
































Microsoft Word - 367-Final.docx


   Advancements in Agricultural Development 
  Volume 4, Issue 3, 2023 
  agdevresearch.org 

 

1. Tyler J. Price, Ph.D. Candidate and Coordinator of LGBTQ+ Affairs, Oklahoma State University, 240 Student Union, 

Stillwater, OK 74078, tyler.price10@okstate.edu,  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7294-3636   
2. Natalie K. Ferand, Assistant Professor, Virginia Tech University, 1750 Kraft Drive Room 2025, Blacksburg, VA 24061, 

nferand@vt.edu,  https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9505-1764 
3. Emily A. Sewell, Ph.D. Student, Oklahoma State University, 458 Agricultural Hall, Stillwater, OK 740478, 

esewel@okstate.edu,  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1069-2579  
4. Bradley M. Coleman, Assistant Professor, Oklahoma State University, 445 Agricultural Hall, Stillwater, OK 74078, 

b.coleman@okstate.edu,  https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5981-5747  
66 

 

Understanding Teacher Preparation of the Past: The Student 
Teaching Block in Agricultural Education 

 
T. J. Price1, N. K. Ferand2, E. A. Sewell3, B. M. Coleman4 

 
 

Article History 
Received: June 21, 2023 
Accepted: August 7, 2023 
Published: August 14, 2023 
 
 
Keywords 
preservice; school-based; teacher 
education 
  

Abstract 
The preparatory experiences leading up to student teaching vary greatly. 
Understanding the evolution of the student teaching block can provide 
key guidance on what is needed for the student teacher of today and the 
student teacher of tomorrow. A historical narrative approach was used 
to understand the student teaching block as it has been developed and 
implemented historically in agricultural education. Six semi-structured 
interviews were conducted with participants who were current faculty at 
the rank of Professor in agricultural education and had been involved in 
agricultural education for at least 25 years. Four themes emerged 
through our analysis: (a) origins, (b) purpose and philosophy, (c) 
structural elements of the block, and (d) limitations and forward-thinking. 
Based on the findings, the purpose of the block as it relates to the 
agricultural education profession is to provide an intensive, immersive 
experience to prepare soon-to-be student teachers in an environment 
that provides an opportunity for practice and reflection before entering 
the classroom. It is recommended that periodic check-ins or seminars 
with student teachers be done to ensure they can reflect, share 
experiences, exchange ideas, discuss best practices, and learn from each 
other as they experience student teaching. 

 



Price et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i3.367   67 
 

Introduction and Problem Statement 
 
The “real-life” teaching experience gained through the student teaching semester is a crucial 
step in the development of teachers (Beamer, 1967; Bransford et al., 2000; Camp & Bailey, 
1998; Cardozier, 1967; Nichols, 1992; Sorenson et al., 2018). However, the structure and format 
of the student teaching experience have been ever evolving and differed considerably by state 
and institution (Martin, 1982). Additionally, the early field experiences and preparatory 
opportunities leading up to student teaching have also been found to vary greatly among 
teacher preparation programs (Retallick & Miller, 2010). Regardless of configuration, there can 
be no argument that the overall goal of student teaching is to produce a person who is no 
longer the student but has become the teacher in action and beliefs. To achieve this purpose, a 
transformative student teaching experience has required interactions between reflection, 
theory, and practice (Retallick & Miller, 2010).  
 
Research has shown a multitude of factors that contribute to the nationwide teacher shortage 
(Castro et al., 2018; Cowan et al., 2016; Sutcher et al., 2016). The unique need for school-based 
agricultural education (SBAE) teachers to gain experience in areas outside of the competencies 
required of other teaching disciplines presents unique challenges (Sorensen et al., 2018). A 
framework for effectively preparing SBAE teachers for the classroom is needed, and the block 
presents a formatting option for teacher preparation programs to consider.  
 
In this study, we will review and discuss the function of the student-teacher block and its role in 
preparing SBAE teachers. The history and purpose of the block will be explored through the lens 
of six of the profession's experienced agricultural teacher educators. The historical 
underpinnings of the block can be used by teacher educators in agricultural settings and 
beyond to inform and guide decisions regarding the content, aims, and structure of their 
teacher preparation programs. 
 

