































   Advancements in Agricultural Development 
  Volume 5, Issue 4, 2024 
  agdevresearch.org 

 

1. Heather R. Nesbitt, Adjunct Instructor, University of Florida and Oregon State University, heather.nesbitt@ufl.edu, 
 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5339-8516   

2. Debra M. Barry, Assistant Professor, University of Florida, 1200 North Park Road, Plant City, FL 33563, dmbarry@ufl.edu,  
 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9579-3872  

3. J.C. Bunch, Associate Professor, University of Florida, 307A Rolfs Hall, Gainesville, FL. 32611, bunchj@ufl.edu,  

 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8729-2349  
4. Paul F. Monaghan, Associate Professor, University of Florida, 213 Rolfs Hall, Gainesville, FL 32611, paulf@ufl.edu,  

 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8877-1122  
5. Huan Chen, Associate Professor, University of Florida, 2088 Weimer, Gainesville, FL. 32611, huanchen@jou.ufl.edu,  

 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2240-7381  
 

113 

 

Exploring the Adoption of a Cooperating Teacher Preparation 
Program in Agricultural Education 

 
H. R. Nesbitt1, D. M. Barry2, J. C. Bunch3, P. F. Monaghan4, H. Chen5 

 
 

Article History 
Received: May 22, 2024 
Accepted: December 19, 2024 
Published: December 20, 2024 
 
 
Keywords 
student teaching; SDG 4: Quality 
Education; internship; mentorship; 
retention   

Abstract 
This study presents a program review of a Cooperating Teacher 
Preparation and Support Program intervention within school-based 
agricultural education teacher preparation programs, employing 
Diffusion of Innovations and the Concerns-Based Adoption Model to 
explore the adoption behaviors of agricultural education teacher 
preparation university program coordinators. The study reveals the 
crucial role of formalized preparation and ongoing support for 
cooperating teachers in fostering successful mentorship experiences 
during student teaching internships. Drawing from the insights of 
program coordinators, the findings highlighted the program’s 
compatibility with existing structures, addressing gaps in cooperating 
teacher training. The Diffusion of Innovations characteristics—relative 
advantage, compatibility, complexity, observability, and trialability—are 
pivotal in shaping coordinators’ perceptions and decisions. Concerns-
Based Adoption Model stages of concern, ranging from informational to 
refocusing, illuminate the evolution of coordinators’ concerns during the 
adoption process. The study contributes essential insights into the 
complexities of implementing mentorship programs, emphasizing the 
need for ongoing support, collaboration, and adaptation. 
Recommendations advocate for integrating structured mentorship 
programs in teacher preparation, collaboration among universities, and a 
culture of continuous evaluation. 

 

mailto:heather.nesbitt@ufl.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5339-8516
mailto:dmbarry@ufl.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9579-3872
mailto:bunchj@ufl.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8729-2349
mailto:paulf@ufl.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8877-1122
mailto:huanchen@jou.ufl.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2240-7381


Nesbitt et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.505  114 
 

Introduction and Problem Statement 
 
Mentorship plays a vital role in teacher effectiveness, impacting new teachers' motivation, 
engagement, satisfaction, and persistence (Blackburn & Robinson, 2008; Tschannen-Moran & 
Hoy, 1998). Mentoring programs are widely used to enhance teacher retention and to support 
new teachers during their transition into the classroom (Greiman et al., 2005; Ingersoll & 
Strong, 2011; Nasser-Abu Alhija & Fresko, 2010). In student teaching internships, cooperating 
teachers (CT) are crucial in guiding and mentoring student teachers (ST) (Roberts, 2006). CTs 
model effective teaching strategies, provide feedback, and help STs develop pedagogical skills 
and confidence (Clarke et al., 2014; Roberts, 2006). Ultimately, their mentorship contributes to 
STs' growth, teacher self-efficacy, and professional development (PD) (Curtner-Smith, 2001; 
McKim & Valez, 2017). 
 
