































   Advancements in Agricultural Development 
  Volume 6, Issue 3, 2025 
  agdevresearch.org 

1. Catherine A. DiBenedetto, Associate Professor, Clemson University, 251 McAdams Hall, Clemson, SC 29634, 
cdibene@clemson.edu,   https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1802-0854 

2. Natalie K. Ferand, Assistant Professor, Virginia Tech, 144K Smyth Hall, Blacksburg, VA 24061, nferand@vt.edu,  

 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9505-1764  
3. Richie Roberts, Professor and Chair, New Mexico State University, MSC 3501, Las Cruces, NM 88003-8003, 

roberts3@nmsu.edu,  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2993-4945  
4. Aaron J. McKim, Associate Professor, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, amckim@msu.edu,  

 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0600-3611   
5. Rustie L. Robison, Graduate Research Assistant, Clemson University, 153 McAdams Hall, Clemson, SC 29634, 

rustier@clemson.edu,  https://orcid.org/0009-0000-8164-3857   
6. Logan Dale, Graduate Research Assistant, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803, ldale4@lsu.edu, 

 https://orcid.org/0009-0005-0965-2181  
7. Brian E. Myers, Professor and Chair, University of Florida, 305 Rolfs Hall, Gainesville, FL 32611, bmyers@ufl.edu,  

 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2593-9159  
 

27 

 

Agriscience Teachers Beliefs about STEM Illumination after an 
Immersive Professional Development Experience: A Q Sort 

Study 
 

C. A. DiBenedetto1, N. K. Ferand2, R. Roberts3, A. J. McKim4, R. L. Robison5, L. Dale6, B. E. Myers7 

 
 

Article History 
Received: To May 14, 2025 
Accepted: July 29, 2025 
Published: August 26, 2025 
 
 
Keywords 
behavioral intention; experiential 
learning; teacher self-efficacy; SDG 4: 
Quality Education   

Abstract 
This study examined agriscience teachers’ beliefs regarding how a 
professional development (PD) experience illuminated the importance of 
integrating STEM into the floriculture curriculum. Sixteen teachers from 
12 states were selected through a competitive application process to 
participate in a USDA-NIFA funded PD program. The PD included five 
months of virtual sessions and a 10-day domestic travel experience, 
exposing participants to the floral distribution channel, site visits with 
industry professionals, and hands-on learning with scientists. Q 
methodology was used to explore participants’ beliefs. Teachers sorted 
36 statements, developed using Ajzen’s (1991) Theory of Planned 
Behavior, into a quasi-normal distribution. Factor analysis revealed three 
belief types: (a) STEM Advocates, (b) STEM Illuminators, and (c) 
Illumination Attempters. STEM Advocates emphasized the importance of 
STEM for critical thinking and student engagement. STEM Illuminators 
valued technical STEM content knowledge gained through PD. 
Illumination Attempters acknowledged STEM’s importance but reported 
a need for additional support and training. Findings suggest immersive, 
content-specific PD can positively influence teachers’ self-efficacy and 
behavioral intentions. We recommend additional support tailored to 
teacher needs and use of Q methodology to explore how teacher beliefs 
influence instructional behaviors. 

 

mailto:cdibene@clemson.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1802-0854
mailto:nferand@vt.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9505-1764
mailto:roberts3@nmsu.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2993-4945
mailto:amckim@msu.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0600-3611
mailto:rustier@clemson.edu
https://orcid.org/0009-0000-8164-3857
mailto:ldale4@lsu.edu
https://orcid.org/0009-0005-0965-2181
mailto:bmyers@ufl.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2593-9159


DiBenedetto et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 
 

 
 

 
https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i3.607   28 

Introduction and Problem Statement 
 
A significant gap has been reported regarding the number of students entering and remaining 
in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM; Akcan et al., 2023). 
There is a need for more purposeful and direct connections between content, educators, and 
students in School-Based Agricultural Education (SBAE; Roberts et al., 2020). The need for 
seamless integration of STEM content and technical agricultural concepts has been noted as 
particularly acute within floriculture curricula (Ferand, Bommidi, et al., 2025; Ferand, 
DiBenedetto, et al., 2022, 2023). STEM integration has been defined as the merger of 
disciplines to enhance students’ knowledge, understanding, and interest in STEM (Wang & 
Knobloch, 2022). Despite this notion, the effective transfer of STEM knowledge and skills from 
agriscience teachers to students is contingent on educators being proficient in the STEM subject 
matter as well as possessing a comprehensive understanding of industry practices (Wang & 
Knobloch, 2022).  
 
