































   Advancements in Agricultural Development 
  Volume 6, Issue 1, 2025 
  agdevresearch.org 

 

1. Kristopher R. L. Rankin III, Assistant Professor, New Mexico State University, 112 Gerald Thomas Hall, Las Cruce, NM 88003, 

krankin3@nmsu.edu,  https://orcid.org/0009-0009-6519-0478  
2. Christopher J. Eck, Assistant Professor, Oklahoma State University, 234 Agricultural Hall, Stillwater, OK 74078, 

chris.eck@okstate.edu,  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1645-3632  
3. Kayla N. Marsh, Graduate Teaching & Research Associate, Oklahoma State University, 234 Agricultural Hall, Stillwater, OK 

74078, kayla.marsh@okstate.edu,   https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3574-1936  
4. Bradley M. Coleman, Assistant Professor, Oklahoma State University, 238 Agricultural Hall, Stillwater, OK 74078, 

b.coleman@okstate.edu,    https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5981-5747  
5. Nathan A. Smith, Instructor, Oklahoma State University, 236 Agricultural Hall, Stillwater, OK 74078, 

nathan.smith@okstate.edu,    https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3126-9083  
 

82 

 

The Needs of Oklahoma School-Based Agricultural Education 
Teachers Related to Teaching Agriculture, Food and Natural 

Resources Topics  
 

K. R. L. Rankin III1, C. J. Eck2, K. N. Marsh3, B. M. Coleman4, N. A. Smith5 

 
 

Article History 
Received: July 22, 2024 
Accepted: February 19, 2025 
Published: March 4, 2025 
 
 
Keywords 
SDG: 4 Quality Education; agricultural 
education curriculum; technical 
content   

Abstract 
One of the most important factors to developing and sustaining 
agricultural educators is identifying their highest in-demand needs. 
Identifying teacher needs on a regular basis is important to continue 
offering professional development opportunities that are relevant to 
current situations facing the teaching population. This study, undergirded 
in Teacher Human Capital Theory, aimed to identify the technical 
agricultural topics school-based agricultural educators (SBAE) deem as 
important to their teaching career, as well as their perceived level of 
knowledge on the 56 identified topics. Ranked Discrepancy Scores (RDS) 
were utilized to analyze the perceptions of the SBAE teachers across the 
eight agricultural career and content pathways identified by The Council. 
Agricultural teachers across Oklahoma were found to have in-demand 
needs across all technical agricultural topics identified in the instrument. 
The agricultural career and content pathway of agricultural 
biotechnology systems was found to have the largest discrepancy across 
the eight agricultural career and content pathways. Findings from this 
study could aid Oklahoma State University in identifying purposeful and 
direct professional development that focuses on the highest in-demand 
needs of Oklahoma SBAE teachers.  

 

mailto:krankin3@nmsu.edu
https://orcid.org/0009-0009-6519-0478
mailto:chris.eck@okstate.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1645-3632
mailto:kayla.marsh@okstate.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3574-1936
mailto:b.coleman@okstate.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5981-5747
mailto:nathan.smith@okstate.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3126-9083


Rankin et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i1.523   83 
 

Introduction 
 
One of the most critical factors in developing and improving agricultural educators is to 
correctly identify their highest in-demand needs (Layfield & Dobbins, 2002). Research in 
agricultural education has identified various teachers’ training needs as it pertains to classroom 
management and instruction (Albritton & Roberts, 2020; DiBenedetto et al., 2018; Layfield & 
Dobbins, 2002; Smalley et al., 2019). As such, “agricultural educators are required to have both 
subject specific and technical knowledge…while constantly adapting to new technologies and 
practices in the field” (Albritton & Roberts, 2020, p. 140).  
 
Prior experience in technical agriculture and natural resources, the designated agricultural 
career and content pathways taught, and a teacher’s personal contextual experiences all 
influence their abilities, knowledge, and potential skill transference in educational settings 
(Peake et al., 2007; Yopp et al., 2020). Technological advances are continuing at a rapid pace, 
and as such, teachers need to be continually trained on up-to-date information and systems in 
content-related areas to remain effective in the classroom (Yopp et al., 2020). This study aims 
to provide teacher educators, in-service school based agricultural education (SBAE) teachers, 
and Oklahoma state staff members affiliated with SBAE teachers with information regarding the 
agriculturally related content SBAE teachers deem a priority for providing professional 
development opportunities. Results from this study and other research looking at current 
agriculturally related content teacher needs has the possibility to identify patterns on a regional 
and national level. 
 