CTs, in their role as mentors, need to possess qualities of professionalism, effective teaching 
skills, nurturing personal characteristics, and a desire to build a strong relationship with their 
STs (Roberts, 2006). However, there is a lack of focus and current literature on the PD and 
support needed for CTs to fulfill their mentoring roles effectively. Universities should provide 
formalized preparation and ongoing support for CTs to ensure their mentoring abilities align 
with the needs of STs (Barry, 2019; Barry et al., 2021). This includes engagement from the 
university, training in mentoring techniques, and clear guidelines for transitioning STs into their 
full teaching responsibilities (Hamilton, 2010). Best practices in mentoring, including social 
support, professional support, and role modeling, should be implemented, and a mutual 
understanding of the mentor and mentee roles is crucial (Alemdag & Simsek, 2017; Barry, 2019; 
Nesbitt et al., 2022; Russell & Russell, 2011).  
 

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework 
 
The framework of this program review utilizes diffusion of innovations (DOI) and the concerns-
based adoption model (CBAM) to develop a change model for program adoption of the 
Cooperating Teacher Preparation and Support Program intervention within the education and 
the university system. Rogers’ (2003) DOI theory explains the adoption of innovations by 
individuals or groups. Innovations are defined as new ideas, practices, programs, or objects. 
Their successful adoption depends on five perceived characteristics: relative advantage, 
compatibility, complexity, observability, and trialability (Rogers, 2003). Relative advantage 
refers to the innovation’s perceived superiority over alternatives. Compatibility relates to the 
innovation’s alignment with existing values and needs. Complexity addresses the ease of 
adoption. Observability focuses on the benefits being observable. Trialability involves the ability 
to try the innovation before committing to its use. Only 8% of DOI research has been done in 
the field of education, and there is a gap in research related to the use of DOI for PD adoption 
(Petruzzelli, 2010; Rogers, 2003). Petruzzelli (2010) states that the success of a PD innovation 
implementation depends on external factors such as program leadership, PD planning, and the 
experience of those participating in the PD. The acceptance and execution of innovation largely 
rely on the personal experiences of those who coordinate and participate coordinating and 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.505


Nesbitt et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.505  115 
 

participating in the program (Geijsel et al., 2001). Additionally, Kaminski (2011) expressed the 
importance of exploring different perceptions of innovations to adjust the adoption process 
based on the adopters’ needs.  
 
CBAM offers a framework to understand the stages of concern experienced when adopting new 
practices or programs. This model is commonly utilized when discussing the adoption of 
innovations within education (Haines, 2018; Hall & Hord, 2006; Hollingshead, 2009; Ogegbo & 
Ramnarain, 2022; Trapani & Annunziato, 2018). CBAM identifies seven stages of concern 
commonly experienced when adopting new instructional practices: awareness, informational, 
personal, management, consequence, collaboration, and refocusing (Hall & Hord, 2006; 
Hollingshead, 2009). Understanding and addressing teachers’ concerns at each stage of their 
training is crucial for promoting the successful adoption and integration of new PD, 
instructional practices, or programs (Hall & Hord, 2006). By assessing the concerns of university 
coordinators who work with CTs during the student teaching experience, an environment that 
nurtures CT mentorship PD and facilitates improved mentoring to their ST can be adopted, 
ultimately improving the student teaching experience. 
 
The combination of DOI and CBAM theories was utilized to create this study's conceptual model 
for program adoption (see Figure 1). In this model, the perceived characteristics of the 
preparation and support program for CTs were utilized to persuade university teacher 
preparation programs to join this pilot program. From there, the university program 
coordinator’s stage of concern from the CBAM was collected to determine the potential 
adoption of the program (Nesbitt, 2024).  
 
Figure 1 
 
Conceptual Model of the Combination of Diffusion of Innovations (DOI) and Concerns-Based 
Adoption Models (CBAM) Used to Influence a Decision to Adopt 
 

 
 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.505


Nesbitt et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.505  116 
 

Purpose and Research Questions 
 
The purpose of this program review was to examine the adoption of best practices support 
from teacher preparation programs. The following research questions guided this study: (a) 
What characteristics do student teaching internship program coordinators perceive as 
influential in their decisions to adopt or not adopt a CT support program? (b) How do student 
teaching internship program coordinators perceive the relative importance of each factor in 
their decision to adopt a CT support program? (c) What components of the CT support program 
were deemed most effective by the student teaching internship program coordinators? (d) 
What are the perceived barriers of student teaching internship program coordinators in 
adopting a CT support program? 
 