Such deficiencies in the synthesis of STEM and agricultural content have been addressed 
through teacher professional development (PD) programs. When exposed to a PD experience 
designed to enhance agriscience teachers’ understanding of illuminating STEM concepts in 
floriculture, Ferand et al. (2020) reported that teachers had marked increases in their science 
teaching efficacy beliefs and their science teaching outcomes expectancy scores. However, 
there were no statistically significant differences among teachers’ scores on these measures 
using pre-, post-, and post-post assessment comparisons. As such, a key implication from the 
previous findings was the need for a greater understanding of designing effective PD to 
enhance agriscience teachers’ self-efficacy to integrate STEM concepts when teaching 
floriculture (Ferand, Bommidi, et al., 2025; Ferand, DiBenedetto, et al., 2020). This study builds 
upon that implication by examining a different immersive PD program aimed at supporting 
STEM integration in floriculture, using similar outcome measures to evaluate changes in teacher 
efficacy. 
 

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework 
 
We examined this phenomenon using Ajzen’s (1991, 2006) theory of planned behavior (TPB). 
Initially proposed by Ajzen (1985), TPB integrates central components of self-efficacy, 
motivation to complete a task, and control. TPB has suggested that an individual’s engagement 
in a particular behavior is driven by their beliefs and intentions toward an action. These beliefs 
are categorized into three distinct dimensions: (a) behavioral beliefs (attitudes), (b) normative 
beliefs (subjective or social norms), and (c) control beliefs (perceived behavioral control). 
Behavioral beliefs represent an individual’s perceptions of the potential positive or negative 
outcomes of executing a behavior. Such beliefs significantly shape an individual’s attitude 
toward a related action (Ajzen, 2006). 
 
On the other hand, normative beliefs pertain to the perceived social pressures influencing the 
decision to engage in a behavior (Ajzen, 1991). Lastly, control beliefs represent the perceived 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i3.607


DiBenedetto et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 
 

 
 

 
https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i3.607   29 

ease associated with performing the behavior. As a result, these belief systems serve as 
antecedents to individuals’ planned behaviors. In this investigation, each of the beliefs outlined 
by Ajzen (1991, 2006) structured how we analyzed the participants’ views of the PD experience.  
 
Teachers' knowledge bases are challenging to quantify and conceptualize (Ferguson et al., 
2022; Shulman, 1987). McKim et al. (2017) theorized agriscience teachers can be categorized 
based on their levels of declarative knowledge and core STEM ideas with procedural 
agricultural content and posed only three categories of teachers: Vocational Purist, Illumination 
Attempter, and Science Illuminator. When juxtaposed with STEM integration, science 
illumination enables teachers to highlight core ideas and technical content seamlessly. 
Integration of STEM ideas is broadly divided into two groups: those that attempt illumination 
and those that are illuminators of science (McKim et al., 2017). Both of these groups are 
motivated to integrate science into the SBAE classroom, but the difference is noted in 
proficiency of science knowledge (McKim et al., 2017). Science Illuminators are proficient in 
science knowledge and are motivated to illuminate science in the SBAE curriculum. Illumination 
Attempters may be deficient in science knowledge but are motivated to illuminate science in 
the SBAE curriculum. Based on the expectancy-value motivational theory (Wigfield, 1994) , a 
third teacher type is noted, the vocational purists; these teachers lack competence to illuminate 
science, are not motivated to integrate science into the SBAE curriculum and do not illuminate 
science and its link with society (McKim et al., 2017). As teachers are the access point through 
which students engage with content, and to be efficient STEM illuminators, teachers must have 
equal levels of STEM content knowledge and awareness of technical agriculture (McKim et al., 
2017). Additionally, previous studies have also shown that students who engage in STEM 
illuminated content score higher on both technical agricultural and core science concepts 
(Ferand et al., 2020) and have comparable scores to their peers who learn STEM concepts in a 
traditional core-focused class (Nolin & Parr, 2013).  
 
It has been documented the lower a teacher’s perceived self-efficacy in a subject, the less time 
students will receive instruction on the topic (Ramey-Gassert & Shroyer, 1992). Student 
achievement of expected learning outcomes is also directly related to the self-efficacy of the 
teachers' beliefs (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). Additionally, teachers’ level of content 
knowledge has been shown to increase student STEM learning (National Research Council, 
2013). Teachers have also inaccurately perceived their level of STEM content knowledge 
(Hendrix et al., 2020; Scales et al., 2009). If teachers are to teach a specific topic or method in 
their classrooms, they should have intentional and purposeful professional development 
covering these concepts (Guskey, 1995). Furthermore, teachers should have opportunities for 
experiential learning to be “in the shoes” of their students and engage with the content, or 
better yet, plan the content, from the perspective of their students (Jeanpierre et al., 2005).  
 
