
































Microsoft Word - 75-Manuscript-941-1-11-20210121.docx


Conner et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
  Volume 2, Issue 1, 2021 
  agdevresearch.org 

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

2. Bryan Reiling, Associate Professor, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, ANSC C204a, Lincoln, NE 68583-0947, 
breiling2@unl.edu, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5913-0614    

3. Christopher T. Stripling, Associate Professor, The University of Tennessee, 320 Morgan Circle Drive, Knoxville, TN 37996-
4511, cstripli@utl.edu, http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5045-3492 

4. Matt Kreifels, Associate Professor of Practice, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 233 Filley Hall, Lincoln, NE 68583-0947, 
matt.kreifels@unl.edu, http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6519-8711  

5. Angie Monheim, Graduate Student, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 143 Filley Hall, Lincoln, NE 68583-0947, 
amonheim@ieee.org, http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8596-9448           
 

14 

 

Examining Inquiry-Based Learning Stages of Concern for High 
School Agriscience Teachers 

N. Conner1, B. Reiling2, C. Stripling3, M. Kreifels4, A. Monheim5 

 
 

  

Abstract 

There is documented need for improvement of science comprehension amongst high school 
students in the United States, and inquiry-based learning (IBL) is a recommended teaching strategy 
to improve science comprehension. Several researchers have focused on examination of learning 
outcomes for students, but few have researched the concerns of teachers who may wish to adopt 
IBL methodology. This study used the stages of concern questionnaire to profile ten Midwest high 
school agriscience teachers’ concerns regarding implementation of IBL, before and after 
participation in a year-long professional development program where IBL lessons were developed 
and used in the participants’ high school classrooms. Results indicated that while some participants 
showed a positive progression in their stage of concern, most professional development program 
participants did not progress in their concern stage, and some developed increased resistance to IBL 
as a teaching strategy. This suggests that teachers may need more robust and tailored support when 
adopting IBL for their classrooms.   
 
 
Keywords 

scientific investigation, secondary teachers, professional development 



Conner et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i1.75   15 
 

Introduction and Problem Statement 
 
High school science student proficiency in the United States lags compared to other highly 
developed countries (Desilver, 2017; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and 
Development, 2016; The Nation’s Report Card, 2015). Research comparing Science, Technology, 
Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) jobs versus unemployed STEM workers showed a 
national average of 13 STEM jobs posted online for everyone unemployed STEM worker, and 
that four Midwest states had more than 45 posted STEM jobs per unemployed STEM worker 
(New American Economy, 2017). These statistics indicate that an inadequate number of 
students are gaining necessary proficiency in high school science to facilitate successful 
transition to STEM based jobs in the work force. 
 
One means of addressing this deficit is to provide high school science and agriculture teachers 
with targeted professional development programs focused on science teaching strategies. One 
program in a Midwest state used grant funding to provide a rigorous year-long professional 
development program designed to help high school science and agriculture teachers learn how 
to use and implement inquiry-based learning (IBL) to teach specific science subjects.   
 
Inquiry-based learning is a teaching strategy shown to provide significant benefits for 
development of critical thinking and problem-solving skills in students (Savery, 2006), but the 
literature is sparse on how teachers feel about adopting this teaching strategy. The purpose of 
this study was to determine the stages of concern experienced by high school teachers before 
and after adopting IBL as a classroom teaching strategy for science subjects. 
 

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework 
 
The theoretical framework for this study was the Concerns Based Adoption Model (CBAM) 
which is a framework designed to help implement and assess innovations or changes being 
implemented in an organization (American Institute for Research, 2019). This model has a 
robust history (Southwest Educational Development Laboratory, 2015), and has been critically 
examined and reviewed by scholars (Anderson, 1997; Cheung et al., 2001; Saunders, 2012. The 
framework has three parts, Innovation Configurations, Stages of Concern Questionnaire 
(SOCQ), and Levels of Use (Southwest Educational Development Laboratory, 2015). This study 
focused on the SOCQ to determine how high school teachers feel about adopting IBL as a 
teaching strategy.    
 
The SOCQ is an assessment instrument to help understand how teachers experience the 
adoption of new teaching strategies (Bailey & Palsha, 1992; Gabby et al., 2017; Shotsberger & 
Crawford, 1999) using seven categories which indicate increasing levels of concern: 
unconcerned, informational, personal, management, consequence, collaboration, and 
refocusing (George et al., 2013). More specifically, it has a history of being used to assess the 
concerns of agricultural educators as innovations are introduced into their teaching pedagogies 
(Bellah & Dyer, 2009; Shoulders & Myers, 2011; Warner & Myers, 2011).   