Methods 
 
This program review employed a qualitative approach to assess the effectiveness of the CT 
training intervention by utilizing a phenomenological inquiry into the adoption behaviors of 
agricultural education teacher preparation universities concerning the CT preparation and 
support program (Boyle, 1981; Moustakas, 1994). This review was framed as a 
phenomenological inquiry to explore the lived experiences of university program coordinators 
in adopting and implementing the CT preparation and support program. This approach allowed 
for a deeper understanding of how coordinators perceived, interpreted, and navigated the 
adoption process (Creswell & Poth, 2018; Moustakas, 1994). Two university teacher 
preparation programs were selected for this review. Both were land-grant universities with 
agricultural education teacher certification programs in different geographical regions. 
Importantly, neither university had previously conducted its own CT preparation and support 
program before participating in this research. 
 
The intervention was based on the University of Florida’s Department of Agricultural Education 
and Communication program that implemented a mentorship training protocol for CTs that 
started in the fall of 2018 and further developed each year (Barry, 2019). The program’s main 
objective was to equip and support CTs in their mentoring roles during the student teaching 
internship. The program emphasized best practices in the areas of social support, professional 
support, and role modeling. It included a dedicated website for resource retrieval, a CT 
mentorship manual, onboarding for CTs and STs, a pre-internship workshop for CTs and STs to 
provide essential skills, regular communication through emails and infographics, and monthly 
collaborative Zoom meetings to foster a supportive community of CTs (Barry, 2019; Barry et al., 
2021; Nesbitt et al., 2022). 
 
Participants in this study included two faculty members who were program coordinators for STs 
and CTs at two university-state agricultural education teaching preparation programs. The 
coordinators were given detailed directions and content for implementing the onboarding 
sessions, pre-internship workshop, sending bi-weekly emails, and hosting the monthly Zoom 
meetings within the CT preparation and support program. Participants were sent check-in 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.505


Nesbitt et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.505  117 
 

emails at the beginning of each stage, and they were asked to send verification of each detail to 
ensure the program was implemented correctly. The website and CT manual were provided and 
updated by the researcher.   
 
Interview questions were formulated to explore the phenomenon of adoption through the 
perspectives of the university program coordinators in this study (Creswell & Poth, 2018; 
Moustakas, 1994). The interview protocol was vetted by three university faculty considered 
experts in qualitative research, change-based theories, and agricultural education. With 
permission from the Institutional Review Board (IRB2022-01843), the program was 
implemented at each university during the 2022-2023 school year. Following the complete 
implementation of the program, each program coordinator was asked to participate in 
individual one-hour semi-structured interviews in July 2023. Throughout the interviews, 
probing questions were employed to explore the program coordinators’ experiences further 
and to gather a more comprehensive understanding of adoption (Merriam, 2002).  
 
After assigning pseudonyms to maintain confidentiality, a three-read process was conducted 
for coding (Saldaña, 2016). During the third read, predetermined constructs were used to 
create thematic codes, enabling the identification of adaptable program characteristics and the 
coordinators’ stages of concern in the adoption process (see Table 1). Additionally, in vivo 
coding was employed to uncover any emergent themes that may have surfaced within the 
structural codes (Saldaña, 2016). Participant quotes also provided deeper insights into the 
phenomenon under investigation (Merriam, 2002; Moustakas, 1994). To ensure 
trustworthiness, member checking and peer debriefing was employed to establish credibility.  
 
  

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.505


Nesbitt et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.505  118 
 

Table 1 
 
Summary of Thematic and Descriptive Codes 
 

Theme Code Description 
Perceived 
Characteristics of the 
Innovation  
(Rogers, 2003) 

Relative Advantage Participants shared their previous experiences with 
cooperating teacher training.  

Compatibility Participants discussed how the program fit into their 
existing program.  

 Complexity Participants shared their experiences implementing 
the program. 

 Observability Participants discussed their observed benefits.   

 Trialability Participants shared future implementation of the 
program.  

Components of the 
program 

Most Effective Participants share their use of the components and 
how they viewed their effectiveness.  

 Barriers Participants discussed barriers they faced when 
implementing the program.  

Stage of Concern  
(Hall & Hord, 2006, 
Hollingshead, 2009) 

Awareness Participants discussed their level of awareness with 
the new program 

Informational Participants discussed their original interest in 
learning more about the program. 

 
Personal Participants discussed their uncertainty about the 

personal demands and implications of the new 
program. 

