































   Advancements in Agricultural Development 
  Volume 5, Issue 1, 2024 
  agdevresearch.org 

 

1. Kellie Claflin, Assistant Professor, The Ohio State University, 2120 Fyffe Rd., Columbus, OH 43210, claflin.11@osu.edu,  

 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8499-1742 
2. Brooke L. Thiel, Assistant Professor, North Dakota State University, EML 155, Fargo, ND 58108, brooke.thiel@ndsu.edu,  

 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8744-9473 
3. Christopher J. Eck, Assistant Professor, Oklahoma State University, 457 Agricultural Hall, Stillwater, OK 74078, 

chris.eck@okstate.edu,  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1645-3632 
46 

 

A Content Analysis of SBAE Preservice Teacher Disposition 
Assessments 

 
K. Claflin1, B. L. Thiel2, C. J. Eck3 

 
 

Article History 
Received: December 4, 2023 
Accepted: March 25, 2024 
Published: April 3, 2024 
 
 
Keywords 
teacher preparation; assessments 
  

Abstract 
Effective teaching is complex as it encapsulates professional, 
interpersonal, and intrapersonal knowledge. Professionalism is often tied 
to dispositions, although ambiguous definitions and cultural sensitivity 
make it a difficult task. Therefore, this study aimed to establish a 
comprehensive list of dispositions associated with SBAE teacher 
preparation. The purpose of this study was to examine the use of 
dispositions assessments in school-based agricultural education (SBAE) 
teacher preparation programs in the North-Central Region of the 
American Association for Agricultural Education by conducting a content 
analysis. The sample frame included 22 dispositions, and all of them 
appeared in the assessments at least once, resulting in 554 dispositions 
across the documents. This study contributes to our understanding of 
teacher dispositions, an important facet of teacher education 
preparation programs. However, we are left with additional questions 
relating to practice, research, and theory. According to prior research, 
students bring their dispositions into their learning experiences, but 
those learning experiences and other factors influence changes 
concerning the decision to teach as a career. 

mailto:claflin.11@osu.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8499-1742
mailto:brooke.thiel@ndsu.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8744-9473
mailto:chris.eck@okstate.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1645-3632


Claflin et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i1.449   47 
 

Introduction and Problem Statement 
 
Effective teaching is complex as it encapsulates professional, interpersonal, and intrapersonal 
knowledge (Schulte et al., 2005). Accordingly, teacher preparation programs should foster the 
self-awareness required to enact the knowledge and skills needed as an educator (Schussler et 
al., 2010). Dispositions, “the habits of professional action and moral commitments that underlie 
an educator’s performance,” (Council of Chief State School Officers, 2013, p. 6; Council for the 
Accreditation of Educator Preparation [CAEP], n.d.) were introduced by the Interstate New 
Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) in the 1990s to focus on how teachers 
use knowledge and skills (Schussler et al., 2010) and are used as an accreditation requirement 
for teacher preparation programs (CAEP, 2022).  
 
Within school-based agricultural education (SBAE), the importance of dispositions is highlighted 
in a model for teacher preparation in agricultural education and the standards for SBAE teacher 
preparation programs (American Association for Agricultural Educators [AAAE], 2017). 
However, there is only one study examining dispositions within the context of SBAE, finding 
SBAE teachers hold differing opinions regarding which dispositions are the most important for 
preservice teachers (Bachman & Thiel, 2021). Yet, there are several challenges related to 
dispositions in teacher preparation, including approaches to teaching dispositions (Edwards & 
Edick, 2006) and the assessment of dispositions (Saltis et al., 2021). Professionalism is often tied 
to dispositions, although ambiguous definitions and cultural sensitivity (Creasy, 2015; Davis, 
2016) make it a difficult task to assess. Therefore, this study aimed to establish a 
comprehensive list of dispositions associated with SBAE teacher preparation.  
 

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework 
 
This study was informed by the concept of dispositions within the context of teacher 
preparation programs. Dispositions are critical regarding teacher effectiveness and student 
achievements (Edwards & Edick, 2006; Flowers, 2006; Schulte et al., 2005). Within the CAEP 
framework, teacher dispositions are grouped with knowledge and skills, with scholars noting 
dispositions are contingent on knowledge and skills (Borko et al., 2007).  
 