Theoretical/Conceptual Framework 
 
Human capital relates to the knowledge, education, skills, experiences, and training of an 
individual (Becker, 1964; Schultz, 1971), which can be sector-specific when considering career 
preparedness (Smith, 2010). Therefore, this study was undergirded by the Teacher Human 
Capital theory (Myung et al., 2013), which outlined four distinct areas for advancing teaching 
and improving learning. The Teacher Human Capital framework is presented as a systems 
approach with four criteria (i.e., acquire, develop, sustain, and evaluate) working together to 
explore teacher recruitment, development, reward, and retention (Myung et al., 2013). This 
study focused on the criteria of develop specifically. Develop outlines the need to "provide 
individualized PD opportunities in response to demonstrated needs” (Myung et al., 2013, p. 8).  
 
Although teacher induction programs are common across the United States, induction 
programs that aim to be intensive, sequentially delivered, and comprehensive to individual 
teachers’ needs are typically rare (Myung et al., 2013). Key considerations for developing 
teachers are to provide opportunities for intense and on-going professional development that 
focuses on their subject matter, as well as providing mentorship opportunities within their 
specific field of study (Myung et al., 2013). Additionally, professional development focused on 
developing key components of teachers should be targeted to meet the needs of the teachers 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i1.523


Rankin et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i1.523   84 
 

and be embedded in being able to be integrated immediately into the daily life of the teachers 
(Myung et al., 2013).  
 
Teachers have the greatest influence on students’ future success (Chetty et al., 2014), but with 
the breadth of agricultural education, school-based agricultural education (SBAE) teachers need 
continued in-service in content and technical skills to be effective (Sorensen et al., 2010). 
Additionally, this technical skill gap was found in Oklahoma preservice teachers who lacked the 
basic financial literacy skills to effectively instruct in the agribusiness pathway (Price et al., 
2023). Technical teaching skills were needed for the biotechnology systems to advance general 
agriscience instruction as well as in focus areas of animal science and plant sciences (Duncan et 
al., 2006).  
 
Identifying the needs of SBAE teachers can provide opportunities for professional development 
and pre-service teacher education, which can lead to retention of teachers within the 
profession (Smalley et al., 2019). Challenges continually facing newly hired and veteran SBAE 
teachers include teaching practices and curriculum accessibility (Barry et al., 2022; Eck et al., 
2019; Smalley et al., 2019). It is important to identify teacher needs on a regular basis to 
continue offering professional development opportunities that are relevant to current 
situations facing the teaching population (Avalos, 2011).  
 

Purpose and Objectives 
 
The purpose of this study was to identify the current level of knowledge and perceived 
relevance of teaching technical agricultural content topics in agricultural education by 
Oklahoma SBAE teachers. Specifically, technical agriculture topics across the eight agriculture, 
food and natural resources (AFNR) content pathways (The Council, 2023) were evaluated. One 
overarching research question guided this study: What are the needs of Oklahoma SBAE 
teachers related to teaching technical agricultural topics, based on ranked discrepancy scores 
(RDS), in the eight technical agricultural content pathways? 
 

Methodology 
 
This non-experimental survey research study employed a census approach to reach all 
Oklahoma SBAE teachers (N = 462). To achieve this goal, data was collected in-person at 25 
regional FFA degree checks across the state. In Oklahoma, all teachers attend FFA degree 
checks in their designated region over a two-week period in late January and early February of 
2023. The research team traveled the state to provide an overview of the needs assessment, 
distribute the survey instrument and collect completed hand-written questionnaires. Three-
hundred and thirty-eight Oklahoma SBAE teachers returned a survey questionnaire, resulting in 
a 73.2% response rate.  
 