 Management Participants discussed their focus on managing, 
scheduling, and time demands of the new program. 

 
Consequence Participants discussed their perceived impact of the 

new program on their cooperating teachers and 
student teachers. 

 Collaboration Participants discussed their interest in collaborating 
with others in the new program. 

 Refocusing Participants discussed their possibility of changes to 
the program. 

 

Findings 
 
Three focal points were utilized to help answer the research questions for this study. The 
codebook provides each theme and descriptive code (see Table 1). The first focal point of the 
coding analysis centered around DOI’s five perceived characteristics of the innovation, which 
explore perceptions of the innovation (Kaminski, 2011; Rogers, 2003). When discussing the 
participants’ previous experiences with CT training, several key statements emphasized the 
relative advantage of the program over their previous methods or lack of methods in CT 
training. One participant stated, “It was something that [we] had seen a need for… we had a 
need to do more than what we have been doing.” Additionally, the participants discussed how 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.505


Nesbitt et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.505  119 
 

the program filled specific gaps such as “intentional” resources and training tools and included 
a dedicated day of training to get their CTs “on the same page.”  
 
When examining the participants’ perspectives on the compatibility of the program, both 
participants discussed the seamless integration of the program into their existing programs. The 
University 1 participant stated, “I think they fit in really well… And it doesn’t feel like it’s a lot of 
extra work compared to what we were previously doing.” The participant from University 1 also 
emphasized the program’s alignment by highlighting the incorporation “of a dedicated 
workshop day” as a planned and expected element, complementing and supplementing 
existing practices without adding excessive workload. The University 2 participant also 
described the program as “dovetail[ing] pretty nicely” with their existing framework. They 
spoke specifically about the structured nature of the program, contrasting it with past practices 
that were more informal.  
 
When looking at the participants’ views on the complexity of the program, challenges ranged 
from logistical issues and participant engagement to the integration of technology and the 
broader structural complexities tied to the academic reward system. The University 1 
participant spoke about their initial overwhelming feeling when preparing for the workshop and 
the logistical challenge of their coordinating with the CTs who traveled. The participant from 
University 2 highlighted a surprising challenge related to CTs not paying close attention to 
details and recognized that they had gone from providing their CTs with little support to 
providing them with a lot. Additionally, the participant from University 2 spoke with concern 
about their personal resistance to learning new tools like Canva. As the participant honestly 
stated, “I’m to the point in my career that I don’t want to learn how to use Canva and edit 
those types of things.” Finally, University 2 participant touched upon the intricate nature of the 
tenure process, citing the challenge required to dedicate time to implement such a program 
when little weight was given towards tenure. 
 
The University 1 participant primarily highlighted the observability of the program’s impact on 
their CTs and STs. The participant discussed their CTs’ feelings towards the workshop. They 
stated, “[CTs] really felt like they had a better understanding of what they were going to be 
doing and felt more prepared going into [the internship]…I think [experienced CTs] were still 
able to get stuff out of it because of the different elements that we put in.” The University 1 
participant also discussed the program’s timely advice to the CTs throughout the internship 
experience. They stated, “I think the sequencing…of the topics was very beneficial for where 
they were throughout the experience.” University 2 similarly discussed timely advice to the CTs 
and the template utilized in the bi-weekly emails. They stated, “They liked the bi-weekly 
emails…They liked the bulleted ‘here’s what ought to be happening now… here’s the key things 
up front.’ They appreciated that.” 
 
When examining participants’ perspectives of the program, there was a notable eagerness and 
willingness to continue to engage with its resources, with minor changes. The participants also 
discussed recommendations to aid in the trialability of other universities wanting to adopt the 
program. The University 1 participant stated, “I think now that we have a collection of stuff, it 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.505


Nesbitt et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.505  120 
 

will be easy to continue to implement, to revisit, revise, add additional pieces, as necessary…I’m 
excited to continue to do it.” The University 1 participant suggested that housing the materials 
in a sharable drive would aid in the adoption at other universities and discussed two suggested 
edits: (a) discussion stems to help STs navigate conversations with their CTs, and (b) an added 
emphasis on CTs “getting [STs] introduced and situated into the school piece” of the internship. 
The participant from University 2 also discussed their plans to continue the CT preparation and 
support program. They stated,  “the CT manuals, we will continue to use and update. Ah, the 
[workshop], we will continue to do, and we will continue to have it structured as you 
recommended…I think now that we have the template, it’s just a matter of going in and 
updating things.” The University 2 participant also discussed two edits they would make: (a) a 
university supervisor manual, and (b) support training and regular emails to STs reminding them 
where they should be in the internship, like the CT’s bi-weekly emails. They stated, “One thing 
we did not do was get the university supervisors on [the training], and I think that would be 
valuable… [for] the university supervisors, as much as possible, be involved. 
 
