
































Microsoft Word - 49-Manuscript-663-1-11-20200903.docx


Conner et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
  Volume 1, Issue 3, 2020 
  agdevresearch.org 

1. Nathan W. Conner, Associate Professor, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 236 Filley Hall, Lincoln, NE 68583-0947, 
nconner2@unl.edu, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0063-4110    

2. Christopher T. Stripling, Associate Professor, The University of Tennessee, 320 Morgan Hall, 2621 Morgan Circle Drive, 
Knoxville, TN, 37996-4511, cstripli@utk.edu, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5045-3492  

3. Jamie Loizzo, Assistant Professor, University of Florida, PO Box 112060, Gainesville, FL 32611, jloizzo@ufl.edu, 
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5575-2918   

 
1 

 

Preservice Teachers’ Perceptions of Science Integration into 
Secondary Agriculture Classrooms  

N. Conner1, C. Stripling2, J. Loizzo3 

 
 

  

Abstract 

After completing a 40-hour field experience course, 26 preservice teachers participated in interviews 
about their experiences observing science integration in secondary agriculture classrooms. Based on 
Bandura’s social cognitive theory, researchers analyzed interview transcripts for preservice teachers’ 
descriptions of perceived preparedness to integrate science into agricultural education programs 
based on personal, environmental, and behavioral determinants. Findings indicated the integration 
of science concepts were reliant upon participants’ perceived integration ability, importance of 
science knowledge, consequences of science integration, application of hands-on learning, practical 
application of science in agriculture, and the influence of colleague collaboration on the learning 
environment. From their observations, preservice teachers cited specific instances of academic 
science concepts relating to agriculture, which they perceived as an applied science. While natural 
ties to biology and chemistry appeared in classroom lessons, preservice teachers held a belief that 
agricultural education is a unique practical context for learning and integration of science, but too 
much science integration is seen as a threat to agricultural education. Many preservice teachers 
noted the environment surrounding their future agricultural classrooms will play a large role in how 
they integrate science. Future research should further investigate how behavioral, personal, and 
environmental factors influence science integration. 
 

Keywords 

agricultural education; teacher preparation; social cognitive theory, field experience 

 

  



Conner et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i3.49  2 
 

Introduction and Problem Statement 
 
Educational reform movements have increased pressure to improve student performance in 
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM; National Academies of Sciences, 
Engineering, and Medicine, 2017; Sanders, 2009). However, agriculture’s relationship with the 
biological and physical sciences has well-positioned agricultural education as a platform for 
enhancing scientific skills and knowledge (Balschweid & Thompson, 2002; Conroy & Walker, 
2000; Enderlin, 1992). Mercier (2015) stated the relationship between science and agriculture is 
a “seemingly natural connection” (p.11) and agriculture provides students and teachers with a 
concrete context for STEM concepts (Association for Career and Technical Education, 2006; 
Dailey et al., 2001).  
 
Science integration in the school-based agriculture classroom gained momentum when the 
National Research Council (1988) recommended updating agricultural education curricula to 
include scientific principles and concepts. Today, the American Association for Agricultural 
Education calls for effective integration of STEM content into agricultural curricula through the 
adequate preparation of teachers to facilitate the process (Roberts et al., 2016). Prior works 
have indicated agriculture teachers feel equipped and qualified to integrate science into their 
curriculum (Osborne & Dyer, 1998; Thompson & Balschweid, 1999). However, Houck and 
Kitchel (2010) found a large variance in agricultural content preparation for preservice teachers. 
Floden and Meniketti (2005) found preservice teachers’ coursework led to basic knowledge, but 
it did not provide an adequate understanding of content and scientific process. A deep 
understanding of content is essential, not only for effective science integration (Phipps et al., 
2008), but effective teaching in general (Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005). To that end, 
Ryu et al. (2019) found preservice teachers foresaw future STEM integration challenges and 
attributed the expected challenges to “school culture and structure, limited knowledge in STEM 
fields, and an absence of role models” (p. 508). As a result, we seek to understand preservice 
teachers’ perceptions of science integration in secondary agricultural education after observing 
teacher instruction as part of a field experience course. This information should allow teacher 
educators to address preservice teachers’ perceived knowledge or skill deficiencies, concerns, 
and misconceptions.     
 