Although this study resulted in a 73.2% response rate, non-response error is still of concern, 
given the census approach design. Therefore, 55 survey instruments were mailed, along with a 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i1.523


Rankin et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i1.523   85 
 

cover letter and pre-paid return addressed envelope to Oklahoma SBAE teachers who did not 
attend the state degree checks. The 55 Oklahoma SBAE teachers who received the 
questionnaire did not have a chance to complete the instrument at the degree checks due to 
weather related cancelations or travel limitations. This effort resulted in five SBAE teachers 
completing and returning the survey instrument to the research team. After analysis of non-
respondents, data were found to be non-differential based on personal and professional 
characteristics of respondents and collected non-respondents (Miller & Smith, 1983), deeming 
the data to be representative of Oklahoma SBAE teachers. Incomplete survey questionnaires 
(i.e., surveys without complete responses to the non-demographic questions) were excluded, 
resulting in 328 (71.0% response rate) completed instruments for data analysis.  
 
Two-hundred fifty-nine participants were traditionally certified in agricultural education, while 
an additional seven were found to be traditionally certified in other content areas. Forty-nine 
participants were identified as having an alternative certification, with an additional 10 having 
an emergency certification. Participants indicated having achieved either a bachelor’s (n = 247), 
master’s (n = 78), or an Ed.D./Ph.D. (n = 1) for their highest degree earned. Respondents were 
primarily male (n = 229), spanning single (n = 197) and multi-teacher (n = 131) programs. Lastly, 
participants were able to select all races/ethnicities that constitute their being, resulting in 247 
self-identified as white, 56 as Native American, three as Hispanic, two as Black/African 
American, and one participant self-identified as Asian. 
 
Instrumentation 
The questionnaire was developed by Roberts and Dyer (2004) and modified by Saucier et al. 
(2010), Figland et al. (2019), and Coleman et al. (2020). The adopted instrument was further 
modified for this study to fit the needs of Oklahoma SBAE teachers. A panel of experts then 
reviewed the instrument for face and content validity. This panel included (a) one university 
faculty member of agricultural education, (b) the state FFA advisor, (c) one regional agricultural 
education program specialist, and (d) two school superintendents who were previously SBAE 
teachers.  
 
In total, the questionnaire included 56 items related to teaching technical agriculture across the 
eight content pathways identified by The Council (2023). Each of these items used two, 5-point 
Likert-type scales (1 = low agreement, 2 = somewhat agree, 3 = neutral, 4 = somewhat agree, 5 
= high agreement). The first scale asked participants to rate their current perceived ability of 
the item, while the second focused on the degree of perceived importance the item had to 
their job.  
 
Data Analysis 
All data were transcribed from the paper instruments to Microsoft Excel© by a single research 
assistant prior to data being imported and analyzed using SPSS version 28 and Microsoft 
Excel©. This study implemented the ranked discrepancy model (RDM) to assess current 
competencies of SBAE teachers across Oklahoma. This model was selected as an alternative to 
the Borich (1980) needs assessment model based off the findings of Narine and Harder (2021). 
Specifically, this method was selected because “instead of positive scores indicating a lack of 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i1.523


Rankin et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i1.523   86 
 

competence, the RDM provides a negative ranked discrepancy score RDS when training needs 
are greater (i.e., there are many individuals lacking sufficient ability and few individuals with an 
abundance of ability), which more clearly conveys that a problem exists that should be 
corrected” (Narine & Harder, 2021, p. 108). RDS scores have a maximum potential range from -
100 to 100 (Narine & Harder, 2021). This analysis requires the consideration of positive ranks 
(PR), negative ranks (NR), and tied ranks (TR) to fully understand the needs of the participants, 
ranging from those deemed experts to others who are novices, resulting in an RDS for each 
item (Narine & Harder, 2021). 
 

Findings 
 
After analysis and organization of the data, it was found that RDS scores ranged between -26.74 
and -2.73, with the maximum range of RDS being between -100 to 100, indicating a discrepancy 
between the perceived level of knowledge and relevance to the SBAE teachers’ career field. 
These discrepancies with negative scores indicated SBAE teachers have a higher perceived 
relevance to their career field and a lower perceived level of knowledge. Agricultural 
Biotechnology Systems was found to have the largest discrepancy among its items compared to 
other pathways at -20.52. Food Products & Processing Systems was found to have the smallest 
discrepancy among its items compared to the other pathways with a mean RDS of -6.99. Table 
1 displays the six technical agricultural topics related to the agribusiness (AB) systems career 
and content pathway. 
 