The second focal point of the coding analysis centered around The CBAM, offering a structured 
lens to comprehend the stages of concern each participant experienced in adopting the 
programs. CBAM delineates seven stages of concern: awareness, informational, personal, 
management, consequence, collaboration, and refocusing (Hall & Hord, 2006; Hollingshead, 
2009). However, only five stages were identified during the analysis. The participants of this 
study began the program in the informational stage of concern, discussing their original interest 
in learning more about the program. The participant from University 1 stated, “We definitely 
had a bigger need. We had a need to do more than what we have been doing.” The participant 
from University 2 stated, “We have always wanted to do CT training.” 
 
As the participants moved out of the informational stage of concern, they jumped to the 
management stage of concern. They discussed their focus on managing, scheduling, and the 
time demands of the program. The participant from University 1 stated, “My partner at the 
university had been saying [they] wanted to do something like [the program] for years and just 
haven’t had the time to get it started.” The University 2 participant also discussed their lack of 
time to create the resources needed to implement such a program. As mentioned in 
complexity, University 2 also discussed the management of this program and its weight in the 
tenure process.  
 
During the program implementation, the participants discussed the perceived impact of the 
program on their CTs and STs, demonstrating a movement into the consequence level of 
concern. The University 1 participant stated they saw “the appreciation and willingness [of the 
CTs] to participate in the training…[and] the value that [the CTs] saw in [the training].” 
Additionally, the participant from University 1 discussed navigating the potential challenge of 
continual buy-in from seasoned mentors. They stated, “I think if we can use them, also 
resources, not just as you’re here to learn from us that day, but you’re also contributing to the 
learning and growth of other mentor teachers, that would be beneficial.” University 2’s 
program coordinator showed their movement into the consequence stage by discussing their 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.505


Nesbitt et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.505  121 
 

perception of the impact on CTs. They stated, “I guess that was the biggest surprise was, we 
went from not giving them much to giving them a lot. And it still seemed confusing.”  
 
Participants discussed their interest in collaborating with others implementing the program, 
moving their level of concern towards collaboration. The participant from University 1 stated, “I 
think having been in communication with others who are using similar programs would be 
helpful… let’s collaborate, and you know, refined materials.” The University 2 participant 
stated, “I think learning from other people is how we get better…I would love to hear what 
[other states] said.” 
 
Participants discussed the possibility of changes to the program, showing them in the final level 
of concern, the refocusing phase. The University 1 participant discussed the challenges faced by 
a ST who felt a lack of clear communication and differing expectations from mentors. They 
stated, “I had a ST who felt like their mentor teachers were not communicating well or clearly, 
or had different expectations. And so, I don’t know if it would be helpful to have some support, 
as well for STs.” They also touched on the ongoing efforts to continue the program, including 
regular emails and workshop implementation. They expressed their need for more support to 
fully implement the program. Finally, the participant from University 1 discussed the potential 
need to alter the program’s materials to fit the needs of universities with year-long student 
teaching internships. They stated, “One thing that I think would be important to keep in mind 
are some places are going to year-long student teaching placements. So, there might need to 
be expanded material set for that situation.” The University 2 participant reflected on their 
added efforts made with STs, stating, “I also tried to do some things with these STs. You know, 
here’s where you should be. That kind of thing, not as regular as the CTs.” They also discussed 
the feedback from university supervisors, stating, “University supervisors wanted more 
structure.” In addition, they eagerly explained their plans to continue implementing more 
structured guidance with their CTs. The participant from University 2 also acknowledged the 
challenges in coordinating full-year student teaching. 
 
