participate increased by 10 and five going from $200 to 
$300 and $300 to $400, respectively. The results suggest, on average, respondents’ willingness 
to participate was inclining at an increasing rate until the $300 stipend. After a $300 stipend, 
more individuals would participate but at a lower rate of increase than going from $200 to 
$300. 
 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.361


Boyer et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.361   6 
 

Figure 1 
 
Percent of Respondent Who Would Participate in the Academy at Various Stipend Levels 
 

 
Regarding participation in the program at various stipend levels by initial motivating factors 
(Table 4), teachers who stated the stipend was the sole motivating factor for participation 
would not participate until the stipend reached $200, and teachers who stated content was the 
sole motivating factor for participation responded to stipends similarly. Interestingly, none of 
the teachers who stated content was the sole motivating factor for participating would be 
willing to participate when the stipend was zero. Several who indicated both content and the 
stipend would have participated without a stipend.  
 
Table 4 
 
Count of Respondent Who Would Participate in the Course at Various Stipend Levels by 
Motivating Factor 
Stipend Content Stipend Both 
$0 0 0 12 
$100 1 0 15 
$200 1 2 18 
$300 2 2 27 
$400 3 2 31 

 
Conclusions, Discussion, and Recommendations 

 
Most of the teachers indicated the content and the $500 stipend in combination were 
motivating factors for participation in the agricultural professional development program. Few 
teachers indicated the content or stipend alone were motivating factors for participation. This 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

$0 $100 $200 $300 $400

Pe
rc

en
t

Stipend per course

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.361


Boyer et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.361   7 
 

finding supports Miles et al. (2003) and Odden et al. (2002), who stated incentives are needed 
for teachers to persist and participate in professional development programs outside of the 
regular school day and year. Additionally, 60 of the 63 teachers who registered for the 
professional development program completed the first year. As a result, we recommend those 
who design and deliver secondary teacher professional development utilize stipends to aid in 
teacher recruitment and retention.  
 
Regarding the amount of the stipend to provide, teachers participating in this program were 
paid on average $59 per hour for eight and a half hours of professional development, but the 
teachers indicated they were willing to spend 16 hours on professional development, which is 
equivalent to a rate of $31 per hour. Additionally, the teachers indicated that higher stipend 
rates would encourage participation in the program, and willingness to participate inclined at 
an increasing rate until $300. After a $300 stipend rate, more individuals indicated they would 
participate, but willingness to participate was at a lower rate of increase than going from $200 
to $300. This suggests the dollar value of willingness to participate in the professional 
development program declines after $300 and is the highest going from $200 to $300. Based on 
the results of this study and supported by Miles et al. (2003) and Odden et al. (2002), the 
stipend is a primary driver of participation. Furthermore, Guskey (2002) stated instructional 
change is gradual and difficult and that learning something new and finding meaning requires 
time and effort. Our data suggests Tennessee teachers are willing to engage in agricultural 
professional development at rates comparable to their classroom instructional rate. The 
average Tennessee classroom teachers’ instructional rate per hour for the 2019-2020 school 
year was $34.60 (Tennessee Comptroller of the Treasury, 2021). Based on Miles et al. (2003) 
and the results of this study, we recommend stipends for professional development be at rates 
comparable to or higher than local instructional rates to maximize participation and 
persistence.     
 
The primary limitations of this study are the small sample and composition of teachers. 
Extending this survey to more secondary agriculture teachers across the US or in wider regions 
would give more insight into teachers’ response to incentives. Replicating this survey across 
states would provide a unique dataset to determine optimal stipends for professional 
development. This survey could easily be adapted to include other content areas such as animal 
science or horticulture. This data would provide insights into if teachers’ willingness to 
participate in professional development programs varies by agricultural content area and how 
stipend amounts would need to vary across content areas to encourage participation and 
persistence. This type of information may prove useful in addressing teacher content and skill 
deficiencies, which should improve student learning outcomes, encourage teachers to offer 
programs of study and teach content such as agribusiness that they currently lack the 
knowledge and skills to teach, and as a result, assist in increasing and strengthening the 
pipeline of students into postsecondary agricultural degree programs.  
 
 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.361


Boyer et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.361   8 
 

Acknowledgements 
 
This project was supported by Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grant no. 
2020-67037-31042 from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture. Author 
contributions: C. Boyer – data curation, funding acquisition, visualization, writing – original 
draft; C. Stripling – funding acquisition, data curation, methodology, writing – review and 
editing; K. Martin – visualization, data curation, formal analysis.  
 