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework 
 
In order to better understand preservice agricultural education teachers’ preparedness to 
integrate science concepts and processes in an agricultural context, it is necessary to examine 
factors that influence their abilities to do so. Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory guided 
the development and implementation of this study. Bandura (1986) described behavior through 
the framework of triadic reciprocality or reciprocal interactions among behavior, environmental 
influences, and personal factors. The interacting determinants influence each other 
bidirectionally, but they do not necessarily interact in a uniformly balanced relationship 
(Bandura, 1986). According to Bandura (1997), reciprocal interactions are not of equal strength, 
and one determinant may demonstrate dominance over the others. For instance, personal 



Conner et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i3.49  3 
 

factors in the triad might outweigh environmental events or vice versa. Although, in most 
situations, the determinants are vastly interdependent. Furthermore, time is needed for causal 
factors to exercise their influence, and that time makes it possible for researchers to study or 
understand the reciprocal causations (Bandura, 1997).   
 
When considering science integration into secondary agriculture courses, the desired behavior 
would be successful and meaningful teacher instruction. Personal factors may include outcome 
expectations, self-efficacy (Smith et al., 2015), and perceptions of science integration. Examples 
of environmental factors that may influence the social environment are interaction and 
collaboration with peers or other educators, length of teaching career, and certification area(s) 
(Smith et al., 2015). According to Bandura (1989), individuals have some level of control over 
their environment. Examining the relationship between perceived future behaviors, personal 
inclinations and perceptions, and environmental factors influencing preservice teachers could 
provide insight into preservice teachers’ practices related to science integration. 
 

Purpose 
 
The purpose of this study was to explore preservice teachers’ perceptions of science integration 
in secondary agriculture classrooms. Specifically, the following question was investigated: What 
are preservice teachers’ perceptions of science integration in secondary agriculture classrooms 
after observing teacher instruction as part of a field experience course? 
 

Methods 
 
The epistemological perspective for this study was constructionism in which the preservice 
teachers construct their own knowledge and meaning (Crotty, 2003). People construct meaning 
based on their experiences and perceptions, and their constructed meaning may change over 
time (Crotty, 2003). The theoretical perspective for this study was social constructionism. 
Preservice teachers construct reality through social interactions. In order to understand reality, 
individuals must socially interpret and make sense of the phenomenon that already exists 
(Crotty, 2003). 
 
We used a qualitative approach to interpret the participants’ perceptions (Denzin & Lincoln, 
1994) and allow for the analysis of feelings and opinions (Creswell, 1998). Merriam’s (1988) 
description of general qualitative methodology informed our study design. Merriam stated 
qualitative research “simply seeks to discover and understand a phenomenon, a process of the 
perspectives and worldviews of the people involved” (p. 11). According to Merriam, the generic 
methodology has become a method of choice in the field of educational research because the 
method allows for flexibility without confinement to a specific procedure.  
 
We recruited undergraduate agricultural education students enrolled in an early field 
experience course for preservice educators at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln to participate 
in this study. The course included a 40-hour early field experience practicum in a secondary 



Conner et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i3.49  4 
 

agriculture program, in which preservice teachers observed teacher instruction and the 
classroom learning environment. During the field experience, preservice teachers viewed 
instruction and environment through Borich’s (2015) eight lenses of teacher observation: (a) 
learning climate, (b) classroom management, (c) lesson clarity, (d) instructional variety, (e) task 
orientation, (f) student engagement in the learning process, (g) student success, and (h) 
performance outcomes and higher thoughts processes. Each preservice teacher was required to 
write two reflective journal entries that included four lenses. Entry one reflected upon lenses a-
d, and entry two reflected upon lenses e-h. A combination of university and school learning 
experiences are commonly incorporated into teacher preparation programs (Childs & 
McNicholl, 2007). The practicums were conducted throughout Nebraska in rural, suburban, and 
urban programs. Twenty-six preservice agricultural education students enrolled in the course, 
and all 26 (24 females; 2 males) voluntarily participated in the study and were freshmen, 
sophomores, and juniors.  
 