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework 
 
This study was grounded in human capital theory (Becker, 1964; Schultz, 1971) and specifically 
focused on teacher human capital (Myung et al., 2013). The teacher human capital framework 
outlines the approach to building a stronger teacher workforce that includes acquiring, 
developing, sustaining, and evaluating teachers (Myung et al., 2013). Ralph Tyler's (1983) four 
questions for curriculum development provide a framework for achieving lesson goals. These 
questions were operationalized for this study to serve as a framework for evaluating the 
purpose of teacher preparation programs to build capacity for a sustainable and effective 
teacher workforce. Tyler’s (1983) four questions are: (a) What educational objectives are the 
students to be helped to attain, (b) what learning experiences can be provided that will enable 
the students to attain the objectives, (c) how can learning experiences be organized for 
effective and continuing learning, and (d) how can the effectiveness of the curriculum be 
evaluated (p. 74).  
 



Price et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i3.367   68 
 

Quality instruction occurs when an identified purpose leads to the development of objectives 
that, in turn, guide instruction through activities and assessments (Tyler, 1983). Tyler’s (1949) 
four questions provided the conceptual frame that guided the research objectives to obtain a 
clear purpose for the student teaching block in agricultural education. Additionally, the 
conceptual model of using Tyler's (1949) four questions through the lens of human capital 
(Becker, 1964; Schultz, 1971) provided an outline for understanding the evolution of the block 
experience over time and within institutions.  
 
Mikeska et al. (2022) described practice-based teacher education (PBTE) as programs that were 
focused on pre-service teachers’ learning of core teaching tasks. PBTE consisted of two core 
ideas: (a) teachers learn to teach by engaging in teaching, and (b) there are key practices in 
which teachers must learn to engage (Mikeska et al., 2022). Teacher education programs that 
have engaged their pre-service teachers in the enactment of teaching are grounded in PBTE 
(Mikeska et al., 2022). The block assists in developing teachers’ human capital, provides a 
framework to organize and experiences needed for effective teacher preparation, and allows 
pre-service teachers to engage in teaching and core tasks associated with teaching. 
 

Purpose 
 
This historical narrative sought to investigate and describe the student teaching block in 
agricultural education. The following research questions guided this study: 
1. Historically, what was the purpose and structure of the student teaching block in 

agricultural education?  
2. How has the student teaching block changed over time in agricultural education? 
 

Methods 
 
A historical narrative approach was used to accomplish the study’s purpose. Salevouris and 
Furay (2015) explained the historical narrative approach as analyzing various events, actors, and 
items that shaped a historical phenomenon. For the purposes of this study, the student 
teaching block was operationalized as the time period (weeks or days) immediately before the 
student teaching experience (also known as the student teaching internship), which is an 
intensive period used to prepare the cohort/students for the internship. Several sources of 
primary data were utilized to understand the history of the student teaching block in 
agricultural education: (a) expert interviews, (b) researcher-identified literature, and (c) 
participant-provided artifacts and literature (McDowell, 2002). A combination of purposive and 
snowball sampling methods was used to recruit participants (Creswell, 2013). Contact 
information for the participants (N = 6) was gathered via their university web pages.  
 
Semi-structured, one-hour interviews were conducted via Zoom. Items in the interview 
protocol were developed to allow participants to provide descriptions of the student teaching 
block that were rich with their understanding of the block, its purpose, and the changes 
throughout history. Further, additional artifacts and literature were collected from participants 



Price et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i3.367   69 
 

after conducting the interviews and were also used in the analysis. Observer comments in the 
form of field notes were recorded by the interviewers and aided in the interpretation and 
analysis of the transcripts (Ary et al., 2010). Six individual interviews were conducted. To be 
included, participants must have had 25 or more years of experience in agricultural education 
to participate, which could include their time as an in-service SBAE teacher. All participants 
were current faculty at the rank of Professor in agricultural education at land-grant universities. 
Five participants identified as male, and one participant identified as female.  
 
Data Analysis 
Otter.ai online software was used to transcribe each interview, with the researchers verifying 
the transcripts. Inductive coding using the constant comparative method was utilized to analyze 
the data (Corbin & Strauss, 2015; Creswell, 2013). Three rounds of coding, open, axial, and 
selective, were conducted (Corbin & Strauss, 2015). In the open coding round, interview 
transcription data were analyzed line-by-line to establish an initial set of 22 open codes (Miles 
& Huberman, 1994). These codes were organized in a data matrix using Microsoft Excel 
(Maxwell, 2013). Then, the research team negotiated and consolidated the codes. In the final 
round, codes were selected by the researchers, and four themes were confirmed. 
 