References 
 
Dossett, J., Stripling, C. T., Haynes, J. C., Stephens, C. A., & Boyer, C. (2019). Mathematics 

efficacy and professional development needs of Tennessee agricultural education 
teachers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 60(4), 255-271. 
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2019.04255   

 
Fernandez, J. M., Goecker, A. D., Smith, E., Moran, E. R., & Wilson, C. A. (2020). Employment 

opportunities for college graduates in food, agriculture, renewable natural resources, 
and the environment. U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Institute of Food and 
Agriculture. https://www.purdue.edu/usda/employment/  

 
Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching, 

8(3), 381-391. https://doi.org/10.1080/135406002100000512  
 
Krille, C. (2020). Barriers to participation in professional development. In: Teachers' 

participation in professional development. SpringerBriefs in Education. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38844-7_4  

 
Miles, K. H., Odden, A., Fermanich, M., & Archibald, S. (2003). Inside the black box of school 

district spending on professional development: lessons from five urban districts. Journal 
of Education Finance, 30(1), 1-26. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40704218  

 
Odden, A., Archibald, S., Fermanich, M., & Gallagher, H. A. (2002). A cost framework for 

professional development. Journal of Education Finance, 28(1), 51-74. 
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40704157  

 
Sanok, D. E., Stripling, C. T., Stephens, C. A., Ricketts, J. C., Estepp, C. M., & Conner, N. W. 

(2015). Professional development needs of Tennessee school-based agricultural 
education teachers. Journal of Southern Agricultural Education Research, 65, 1-14. 
http://jsaer.org/2015/01/05/professional-development-needs-of-tennessee-school-
based-agricultural-education-teachers/ 

 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.361
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2019.04255
https://www.purdue.edu/usda/employment/
https://doi.org/10.1080/135406002100000512
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38844-7_4
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40704218
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40704157
http://jsaer.org/2015/01/05/professional-development-needs-of-tennessee-school-based-agricultural-education-teachers/
http://jsaer.org/2015/01/05/professional-development-needs-of-tennessee-school-based-agricultural-education-teachers/


Boyer et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.361   9 
 

Shoulders, C. W., & Myers, B. E. (2014). Effective professional development in agriscience 
education: An examination of core features. Journal of Agricultural Education, 55(1), 
167-185. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2014.01167 

 
Stair, K., Danjean, S., Blackburn, J. J., & Bunch, J. C. (2016). A major decision: Identifying factors 

that influence agriculture students’ choice of academic major. Journal of Human 
Sciences and Extension, 4(2), 111-125. https://doi.org/10.54718/NMRW9896 

 
Stripling, C. T., & Roberts, T. G. (2012). Preservice agricultural education teachers’ mathematics 

ability. Journal of Agricultural Education, 53(3), 28-41. 
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2012.03028  

 
Supovitz, J. A., & Turner, H. M. (2000). The effects of professional development on science 

teaching practices and classroom culture. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 
963-980. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200011)37:9<963::AID-TEA6>3.0.CO;2-0 

 
Tennessee Department of Education. (2017). Programs of study justification for agriculture, 

food, and natural resources. https://www.tn.gov/education/educators/career-and-
technical-education/career-clusters/cte-cluster-agriculture-food-natural-resources.html  

 
Tennessee Comptroller of the Treasury. (2021). Mapping Tennessee education. 

https://comptroller.tn.gov/content/dam/cot/orea/advanced-
search/2021/Teachercompensation.pdf   

 
 
 
© 2023 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/). 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.361
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2014.01167
https://doi.org/10.54718/NMRW9896
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2012.03028
https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200011)37:9%3C963::AID-TEA6%3E3.0.CO;2-0
https://www.tn.gov/education/educators/career-and-technical-education/career-clusters/cte-cluster-agriculture-food-natural-resources.html
https://www.tn.gov/education/educators/career-and-technical-education/career-clusters/cte-cluster-agriculture-food-natural-resources.html
https://comptroller.tn.gov/content/dam/cot/orea/advanced-search/2021/Teachercompensation.pdf
https://comptroller.tn.gov/content/dam/cot/orea/advanced-search/2021/Teachercompensation.pdf