Table 1 
 
Ranked Discrepancy Scores for Teaching Agribusiness Systems Topics 
Item RDS 
Economics -26.44 
Recordkeeping Skills -24.62 
Issues in Global Agriculture -22.49 
Ag Business Operations -20.97 
Agricultural Sales and Marketing -18.84 
Financial Management -2.77 
Mean RDS -19.36 

 
The mean RDS for the agribusiness systems grouping of topics was found to be -19.36, which 
made it the second highest grouping of agricultural topics behind agricultural biotechnology 
systems. Economics was found to have the highest RDS (-26.44) among the six agribusiness 
systems technical agricultural topics. Table 2 displays the seven technical agricultural topics 
related to animal systems (AS). 
 
 
 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i1.523


Rankin et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i1.523   87 
 

Table 2 
 
Ranked Discrepancy Scores for Teaching Animal Systems Topics 

Item RDS 
Animal Diseases/Parasites -18.84 
Animal Nutrition -14.59 
Animal Production -12.16 
Animal Health -11.25 
Animal Reproduction -8.21 
Specialty Animal Production -6.38 
Show Animals (i.e., care, feeding, fitting, selection) -6.08 
Mean RDS -11.07 

 
The mean RDS for the animal systems grouping of topics was computed at -11.07. Animal 
diseases/parasites was identified as having the highest RDS (-18.84), while show animals (-6.08) 
was found to have the lowest discrepancy between Oklahoma SBAE teachers’ knowledge level 
and the perceived importance to their careers. Table 3 displays the seven technical agricultural 
topics related to the agricultural biotechnology systems (ABS) career and content pathway. 
 
Table 3 
 
Ranked Discrepancy Scores for Teaching Agricultural Biotechnology Systems Topics 

Item RDS 
Genetic Engineering -25.84 
Evolution of Biotechnology -22.80 
Preparing Solutions and Media -20.97 
Aseptic techniques -20.97 
Culturing Cells -18.84 
Bioethics, laws, and public perceptions -17.63 
Principles of Genetics -16.41 
Mean RDS -20.49 

 
The mean RDS for the topics related to agricultural biotechnology systems was -20.52. Genetic 
engineering was found to have the highest RDS (-25.84), whereas principles of genetics (-16.41) 
was found to have the lowest discrepancy between Oklahoma SBAE teachers’ knowledge level 
and the perceived importance to their careers. Table 4 displays the six technical agricultural 
topics related to the environmental service systems (ESS) career and content pathway. 
 
  

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i1.523


Rankin et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i1.523   88 
 

Table 4 
 
Ranked Discrepancy Scores for Teaching Environmental Service Systems Topics 

Item RDS 
Global Positioning Systems (GPS) -24.01 
Water & Wastewater Treatment -21.28 
Biofuels/Alternative Energy -20.36 
Surveying and Mapping -16.72 
Environmental Science -11.85 
Soil Science -2.74 
Mean RDS -16.16 

 
The mean RDS for the environmental service systems grouping of topics was -16.16. Global 
positioning systems (GPS) was identified as having the highest RDS (-24.01), while soil science  
(-2.74) was found to have the lowest discrepancy, which was tied for the lowest RDS, regardless 
of career and content pathway. Table 5 displays the seven technical agricultural topics related 
to the food products and processing systems (FPS). 
 
Table 5 
 
Ranked Discrepancy Scores for Teaching Food Products and Processing Systems Topics 

Item RDS 
Meat Science -10.33 
Standards and Regulations -9.12 
Food Preparation -7.60 
Food Science and Technology -7.60 
Quality Control -6.38 
Food Storage -5.17 
Food Safety and Sanitization -2.74 
Mean RDS -5.91 

 
For the food products and processing systems technical agricultural grouping of topics, the 
mean RDS was found to be -6.99. Meat science was identified as having the highest RDS  
(-10.33), whereas food safety and sanitization (-2.74) was tied for the lowest discrepancy, 
regardless of career and content pathway, between Oklahoma SBAE teachers’ knowledge level 
and the perceived importance to their careers. Table 6 displays the seven technical agricultural 
topics related to the natural resource systems (NRS) career and content pathway. 
 
  

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i1.523


Rankin et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i1.523   89 
 

Table 6 
 
Ranked Discrepancy Scores for Teaching Natural Resource Systems Topics 

Item RDS 
Entomology -21.28 
Precision Agriculture -17.02 
Renewable Energy Resources -17.02 
Aquaculture -16.72 
Forestry -15.20 
Wildlife Management -13.07 
Natural Resource Management -11.55 
Mean RDS -15.98 

 
The natural resource systems grouping of topics mean RDS was -15.98. The technical topic of 
entomology was identified as having the highest RDS (-21.28), while natural resource 
management (-11.55) was found to have the lowest discrepancy between Oklahoma SBAE 
teachers’ knowledge level and the perceived importance to their careers. Table 7 displays the 
10 technical agricultural topics related to plant systems (PS). 
 