When operationalized for this study, behavioral beliefs and attitudes, were viewed as teacher 
perceptions of STEM illumination. Normative beliefs, or subjective or social norms, were 
operationalized as perceived support of illumination from stakeholder groups. Lastly, control 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i3.607


DiBenedetto et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 
 

 
 

 
https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i3.607   30 

beliefs, or perceived behavioral control, were seen as possible barriers or consequences of 
STEM illumination.  

Purpose 
 
A better understanding of how agriscience teachers approach the implementation of STEM 
concepts after an immersive PD experience may inform future decisions for PD program design. 
This study examined participants’ beliefs regarding how a PD experience illuminated the 
importance of integrating STEM when teaching floriculture for agriscience teachers. One 
research question guided this study: What patterns emerge about agriscience teachers’ beliefs 
on integrating STEM into the floriculture curriculum after a PD experience? 
 

Methods 
 
We created a PD experience for agriscience teachers that focused on enhancing their STEM 
knowledge and skills in floriculture. This PD experience used a combination of virtual and in-
person exploration of the floriculture industry. Despite this method, little was known about 
whether the participants believed this PD experience was an approach that enhanced their 
integration of STEM when teaching floriculture. 
 
The PD experience examined in this study was funded by the Immersive Professional 
Development Experiences for Agriscience Teachers to Explore the Floriculture Industry project 
award no. 2023-67037-39955, from the U.S Department of Agriculture’s National Institute of 
Food and Agriculture . In total, 16 agriscience teachers from across the U.S. were selected using 
a competitive application process. The participants represented 12 unique states, all teaching 
floriculture or horticulture-related courses. For the first five months, the participants engaged 
in monthly virtual sessions to help expand their knowledge about STEM concepts in the 
floriculture industry. Example session topics included the floral distribution channel, the 
international floriculture market, and the wholesale cut flower industry. STEM principles were 
illuminated throughout each session. Then, in July 2024, the participants engaged in a 10-day 
domestic travel experience, including site visits in South Carolina, Kentucky, and Florida. During 
the domestic travel experience, the participants were exposed to multiple phases of the floral 
distribution channel, such as the importing of flowers and the distribution process at the Miami 
International Airport. Further, the participants conducted a site visit to a domestic fresh-cut 
flower grower in Kentucky. Finally, the agriscience teachers had hands-on experiences with 
scientists at Clemson University and FloraLife Inc. research facility while in South Carolina to 
help them understand ways to address disease and post-harvest-related practices. Throughout 
each site visit, we highlighted relevant STEM concepts and required participants to reflect on 
their growth in STEM knowledge at the end of each day.  
 
In this study, we utilized Q methodology (Brown, 1980). Q methodology aims to uncover 
participants’ comprehensive patterns of thought (Brown, 1980). To achieve this, researchers 
correlate participants’ sorted statements using factor analysis to reduce the data into factor 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i3.607


DiBenedetto et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 
 

 
 

 
https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i3.607   31 

arrays. These arrays are then interpreted using naturalistic methods to reveal different 
viewpoints on a given phenomenon (Watts & Stenner, 2013).  
 
A fundamental principle of Q methodology is concourse theory, which reflects the full range of 
participants’ opinions expressed through statements (Watts & Stenner, 2013). To build this 
concourse, we analyzed written reflective statements collected from previous cohorts of this 
PD experience and relevant academic literature. This process resulted in 189 initial statements. 
Using Ajzen’s (1991) TPB, we then categorized the statements into three belief systems: (a) 
behavioral, (b) normative, and (c) control, which helped us sample 36 statements to use for this 
study, creating a Q-Set of 36 statements. Data were collected from the participants (N =16) in 
July 2024 on the final evening of a domestic travel PD experience. The agriscience teachers 
sorted the 36 sampled statements onto a quasi-normal distribution curve, ranging from -4 to 
+4. The full Q-Set of statements can be accessed as an instrument appendix for this article.  
 