Conner et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i1.75   16 
 

Inquiry-based Learning 

Inquiry-based learning is a guided active learning strategy that encourages students to develop 
questioning, critical thinking, and problem-solving skills (Savery, 2006), and has been shown to 
provide measurable gains in student conceptual understanding of science lessons (Geier et al., 
2008; Gormally et al., 2009; Luckie et al., 2004; Sundberg & Moncada, 1994; Udovic et al., 
2002). However, this appears only to be true when students receive enough guided instruction, 
as Kirschner et al. (2006) showed IBL with minimal guidance resulted in no improvement or, in 
some cases, learning less and testing worse, than with traditional instruction. 
 
While the educational impact of IBL on students is widely studied, often ignored are the 
potential struggles of high school teachers who attempt to adopt IBL as a teaching strategy. 
Keys and Bryan (2001) argue that more research is needed on teacher beliefs about, practices, 
and knowledge base for implementing IBL. Although 90% of pre-service teachers who 
participated in an inquiry-based science methods course want to create an educational 
environment that promotes questions and exploration (Plevyak, 2007), they were 
simultaneously overwhelmed with how to accomplish that goal. Two separate studies (DiBiase 
& McDonald 2015; Ramnarain, 2014) found factors such as lack of resources or administrative 
support, class size, and curricular requirements contributed to teacher resistance to using IBL. 
Roehrig and Luft (2004) followed 14 beginning secondary science teachers for one year; 
common impediments to implementation of IBL included their understanding of scientific 
inquiry, content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and teaching beliefs. Hayward et 
al. (2015) suggests that presenting IBL as a broad set of related practices rather than as a rigid 
prescriptive practice, may encourage new instructors to incorporate IBL into their own sense of 
teaching identity.   
 

Purpose 
 
The purpose of this study was to determine the stages of concern (SOC) experienced by high 
school teachers before and after participation in a professional development program for using 
IBL as a classroom teaching strategy for science subjects. In order to achieve this purpose, the 
following objectives were investigated: 

1. Determine participants’ SOC for IBL at the beginning of the professional development 
program. 

2. Determine participants’ SOC for IBL at the end of the professional development program. 
3. Assess change(s) that occurred in participants’ SOC for IBL as a result of the professional 

development program. 

Methods 
 
This study was conducted as part of a grant-funded, year-long (July 2017 thru July 2018) 
Professional Development (PD) workshop for high school agriculture and science educators 
using IBL to teach science topics. The instrument used for this study was the SOCQ (George, et 



Conner et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i1.75   17 
 

al., 2013) which measures teacher concerns as they adopt a change.  In this study, the change 
under study was the adoption of IBL into their teaching techniques. According to George et al. 
(2013) the SOCQ has went through rigorous validation efforts through the use of correlation 
matrices, factor analysis, and interviews.  Participants began the workshop by taking the SOCQ 
to establish their stage of concern before the PD. During the year-long PD, participants had the 
opportunity to 1) experience IBL from the student perspective, 2) teach a pre-developed IBL 
lesson for a specific science topic with other participants at the workshop, 3) return to their 
home schools and use IBL lessons as part of the curriculum in their actual classrooms with 
scheduled monthly online support meetings with workshop facilitators to answer questions 
about IBL, and 4) attend a follow-up in-person workshop session to teach an IBL lesson of their 
own design to the workshop participants for feedback. At the end of the PD, participants again 
took the SOCQ to determine if the PD had any effect on their stage of concern for adopting IBL. 
The results from the two SOCQ surveys are the data used for this study.  
 
Twenty-seven participants began the workshop, but only 10 completed the entire professional 
development program, including the pre- and post- SOCQ.  Attrition of participants was 
attributed to various reasons including physical and career moves, time constraints, and priority 
selection.  Due to the low sample size, use caution when interpreting the data.  
 
To evaluate how stages of concern changed for participants, it was necessary for participants to 
have completed both the pre- and post-SOCQ instruments.  Data from participants who did not 
complete the post professional development program SOCQ instrument were discarded.  The 
analysis was conducted according to the SOCQ manual (George et al., 2013), and focused on 
profile scoring which provides the richest understanding of participants’ concerns about the 
innovation. Analysis by demographic was not conducted due to the small sample size.  Results 
from individual profiles were not confirmed with participants because scoring and analysis of 
the SOCQ were performed a few months after conclusion of the professional development 
program so participants were no longer available for discussion.   
 