Lincoln and Guba's (1985) criteria for establishing trustworthiness were used to ensure rigor. 
Credibility was established through data and investigator triangulation (Creswell, 2013). 
Additionally, inter-coder agreement was achieved through multiple rounds of coding. The 
research team met at least bi-weekly throughout the research project. During this time, 
confirmability was achieved through the practice of reflective bracketing to reduce bias 
(Tufford & Newman, 2010), exercising reflexivity around our assumptions and roles (Ary et al., 
2010; Tracy, 2010), and conducting multiple data checks (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Dependability 
was established through our use of rigorous qualitative methodologies, as described above. 
Lastly, transferability was established through our thick and rich data report below so that 
consumers of this research may draw their generalizations (i.e., naturalistic generalization) 
regarding our findings (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Stake, 1978). 
 

Findings 
 
Little literature exists regarding the student teaching block. Therefore, the majority of the 
findings of this study will be through the stories and experiences of our participants, who 
served as primary sources, as seen in Table 1.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 



Price et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i3.367   70 
 

Table 1 
 
Participant Experiences and Years in Profession 

Participant 
Identifier  

Years in 
Profession Experiences 

A 41 years 
SBAE teacher for 15 years who has worked in professional 
teacher education and curriculum development at three 
universities. 

B 35 years SBAE teacher for five years. Their career has spanned three 
universities, focusing on teacher preparation. 

C 31 years 
SBAE teacher for seven years. Their career has allowed them to 
be involved formally and informally with teacher education at 
three universities. 

D 50 years SBAE teacher for three years. Their career has involved teacher 
education at two universities. 

E 35 years 
SBAE teacher for eight years, then worked as the [State] FFA 
Coordinator. Over the course of their career, they have been 
involved in teacher preparation at three universities. 

F 28 years SBAE teacher for four years and has served in administrative and 
faculty positions at two universities. 

 
Four themes emerged through our analysis of the data. The four themes included: (a) origins, 
(b) purpose and philosophy, (c) structural elements of the block, and (d) limitations and 
forward-thinking. The four themes described how the discipline of agricultural education has 
collectively used the block. The themes also allowed us to think about the future of the student 
teaching block and its purpose in teacher preparation.  
 
Theme 1: Origins 
Literature detailing the format of the block explained that senior pre-service teachers were 
placed at a school for one semester observing, then teaching the following semester (Works, 
1916). Further description explained that during the original student teacher's teaching 
semester, a new pre-service teacher begins their observation period, forming a rudimentary 
community of practice with peer-to-peer learning and instruction (Works, 1916). Using this 
model, Beamer (1967) explained the first “block plan” as a highly structured sequence of 
teaching experiences, with the result culminating with student teaching (p. 201). 
 
In addition to the literature identifying the origin of the block, several participants identified 
experiential learning theories and pragmatism as the basis for the block in agricultural 
education (Participants C, D, & E). For example, "John Dewey, all the way back to Will James 



Price et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i3.367   71 
 

and pragmatism and that sort of thing has always been [our] basic philosophical roots, I would 
say" (Participant D). Participant F also cited Vygotsky (1978) as another foundational theory 
supporting the origin of the student teaching block stating, “You want the student challenged 
enough where they're struggling, but they're successful.” Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) 
(Shulman, 1986) was also identified as a relevant structure to teacher education (Participant C). 
It was suggested that the origin of the student teaching block in agricultural education began as 
early as 1917 with the passage of the Smith-Hughes Act (Participants A). Participant A said, "Dial 
back to 1917, Smith-Hughes … we're gonna have vocational agriculture in thousands of 
American high schools. Where're the teachers? … They had to figure out what was going to be 
the source of these teachers." Additionally, it was propounded that the initial structure and 
format of the block were based on approaches by other subject areas by teacher preparation 
programs at normal schools (Participant A). 
 
Theme 2: Purpose & Philosophy  
Through the analysis of the literature, a major purpose of the block emerged, the concept of 
professional learning communities (Bransford et al., 2000). A professional learning community 
encourages a social constructivist viewpoint through peer collaboration, thus creating a learner-
centered environment where growth is likely to occur (Bransford et al., 2000). The cohort 
model commonly used in teacher preparation programs reflects the same structure as a 
professional learning community. A cohort is formed when students engage in a sequence of 
courses together and, along with their instructors, embody the interactions between reflection, 
theory, and practice that are needed for professional growth (Retallick & Miller, 2010).  
 