Dispositions highlight teachers' internal beliefs and values, such as care, fairness, and honesty 
(Flowers, 2006). It is not enough for teachers to have only content and pedagogical knowledge; 
they also need to be able to nurture relationships with students and colleagues (Saltis et al., 
2021). Dispositions influence teachers' actions (Tiilikainien et al., 2019) and are tied to teacher 
competence (Shavelson, 2013). While dispositions are complex (Edward & Edick, 2006), 
Tiilikainien et al. (2019) suggested two categories for dispositions: attention-oriented (e.g., 
personal and contextual factors) and intention-oriented (e.g., curricular factors).  
 
Dispositions relate to career-choice behavior, including preservice SBAE teachers (Bachman & 
Thiel, 2021; Lent et al., 2002; Rocca & Washburn, 2008). Preservice teachers bring their internal 
beliefs, specific ideas, values, and dispositions with them as they enter teacher preparation 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i1.449


Claflin et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i1.449   48 
 

programs (Flowers, 2006; Hammerness et al., 2005; Saultz et al., 2021). In addition, as 
preservice teachers engage in learning experiences related to becoming an educator, they rely 
on their existing dispositions (Lent et al., 2002). Due to the importance of dispositions on 
teacher effectiveness (Eck et al., 2021) and the impact on future career choices, dispositions 
should be a focus within teacher preparation programs (Vagi et al., 2019). For teacher 
candidates to increase their professional dispositions, they need to reflect on their unexamined 
values and beliefs and work with mentors to provide feedback (Saltis et al., 2021). 
 

Purpose 
 
The purpose of this study was to examine the use of dispositions assessments in pre-service 
agricultural education teacher education programs in the North-Central Region of AAAE. This 
study provides an understanding of what and how dispositions are being assessed in 
agricultural education teacher preparation programs to assist teacher educators in cultivating 
the dispositions of preservice teachers and their programs. The following research objectives 
guided this study: 
1. Identify which dispositions are included in preservice SBAE teacher assessments. 
2. Determine the frequency of dispositions included in preservice SBAE teacher assessments. 
3. Identify what theories, frameworks, standards, or literature informed the disposition 

assessments used in the region. 
4. Determine when dispositions are assessed within preservice SBAE teachers’ education. 
5. Determine by whom preservice SBAE teachers’ dispositions are assessed.  
 

Methods 
 
This study used a content analysis method (Neuendorf, 2017) to identify and examine the use 
of dispositions in preservice SBAE teacher education programs. Content analysis is “the 
systematic, objective, quantitative analysis of message characteristics” (Neuendorf, 2017, p. 1). 
The sample frame for this study included all agriculture teacher preparation programs in the 
North-Central Region of AAAE.  
 
According to the AAAE (2020) standing rules and the National Teach Ag Campaign (National 
Association of Agricultural Educators, n.d.), there are 39 colleges and universities within the 
North-Central Region of AAAE currently training preservice SBAE teachers. Invitation emails 
were sent to all schools in the sampling frame, with one to three unique contacts made via 
email between March and June of 2022. Seventeen institutions provided disposition 
instruments and handbooks or written policies which outlined how the disposition assessments 
are utilized within the teacher preparation program, which accounted for a 44% response rate 
(n = 17). There were seven 1862 land-grant institutions, one 1890 land-grant institution, two 
public Non-Land Grant Agricultural and Renewable Resources Universities, and three private 
institutions represented in the sample. 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i1.449


Claflin et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i1.449   49 
 

The initial coding frame was deductively developed based on current standards for teacher 
education and previous dispositions research (Neuendorf, 2017). Neuendorf recommends the 
coding frame should have categories that are “exhaustive and mutually exclusive,” to ensure 
validity and reliability, as well as to avoid ambiguity during the coding process (Neuendorf, 
2017, p. 131). The coding frame was comprised of four sections mirroring the research 
questions: (a) a list of preservice SBAE teacher dispositions; (b) theories, frameworks, 
standards, or literature that informed the dispositions; (c) who assessed the dispositions; and 
(d) when the dispositions were assessed during the preservice teacher education program.  
 