Table 7 
 
Ranked Discrepancy Scores for Teaching Plant Systems Topics 

Item RDS 
Turfgrass Management -26.75 
Tissue Culturing -25.53 
Landscaping -19.45 
Plant Classification -17.93 
Floriculture -17.02 
Plant Propagation -14.89 
Plant Growth -12.77 
Agronomy -12.46 
Plant Reproduction -10.94 
Nursery/Greenhouse Operations -9.73 
Mean RDS -16.75 

 
The plant systems grouping of topics mean RDS was -16.74. Turfgrass management was 
identified as having the highest RDS (-26.75), which was the highest technical agricultural topic 
among all, regardless of career and content pathway. Whereas nursery/greenhouse operations 
(-9.73) were found to have the least discrepancy between Oklahoma SBAE teachers’ knowledge 
level and the perceived importance to their careers. Table 8 displays the six power, structural 
and technical (PST) systems agricultural topics. 
 
  

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i1.523


Rankin et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i1.523   90 
 

Table 8 
 
Ranked Discrepancy Scores for Teaching Power, Structural & Technical Systems Topics 

Item RDS 
Agricultural Mechanics Project Construction -21.28 
Electricity -16.41 
Agricultural Structures (i.e., building construction, concrete) -13.68 
Plumbing -7.90 
Arc Welding (i.e., SMAW, GMAW, GTAW) -5.47 
Oxyfuel Cutting/Welding -3.34 
Mean RDS -11.35 

 
The mean RDS for the power, structural and technical systems grouping of topics was -11.38. 
Agricultural mechanics project construction was identified as having the highest RDS (-21.28), 
while oxyfuel cutting/welding (-3.34) was found to have the lowest discrepancy between 
Oklahoma SBAE teachers’ knowledge level and the perceived importance to their careers. Table 
9 outlines all technical agricultural topics across the eight AFNR content pathways in ranked 
order.  
 
Table 9 
 
Ranked Discrepancy Scores for Teaching All Technical Agricultural Topics 

Item RD Scores Content Area 
Turfgrass Management -26.75 PS 
Economics -26.44 AB 
Genetic Engineering -25.84 ABS 
Tissue Culturing -25.53 PS 
Recordkeeping Skills -24.62 AB 
Global Positioning Systems (GPS) -24.01 ESS 
Evolution of Biotechnology -22.80 ABS 
Issues in Global Agriculture -22.49 AB 
Water & Wastewater Treatment -21.28 ESS 
Agricultural Mechanics Project Construction -21.28 PST 
Entomology -21.28 NRS 
Ag Business Operations -20.97 AB 
Preparing Solutions and Media -20.97 ABS 
Aseptic techniques -20.97 ABS 
Biofuels/Alternative Energy -20.36 ESS 
Landscaping -19.45 PS 
Agricultural Sales and Marketing -18.84 AB 
Animal Diseases/Parasites -18.84 AS 
Culturing Cells -18.84 ABS 
Plant Classification -17.93 PS 
Bioethics, laws, and public perceptions -17.63 ABS 
Floriculture -17.02 PS 
Precision Agriculture -17.02 NRS 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i1.523