Study participants echoed the observation of a teacher preparation cohort as a professional 
learning community. Participants noted that one purpose of the student teaching block period 
was to create a sense of camaraderie between students as they venture out at the same time 
into the same foundational lived experience. Participant A posited, "You get a very strong sense 
of camaraderie between the students, so you're developing a support system, they're all 
commiserating, they're all having the same experience.” Another purpose of the student 
teaching block, as identified by a participant, is to confirm whether or not student teachers 
want to enter into the teaching profession. Participant E mentioned, "For some students, it's a 
defining moment in terms of whether or not they want to teach.” Many participants (A, B, D, & 
E) utilized phrases such as "intense experience," "concentrated," "immersive work," and 
"capstone" to describe the purpose of the block. Participant F identified that the purpose of the 
block was to serve as a safety net, describing it as an opportunity to try everything you can, and 
if it fails, you have support there to assist. A critical purpose of the block, as mentioned by 
Participant A, is the opportunity to "sharpen" and practice delivering lessons in an environment 
created for feedback and critique before student teaching.  
 
Participant C also provided insight into the purpose of the block being for a time of reflection. 
They stated, "They could do individual as well as group reflection on some of these important 
concepts with that experience they were having or are gaining that I think that was beneficial.” 
Philosophically, Participants C, D, and E noted that the purpose and mission of the block 
experience are undergirded in experiential learning. Participant C stated, "Dewey really speaks 



Price et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i3.367   72 
 

into the idea of experiential learning and how, you know, the student teaching experience is 
real-world practical experience." Others cited that pragmatism and proximal development 
theories were ably noticeable as foundational pieces of the student teaching blocks 
(Participants E & F). Participant C cited Lortie’s (1975) work in the apprenticeship of observation 
also aids in describing the philosophical underpinnings of the block structure.  
 
Theme 3: Structural Elements of the Block 
A similar pedagogical program was noted in the literature known as the “summer practice 
program” (Beamer, 1967, p. 201). This format was described as occurring immediately before 
student teaching to prepare pre-service teachers for student teaching (Beamer, 1967). The 
summer programs consisted of two weeks in which students became familiar with the 
community and school and prepared for their teaching semester. The summer program 
experience was associated with a course in the fall semester in which pre-service teachers 
reported back to their peers and instructor, sharing their experiences and reflecting as a group 
(Beamer, 1967). While noted as highly favored by students and effective in structure, the 
summer program was not mentioned as an element of field experiences in the second edition 
of Teacher Education in Agriculture (Berkey, 1982). However, the block-type model in which 
structured opportunities to prepare for student teaching and engage in two-way 
communication has been a continued theme in agricultural teacher preparation (Miller & 
Wilson, 2010). A 15-week outline of student teaching is highlighted by student teachers 
beginning their semester on campus as a group before traveling to their student teaching 
centers. In the middle of the experience, the cohort returns to campus to share with other 
student teachers and university instructors. Finally, the cohort ends the semester with group 
reflections, once again on campus (Miller & Wilson, 2010).  
 
When discussing the structure of the block at their current institutions, participant answers also 
varied. Participant A described the block as consisting of a one-week experience at the 
beginning of the student teaching semester with a midterm and final seminar meeting. 
Participant A said, “One week on campus, and then out for essentially close to 14 weeks, I 
guess, maybe coming back to campus a couple of times for various activities, and then finishing 
up with some sort of seminar at the end.” This structure was a change from what was once a 
four-week experience prior to student teaching. Others described their institution's block 
format as initially a multi-week period prior to student teaching to now having no block, as 
described in this study. Participant D described the change by saying, "The student teaching 
experience itself in the public schools has, over the years, been increased to where it's now a 
full secondary school semester, which typically is a longer semester than our university 
semester.” Course variation also differs across university block structures. Participant F stated, 
"we covered teaching methods, curriculum development.” Participant B also identified that a 
teaching methods course is most often integrated differently across teacher preparation 
programs across the country when deciding whether to include a block or not.  
 