When interpreting Profile Scores, the SOCQ manual (Hall et al., 1979) provides specific 
characteristics to look for among the highs and lows, which indicate a possible underlying 
psychology.  For IBL in the classroom, these characteristics are as follows: 

• High stage 0 percentile score is an indication that the participants place a low priority on 
IBL in relation to other teaching tasks and strategies. 

• Positive 1-2 splits indicate participants are open to using IBL. 

• Negative 1-2 splits indicate participants may be resistive to using IBL. 

• Stage 6 trailing up indicates participants may be resistive to using IBL. 

• Stage 6 trailing down indicates that participants may be open to using IBL. 

• High stage 0 with high stage 6 indicates the participant has ideas about other teaching 
methods considered more relevant than IBL. 



Conner et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i1.75   18 
 

• When two stages have a percentile score within one or two points of each other, both 
stages can be considered the highest or second highest stage. 

The above characteristics were used to interpret the group and individual profiles for this study. 

Findings 
 
Objective 1 was to determine participants’ SOC before the professional development program, 
objective 2 was to determine participants’ SOC after the professional development program, 
and objective 3 was to analyze the change in SOC attributed to the professional development 
program. This was performed for the group, then performed for each individual participant. 
 
Group Analysis 
 
Figure 1 shows the group profile before (solid black line) and after (dashed grey line) the 
professional development program. At the beginning of the professional development program, 
the group generally placed a low priority on IBL, as indicated by the relatively high stage 0 
score. The before profile also showed both a positive 1-2 split and stage 6 trailing down, 
indicating that the group was generally open to IBL.  After the professional development 
program, the stage 0 score remained relatively high, indicating the group generally still placed a 
low priority on IBL. The positive 1-2 split remained, indicating openness to IBL, but stage 6 was 
trailing up indicating resistance to IBL. The overall change in the profile indicates that as a 
group, participants did not progress positively in their stage of concern and may have added 
some resistance to using IBL as a teaching strategy as a result of participating in the 
professional development program. 
  



Conner et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i1.75   19 
 

 
Figure 1 

Before and After SOCQ Profiles for the Group 

 

The solid line shows the profile percentages for each stage of concern for the group at the 
beginning of the professional development program. The dashed line shows the profile 
percentages for each stage of concern for the group after completing the professional 
development program.  

Individual Profile Score 

An analysis of the individual profile scores provided more insight into how the professional 
development program affected individual participants. Participants fell into three categories: 
No change, positive SOC progression, or no stage change with a change in profile 
characteristics. One participant showed no change. Three participants showed a positive SOC 
progression. Six participants showed no stage change with a change in profile characteristics.  
These profile changes included the emergence or receding of management concerns about IBL, 
and the emergence of resistance to IBL. Table 1 shows a summary of the before profile, after 
profile, and change in profile for each of the ten participants. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

87
84

76 73

38

72

52

87

72
63

69

54

68
73

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Stage 0 Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 5 Stage 6

Re
la

tiv
e 

In
te

ns
ity

 in
 P

er
ce

nt
ile

s



Conner et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i1.75   20 
 

Table 1 
 
Summary of Before and After SOCQ Profile Interpretations and Profile Changes for Individual 
Professional Development Program Participants 
ID Before Profile 

Interpretation 
After Profile 
Interpretation 

Change in Profile 

P1 IBL is low priority but 
likely open to IBL 

IBL is low priority with 
management concerns, 
likely open to IBL 
  

Remained Stage 0, concerns 
about management 
emerged  

P2 IBL is low priority but 
likely open to IBL 

Focused on learning more 
about IBL and 
collaborating with others 
  

SOC progressed from 0 to 1 

P3 IBL is low priority but 
likely open to IBL 

IBL is low priority and likely 
resistant to IBL 
  

Remained Stage 0 and 
added resistance to IBL  

P4 IBL is low priority but 
likely open to IBL 

Focused on learning more 
about IBL and 
management of IBL 
  

SOC progressed from 0 to 
1/3 

P5 IBL is low priority with 
management concerns, 
likely open to IBL 
  

IBL is low priority but likely 
resistant to IBL 

Remained Stage 0 and 
added resistance to IBL 

P6 IBL is low priority and 
likely resistant to IBL 

IBL is low priority with 
management concerns, 
likely resistant to IBL 
  

Remained Stage 0, concerns 
about management 
emerged 

P7 IBL is low priority but 
likely open to IBL 

IBL is low priority but likely 
open to IBL 
  

No discernable change 

P8 Focused on collaborating 
with others and learning 
more about IBL 

Focused on gaining more 
benefits by modifying or 
replacing IBL, and 
collaborating with others 
  