Rankin et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i1.523   91 
 

Item RD Scores Content Area 
Renewable Energy Resources -17.02 NRS 
Surveying and Mapping -16.72 ESS 
Aquaculture -16.72 NRS 
Electricity -16.41 PST 
Principles of Genetics -16.41 ABS 
Forestry -15.20 NRS 
Plant Propagation -14.89 PS 
Animal Nutrition -14.59 AS 
Agricultural Structures (i.e., building construction, concrete) -13.68 PST 
Wildlife Management -13.07 NRS 
Plant Growth -12.77 PS 
Agronomy -12.46 PS 
Animal Production -12.16 AS 
Environmental Science -11.85 ESS 
Natural Resource Management -11.55 NRS 
Animal Health -11.25 AS 
Plant Reproduction -10.94 PS 
Meat Science -10.33 FPS 
Nursery/Greenhouse Operations -9.73 PS 
Standards and Regulations -9.12 FPS 
Animal Reproduction -8.21 AS 
Plumbing -7.90 PST 
Food Preparation -7.60 FPS 
Food Science and Technology -7.60 FPS 
Quality Control -6.38 FPS 
Specialty Animal Production -6.38 AS 
Show Animals (i.e., care, feeding, fitting, selection) -6.08 AS 
Arc Welding (i.e., SMAW, GMAW, GTAW) -5.47 PST 
Food Storage -5.17 FPS 
Oxyfuel Cutting/Welding -3.34 PST 
Financial Management -2.77 AB 
Food Safety and Sanitization -2.74 FPS 
Soil Science -2.74 ESS 
Mean RDS -14.83  

Note. AB = Agribusiness Systems. AS = Animal Systems. ABS = Agricultural Biotechnology 
Systems. ESS = Environmental Service Systems. FPS = Food Products and Processing Systems. 
NRS = Natural Resource Systems. PS = Plant Systems. PST = Power, Structural and Technical 
Systems. 
 
The final rank order of the technical agricultural content pathways, based upon the mean RDS, 
was (a) agricultural biotechnology systems (M = -20.52), (b) agribusiness systems (M = -19.36), 
(c) plant systems (M = -16.74), (d) environmental service systems (M = -16.16), (e) natural 
resource systems (M = -15.98), (f) power, structural & technical systems (M = -11.38), (g) animal 
systems (M = -11.07), and (h) food products & processing systems (M = -6.99).  
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i1.523


Rankin et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i1.523   92 
 

Conclusions, Implications, and Recommendations 
 
SBAE teachers in Oklahoma identified a need related to all 56 items associated with teaching 
technical agricultural topics across the eight content pathways, aligning with nationwide 
training needs related to classroom instruction (Albritton & Roberts, 2020; Layfield & Dobbins, 
2002; Smalley et al., 2019). The greatest need, based on RDS, was in agribusiness systems 
followed by plant systems and biotechnology systems. This aligns with the long-standing focus 
of SBAE programs in Oklahoma being related to animal science and agricultural mechanics. 
Agribusiness and biotechnology are newer focus areas as many programs expand their capacity 
with additional SBAE teachers (Rankin et al., 2024). This change in focus areas could be an 
implication of the change in technical and teaching needs in a post-COVID pandemic era. 
 
Overall, the statewide needs assessment provided an opportunity for the research team to 
evaluate the teacher human capital, by allowing SBAE teachers to provide input based on their 
personal decision making and needs within their classroom (Myung et al., 2013). Providing 
SBAE teachers with an opportunity to self-evaluate and reflect on their practice leads to 
increasing their overall career specific human capital and their teaching effectiveness (Eck et al., 
2021). In this case of this study, the needed career specific human capital relates to technical 
agriculture content knowledge to further student engagement in relevant content and 
curriculum (Barry et al., 2022; Eck et al., 2019; Smalley et al., 2019).  
 
Implications of agricultural biotechnology systems having the highest mean RDS could be that 
SBAE teachers in Oklahoma see a need to learn more about the career and content pathway, as 
they previously may not have had coursework or training. Additionally, with the rise in 
popularity of agriscience research supervised agricultural experiences (SAEs) in Oklahoma, SBAE 
teachers could potentially see a benefit to having agricultural biotechnology systems training 
for future SAE opportunities and course content offerings across other agriculturally related 
career and content pathways. 
 
Ultimately, the findings of this study should be used to guide professional development in 
Oklahoma, as these are the current needs associated with the majority (71.0%) of SBAE 
teachers in Oklahoma (Avalos, 2011). Focusing on teacher development (Myung et al., 2013) 
through the lens of the needs assessment helps to advance and improve participating teachers 
(Layfield & Dobbins, 2002). Furthermore, this purposeful professional development targeted at 
teacher’s needs, corresponds with the develop function of the teacher human capital 
framework (Myung et al., 2013). Additional research is needed to determine the preferred 
method of receiving professional development to best meet the needs of SBAE teachers across 
Oklahoma. It is recommended that this study be replicated in states where a needs assessment 
has not been conducted in the past five years. Conducting needs assessments provide SBAE 
supporters (i.e., SBAE teacher preparation faculty, state FFA and agricultural staff, and career 
and technical education directors) an opportunity to determine state specific needs and 
provide purposeful professional development, resulting in impactful research.  
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i1.523