Two members of the research team piloted the coding frame by concurrently coding three 
institutions’ documents to calculate intra-coder reliability. Upon completion of the pilot, 
intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) estimates and their 95% confidence intervals were 
calculated using SPSS based on a mean-rating (k = 2), absolute-agreement, two-way mixed-
effects model. Excellent reliability was found between the two coders in the pilot. The average 
measure of ICC was .973, with a 95% confidence interval from .956 to .984 (F (65, 65) = 36.996, 
p < .001). Discussion about the pilot led to further refinement of the coding frame to ensure 
consistency and mutually exhaustive categories. The main content analysis was conducted by 
randomly assigning institutions to the two coders and using the updated coding frame. Upon 
completion of the independent coding, the data were collapsed into one dataset, and total 
counts and frequencies were calculated for each objective.  
 

Findings 
 
Objective 1 
The first objective of this study was to identify which dispositions were included in assessments 
of preservice SBAE teachers. A total of 22 dispositions were included in the coding frame, and 
all of them appeared in the assessments at least once, resulting in a total of N = 554 
dispositions across the documents. Table 1 outlines the 22 dispositions and their sub-
definitions, which were also used to conduct the content analysis.  
 
  

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i1.449


Claflin et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i1.449   50 
 

Table 1 
 
SBAE Preservice Dispositions and Sub-definitions 

Disposition Definition 
Timeliness/Punctuality • meets deadlines.  

• is on time for class/observations/etc. 
Attendance • is present for entire class/observations/etc.  
Commitment to students’ 
learning 

• believes all students can learn 
• takes responsibility for student learning 
• advocates for what students need to be successful   

Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion  • embraces and celebrates diversity (ability, race, socioeconomic status, 
culture, gender, etc.)  

• able to recognize strengths in all students  
• recognizes their own biases  
• seeks to understand perspectives and differences 
• open to diverse ideas and opinions 
• respects learners as individuals with unique backgrounds, skills, abilities, 

interests, and perspectives 
Ability to communicate • listens 

• uses appropriate verbal communication skills 
• uses appropriate written communication skills  
• uses appropriate digital communication skills  
• uses appropriate non-verbal communication skills  

Reliable/Responsible • is responsive (responds to emails, etc.)  
• asks for help 
• communicates absences  
• is independent/takes initiative/self-motivated  
• is organized/maintains accurate records/completes quality work 
• follows through on responsibilities  
• manages their time appropriately  
• has a strong work ethic  
• is task-oriented/sets goals 

Emotional Maturity • is able to maintain emotional control  
• is patient 
• uses self-disclosure appropriately  
• identifies personal responsibility in conflict and problem situations  
• accepts consequences 
• advocates for themselves (communicates their needs) 
• engages in conflict resolution 
• approaches challenging conversations 
• is professional in their interactions  

Creative  • is inquisitive 
• initiates creative solutions to problems  
• is innovative  
• uses unique classroom ideas/thinks outside the box  

 

 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i1.449


Claflin et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i1.449   51 
 

Collaborative • is able to work with others  
• is driven to collaborate (seeks input from others)  
• supports the work of others  
• builds consensus within a group  
• is helpful and service-minded  
• contributes their part to the group 

Commitment to the profession  • is dedicated to teaching and learning 
• understands expectations and is willing to work to meet them   
• values knowledge and educational experiences 
• participates in professional development  
• advocates for the importance of the content area 

Engaged and attentive • participates in class/observations 
• shows interest in class/observations  

Appearance and attire • meets the school dress code policies  
Relatable/Relationships • builds and maintains positive relationships 

• able to build and maintain positive rapport  
Empathetic/Caring/Compassio
nate 
  

• is considerate of others 
• sees and focuses on the good in people  
• is able to understand others’ feelings 
• is concerned for the well-being of others  
• makes students feel valued 

Flexible • able to manage change  
• is adaptable  

Reflective • is receptive to feedback 
• is self-aware  

Genuine/Authentic • is their authentic self 
• is genuine in their words and actions 
• is trustworthy to do the right thing 

Integrity • follows laws and regulations 
• tells the truth  
• displays academic integrity 
• maintains confidentiality 
• adheres to code of ethics  

Lifelong learner • displays a positive attitude toward learning 
• maintains a growth mindset 