Findings 
 
Using PQ Method® version 2.35 (Schmolck, 2014), three statistical analyses were conducted: (a) 
correlation, (b) principal components factor analysis, and (c) factor score calculations. A 
Varimax rotation was applied to obtain a simple structure, and we chose a three-factor solution 
with a significance threshold of .42. This solution accounted for all 16 agriscience teachers and 
explained 67% of the total variance, with minimal correlations between factors. To interpret 
the factors, we followed Mauldin’s (2012) guidelines, examining array positions, distinctive and 
consensus statements, factor loadings, teachers’ personal and professional backgrounds, as 
well as their written reflections after the sorting process. Table 1 provides a factor matrix with 
participants’ personal and professional characteristics. 
 
  

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i3.607


DiBenedetto et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 
 

 
 

 
https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i3.607   32 

Table 1  
 
Factor Matrix with Participants’ Personal and Professional Characteristics 

P Number/ 
Gender Age 

Years 
Teaching Ethnicity 

Factor Loadings 
1 2 3 

1-female 39 19 White  0.64a 0.33 0.08 

2-female 40 14 White 0.81a 0.27 0.01 
3-female 36 12 White 0.80a 0.32 0.24 
4-male 29 7 Black 0.82a 0.04 0.31 
5-female 26 4 White 0.50a 0.03 0.38 
6-male 28 5 White 0.79a -0.01 0.34 
7-female 65 18 White 0.84a 0.12 0.02 
8-female 63 40 White 0.87a 0.13 0.27 
9-male 29 1 White 0.73a 0.26 0.23 
10-male 50 28 White 0.73a  0.17   0.26 
11-female 32 7 White 0.65a  0.34   0.11 
12-female  44 14 Native American 0.38 0.66b 0.23 
13-female 41 11 White -0.06 0.91b 0.03 
14-female 42 17 White 0.32 0.09 0.54c 
15-female 40 6 White -0.03 0.16 0.88c 
16-female 34 11 White 0.26 -0.07 0.49c 

Note. P was the identifier for each participant. aIndicated a defining sort for Factor 1. bIndicated 
a defining sort for Factor 2. cIndicated a defining sort for Factor 3. 
 
Our analysis produced three factors: (a) STEM Advocates, (b) STEM Illuminators, and (c) 
Illumination Attempters. The factors represent the agriscience teachers’ beliefs about how their 
PD experience emphasized the importance of integrating STEM when teaching floriculture. In 
our descriptions of each factor, we provided data notations that reflected the array position, z-
score, and theoretical category from Ajzen’s (1991) TPB that the statement represented. Table 
2 displays each item number from the Q-Set (see Appendix A), as well as the z-score and array 
position for each of the three factors. Finally, the theoretical category as aligned with the 
theoretical framework for each statement is also presented. 
 
  

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i3.607


DiBenedetto et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 
 

 
 

 
https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i3.607   33 

Table 2 
 
Z-Scores and Array Positions of Each Statement By Factor and Theoretical Category 

Item Number  
Array 

Pos (F1) Z (F1) 
Array 

Pos (F2) Z (F2) 
Array 

Pos (F3) Z (F3) 
Theoretical 

Category 
 1 4 1.63 3 1.27 4 1.68 BB 
 2 3 1.27 3 1.27 2 0.79 BB 
 3 -4 -1.63 -3 -1.53 2 0.87 BB 
 4 -2 -1.12 -3 -1.45 -3 -1.38 BB 
 5 -1 -0.31 0 -0.13 1 0.64 BB 
 6 3 1.58 -2 -0.88 3 1.1 BB 
 7 4 1.71 -2 -0.88 2 1.05 BB 
 8 3 1.16 -1 -0.52 1 0.58 BB 
 9 2 0.72 -2 -0.57 -1 -0.28 BB 
 10 1 0.35 4 1.75 1 0.6 BB 
 11 0 0.07 3 1.27 0 0.03 BB 
 12 0 0.18 3 1.27 0 0.06 BB 
 13 2 0.84 0 0 -2 -1.03 NB 
 14 1 0.55 0 0 -1 -0.64 NB 
 15 2 0.77 4 1.75 4 1.61 NB 
 16 0 0.03 1 0.39 -3 -1.04 NB 
 17 1 0.51 2 1.05 -4 -1.95 NB 
 18 -2 -0.65 -3 -1.45 -2 -0.97 NB 
 19 -3 -1.51 -2 -0.57 -3 -1.44 NB 
 20 -2 -1.09 -1 -0.26 2 1.04 NB 
 21 0 -0.07 1 0.39 -1 -0.65 NB 
 22 -1 -0.18 1 0.39 -1 -0.2 NB 
 23 -1 -0.39 2 0.7 -2 -0.73 NB 
 24 -1 -0.34 1 0.39 -1 -0.45 NB 
 25 -4 -1.83 -4 -1.93 0 0.24 CB 
 26 -3 -1.24 -4 -1.84 -4 -1.77 CB 
 27 -2 -0.79 0 0.22 3 1.11 CB 
 28 3 1.35 0 0.26 3 1.2 CB 
 29 0 -0.13 0 -0.09 -2 -0.98 CB 
 30 -3 -1.47 2 0.61 -3 -1.45 CB 
 31 -1 -0.64 -3 -1.27 3 1.32 CB 
 32 2 0.97 -2 -0.61 0 0.21 CB 
 33 1 0.64 -1 -0.22 1 0.41 CB 
 34 0 0.01 1 0.35 1 0.41 CB 
 35 1 0.41 -1 -0.31 0 -0.19 CB 
 36 -3 -1.35 2 1.14 0 0.24 CB 