We collected data through two focus groups to bring multiple participants together for 
collective interviewing and discussion (Berg, 2001). A graduate student external to the research 
team and with an understanding of agricultural education facilitated the focus groups. We 
randomly assigned participants to focus groups. Each focus group lasted approximately one 
hour and was digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were also collected in the form 
of the focus group facilitator’s observational notes recorded by hand during the sessions.  
 
The thematic analysis method was used to “focus on repeated words or phrases in order to 
reduce data and to allow themes to emerge” (Grbich, 2007, p. 32). The block and file method 
was used to reduce the data (Grbich, 2007). The data were color-coded, then grouped into 
categories, and then chunked into themes. Titles were then developed for each theme, and the 
data were used as evidence to support the themes.  
 
We followed Lincoln and Guba’s (1985) suggested procedures to enhance trustworthiness 
(credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability). Triangulation procedures 
included comparing data from observation notes to the two focus group transcripts and 
comparing researchers’ codes to enhance credibility. The focus group facilitator verbally 
member checked understanding and interpretations throughout each focus group to verify the 
interpretation and meaning of the data and to establish credibility. A description of the early 
field experience was provided and allows readers to determine the transferability of the 
findings to another situation (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Merriam, 1988). Additionally, 
methodological journaling in the margins of the transcripts helped to link the findings to the 
data and to increase the dependability and confirmability of this study.   

 
Findings 

 
The following themes were identified: (a) agriculture as a context for science education, (b) 
hands-on learning experiences are ideal for engaging students and deeper learning, (c) the 
agricultural education program is a context for practical applications, and (d) colleague 



Conner et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i3.49  5 
 

collaboration influences the learning environment. These major themes and their sub-themes 
are presented in the following section and are linked to Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory 
from the perspective of a future agriculture teacher and Bandura’s three determinates. 
Participants’ names are not used in order to protect identities. The designations of P1-P26 are 
used as participant identifiers. 
 
Agriculture as a Context for Science Education (Behavioral, Personal, and Environmental) 
Integration Ability (Behavioral) 
After completing classroom observations, many preservice teachers recognized the ease of 
which science was integrated into the classroom. Related concepts such as animal husbandry 
and genetics provided “a natural way to tie [science] in [to agriculture]” (P16). P14 stated 
agriculture contained a lot of “science-based curriculum.” When reflecting in the interview, P15 
recognized that “there [are] a lot of opportunities for crossover.” P5 stated there are “a variety 
of different sciences within agriculture” that can be integrated. Science needs to be emphasized 
in courses because of its direct impact on the entire agricultural industry (P9). Others saw 
agricultural courses as providing “hands-on experience” (P2), making it “easier to learn” (P2), 
because the science concepts become “something they can apply everyday” (P3). 
 
On utilizing agriculture as a context for science, many participants were able to pull specific 
instances of agriculture being used to formulate concrete experiences to strengthen scientific 
concepts. P11 noted lessons on photosynthesis and plant pathogens occurring in the 
greenhouse. P2 observed scientific energy concepts integrated by linking them to ethanol 
creation from corn. P9 related the artificial insemination of a cow directly to biology. P1 noted 
science concepts were observed through “plant science and soils and genetics and animal 
science.” P8 commented on how agriculture teachers were able to “reinforce those science 
concepts to further [the students’] understanding of the agricultural concept.” Preservice 
teachers noted these concepts could be integrated into their future classrooms easily.  
 