After the program implementation, the program coordinators in this study identified several 
beneficial aspects of the program, as well as the barriers they faced during implementation, 
leading to the third and final focal point of this study. For benefits, the participants consistently 
highlighted various aspects associated with the program’s implementation, providing insights 
into the positive impact of its adoption. Both schools discussed how the support program fit 
well into their existing program and was easy to implement. They both stated that the program 
pushed them to implement components they were already interested in but had not found the 
resources to create, such as hosting a CT workshop and more regular email communication. 
Additionally, the program coordinators commented on the barrier of time required to develop 
materials being removed due to the materials being created for them. They were surprised by 
the appreciation and willingness of most CTs to participate in this program.  
 
Along with the positive feedback responses, there were still barriers that the program 
coordinators identified. These included some lack of participation from the CTs in reading 
emails, attending monthly Zoom sessions, and having buy-in from experienced mentors. Timing 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.505


Nesbitt et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.505  122 
 

was the most discussed barrier as it related to the coordinators” time to plan and implement 
support components, such as the workshop and Zoom sessions, as well as the CTs’ time needed 
to attend these functions. Concern was shared by program coordinators related to learning new 
technology, such as Canva, to edit infographics and the ability to manage a website if they had 
to do that on their own. The tenure process was also shared as a time concern for the 
investment of a program like this and its potential weight in the tenure process.  
 

Conclusions and Recommendations 
 
This program review captured the phenomenon’s essence across different settings, but it is 
essential to acknowledge the limited generalizability of the findings. However, this review could 
offer insights into the experiences of the university programs’ implementation, aid in 
programmatic development, and highlight further research areas within this field. 
 
The success of mentorship programs, particularly within student teaching internships, depends 
on the preparedness and ongoing support provided to CTs (Clarke et al., 2014; Norris et al., 
1990; Roberts, 2006). This program review aligns with the need for formalized preparation and 
continuous support for CTs, ensuring their mentoring abilities align with the evolving needs of 
STs (Barry, 2019; Barry et al., 2021; Dunning et al., 2011; Nesbitt et al., 2022). In this study, the 
CT preparation and support program answered the need for structured mentorship training 
(Barry, 2019; Barry et al., 2021; Dunning et al., 2011; Nesbitt et al., 2022). The gap in the 
formalized training of CTs in school-based agricultural education was addressed by providing a 
comprehensive mentorship preparation and support program. The findings support the pivotal 
role that preparation and support programs play in enhancing the mentorship experience 
(Barry, 2019; Barry et al., 2021; Dunning et al., 2011; Nesbitt et al., 2022). The identified 
beneficial program components, including the workshops and regular communication, reflect 
the best practices of mentoring recommended by scholars (Alemdag & Simsek, 2017; Barry, 
2019; Barry et al., 2021; Russell & Russell, 2011). 
 
The conceptual model (see Figure 1) grounded in Diffusion of Innovations (DOI) and the 
Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM) proved instrumental in understanding the intricate 
adoption process of the program (Hall & Hord, 2006; Rogers, 2003). The findings indicated the 
importance of DOI characteristics in shaping the perceptions and decisions of program 
coordinators toward the adoption of the intervention. The relative advantage, compatibility, 
complexity, observability, and trialability of the CT Preparation and Support Program played 
crucial roles in shaping the perceptions and decisions of program coordinators. The 
compatibility of the program with existing frameworks and the relative advantage it offered 
over previous methods emerged as key facilitators in the adoption process, and their 
significance was attributed to the successful adoption. The evolutionary nature of concern-
based adoption throughout the program aligned with the observations of Hall and Hord (2006). 
The findings showed the initial progression of program coordinators’ concerns from an 
informational stage, where coordinators seek understanding, to a management stage, where 
concerns are directed toward addressing scheduling and time demands. Once those concerns 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.505


Nesbitt et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.505  123 
 

were addressed, the program coordinators’ concerns transitioned towards collaboration and 
refocusing on potential program modifications. This transition illuminated the coordinators' 
transformative journey and willingness to adopt the program. 
 
Several program components were deemed most beneficial by program coordinators. These 
included the ease of integration into existing structures, and the removal of barriers related to 
time and resource constraints. The seamless integration into existing structures aligned 
coherently with the compatibility principle while removing time and resource barriers 
resonated with the trialability and relative advantage aspects (Rogers, 2003). Program 
coordinators also discussed the barriers they faced. These included challenges in technology 
adoption, issues related to tenure processes, and the need for enhanced cooperation from 
experienced mentors.  
 