Leadership • empowers others 
• delegates appropriately 
• demonstrates an ability to lead students 
• holds students accountable 

Positive attitude • maintains a positive attitude  
Problem Solving • assesses situations from multiple perspectives  

• sees the big picture 
• systems-thinking approach to solving problems- sees how the parts of a 

system fit and work together 
• uses systematic processes to solve problems (appropriate data, etc.).  
• is strategic in the way they think and plan 

 
 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i1.449


Claflin et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i1.449   52 
 

Objective 2 
The second objective aimed to determine the frequency of dispositions included in preservice 
SBAE teacher assessments. The dispositions which appeared the most in analyzed documents 
were reliable and responsible (n = 65), reflective (n = 48); commitment to student-learning (n = 
44), commitment to the profession (n = 43), and commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion 
(n = 40). The least frequent dispositions included genuine and authentic (n = 6), creative (n = 6), 
maintains a positive attitude (n = 4), and exhibits leadership skills (n = 3). The frequency and 
percentages of the dispositions can be found in Table 2.  
 
Table 2 
 
Frequency Counts of Dispositions in University Assessments (N = 554)  
Dispositions f %  
Reliable and Responsible 65 11.73 
Reflective 48 8.66 
Commitment to Student-Learning 44 7.94 
Commitment to the Profession 43 7.76 
Commitment to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion 40 7.22 
Emotional Maturity 39 7.04 
Ability to Communicate 38 6.86 
Timeliness/Punctuality  36 6.50 
Collaborative 33 5.96 
Integrity 32 5.78 
Flexible 21 3.79 
Lifelong Learner 19 3.43 
Empathetic, Caring, Compassionate, and Respectful 17 3.07 
Problem Solver 13 2.35 
Appearance and Attire 13 2.35 
Engaged and Attentive 12 2.17 
Relatable/Builds Relationships/Builds Rapport 12 2.17 
Attendance 10 1.81 
Genuine and Authentic 6 1.08 
Creative 6 1.08 
Maintains a Positive Attitude 4 0.72 
Exhibits Leadership Skills 3 0.54 
 
In examining the number of university assessments in which a disposition appeared, 
commitment to students’ learning and reflective appeared in 16 of the 17 disposition 
assessments (94.12%). Collaborative appeared in 15 assessments (88.24%) and 
timeliness/punctuality, reliable and responsible, commitment to the profession, and integrity 
appeared in 14 of the assessments (82.35%). The least frequent dispositions included creative 
(23.53%), genuine, authentic, and honest (23.53%), exhibits leadership skills (23.53%), and 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i1.449


Claflin et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i1.449   53 
 

maintains a positive attitude (17.65%). Table 3 includes a comprehensive list of the number of 
assessments which included the 22 dispositions.  
 
Table 3 
 
Most Common Dispositions Included in University Assessments (N = 17)  
Dispositions f %  
Commitment to Students’ Learning 16 94.12 
Reflective 16 94.02 
Collaborative 15 88.24 
Timeliness/Punctuality 14 82.35 
Reliable and Responsible  14 82.35 
Commitment to the Profession 14 82.35 
Integrity 14 82.35 
Ability to Communicate 13 76.47 
Emotional Maturity 13 76.47 
Commitment to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion  12 70.59 
Lifelong Learner 12 70.59 
Empathetic, Considerate, Caring, and Compassionate 10 58.82 
Flexible 10 58.82 
Appearance and Attire 9 52.94 
Relatable/Builds Relationships/Builds Rapport 8 47.06 
Problem Solver 8 47.06 
Attendance 7 41.18 
Engaged and Attentive 5 29.41 
Creative 4 23.53 
Genuine, Authentic, and Honest 4 23.53 
Exhibits Leadership Skills 4 23.53 
Maintains a Positive Attitude 3 17.65 
 
Objective 3  
The third objective of this study was to identify what theories, frameworks, standards, or 
literature informed the dispositions assessments. Of the 17 collected assessments, (n = 8) did 
not report what standards or literature assisted the development of the dispositions 
assessment. Of those assessments which included the influences of the development of the 
assessments, the majority were informed by other standards outside of the coding frame, 
including the Danielson framework, K-12 disposition assessments, and biblical verses (n = 10). 
InTASC standards informed four of the assessment tools, three were informed by State 
Professional Teaching Standards, and one was informed by CAEP standards. See Table 4 for 
more details regarding the standards that informed the disposition assessments.  
 