Note. BB = Behavioral Beliefs; NB = Normative Beliefs; CB = Control Beliefs 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i3.607


DiBenedetto et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 
 

 
 

 
https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i3.607   34 

Factor 1: STEM Advocates  
The first factor, STEM Advocates, represented 11 agriscience teachers’ views about how the PD 
influenced their beliefs about integrating STEM in the floriculture curriculum. It should be noted 
that all four male participants loaded significantly, purely because of this factor. Further, this 
factor was overwhelmingly influenced by individuals’ behavioral beliefs. Overall, teachers 
displayed a philosophy to engage students, which was further supported through the program 
as the PD made them recognize that integrating STEM into floriculture content helps learners 
gain crucial critical thinking skills (Array Position = +3; Z = 1.58; Behavioral Belief). The STEM 
Advocates expressed that the PD experience encouraged them to champion the critical role of 
STEM when teaching floriculture, and that they saw the benefits in integrating STEM into the 
SBAE classroom. For example, the participants reported that the PD helped them understand 
how integrating STEM into the floriculture content may help future generations solve global 
issues and problems (Array Position = +4; z = 1.62; Behavioral Belief) while also assisting 
students to gain a better understanding of the world (Array Position = +3; z = 1.26; Behavioral 
Belief) and gain critical thinking skills that can prepare them for the future (Array Position = +3; 
z = 1.16; Behavioral Belief).  
 
As a result of the PD experience, the STEM Advocates also maintained that illuminating STEM 
concepts in the floriculture curriculum could positively affect the relationship between 
educators and learners because the learning environment could become more engaging (Array 
Position = +4; z = 1.71; Behavioral Belief). Related to this, STEM Advocates were differentiated 
from other groups by agreeing that the PD helped them understand that leaders whose 
opinions they value will encourage them to improve their knowledge and skills in STEM 
integration to improve their teaching of floriculture content (Array Position = +1; Z = 0.55; 
Normative Belief). 
 
Factor 2: STEM Illuminators 
In the second factor, the STEM Illuminators expressed that the PD experience reinforced their 
belief that agriscience teachers needed to enhance their knowledge and skills in STEM to 
effectively teach floriculture in SBAE (Array Position = +4; z = 1.75; Normative Belief). It should 
be noted that both participants who loaded significantly and purely on this factor were female 
and had more than ten years of teaching experience. In particular, the STEM Illuminators 
revealed that the PD experience encouraged them to gain more technical knowledge in 
technology (Array Position = +4; z = 1.75; Behavioral Belief), engineering (Array Position = +3; z 
= 1.269; Behavioral Belief), and mathematics (Array Position = +3; z = 1.26; Behavioral Belief). 
Through this enhanced technical knowledge, the agriscience teachers perceived they could 
integrate STEM into the floriculture content more effectively.  
 
The STEM Illuminators did not see many major barrier in integrating STEM into their curriculum 
as the PD brought to their attention that although financial challenges exist, STEM integration is 
still achievable (Array Position = +2; Z = 0.61; Control Belief); PD made them aware that 
integrating STEM concepts into floriculture is not as difficult as expected because students can 
be supported using simple strategies (Array Position = 0; Z = 0.22; Control Belief); and PD 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i3.607


DiBenedetto et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 
 

 
 

 
https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i3.607   35 

helped them recognize that integrating STEM into floriculture is easier because many concepts 
fit naturally into the curriculum (Array Position = 0; Z = 0.26; Control Belief).  
 
Factor 3: Illumination Attempters 
The final factor, Illumination Attempters, reflected the belief that integrating STEM into the 
floriculture curriculum should be encouraged because it could positively influence students, but 
not as enthusiastically as through the STEM Advocates factor. However, the PD experience 
helped these participants understand they needed more advanced knowledge and skills and 
greater support to achieve such aims. Of note, the three sorters who loaded significantly and 
purely on the final factor had considerable variability in teaching experience, ranging from six to 
17 years of teaching experience.  
 