Theme 4: Limitations and Forward Thinking  
In an in-depth review of the literature, the importance of continuing to have conversations 
about teacher preparation was noted (Craig et al., 2022). Craig et al. (2020) stated that it is 



Price et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i3.367   73 
 

important that we take into account the operationalization of the teacher preparation field. 
Research from the previous decade also noted that the focus on teacher preparation programs 
had been a recurring trend (Cruickshank & Cruz, 1989). Areas of focus throughout this time 
included improving teachers’ necessary ancillary knowledge and teachers’ general education 
(Cruickshank & Cruz, 1989).  
 
Several participants spoke about the block's limitations and the current system's future. As a 
limitation, Participants A and D discussed the need for more field experience as a limitation to 
the block system, referencing an increase in state requirements of time in the classroom as one 
reason some universities have chosen to forgo the block experience. Participant A posited that 
literature and research demanded more time in the field for pre-service teachers and that the 
more experience they had, the better teacher they would be. Participant B provided a similar 
line of thought by noting:  

I would say need dictated when we would put students out to student teach…it was 
needed for how to get all of the content met, and then how to logistically get all of the 
needs met for students as we would place them out for student teaching in a really 
efficient and effective way for certification. 

 
Participant D commented that their university came to the realization of this need for more 
time in the classroom and the value it had on preparing them on how to take on the role of 
teacher.  
 
Another limitation identified was the lack of opportunity to reflect once the block concluded. 
Participant A stated: “There’s not enough time for deep reflection because you're just doing, 
doing, doing, go and go and go.” Thinking toward the future, Participant D posited that 
reflection is important and integrating a block system that includes periodic check-ins 
throughout the semester to allow for reflection is something that should be considered. Many 
suggested their concerns moving forward (Participants B, C, & E). Some participants worried 
that if teacher preparation in agricultural education were to forgo the block system, that strong 
sense of community and the opportunity to develop a deep camaraderie, collaboration, and a 
sense of purpose would be lost. For example, Participant B mentioned, "You lose that 
opportunity to develop that deep camaraderie, sharing resources, not that some of that still 
doesn't happen, but probably not with the same kind of intensity that occurred in a four-to-six-
week period.” Some participants said preparing teachers continues to become more 
challenging as the contexts of classrooms continue to change and suggested rethinking the 
name of student teaching as a whole to embody the many roles teacher preparation programs 
must prepare students to fill. Participant C stated, "I really think student teaching is misnamed, 
you know, because it sounds like I'm a student at a university, and I'm going to go out and 
teach. And it's much more about student professional management." Participant D asserted 
that teacher preparation must continue to work to meet the increasing demand for teachers. 
They stated: “Universities aren’t meeting those demands, and so, alternative programs are 
meeting those demands” (Participant D). Additionally, it was posited that not having good ag 
teachers does not bode well for the future of SBAE as a whole (Participant D). 
 



Price et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i3.367   74 
 

Conclusions, Discussion, and Recommendations 
 
Based on the findings, the purpose of the block, to provide an intensive experience for pre-
service teachers in an environment rooted in practice and reflection, has remained the same 
over time. While the structure and format historically varied by the institution and continues to 
vary and evolve, the importance of being a reflective practitioner and finding peer support has 
remained a common thread. The findings are supported by Bandura (1977) that mastery 
experiences and opportunities to practice can lead to mastering a behavior and improve overall 
self-efficacy.  
 
Findings showed a continued and longstanding trend of moving to a shorter block period. In 
some cases, preparation programs have opted to remove the block period completely in 
exchange for a semester or longer preparation experience. Understanding the evolution of the 
student teaching block from the summer program to today's present-day structure has 
provided key guidance on what is needed for today’s generation of pre-service teachers and, 
maybe of greater importance, the student teacher that will be in the classrooms of the future. 
As professional learning communities have been shown to increase teacher satisfaction and 
development of knowledge and skills (Prenger et al., 2019) and situate students in a learner-
centered environment promotes growth (Bransford et al., 2000), it is essential to consider how 
the importance of a community of learners and a sense of camaraderie will be facilitated if the 
block format is dissolved completely. When considering teacher human capital, careful 
consideration should be taken of how the inputs in teacher development programs can impact 
the outputs of sustained satisfaction in the profession (Myung et al., 2013). 
 