 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i1.449


Claflin et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i1.449   54 
 

Table 4 
 
Standards that Informed the Development of Dispositions Instruments (N = 17) 
Standards f %  
Other 10 58.82 
InTASC 4 23.53 
State Professional Standards 3 17.65 
CAEP 1 5.88 
Did not list 8 47.06 
Note. Other included Danielson Framework, other universities’ disposition instruments, other 
assessment tools used at the K-12 level, and biblical verses.  
 
Objective 4  
Objective four identified when dispositions were assessed during agricultural education 
preservice teacher training. Overwhelmingly, 88.24% (n = 15) of assessments were completed 
during student teaching. Assessments were completed 23.53% of the time during teacher 
education courses, during field experiences, and prior to admission in the program (n = 4). 
Other times outside of the coding frame were also identified 41.18% of the time (n = 7), 
including disciplinary referrals and prior to student teaching. Five programs (29.41%) did not list 
the timing for the assessments in their materials (n = 5). Table 5 includes additional information 
about when dispositions assessments were completed.  
 
Table 5 
 
Times during pre-service training when dispositions are assessed (N = 17)  

Time    f %  
During Student Teaching  15 88.24 
Other 7 41.18 
During Teacher Education Courses 4 23.53 
During Field Experiences 4 23.53 
Admission to the Program 4 23.53 
Did not list 5 29.41 
Note. Other included discipline referrals and prior to student teaching.  
 
Objective 5 
The final objective aimed to determine who conducted disposition assessments during pre-
service agricultural education teacher education. The majority (58.82%) of assessments were 
completed by the university supervisor (n = 10) and the cooperating teacher (n = 10). The 
student was also responsible for assessing themselves nearly half of the time (n = 8, 47.06%). 
Rarely were course instructors (17.64%) or academic advisors (11.76%) responsible for this task. 
Some dispositions guidelines indicated program/licensing coordinators as an assessor of 
dispositions, which were categorized as other for the purpose if this study. Table 6 includes 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i1.449


Claflin et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i1.449   55 
 

additional information regarding individuals responsible for completing disposition assessments 
at the preservice level.  
 
Table 6 
 
Individuals Responsible for Completing Disposition Assessments (N = 17)  
Individual f %  
University Supervisor 10 58.82 
Cooperating Teacher 10 58.82 
Student (Self-Assessment) 8 47.06 
Other  6 35.29 
Instructors in Courses 3 17.64 
Academic Advisor 2 11.76 
Did not list 5 29.41 
Note. Other included program/licensing coordinators.  
 

Conclusions, Discussion, and Recommendations 
 
This study aimed to examine the use of disposition assessments in SBAE teacher education 
programs. While dispositions are a required part of accreditation for teacher preparation 
programs (CAEP, 2022) and literature provides clear linkages to why dispositions are essential 
for effective teaching (Edward & Edick, 2006; Schussler et al., 2010), there is lack of clarity 
surrounding the use of dispositions and how they are measured (Saltis et al., 2020). 
Dispositions are seen as personal inputs that impact the learning experiences of preservice 
teachers, which impact their self-efficacy and outcome expectations or their belief that they 
can be successful as agriculture teachers.  
 
This research provided a beginning list of dispositions utilized by 17 teacher preparation 
programs in the North Central Region of AAAE. Twenty-two dispositions were identified as 
being listed at least once, with 554 individual dispositions listed across 17 disposition 
assessments. Fourteen of the 22 (63%) dispositions appeared in at least half of the 
assessments, and 12 institutions included at least one disposition related to diversity, equity, 
and inclusion, echoing the recent requirements for equity in CAEP accreditation assessments 
(CAEP, 2020). Reliable and responsible was the most frequently listed disposition, and 
committed to student learning, and reflective dispositions were used by all but one institution.  
 