Importance of Science Knowledge (Personal) 
Preservice teachers professed the importance of teachers’ knowledge in core science areas. The 
necessity of having “a broad understanding of all the sciences” in order to teach agriculture was 
recognized by P8. Because of the bigger role science is playing in the agriculture classroom, P3 
stressed how “important [it is] to just have a common background [in the sciences]” to fulfill 
this demand. P11 noted awareness before classroom observations, stating “I knew I needed to 
know the basics [of scientific principles].” P10 made note of the importance of understanding 
science to be able to teach it confidently. In addition, P8 recognized “there’s concepts you can’t 
explain without having… at least the core concepts of science and sometimes those don’t get 
covered in the regular science classroom the way they need to, so you need to reinforce those 
science concepts.” That included the general scientific method for P6 who stated, “students 
know how to set up this stuff for future reference,” in reference to scientific experiments. In 
addition to having a foundation of knowledge, P15 noted the importance of also knowing how 
to research scientific concepts that might not be retrieved or remembered off hand.  



Conner et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i3.49  6 
 

Many of the preservice teachers saw themselves as a resource for potential careers. P1 
described this opportunity by stating that agricultural educators could provide a platform for 
students to “get interested in science” by “making it interesting.” The participant continued by 
stating that “it’s important those kids even learn the basic knowledge on that… before… 
deciding on what they want to pursue” because agriculture is “a huge industry.” P3 also 
believed agriculture classrooms “are so successful because they spark an interest while they are 
still learning…common things.” P5 backed up these ideals by stating that agricultural educators 
can spark a broader group of students’ interests.  

The benefit of a foundational science course for preservice teachers was apparent to 
participants, and some went even further to mention that a more detailed education would be 
beneficial. One participant brought up the idea of obtaining endorsements in biology to aid in 
agricultural education teaching (P13). Other participants referenced the Curriculum for 
Agricultural Science Education (CASE) program. P1 recommended not only covering science 
content in a foundational course, but also including how to connect science concepts to 
agriculture stating, “the problem is… knowing how to take that and [put] it into [an agricultural 
context] and teaching it all together” (P1).  
 
P3 raised concern for the need for teacher preparation programs to better teach preservice 
teachers how to integrate scientific concepts into agricultural education courses. “One thing… 
that will help me to integrate the science concepts is to use the CASE curriculum” (P8). P11 
stated the CASE training “[gives] you a deeper background… in the science and better ways to 
integrate it.” P7 was able to see CASE in action and felt that it could aid in development of 
scientific integration. P1 noted that they would love to utilize some CASE curriculum in their 
future classroom. The CASE curriculum, endorsements, and the ability to learn how to integrate 
concepts into agriculture courses gave preservice teachers a feeling of confidence in their 
ability to effectively cover science topics. 
 
Perceived Consequences of Science Integration (Environmental)  
Participants voiced concerns that agriculture teaching positions will focus too greatly on 
integrating science concepts and lose the aspects of what makes secondary agricultural 
education so important. P12 observed a teacher who taught both science and agriculture 
courses and saw that “more time and energy [was spent] teaching the core [sciences].” The 
participant believed that it was going to be a challenge to defend the importance of agriculture 
classes in secondary schools if it became too focused on meeting scientific standards (P12). P1 
noted that it may be difficult for secondary agriculture programs to develop and support 
additional lab space and equipment needed to integrate more and more general science 
concepts. Additionally, the participant expressed concern in being able to keep the integrated 
science interesting and engaging, citing soil specifically (P1). P10 explained secondary 
agriculture courses are important because they are “an applied science” and their ability to “get 
kids more active” and stressed students “need to see the agriculture aspect.” P3 observed this 
phenomenon occurring during their observations. The participant stated “their animal science 
courses and…the genetic courses and things like that ended up being more like science actual 
courses instead of…hands-on ag courses. Despite the connections between science and 



Conner et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i3.49  7 
 

agriculture, participants were worried agricultural education would mimic traditional science 
courses and budget cuts would lead to the exclusion of agricultural concepts and hands-on 
learning.    