In conclusion, the authors were able to trace the deep theoretical roots of the student teaching 
block to the foundations of social constructivism (Bruner, 1957), experiential learning (Dewey, 
1938), and self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977) with other influences of learner development (Lortie, 
1975; Vygotsky, 1978). With these theories, one common thread can be seen: the need for 
learners to have scaffolded experiences and purposeful reflection. Like much of education, the 
pendulum on what formatting is best to meet educational goals continues to evolve.  
 
The authors recommend a format that includes periodic check-ins or seminars with student 
teachers. This structure ensures student teachers have the opportunity to reflect, share 
experiences, exchange ideas, discuss best practices, and learn from each other as they 
experience student teaching, as noted in Miller and Wilson (2010). Such a structure will also 
help to build a support system that can be used as they enter the profession and form their 
natural professional learning communities (Bransford et al., 2000). The aforementioned 
structure still provides an opportunity for intense immersive training to take place prior to 
student teaching to sharpen the skills and refresh knowledge on topics prior to entering the 
classroom. It is recommended that teacher preparation programs look closely at what is 
required by states for teacher preparation in terms of field experience and maximize the time 
students are in the classroom while still meeting those requirements. As a teacher preparation 
program, it is important to analyze what topics of instruction can be provided during the pre-



Price et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i3.367   75 
 

block period and what topics should be covered in the block structure, allowing for more 
opportunities for real-world application of necessary skills.  
 
As a profession, it may be time that teacher preparation programs discuss the value of pre-
internship block weeks as needed for practice and preparation. Could other models be more 
effective? For example, should student teachers begin the school year in their cooperating 
centers and return to campus later in the semester to reflect on lived experiences from their 
time in the classroom? On the other hand, by eliminating pre-internship block weeks entirely, 
are we reducing opportunities for student teachers to cohort, boost efficacy, and plan for a 
successful experience? Discussion around effectively organizing the block structure and content 
can ensure we achieve our purpose, which relates to Tyler’s (1983) questions. 
 
Future research should seek to understand the current understanding and perspectives of 
university faculty teaching a block course, cooperating teachers, and recent student teachers 
regarding the block. With an analysis of the teaching block’s historical trends and the block’s 
current perspectives, a study to explain how the differences have benefited or hindered the 
teacher development process and recommendations for organization should be conducted. 
Other research should explain the lived experiences of student teachers who had a block 
experience prior to student teaching versus those who began the school year in the classroom 
to identify the purpose of each format. This study specifically should look at the performance of 
teachers from each format.  
 

Acknowledgements 
 
Fees for publication were generously covered by the Virginia Teach Open Access Subvention 
Fund.  
 
Author Contributions: T. Price – investigation, formal analysis, writing-original draft, reviewing 
and editing; N. Ferand – investigation, writing-review and editing, conceptualization; E. Sewell 
– investigation, writing-review and editing; B. M. Coleman – methodology, conceptualization, 
validation, writing-review and editing.  
 

References 
 
Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Irvine, C. K. S. (2010). Introduction to research in education (8th ed.). 

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

Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191 
 
Beamer, R. W. (1967). The curriculum: Student experience programs. In V. R. Cardozier (Ed), 

Teacher education in agriculture (1st ed., pp. 198–207). The Interstate Printers and 
Publishers.  



Price et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i3.367   76 
 

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

to education (3rd ed.). The University of Chicago Press.  
 
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, 

experience, and school. National Academies Press. 
 
Bruner, J. S. (1957). Going beyond the information given. Norton. 
 
Berkey, A. L. (Ed). (1982). Teacher education in agriculture (2nd ed). The Interstate Printers and 

Publishers.  
 
Camp, W. G., & Bailey, B. F. (1998). Student teaching in agricultural education [Paper 

Presentation]. American Vocational Association Convention, New Orleans, LA. 
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED428181 

 
Cardozier, V. R. (Ed). (1967). Teacher education in agriculture (1st ed). The Interstate Printers 

and Publishers.  
 
Castro, A., Quinn, D. J., Fuller, E., Barnes, M., & University Council for Educational 

Administration. (2018). Addressing the importance and scale of the U.S. teacher 
shortage. UCEA policy brief 2018-1. Online Submission. 

 http://www.ucea.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Addressing-the-Importance-and-
Scale-of-the-US-Teacher-Shortage.pdf  

 
Cowan, J., Goldhaber, D., Hayes, K., & Theobald, R. (2016). Missing elements in the discussion of 

teacher shortages. Educational Researcher, 45(8), 460–462. 
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X16679145  

 
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for 

developing grounded theory (4th ed.). SAGE Publications. 
 