Rankin et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i1.523   93 
 

It is also imperative to identify pre-service teacher needs as they journey through their post-
secondary coursework. It is recommended that a modified version of this study be 
implemented to identify perceived knowledge level of different technical agricultural topics in 
the eight AFNR content pathways and their perceived importance to their teaching career. 
Conducting this study semesterly can allow for a longitudinal view of different teaching cohorts 
and allow for faculty advisors to assist pre-service teachers in course selection as they proceed 
through their post-secondary educational programs. 
 

Acknowledgments 
 
This manuscript was previously presented at the 2024 National AAAE Conference in Manhattan, 
KS (https://shorturl.at/RT1cg).  
 
This study was conducted with the support of the USDA Hatch project (OKL03276). 
 
Author Contributions: K. R. L. Rankin III – conceptualization, methodology, investigation, 
writing – original draft, writing – review & editing, visualization; C. J. Eck – project 
administration, conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, writing – review & editing, 
resources; K. N. Marsh – writing – review & editing, investigation; B. M. Coleman - 
conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, writing – review & editing, resources; N. A. 
Smith – validation, writing – review & editing 
 

References 
 
Albritton, M. C., & Roberts, T. G. (2020). Agricultural technical skills needed by entry level 

agriculture teachers: A modified Delphi Study. Journal of Agricultural Education, 61(1), 
140–151. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2020.01140   

 
Avalos, B. (2011). Teacher professional development in teaching and teacher education over 

ten years. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(1), 10–20. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.08.007   

 
Barry, D., Warner, A. J., LaRose, S., Colclasure, B., & Osborne, E. (2022). Personal resilience of 

first-year, alternatively certified agriscience teachers. Advancements in Agricultural 
Development, 3(1), 103–114. https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i1.183   

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

to education. National Bureau of Economic Research.  
 
Borich, G. D. (1980). A needs assessment model for conducting follow-up studies. Journal of 

Teacher Education, 31(3), 39–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/002248718003100310   
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i1.523
https://shorturl.at/RT1cg
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2020.01140
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.08.007
https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i1.183
https://doi.org/10.1177/002248718003100310


Rankin et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i1.523   94 
 

Chetty, R., Friedman, J. N., & Rockoff, J. E., (2014). Measuring the impacts of teachers II: 
Teacher value-added and student outcomes in adulthood. American Economic Review, 
104(9), 2633–2679. http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/aer.104.9.2633    

 
Coleman, B. M., Bunch, J. C., & Thoron, A. C. (2020). Identifying agriscience teachers’ 

instructional practice professional development needs by certification type. Journal of 
Agricultural Education, 61(3), 86–100. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2020.03086   

 
The Council. (2023, January 24). AFNR standards. The National Council for Agricultural 

Education. https://thecouncil.ffa.org/afnr/   
 
DiBenedetto, C. A., Willis, V. C., & Barrick, R. K. (2018). Needs assessments for school-based 

agricultural education teachers: A review of literature. Journal of Agricultural Education, 
59(4), 52–71. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2018.04052    

 
Duncan, D. W., Ricketts, J. C., Peake, J. B., & Uesseler, J. (2006). Teacher preparation and in-

service needs of Georgia agriculture teachers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 47(2), 
24–35. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2006.0202  

 
Eck, C. J., Robinson, J. S., Cole, K. L., Terry Jr., R., & 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  

 
Eck, C. J., Robinson, J. S., Ramsey, J., & Cole, K. (2019). Identifying the characteristics of an 

effective agricultural education teacher: A national study. Journal of Agricultural 
Education, 60(4), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2019.04001   

 
Figland, W. L., Blackburn, J. J., Stair, K. S., & Smith, E. H. (2019). What do they need? 