Hands-on Learning Experiences are Ideal for Engaging Students and Deeper Learning 
(Behavioral) 
Within the observed agriculture classrooms, hands-on instruction in the form of projects and 
labs were frequently observed. For many preservice teachers, hands-on activities were an 
aspect of agricultural education curriculum that made it stand out and different from other 
classes (P1, P9, P15, & P12). P2 noted they are a hands-on learner and personally understood 
the importance of labs and activities which engage students in the learning process “rather 
than just reading about it in a textbook. P2 also noted “in ag-sized classes you get more hands-
on” and “it is easier to learn something when [you are] working and doing it [yourself].” P7 
detailed a project observed that allowed students to build a mock production facility, which had 
to include breeding and genetic information for the species they were breeding. P2 observed 
test plots that utilized local farmers to teach topics in farm management and plant sciences.  
 
Because of the engaging nature of these activities, secondary students seemed to enjoy the 
learning process and were more excited to learn. Participants noted the importance of hands-
on instruction in agricultural concepts and made a distinction between observed courses that 
were more engaging because of the hands-on aspects and those that were less interesting 
because the content was taught in a more teacher-centered manner (P17, P3, & P10). In one 
observed classroom, P4 saw students “[were] really excited to learn” and that they “want to be 
in [the teacher’s] class.” P1 shared that sentiment, stating it’s “very beneficial that a student 
comes into a class excited to learn about it.” This excitement transcends agriculture – P9 
reasoned, “If [students] are excited about their agriculture, they are going to be excited about 
learning science.” Building off that mindset, P11 connected excitement to deeper learning by 
stating that “they were…excited to apply it and delve into it a little bit more.” Preservice 
teachers believed integrating scientific concepts into an agriculture course through hands-on 
activities made students more active and intentional in the learning process.  
 
The Agricultural Education Program is a Context for Practical Applications (Environmental) 
A recurrent strategy preservice teachers observed in the agriculture classroom was the 
application of science in the total program. The interaction between class and laboratory work, 
supervised agricultural experiences (SAE), and FFA (agricultural education youth organization) 
activities proved beneficial to student understanding of the importance of foundational science 
knowledge. Agricultural education, as noted by P11, provides “a way to apply what you are 
learning” and helps solidify “why it’s important in an area outside of just the typical science 
structure.” Witnessing science’s applicability to their personal interests “helps [students] with 
the relevance of it” (P11). 
 
Preservice teachers observed that providing students with classroom instruction accompanied 
by hands-on laboratory exercises allowed the students to build deeper connections to science 
concepts. P3 explained that during a teacher observation the teacher spent one day in the 



Conner et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i3.49  8 
 

classroom going over material and the next day the class would do a lab experiment pertaining 
to what they had learned. P17 saw similar scenarios play out, stating “they got like a packet at 
the beginning… then they were supposed to go through and do their reading and then their lab 
and then fill out their homework on it.” P18 experienced the opposite. P18 observed students 
collecting leaves outside on school grounds before working in the classroom. Upon return to 
the classroom, P18 noted the class discussed their leaves with prompted questions such as 
“what leaf do you think this is, why do you think, which tree does it come from?” (P18). The 
preservice teachers recognized the importance of bringing context to the agriculture standards.  
 
FFA provided an outlet to develop scientific skills that aided in career development. P2 
reflected on a fundraiser where students grew poinsettias. Students were responsible for 
“tak[ing] care of them, and they [got] to… apply the hormones and fertilizers” (P2). Prior to the 
hands-on fundraiser, students learned about the processes in the classroom (P2). P1 and P3 
observed pH tests and land judging during career development event practices, which provided 
the students with experience for competing as well as general knowledge that P1 called 
“beneficial.” 
 