Craig, C. J., Flores, M. A., Van Overschelde, J. P., & Hill-Jackson, V. (2022). Problematizing the 

taken-for-granted: Talking across differences in teacher education. Journal of Teacher 
Education, 73(3), 221–224. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224871221089790 

 
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among the five 

approaches (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications. 
 
Cruickshank, D. R., & Cruz, J. (1989). Trends in teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher 

Education, 40(3), 49–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/002248718904000308 
 
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Simon & Schuster. 
 



Price et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i3.367   77 
 

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE Publications. 
 
Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. The University of Chicago Press. 
 
Martin, R. P. (1982). The curriculum: Field-centered experiences. In A. L. Berkey (Ed.), Teacher 

education in agriculture (2nd ed) [pp. 161-172]. The Interstate Printers and Publishers.  
 
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). SAGE 

Publications.  
 
McDowell, W. H. (2002). Historical research: A guide. Longman.  
 
Mikeska, J. N., Howell, H., & Kinsey, D. (2022). Do simulated teaching experiences impact 

elementary pre-service teachers’ ability to facilitate argumentation-focused discussions 
in mathematics and science? Journal of Teacher Education, OnlineFirst. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/00224871221142842 

 
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.  
 
Miller, G., & Wilson, E. B. (2010). Designing field-based and experiential education for pre-

service teachers in agriculture. In R. Torres, T. Kitchel, and A. Ball (Eds.), Preparing and 
advancing teachers in agricultural education (pp. 131–141). Curriculum Materials 
Service, The Ohio State University. 

 
Myung, J., Martinez, K., & Nordstrum, L. (2013). A human capital framework for a stronger 

teacher workforce. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. 
https://www.carnegiefoundation.org/resources/publications/human-capital-
framework-stronger-teacher-workforce/  

 
Nichols, T. M. (1992). Clinical experiences in teacher preparation programs: A scope and 

sequence model (Report No. 141). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED342766.pdf 
 
Prenger, R., Poortman, C. L., & Handelzalts, A. (2019). The effects of networked professional 

learning communities. Journal of Teacher Education, 70(5), 441–452. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487117753574 

 
Retallick, M. S., & Miller, G. (2010). Teacher preparation in career and technical education: A 

model for developing and researching early field experiences. Journal of Career and 
Technical Education, 25(1), 62–75. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ931090.pdf 

 
Salevouris, M. J., & Furay, C. (2015). The methods and skills of history: A 

practical guide (4th ed.). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 
 



Price et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i3.367   78 
 

Schultz, T. W. (1971). Investment in human capital: The role of education and of research. The 
Free Press. 

 
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational 

Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.2307/1175860  
 
Sorenson, T. J., Lawver, R. G., Hopkins, N., Jensen, B., Dutton, C., & Warnick, B. K. (2018). Pre-

service agriculture teachers' development during the early phase of student teaching. 
Journal of Agricultural Education, 59(4), 105–119. 

 https://jae-online.org/index.php/jae/article/view/1406/1251  
 
Stake, R. E. (1978). The case study method in social inquiry. Educational Researcher, 7(2), 5–8. 

https://doi.org/10.2307/1174340  
 
Sutcher, L., Darling-Hammond, L., & Carver-Thomas, D. (2016). A coming crisis in teaching? 

Teacher supply, demand, and shortages in the U.S. Learning Policy Institute. 
https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/coming-crisis-teaching  

 
Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. 

Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837–851. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410383121  
 

Tufford, L., & Newman, P. (2010). Bracketing in qualitative research. Qualitative Social Work, 
11(1), 80–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325010368316 

 
Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. University of Chicago Press. 
 
Tyler, R.W. (1983). A rationale for program evaluation. In G. F. Madaus, M. Scriven, & D. L. 

Stufflebeam (Eds.), Evaluation models: Viewpoints on educational and human services 
evaluation (pp. 67–90). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-
6669-7_4 

 
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. 

Harvard University Press. 
 
Works, G. A. (1916). Apprentice teacher training. Proceedings of the ninth annual Meeting of 

the National Society for the Promotion of Industrial Education (pp. 291–305). National 
Society for the Promotion of Industrial Education 

 
 
© 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/). 
 