SOC progressed from 5 to 6 

P9 IBL is low priority with 
management concerns, 
likely resistant to IBL  

IBL is low priority but likely 
resistant to IBL 

Remained Stage 0, 
management concerns 
receded 
  

P10 IBL is low priority but 
likely open to IBL 

IBL is low priority but likely 
resistant to IBL 

Remained Stage 0 but 
added resistance to IBL 



Conner et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i1.75   21 
 

Conclusions, Discussion, and Recommendations 
 
High school teachers adopting IBL initially appeared to be open to the new teaching strategy as 
evidenced both by their willingness to participate in a year-long PD program and their pre-PD 
program responses to a SOCQ. However, after participating in the PD program, results were 
mixed.  30% of participants had their concerns stage progressed by one stage after completing 
the PD program. However, 70% of the participants remained at stage zero, and three of those 
seven showed increased resistance to adoption of IBL in their SOCQ profiles after completing 
the PD program. While the PD program structure may have helped some participant’s progress 
positively in their concerns stages towards IBL, many of the participants may have increased 
resistance to IBL. 
 
Warner and Myers (2011) described Hall and Hord’s Concerns-Based Adoption Model, of which 
the SOCQ is an integral part, as applied to implementing change in agriscience teaching. They 
describe that positive concerns progression can be achieved and resistance to change can be 
reduced with appropriate interventions, such as appropriate support from leaders and effective 
facilitation. However, they also explain that lack of progression or even regression can occur 
when these conditions do not exist. 
 
An examination of this PD program revealed several factors which may have caused 
participants to not fully embrace IBL as a teaching strategy. Experience levels of PD program 
participants varied greatly, with some participants at the beginning of their teaching careers 
and some participants possessing many years of teaching experience. Professional 
development program facilitators noted that newer teachers seemed to like IBL better than 
more seasoned teachers, potentially indicating that newer teachers were less resistive than 
teachers with more experience.  Shoulders and Myers (2011) found that more experienced 
teachers have less variation in their concerns for IBL. This could explain some of the 70% of 
profiles that did not progress positively. 
 
Another factor that may have contributed was familiarity with the specific science subjects. PD 
program facilitators observed that some participants were more well versed in the science 
subject area content than others. Fritz and Miller (2003) found that over 50% of the concerns 
expressed by both male and female preservice teachers were related to self-adequacy, of which 
one component is subject matter adequacy. It may be helpful to ensure teachers have 
experience teaching specific content areas prior to attempting the subject areas with IBL. 
 
Online collaboration meetings, conducted via Zoom, were designed to provide an opportunity 
for participants to share their experiences and discuss any IBL teaching issues with facilitators 
and other participants. However, teachers chose to incorporate the specific content areas and 
associated pre-developed IBL lessons at different points in their course curriculums, resulting in 
disjointed Zoom meetings. Future PD programs should consider using a more detailed schedule 
and due dates for participants to have taught each subject area in their classrooms to ensure 
Zoom collaborations have a common theme on which to focus discussion. 



Conner et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i1.75   22 
 

These findings suggest some recommendations for future studies aimed at effectively 
improving future PDs for introducing IBL to high school teachers. Teacher Stages of Concern 
need to be researched over a longer period of time and in conjunction with the specific 
environments and contexts individual teachers must navigate at their specific schools.  
Additionally, SOCQ results should be examined to determine if environmental and context 
factors show any correlation with specific SOCQ profiles. Results from these types of studies 
could provide insight into how schools can better support teachers as they adopt IBL. 
 

Acknowledgements 
 
We would like to acknowledge and thank Nebraska’s Coordinating Commission for 
Postsecondary Education for funding this research. 
 

References 
 
American Institute for Research. (2019, March 11). CBAM: The concerns-based adoption model. 

https://www.air.org/resource/concerns-based-adoption-model-cbam  
 
Anderson, S. E. (1997). Understanding teacher change: Revisiting the concerns based adoption 

model. Curriculum Inquiry, 27(3), 331–367. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/03626784.1997.11075495  

 
Bailey, D. B., & Palsha, S. A. (1992). Qualities of the stages of concern questionnaire and 

implications for educational innovations. The Journal of Educational Research, 85(4), 
226–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1992.9941120 

 
Bellah, K., & Dyer, J. (2009). Attitudes and stages of concern of elementary teachers toward 

agriculture as a context for teaching across grade level content area standards. Journal 
of Agricultural Education, 50(2), 12–25. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2009.02012 

 
Cheung, D., Hattie, J., & Ng, D. (2001). Reexamining the stages of concern questionnaire: A test 

of alternative models. The Journal of Educational Research, 94(4), 226–236. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670109598756 

 
Desilver, D. (2017, February 15). U.S. academic achievement lags that of many other countries. 