The ability for students to apply concepts learned in agriculture courses at home or in their SAE 
program was a perceived advantage of integration of science standards. “I’d say genetics is 
important and a lot of these kids come from farms and stuff and they need to know maybe 
more in-depth than what they just learn at home,” stated P4. P2 also observed a linkage 
between the application of scientific, agricultural concepts being used every day stating “they 
could apply it to something they do every day” referring to their family farming operation. P1 
also noted the concepts of soil testing and pH learned in agricultural education classes could be 
brought home to the students’ farm. By teaching scientific standards in the context of 
agriculture, preservice teachers found value in the application of those standards on students’ 
farms.  
 
Colleague Collaboration Influences the Learning Environment (Environmental) 
Participants recognized working with colleagues to effectively coordinate lesson plans would 
greatly enhance the student experience, interest, and understanding. P10 reasoned “if you can 
work with the science teacher” and “had classes paired together or you could co-teach in 
class… it would be beneficial for all the kids to see.” P7 agreed, noting it would also be 
important to “coordinate with other teachers [to] know exactly what level the students are on” 
so that you “don’t backtrack too much or are way over their heads,” which would make lessons 
“the most effective.” P7 noted that with collaboration efforts “students get excited that they 
can actually apply a real-life example that they learned in a different class to like their biology 
with another teacher so it’s kind of like a realization that what they’re learning in another class 
matters too.”  P1 made note of the strong connection between agriculture and science and 
noted that students would benefit by being exposed to the information in more than one way. 
P10 discussed future plans to coordinate with the science teachers to develop lesson plans that 
incorporate science and agriculture in both courses. The participant believed, if they 
collaborated with the biology teacher in coordinating lessons, students would see the 



Conner et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i3.49  9 
 

connection between science and agriculture. P10 stated the “kids who might hate that biology 
class would see how it connects to the applied science and that it can be fun.” 
 
While some preservice teachers witnessed the benefits of collaboration, others noticed the 
challenges of facilitating this communication, which one preservice teacher called “kind of a 
balancing act” (P3). P3 observed a miscommunication between the agriculture teacher and 
science teacher because students in the science courses had already learned a concept being 
introduced in the agriculture classroom. “[The teacher] said it’s just hard,” noting some 
students had also already covered topics that were being taught in the agriculture course. The 
participant continued to voice concern “for the struggle it could be to sit down with other 
teachers and go through their lessons without bugging them or overloading the students” (P3). 
P1 stated “it’s definitely going to be a struggle to try [to] talk to the other teachers because 
sometimes they might take it as offensive,” but that is also reliant on the personality of 
teachers in the school. 
 

Conclusions, Discussion, and Recommendations 
 
In the context of preservice teacher preparation, the emergent themes can be used by teacher 
educators to enhance courses and curriculum to better prepare preservice agricultural 
education teachers. Interactions between behavioral, personal, and environmental factors 
(Bandura, 1986) play a role in how a teacher chooses to perceive their future integration of 
science into agriculture courses. Behavioral determinants (Bandura, 1986) manifested 
themselves in preservice teachers’ perceived abilities to integrate scientific concepts into their 
future classrooms and the value held in believing the integration of hands-on learning was a 
natural occurrence that sets agricultural education apart from core academic science courses. 
Participants were able to cite specific instances and opportunities to integrate scientific 
standards into secondary agriculture courses highlighting the potentially engaging nature of 
teaching an applied science. Similar to Mercier’s (2015) assertion, many felt as if integrating 
science standards with hands-on learning made for an exciting and engaging environment that 
they would like to recreate in their future classrooms.   
 