The Illumination Attempters perceived that integrating STEM into floriculture content may help 
future generations solve global issues and problems (Array Position = +4; z = 1.675; Behavioral 
Belief) as well as gain key critical thinking skills (Array Position = +3; z = 1.102; Behavioral 
Belief). Despite this, the Illumination Attempters also reported that integrating STEM into 
floriculture was difficult because many learners are uncomfortable applying the concepts in the 
real world (Array Position = +3; z = 1.195: Control Beliefs). As a result, the Illumination 
Attempters believed they needed additional training and support to improve their STEM 
knowledge and skills to effectively teach floriculture (Array Position = +4; z = 1.611; Normative 
Belief). Illuminator Attempters see the value of STEM illumination; however, the PD did not 
increase their perception that integrating STEM is socially expected or valued in their 
environment (Array Position = –1 to –4 across multiple items; Normative Beliefs); and the PD 
made them realize that the people they work with, whose opinions matter to them, are unlikely 
to encourage STEM integration (Array Position = –2; Z = –1.03; Normative Belief).  
 

Conclusions, Discussion, and Recommendations 
 
Three factors emerged regarding agriscience teachers’ beliefs on integrating STEM into the 
floriculture curriculum after a professional development (PD) experience: (a) STEM Advocates, 
(b) STEM Illuminators, and (c) Illumination Attempters. The majority (n = 11) identified as STEM 
Advocates, suggesting the PD positively influenced their behavioral beliefs (Ajzen, 1991) and 
self-efficacy to integrate STEM into floriculture content. These participants supported hands-
on, engaging instruction but acknowledged gaps in their own STEM or technical agricultural 
knowledge. However, they reported feeling supported by stakeholders such as mentors, 
colleagues, and students, which reinforced their intent to continue seeking content-specific PD. 
 
Originally McKim et al. (2017) presented only three categories of teachers related to science 
illumination: Vocational Purists, Science Illuminators, and Illumination Attempters. As 
Vocational Purists do not see the benefit of integrating science, and solely teach technical 
agricultural content, none of the participants in the PD program identified as a Vocational 
Purist. Interestingly, a fourth group, STEM Advocates, emerged from our research that was not 
proposed by McKim et al. (2017). Based on our findings, we categorized the majority of 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i3.607


DiBenedetto et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 
 

 
 

 
https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i3.607   36 

participants in this fourth group. STEM Advocates are differentiated by their self-efficacy or 
their ability to illuminate, which was not considered by McKim et al. (2017) in their original 
model because only science knowledge and motivation were considered as factors. We 
recommend with the discovery of a fourth group more research is needed to develop an 
updated philosophical model for science illumination to additionally categorize agriscience 
teachers as STEM Advocates. Future research should also focus on developing teachers’ self-
efficacy along with their science and agricultural content knowledge. 
 
We recommend encouraging STEM Advocates to persist in integrating STEM, as it enhances 
student engagement and fosters critical thinking and problem-solving. As Ajzen (1991) and 
McKim et al. (2017) indicated, these individuals demonstrate strong intentions to implement 
change. We further recommend expanding McKim et al.'s (2017) typology to include a 
distinction between teachers who lack content knowledge but perceive high stakeholder 
support versus those who do not. Teachers may believe in their capacity, but their intention 
levels are likely to wane having perceived their environment as unsupportive. 
 
Two mid-career participants, identified as STEM Illuminators, perceived the PD improved their 
STEM teaching by enhancing their content knowledge in technology, engineering, and 
mathematics. Consistent with Wang and Knobloch (2022), educators’ content proficiency and 
understanding of industry practices are critical for effective STEM instruction. These teachers 
felt confident in their ability to adapt materials and noted support from their school 
communities. They viewed STEM illumination as feasible and beneficial without requiring 
significant additional effort. Their belief in the value of teaching STEM through agriculture 
distinguished them from vocational purists. 
 
Three participants were categorized as Illumination Attempters. Although they believed in the 
value of integrating STEM to promote student success and global awareness, they expressed a 
clear need for additional training and support. Unlike STEM Advocates, they felt a lack of 
stakeholder support or awareness of STEM integration efforts. These teachers expressed 
realistic concerns about their knowledge depth and students’ challenges in applying STEM 
concepts. As noted by Hendrix et al. (2020) and Scales et al. (2009), teachers often struggle to 
accurately assess their own content mastery. 
 