While teacher preparation programs are measuring similar dispositions, there are differences in 
terminology indicating a lack of consistency, putting the onus on teacher preparation programs 
to develop on their own (Flowers, 2006; Saltis et al., 2020). The ambiguity of teacher 
dispositions was also apparent within the finding of what sources informed the development of 
assessments. The most noted source was the InTASC standards, which is unsurprising, as 
InTASC introduced dispositions to focus on how teachers use knowledge and skills (Schussler et 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i1.449


Claflin et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i1.449   56 
 

al., 2010). However, a wide variety of sources were indicated, including state standards, K-12 
teacher assessment tools, and other universities’ disposition instruments. 
 
The disposition assessments were mainly used during the student teaching experience. Since 
disposition assessments were mainly used at the end of the teacher preparation programs, it 
aligns with the finding that university supervisors and cooperating educators were the most 
common individuals tasked with completing disposition assessments. It is interesting to note 
that only 47% of programs indicated having preservice students self-assess themselves using 
disposition assessments since teacher preparation programs are encouraged to foster a self-
awareness of skills and dispositions among their teacher candidates (Schussler et al., 2010). 
Limitations of the study include the interpretations of the meanings of disposition wording and 
definitions on the assessments. Additionally, due to the nature of the content analysis, we 
could only assess what was included in the documents provided to us. Therefore, aspects of the 
disposition assessment process, such as what informed the creation of the assessment, who is 
assessing preservice teachers, and when dispositions are assessed, may not be entirely 
representative of reality.  
 
This study contributes to understanding teacher dispositions, an essential facet of teacher 
education preparation programs. However, we have additional questions relating to research 
and practice. Further research should be conducted to understand what influences students' 
dispositions and their effect on their belief in their ability to become an agriculture teacher. 
What are the best practices for utilizing dispositions within a teacher education program? 
When and how should disposition assessments be used? 
 
Regarding practice, teacher preparation programs in SBAE and beyond can utilize this initial list 
to identify important dispositions to focus on or for programs looking to create or revise their 
list. Additionally, we encourage teacher preparation programs to incorporate dispositions 
throughout the entire teacher preparation program and help foster preservice teachers' 
development of appropriate dispositions. With dispositions linked to effective teaching, this 
area of study requires more exploration. 
 

Acknowledgements 
 
K. Claflin - conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, investigation, writing - original 
draft, writing - review & editing; B. L. Thiel - conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, 
investigation, writing - original draft, writing - review & editing; C. J. Eck - writing - review & 
editing. 
 

References 
 
American Association for Agricultural Education. (2017). Standards for school-based agricultural 

education. http://aaaeonline.org/Standards-for-Teacher-Preparation 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i1.449
http://aaaeonline.org/Standards-for-Teacher-Preparation


Claflin et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i1.449   57 
 

American Association for Agricultural Education. (2020). The national AAAE standing rules. 
http://aaaeonline.org/resources/Documents/National/AAAEStandingRules_AdoptedMa
y19_2020.docx  

 
Bachman, R., & Thiel, B. L. (2021, September 9-October 2). Assessing essential pre-service 

agricultural education dispositions [Research manuscript]. North Central Region 
American Association for Agricultural Education, Columbus, Ohio, United States. 
https://aaaeonline.org/resources/Documents/North%20Central/2021Conference/2021
NorthCentralResearchProceedings.pdf    

 
Borko, H., Liston, D. P., & Whitcomb, J. A. (2007). Apples and fishes: The debate over 

dispositions in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(5), 359-364. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487107309977 

 
Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation. (n.d.). Glossary. 

https://caepnet.org/glossary?letter=D  
 
Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation. (2022). 2022 CAEP standards. 

http://caepnet.org/standards/2022-itp/introduction  
 
Council of Chief State School Officers. (2013). Interstate teacher assessment and support 

consortium (InTASC) model core teaching standards and learning progressions for 
teachers 1.0: A resource for ongoing teacher development. 
https://ccsso.org/sites/default/files/2017-
12/2013_INTASC_Learning_Progressions_for_Teachers.pdf  

 
Creasy, K. L. (2015). Defining professionalism in teacher education programs. Journal of 

Education and Social Policy, 2(2), 23–25. 
 