While not universally applicable to all state agricultural education teacher preparation 
programs, this study provides programmatic suggestions and lays the foundation for future 
research and development of CT preparation and support within school-based agricultural 
education teacher preparation programs. Universities can use the identified concerns and 
benefits to refine and enhance mentorship initiatives while fostering a supportive environment 
for the next generation of agricultural educators (Barry, 2019; Barry et al., 2021; Clarke et al., 
2014; Dunning et al., 2011; Nesbitt et al., 2022; Norris et al., 1990; Roberts, 2006).  
 
Several key areas warrant further research to advance our understanding of mentorship 
programs in SBAE teacher preparation. First, longitudinal studies should be conducted as a 
comprehensive assessment of the long-term impact of mentorship programs on the 
professional development and effectiveness of both CTs and STs. Second, we suggest that 
research on mentorship dynamics be further focused on helping both mentors and mentees 
navigate difficult situations during the internship and creating conversational stems for these 
situations. Finally, research should continue to investigate the correlation between mentorship 
program quality and student learning outcomes. Understanding how the effectiveness of 
mentorship influences both the academic and professional development of student teachers 
and, consequently, their students' learning experiences provides valuable insights into the 
broader impact of these programs.  
 
  

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.505


Nesbitt et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.505  124 
 

Acknowledgments 
 
This work was based on: Nesbitt (2024). Mentorship in the field: Best practices in student 
teaching internships and the adoption in teacher preparation programs. (Publication No. 
Pending) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. 
https://ufl-flvc.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01FALSC_UFL/6ad6fc/alma99384277924206597  
 
Author Contributions: H. Nesbitt – conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, 
investigation, data curation, writing – original draft, writing – review & editing, and 
visualization; D. Barry – conceptualization, investigation, writing – review & editing; J. Bunch – 
methodology, validation, and writing-review and editing; P. Monaghan - methodology, 
validation, and writing-review and editing; H. Chen - methodology, validation, and writing-
review and editing. 
 

References 
 
Alemdag, E., & Simsek, P. O. (2017). Pre-service teacher’s evaluation of their mentor teachers, 

school experiences, and theory-practice relationship. International Journal of 
Progressive Education, 13(2), 165–179. https://ijpe.inased.org/makale_indir/244 

 
Barry, D. (2019). Evaluation of student teacher supervision and mentoring through the 

preparations and assistance for cooperating teachers (PACT) program for assisting and 
supporting agriscience cooperating teachers in Florida (Publication No. 27546454) 
[Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. 

 
Barry, D. M., Diaz, J. M., Ferand, N. K., Myers, B. E., & Wysocki, A. F. (2021). Improving the 

student teaching experience: A Delphi study of cooperating teacher needs. Journal of 
Agricultural Education, 62(4), 37–50. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2021.04035 

 
Blackburn, J. J., & Robinson, J. S. (2008). Assessing teacher self-efficacy and job satisfaction of 

early career agriculture teachers in Kentucky. Journal of Agricultural Education, 49(3), 1-
11. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2008.03001  

 
Boyle, P. G. (1981). Planning better programs. McGraw-Hill, Inc 
 
Clarke, A., Triggs, V., & Nielsen, W. (2014). Cooperating teacher participation in teacher 

education: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 84(2), 163-202. 
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313499618 

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

five approaches. Sage publications. 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.505
https://ufl-flvc.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01FALSC_UFL/6ad6fc/alma99384277924206597
https://ijpe.inased.org/makale_indir/244
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2021.04035
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2008.03001
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313499618


Nesbitt et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.505  125 
 

Curtner-Smith, M. D. (2001). The occupational socialization of a first-year physical education 
teacher with a teaching orientation. Sport, Education & Society, 6(1), 81–105. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/713696040 

 
Dunning, C., Meegan, S., Woods, C., & Belton, S. J. (2011) The impact of the COPET programme 

on student PE teachers’ teaching practice experiences. European Physical Education 
Review, 17(2), 153–165. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X11413182  

 
Geijsel, F., Sleegers, P., van den Berg, R., & Kelchtermans, G. (2001). Conditions fostering the 

implementation of large-scale innovation programs in schools: Teachers’ perspectives. 
Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(1), 130–166. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/00131610121969262  

 
Greiman, B. C., Walker, W. D., & Birkenholz, R. J. (2005). Influence of the organizational 

environment on the induction stage of teaching. Journal of Agricultural Education, 46(3), 
95-106. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2005.03095  

 
Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2006). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes. 