We recommend that future PD target specific technical and pedagogical competencies to 
increase both STEM Illuminators and Illumination Attempters confidence and ability to teach 
floriculture through a STEM lens. Though Illumination Attempters could be misinterpreted as 
less optimistic, they may actually offer a more grounded view of what is needed to sustain 
meaningful STEM integration. 
 
The PD experience successfully connected content, educators, and students (Roberts et al., 
2020). We recommend Q methodology (Brown, 1980) as a valuable tool for uncovering 
nuanced belief patterns in similar contexts. Future research should explore students’ 
perspectives on STEM integration in agriscience, which may further inform teacher support 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i3.607


DiBenedetto et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 
 

 
 

 
https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i3.607   37 

strategies (Ajzen, 1991). Additionally, studies that examine teaching practices—not just 
beliefs—can help determine whether PD influences actual classroom implementation. While 
STEM Advocates and Illumination Attempters agreed on the importance of STEM, their 
perceived behavioral control varied, suggesting that future research should investigate the link 
between belief, support, and practice. 
 

Acknowledgments 
 
Funding Information: This work is supported by The Immersive Professional Development 
Experiences for Agriscience Teachers to Explore the Floriculture Industry, project award no. 
2023-67037-39955, from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Institute of Food and 
Agriculture and by the American Floral Endowment Educational Grant Program. Any opinions, 
findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the 
author(s) and should not be construed to represent any official USDA or U.S. Government 
determination or policy. 
 
Conflict of interest: There are no conflicts of interest. 
 
Previous Dissemination: This manuscript is based on data published in the paper proceedings 
of the 2025 American Association of Agricultural Education Southern Region Conference.  
 
DiBenedetto, C. A., Ferand, N. K, Roberts, R., Dale, L, Robison, R. L. , & McKim, A. (2025, 

February). Agriscience Teachers’ Beliefs about a Professional Development Experience 
focused on Enhancing their Illumination of STEM when Teaching Floriculture: A Q Sort 
Study. Proceedings of the Southern Region meeting of the American Association for 
Agricultural Education Conference, Irving, Texas, USA. 

 
Artificial Intelligence: Artificial intelligence was not used in this work. 
 
Author Contribution Statement: C. A. DiBenedetto -  Funding Acquisition, Project 
Administration, Supervision, Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing – Original Draft 
Preparation and Review and Editing,  N. K. Ferand- Supervision, Conceptualization, 
Investigation, Formal Analysis, Writing – Original Draft Preparation and Review and Editing, R. 
Roberts - Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Formal Analysis, Writing – Original 
Draft Preparation, Resources, Writing – Review and Editing, A. J. McKim - Investigation, Writing 
– Original Draft Preparation and Review and Editing, R. L. Robison - Investigation, Writing – 
Original Draft Preparation and Review and Editing, L. Dale - Writing – Original Draft Preparation, 
B. E. Myers - Writing – Review and Editing. 
 
 
 
 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i3.607


DiBenedetto et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 
 

 
 

 
https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i3.607   38 

References 
 
Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl, & J. 

Beckmann (Eds.), Action control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 11-39). Springer. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-69746-3_2  

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision 
Processes, 50(1), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T  

Ajzen, I. (2006). Behavioral interventions based on the theory of planned behavior. University of 
Massachusetts System. http://www.people.umass.edu/aizen/pdf/tpb.intervention.pdf 

Akcan, A. T., Yıldırım, B., Karataş, A. R., & Yılmaz, M. (2023). Teachers’ views on the effect of 
STEM education on the labor market. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1–1. 
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1184730 

Brown, S. R. (1980). Political subjectivity: Applications of Q methodology in political science. Yale 
University Press. 

Ferand, N. K., Bommidi, J. S., Somers, R., DiBenedetto, C. A., & Myers, B. E. (2025). Agriscience 
teachers’ perceptions of integrating science within school-based plant science curricula. 
NACTA Journal, 68(1), 273-282. https://doi.org/10.56103/nactaj.v68i1.173  

 Ferand, N. K., DiBenedetto, C. A., Myers, B. E., & Barry, D. M. (2022). Implications of science 
illumination on student content knowledge of technical floriculture and core scientific 
ideas. Journal of Agricultural Education, 63(2), 165–181. 
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2022.02169 

Ferand, N. K., DiBenedetto, C. A., Myers, B. E., & Barry, D. M. (2023). Implications of science 
illumination on student motivation to learn science in agriculture. Journal of Career and 
Technical Education Research, 48(2), 60–79. https://doi.org/10.5328/cter48.2.60  