The one personal determinant (Bandura, 1986) preservice teachers described was their belief in 
the importance of possessing and being capable of expressing a broad understanding of 
science. Darling-Hammond and Bransford (2005) recommended preservice teacher preparation 
should cover the basics in various sciences. Results similarly indicated preservice teachers 
believed they are capable of being a resource for their students for a wide range of scientific 
concepts. Preservice teachers perceived a need to be able to teach multiple sciences. The belief 
in their ability to integrate science concepts and procedures into agriculture classrooms is 
consistent with prior research (Osborne & Dyer, 1998; Thompson & Balschweid, 1999).   
Environmental determinants (Bandura, 1986) appeared more frequently in the conversations 
with preservice teachers. They held ideas that a lot of what they did in their classroom, as it 
pertained to integrating science, would be heavily influenced by outside factors. Those factors 
included the practical applications of agricultural education, perceived consequences of science 



Conner et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i3.49  10 
 

integration, and colleague collaboration. In indirect ways, preservice teachers made references 
to the three-circle model of agricultural education, noting that science integration could be 
influential in the classroom and laboratory, in FFA experiences, and at the student’s own farm. 
The actual design of agricultural education programs and the environment created influences 
every aspect of a student’s education; and holds potential for science to be integrated and 
applied in various ways. However, despite the ease and naturally occurring instances for 
science integration, preservice teachers feared that aligning too closely to core academic 
science classrooms would make it easier for administrative leaders to alleviate budget concerns 
by cutting agricultural education programs.  
 
In order to better prepare preservice teachers, these observed themes should be considered 
and addressed through curriculum development for teacher preparation programs. As a result, 
curriculum should be designed to provide basic understanding of biological and physical 
sciences (Balschweid & Thompson, 2002) and should have a strong emphasis on connecting 
science concepts to agriculture (Stripling & Barrick, 2013). We recommend course development 
should include both the agricultural teacher educator and a representative from the biological 
and physical sciences. Collaboration would help to ensure quality and rigor, meaningful 
instruction, and demonstrate positive collaboration that could serve as a model of collaboration 
for the preservice teacher. Additionally, agricultural teacher preparation programs should 
create/modify courses to seamlessly integrate secondary science standards into teacher 
preparation courses. Science integration could occur in stand-alone courses or could be in 
existing courses that include teaching methods and curriculum design courses. Integrated STEM 
teaching methods courses such as those proposed by Ryu et al. (2019) and science methods 
courses should be further explored and studied as potential editions to teacher preparation 
programs of study. Efforts taken to incorporate science and science teaching methods should 
improve preservice teachers’ abilities to explicitly and intentionally blend science and 
agriculture into a learning experience that deepens the learner’s understanding of each subject 
(Ryu et al., 2019).  
 
In practice, this study served as a formative assessment of preservice teachers’ perceptions of 
science integration after observing secondary agriculture teachers’ instruction as part of a field 
experience course. Based on the information learned, we recommend future research identify 
effective agricultural teacher preparation formative assessment strategies, such as the 
reflective journaling use in this investigation, for science integration to aid in addressing 
preservice teachers’ perceived knowledge or skill deficiencies, concerns and misconceptions. 
Future research should also continue to examine perceived future behaviors, personal 
inclinations and perceptions, and environmental factors influencing science integration and 
seek to determine the most effective way of assessing and preparing preservice teachers to 
integrate science into their agriculture teaching. 
 

 
 
 



Conner et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i3.49  11 
 

References 
 
Association for Career and Technical Education. (2006). Reinventing the American high school 

for the 21st century. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED524837.pdf  
 
Balschweid, M. A., & Thompson, G. W. (2002). Integrating science in agricultural education: 

Attitudes of Indiana agricultural science and business teachers. Journal of Agricultural 
Education, 43(2), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2002.02001  

 
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice 

Hall. 
 
Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44(9), 

1175–1184. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.9.1175  
 
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman. 
 
Berg, B. L. (2001). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Allyn and Bacon.  
 
Borich, G. D. (2015). Observational skills for effective teaching: Research-based practice (7th 

ed.). Paradigm Publishers. 
 