Pearson/Allyn and Bacon. 
 
Haines, K. (2018). Professional development for new classroom spaces: extending the concerns-

based adoption model. Journal of Perspectives on Applied Academic Practice, 6(2), 58-
66. https://doi.org/10.14297/jpaap.v6i2.297  

 
Hamilton, J. (2010). Cooperating teachers: An investigation into their needs and training as 

mentors and supervisors of student teachers (Order No. 3416990). Available from 
ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global; Social Science Premium Collection. 
(742560028).  

 
Hollingshead, B. (2009). The concerns-based adoption model: A framework for examining 

implementation of a character education program. NASSP Bulletin, 93(3), 166-183. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/0192636509357932  

 
Ingersoll, R. M., & Strong, M. (2011). The impact of induction and mentoring programs for 

beginning teachers: A critical review of the research. Review of Educational Research 
81(2) 201-233. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654311403323 

 
Kaminski, J. (2011). Diffusion of Innovation theory. Canadian Journal of Nursing Informatics, 

6(2), 1-6. https://cjni.net/journal/?p=1444  
 
McKim, A. J., & Velez, J. J. (2017). Developing self-efficacy: exploring preservice coursework, 

student teaching, and professional development experiences. Journal of Agricultural 
Education, 58(1), 172-185. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2017.01172  

 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.505
https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X11413182
https://doi.org/10.1177/00131610121969262
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2005.03095
https://doi.org/10.14297/jpaap.v6i2.297
https://doi.org/10.1177/0192636509357932
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654311403323
https://cjni.net/journal/?p=1444
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2017.01172


Nesbitt et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.505  126 
 

Merriam, S. (2002). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis (1st 
ed., Jossey-Bass higher and adult education series). Jossey-Bass. 

 
Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Sage Publications. 
 
Nasser-Abu Alhija, F., & Fresko, B. (2010). Socialization of new teachers: Does induction matter? 

Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(8), 1592-1597. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.06.010  

 
Nesbitt (2024). Mentorship in the field: Best practices in student teaching internships and the 

adoption in teacher preparation programs. (Publication No. Pending)  [Doctoral 
dissertation, University of Florida]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. 

 
Nesbitt, H. R., Barry, D. M., Lawson, K., & Diaz, J. (2022). Best practices for mentoring: An 

exploratory study of cooperating teacher and student teacher perspectives. 
Advancements in Agricultural Development. 3(4), 30–42. 
https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i4.261  

 
Norris, R. J., Larke, Jr., A., & Briers G. E. (1990). Selection of student teaching centers and 

cooperating teachers in agriculture and expectation of teacher educators regarding 
these components of a teacher education program: A national study. Journal of 
Agricultural Education, 31(1), 58-63. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.1990.01058  

 
Ogegbo, A. A., & Ramnarain, U. (2022). Teachers’ perceptions of and concerns about integrating 

computational thinking into science teaching after a professional development activity. 
African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 26(3), 
181-191. https://doi.org/10.1080/18117295.2022.2133739  

 
Petruzzelli, A. (2010). The impact of principal training in Diffusion of Innovation theory on 

fidelity of implementation. Seton Hall University. 
 
Roberts, T. G. (2006). Developing a model of cooperating teacher effectiveness. Journal of 

Agricultural Education, 47(3), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2006.03001   
 
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations (5th ed.).The Free Press 
 
Russell, M. L., & Russell, J. A. (2011). Mentoring relationships: Cooperating teachers’ 

perspectives on mentoring student interns. Professional Educator, 35(1), 21. 
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ988202.pdf  

 
Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). SAGE.  
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.505
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.06.010
https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i4.261
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.1990.01058
https://doi.org/10.1080/18117295.2022.2133739
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2006.03001
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ988202.pdf


Nesbitt et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.505  127 
 

Trapani, B., & Annunziato, A. (2018). Using the concerns based adoption model (CBAM) to 
accelerate understanding by design implementation. Journal of instructional 
pedagogies, 21. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1194263  

 
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. 

Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783-805. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-
051X(01)00036-1  

 
 
 
© 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.v5i4.505
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1194263
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00036-1
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00036-1