 Ferand, N. K., DiBenedetto, C. A., Thoron, A. C., & Myers, B. E. (2020). Agriscience teacher 
professional development focused on teaching STEM principles in the floriculture 
curriculum. Journal of Agricultural Education, 61(4), 189–202. 
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2020.04189 

Ferguson, L. E., Bråten, I., Skibsted Jensen, M., & Andreassen, U. R. (2022). A longitudinal mixed 
methods study of Norwegian preservice teachers’ beliefs about sources of teaching 
knowledge and motivation to learn from theory and practice. Journal of Teacher 
Education, 74(1), 55–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224871221105813 

Guskey, T. R. (1995). Professional development in education: In search of the optimal mix. In T. 
R. Guskey & M. Huberman (Eds.), Professional development in education: New 
paradigms and practices (pp. 114–131). Teachers College Press. 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i3.607
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-69746-3_2
https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
http://www.people.umass.edu/aizen/pdf/tpb.intervention.pdf
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1184730
https://doi.org/10.56103/nactaj.v68i1.173
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2022.02169
https://doi.org/10.5328/cter48.2.60
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2020.04189
https://doi.org/10.1177/00224871221105813


DiBenedetto et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 
 

 
 

 
https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i3.607   39 

Hendrix, R., Swortzel, K., Greenhaw, L., Jagger, C., & Walker, R. (2020). Agricultural educators’ 
levels of personal teaching efficacy towards STEM education. Paper Presented at the 
47th Annual American Association for Agricultural Education Conference, 669–981. 
http://aaaeonline.org/resources/Documents/National/2020Meeting/2020AAAEPaperPr
oceedings.pdf 

Jeanpierre, B., Oberhauser, K., & Freeman, C. (2005). Characteristics of professional 
development that effect change in secondary science teachers' classroom practices. 
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(6), 668–690. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20069  

Mauldin, C. (2012). Overview of the Q interpretation process. Media Marketing Inc. 

McKim, A., Velez, J. J., Lambert, M. D., & Balschweid, M. A. (2017). A philosophical review of 
science and society within agricultural education. Journal of Agricultural Education, 
58(2), 98–110. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2017.02098 

National Research Council. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. The 
National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18290 

Nolin, J. B., & Parr, B. (2013). Utilization of a high stakes high school graduation exam to assess 
the impact of agricultural education: A measure of curriuculum integration. Journal of 
Agricultural Education, 54(3), 41–53. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2013.03041  

Ramey-Gassert, L., & Shroyer, M. G. (1992). Enhancing science teaching self-efficacy in 
preservice elementary teachers. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 4(1), 26–34. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173752  

Roberts, R., English, C. W., & Alston, A. J. (2020). Fostering identity development in teacher 
preparation: Service-learning’s role in empowering agricultural education majors to 
teach STEM concepts. Journal of Agricultural Education, 61(3), 214–232. 
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2020.03214 

Scales, J., Terry, J., & Torres, R. M. (2009). Are teachers ready to integrate science concepts into 
secondary agriculture programs?. Journal of Agricultural Education, 50(2), 100–111. 
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2009.02100 

Schmolck, P. (2014). Q method manual. Peter Scmolck. 
http://schmolck.org/qmethod/pqmanual.htm  

Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard 
Educational Review, 57(1), 1–23. 
https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i3.607
http://aaaeonline.org/resources/Documents/National/2020Meeting/2020AAAEPaperProceedings.pdf
http://aaaeonline.org/resources/Documents/National/2020Meeting/2020AAAEPaperProceedings.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20069
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2017.02098
https://doi.org/10.17226/18290
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2013.03041
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173752
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2020.03214
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2009.02100
http://schmolck.org/qmethod/pqmanual.htm
https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411


DiBenedetto et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 
 

 
 

 
https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i3.607   40 

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 

Wang, H. H., & Knobloch, N. A. (2022). Preservice educators’ interpretations and pedagogical 
benefits of a STEM integration through agriculture, food and natural resources 
rubric. Journal of Pedagogical Research, 6(2), 4–28. 
https://doi.org/10.33902/JPR.202213513 

Watts, S., & Stenner, P. (2013). Doing Q methodological research: Theory, method, and 
interpretations (2nd ed.). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446251911 

Wigfield, A. (1994). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation: A developmental 
perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 6(1), 49-78. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02209024  

 

 
 
© 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.v6i3.607
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00036-1
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00036-1
https://doi.org/10.33902/JPR.202213513
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02209024