Childs, A., & McNicholl, (J). (2007). Science teachers teaching outside of subject specialism: 

challenges strategies adopted and implications for initial teacher education. Teacher 
Development, 11(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530701194538   

 
Conroy, C. A., & Walker, N. J. (2000). An examination of integration of academic and vocational 

subject matter in the aquaculture classroom. Journal of Agricultural Education, 41(2), 
54-64. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2000.02054  

 
Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. 

Sage Publications.  
 
Crotty, M. (2003). The foundations of social research. Sage Publications.  
 
Dailey, A.L., Conroy, C.A., & Shelley-Tolbert, C.A. (2001). Using agricultural education as the 

context to teach life skills. Journal of Agricultural Education, 42(1), 11-20. 
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2001.01011  

  
Darling-Hammond, L. B., & Bransford, S. J. (Eds.). (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing 

world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. Jossey-Bass. 
 



Conner et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i3.49  12 
 

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Sage Publications. 
Enderlin, K. E. (1992). Student achievement, attitudes, and thinking skill attainment in an 
integrated science/agriculture course [Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois]. 
Illinois Digital Environment for Access to Learning and Scholarship. 
http://hdl.handle.net/2142/71916 

 
Floden, R. E., & Meniketti, M. (2005). Research on the Effects of Coursework in the Arts and 

Sciences and in the Foundations of Education. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. M. Zeichner 
(Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA Panel on Research and 
Teacher Education (pp. 261–308). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers; American 
Educational Research Association 

. 
Grbich, C. (2007). Qualitative data analysis: An introduction. Sage Publications. 
 
Houck, A., & Kitchel, T. (2010). Assessing preservice agriculture teachers’ content preparation 

and content knowledge. Journal of Assessment and Accountability in Educator 
Preparation, 1(1), 29-36.  

 
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications.  
 
Mercier, S. (2015). Food and agricultural education in the United States. 

https://studylib.net/doc/18802049/food-and-agricultural-educa-tion-in-the-united-
states 

 
Merriam, S. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. Jossey-Bass. 
    
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). Seeing Students Learn 

Science: Integrating Assessment and Instruction in the Classroom. The National 
Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/23548  

 
National Research Council. (1988). Understanding Agriculture: New Directions for Education. 

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

public schools (6th ed.). Thomson Delmar.  
 
Osborne, E. W., & Dyer, J. E. (1998). Attitudes of Illinois high school science teachers toward 

educational programs in agriculture. Journal of Agricultural Education, 39(1), 8-16. 
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.1998.01008  

 
Roberts, T. G., Harder, A., & Brashears, M. T. (Eds). (2016). American Association for Agricultural 

Education national research agenda: 2016-2020. Gainesville, FL: Department of 
Agricultural Education and Communication. 

 



Conner et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i3.49  13 
 

Ryu, M., Mentzer, N., & Knobloch, N. (2019). Preservice teachers’ experiences of STEM 
integration: Challenges and implications for integrated STEM teacher 
preparation. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29(3), 493-512. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-018-9440-9 

 
Sanders, M. (2009). STEM, STEM education, STEMmania. The Technology Teacher, 68(4), 20–26. 
 
Smith, K. L., Rayfield, J., & McKim, B. R. (2015). Effective Practices in STEM Integration: 

Describing Teacher Perceptions and Instructional Methods Use. Journal of Agricultural 
Education, 56(4), 182-201. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2015.04183  

  
Stripling, C. T., & Barrick, R. K. (2013). Examining the professional, technical, and general 

knowledge competencies needed by beginning school-based agricultural education 
teachers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 54(3), 67-83. 
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2013.03067  

 
Thompson, G. W., & Balschweid, M. M. (1999). Attitudes of Oregon agricultural science and 

technology teachers toward integrating science. Journal of Agricultural Education, 40(3), 
21-29. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.1999.03021  

 
 
 
 
© 2020 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/). 
 