Davis, M. D. (2016). We were treated like machines: Professionalism and anti-Blackness in social 

work agency culture. [Doctoral dissertation, Smith College]. Smith ScholarWorks. 
https://scholarworks.smith.edu/theses/1708/ 

 
Eck, C. J., Robinson, J. S., Cole, K. L., Terry, R., Jr., & Ramsey, J. W. (2021). Identifying the 

characteristics of effective school-based agricultural education teachers: A national 
census study. Journal of Agricultural Education, 62(3), 292–309. 
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2021.03292 

 
Edwards, S., & Edick, N. (2006). Dispositions matter: Findings for at-risk teacher candidates. The 

Teacher Educator, 42(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730609555390  
 
Flowers, C. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis of scores on the clinical experience rubric: A 

measure of dispositions for preservice teachers. Educational and Psychological 
Measurement, 66(3), 478–488. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282458 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i1.449
http://aaaeonline.org/resources/Documents/National/AAAEStandingRules_AdoptedMay19_2020.docx
http://aaaeonline.org/resources/Documents/National/AAAEStandingRules_AdoptedMay19_2020.docx
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487107309977
https://caepnet.org/glossary?letter=D
http://caepnet.org/standards/2022-itp/introduction
https://ccsso.org/sites/default/files/2017-12/2013_INTASC_Learning_Progressions_for_Teachers.pdf
https://ccsso.org/sites/default/files/2017-12/2013_INTASC_Learning_Progressions_for_Teachers.pdf
https://scholarworks.smith.edu/theses/1708/
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2021.03292
https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730609555390
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282458


Claflin et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i1.449   58 
 

Hammerness, K., Darling-Hammond, L., Bransford, J., Berliner, D., Cochran-Smith, M., 
McDonald, M., & Zeichner, K. (2005). How teachers learn and develop. In Preparing 
Teachers for a Changing World: What Teachers Should Learn and Be Able to Do (pp. 
358–389). Jossey-Bass, An Imprint of Wiley. 

 
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (2002). Social cognitive career theory. In D. Brown 

(Eds.), Career choice and development (4th ed., pp. 255–311). Jossey-Bass.  
 
National Association of Agricultural Educators. (n.d.) National teach ag campaign—Find a 

college. https://www.naae.org/teachag/college.cfm  
 
Neuendorf, K. A. (2017). The content analysis guidebook. SAGE Publications, Inc. 

https://doi.org/10.4135/9781071802878  
 
Rocca, S. J., & Washburn, S. G. (2008). Preservice agriculture teachers’ perceptions of career 

barriers and support. Journal of Agricultural Education, 49(2), 38–49. 
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2008.02038  

 
Saltis, M. N., Giancaterino, B., & Pierce, C. (2021). Professional dispositions of teacher 

candidates: Measuring dispositions at a large teacher preparation university to meet 
national standards. The Teacher Educator, 56(2), 117–131. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730.2020.1817217  

 
Saultz, A., Lyons, A. I., Aronson, B., Sander, S. A., & Malin, J. R. (2021). Understanding preservice 

teacher dispositions: Implications for social justice and educational policy. Teacher 
Education Quarterly, 48(1), 7–32. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27094714  

 
Schulte, L., Edick, N., Edwards, S., & Mackiel, D. (2005). The development and validation of the 

teacher dispositions index. Essays in Education, 12(1), Article 7. 
https://openriver.winona.edu/eie/vol12/iss1/7  

Schussler, D. L., Stooksberry, L. M., & Bercaw, L. A. (2010). Understanding teacher candidate 
dispositions: Reflecting to build self-awareness. Journal of Teacher Education. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487110371377 

 
Tiilikainen, M., Toom, A., Lepola, J., & Husu, J. (2019). Reconstructing choice, reason and 

disposition in teachers’ practical theories of teaching (PTs). Teaching and Teacher 
Education, 79, 124–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.12.011 

 
Vagi, R., Pivovarova, M., & Barnard, W. (2019). Dynamics of preservice teacher quality. 

Teaching and Teacher Education, 85, 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.06.005 
 
© 2024 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.v5i1.449
https://www.naae.org/teachag/college.cfm
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781071802878
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2008.02038
https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730.2020.1817217
https://www.jstor.org/stable/27094714
https://openriver.winona.edu/eie/vol12/iss1/7
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487110371377
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.12.011
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.06.005