Determining differences in the professional development needs of Louisiana agriculture 
teachers by years of teaching experience. Journal of Agricultural Education, 60(2), 173–
189. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2019.02173   

 
Layfield, K. D., & Dobbins, T. R. (2002). Inservice needs and perceived competencies of South 

Carolina agricultural educators. Journal of Agricultural Education, 43(4), 46–55. 
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2002.04046    

 
Miller,  L.  E.,  &  Smith,  K.  L.  (1983). Handling nonresponse issues. Journal of Extension, 21(5), 

45-50. https://archives.joe.org/joe/1983september/83-5-a7.pdf  
 
Myung, J., Martinez, K., & Nordstrum, L. (2013). A human capital framework for a stronger 

teacher workforce. advancing teaching: Improving learning. White Paper. Distributed by 
ERIC Clearinghouse. https://www.carnegiefoundation.org/wp-
content/uploads/2013/08/Human_Capital_whitepaper2.pdf   

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i1.523
http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/aer.104.9.2633
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2020.03086
https://thecouncil.ffa.org/afnr/
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2018.04052
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2006.0202
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2021.03292
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2019.04001
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2019.02173
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2002.04046
https://archives.joe.org/joe/1983september/83-5-a7.pdf
https://www.carnegiefoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Human_Capital_whitepaper2.pdf
https://www.carnegiefoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Human_Capital_whitepaper2.pdf


Rankin et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i1.523   95 
 

 
Narine, L. K., & Harder, A. (2021). Comparing the Borich model with the ranked discrepancy 

model for competency assessment: A novel approach. Advancements in Agricultural 
Development, 2(3), 96–111. https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i3.169   

 
Peake, J. B., Duncan, D. W., & Ricketts, J. C. (2007). Identifying technical content training needs 

of Georgia agriculture teachers. Journal of Career and Technical Education, 23(1), 44–54. 
https://doi.org/10.21061/jcte.v23i1.442  

 
Price, T. J., Manuel, E. O., Sewell, E. A, & Robinson, J. S. (2023). Preservice teachers’ perceptions 

of their ability to use the AET as a data management system. Journal of Southern 
Agricultural Education Research, 73, 1–16. http://jsaer.org/wp-
content/uploads/2023/11/73-Price-Manuel-Sewell-Robinson.pdf  

 
Rankin III, K. R. L., Eck, C. J., Marsh, K. N., Coleman, B. M., Smith, N. A. (2024, May 2023). The 

needs of Oklahoma school-based agricultural education teachers related to teaching 
agriculture, food and natural resources topics [Paper Presentation]. 2024 National AAAE 
Conference, Manhattan, KS. https://shorturl.at/RT1cg  

 
Roberts, T. G., & Dyer, J. E. (2004). Characteristics of effective agriculture teachers. Journal of 

Agricultural Education, 45(4), 82–95. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2004.04082   
 
Saucier, P. R., Tummons, J. D., Terry R., & Schumacher, L. G. (2010). Professional development 

inservice needs of Missouri agricultural educators [Paper presentation]. American 
Association for Agricultural Education Research Conference, Omaha, NE. 
http://aaaeonline.org/resources/Documents/National/AAAE_2010_Conference_Procee
dings.pdf  

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

Free Press. 
 
Smalley, S., Hainline, M., & Sands, K. (2019). School-based agricultural education teachers’ 

perceived professional development needs associated with teaching, classroom 
management, and technical agriculture. Journal of Agricultural Education, 60(2), 85–98. 
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2019.02085   

 
Smith, E. (2010). Sector–specific human capital and the distribution of earnings. Journal of 

Human Capital, 4(1), 35–61. https://doi.org/10.1086/655467   
 
Sorensen, T. J., Tarpley, R. S., & Warnick, B. K. (2010). In-service needs of Utah agriculture 

teachers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 51(3), 1–11. 
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2010.03001  

 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i1.523
https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i3.169
https://doi.org/10.21061/jcte.v23i1.442
http://jsaer.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/73-Price-Manuel-Sewell-Robinson.pdf
http://jsaer.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/73-Price-Manuel-Sewell-Robinson.pdf
https://shorturl.at/RT1cg
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2004.04082
http://aaaeonline.org/resources/Documents/National/AAAE_2010_Conference_Proceedings.pdf
http://aaaeonline.org/resources/Documents/National/AAAE_2010_Conference_Proceedings.pdf
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2019.02085
https://doi.org/10.1086/655467
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2010.03001


Rankin et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i1.523   96 
 

Yopp, A. M., Edgar, D., & Croom, D. B. (2020). Technical in-service needs of agriculture teachers 
in Georgia by career pathway. Journal of Agricultural Education, 61(2), 1–19. 
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2020.02001  

 
 
© 2025 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.v6i1.523
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2020.02001