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/15/u-s-students-internationally-
math-science/ 

 
DiBiase, W., & McDonald, J. R. (2015). Science teacher attitudes toward inquiry-based teaching 

and learning. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and 
Ideas, 88(2), 29–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.2014.987717 

 
 



Conner et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i1.75   23 
 

Fritz, C. A., & Miller, G. S. (2003). Concerns expressed by student teachers in agriculture. Journal 
of Agricultural Education, 44(3), 47–53. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2003.03047 

 
Gabby, S., Avargil, S., Herscovitz, O., & Dori, Y. J. (2017). The case of middle and high school 

chemistry teachers implementing technology: Using the concerns-based adoption 
model to assess change processes. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 18(1), 
214–232. https://doi.org/10.1039/c6rp00193a 

 
George, A., Hall, G., & Stiegelbauer, S. (2013). Measuring implementation in schools: The stages 

of concern questionnaire. SEDL https://sedl.org/cbam/socq_manual_201410.pdf 
 
Gormally, C., Brickman, P., Hallar, B., & Armstrong, N. (2009). Effects of inquiry-based learning 

on students’ science literacy skills and confidence. International Journal for the 
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 3(2), 1–22. 
https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2009.030216 

 
Geier, R., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Fishman, B., Soloway, E., & Clay-

Chambers, J. (2008). Standardized test outcomes for students engaged in inquiry-based 
science curricula in the context of urban reform. Journal of Research in Science 
Teaching, 45(8), 922–939. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20248 

 
Hall, G. E., George, A. A., & Rutherford, W. L. (1979). Measuring stages of concern about the 

innovation: A manual for use of the SOC Questionnaire (Report No. 3032). Research and 
Development Center for Teacher Education, The University of Texas at 
Austin. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED147342.pdf 
 

Hayward, C. N., Kogan, M., & Laursen, S. L. (2015). Facilitating instructor adoption of inquiry-
based learning in college mathematics. International Journal of Research in 
Undergraduate Mathematics Education, 2(1), 59–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40753-
015-0021-y 

 
Keys, C. W., & Bryan, L. A. (2001). Co-constructing inquiry-based science with teachers:    

Essential research for lasting reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(6), 
631–645. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.1023 
 

Kirschner, P.A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does 
not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, 
experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86. 
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1 

 
Luckie, D. B., Maleszewski, J. J., Loznak, S. D., & Krha, M. (2004). Infusion of collaborative  

inquiry throughout a biology curriculum increases student learning: A four-year study of 
"teams and streams".  Advances in Physiology Education, 28(4), 199–209. 
https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00025.2004  



Conner et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i1.75   24 
 

 
New American Economy. (2017, March 29). Sizing up the gap in our supply of STEM workers. 

https://research.newamericaneconomy.org/report/sizing-up-the-gap-in-our-supply-of-
stem-workers/ 

 
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2016). Country notes: Key 

findings from PISA 2015 for the United States. http://www.oecd.org/pisa/PISA-2015-
United-States.pdf 

 
Plevyak, L. H. (2007). What do preservice teachers learn in an inquiry-based science methods 

course? Journal of Elementary Science Education, 19(1), 1–12. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03173650 

 
Ramnarain, U. D. (2014). Teachers' perceptions of inquiry-based learning in urban, suburban, 

township and rural high schools: The context-specificity of science curriculum 
implementation in South Africa. Teaching and Teacher Education, 38, 65–75. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.11.003 

 
Roehrig, G. H., & Luft, J. A. (2004). Research report: Constraints experienced by beginning 

secondary science teachers in implementing scientific inquiry lessons. International 
Journal of Science Education, 26(1), 3–24. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069022000070261 

 
Saunders, R. (2012). Assessment of professional development for teachers in the vocational 

education and training sector: An examination of the concerns based adoption 
model. Australian Journal of Education, 56(2), 182–204. 
http://doi.org/10.1177/000494411205600206 

 
Savery, J. R. (2006). Overview of problem-based learning: definitions and 

distinctions. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 1(1). 
https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1002 

 
Shotsberger, P. G., & Crawford, A. R. (1999). On the elusive nature of measuring teacher 

change: An examination of the stages of concern questionnaire. Evaluation & Research 
in Education, 13(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500799908666942 

 
Shoulders, C., & Myers, B. (2011). An analysis of national agriscience teacher ambassadors’ 

stages of concern regarding inquiry–based instruction. Journal of Agricultural 
Education, 52(2), 58–70. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2011.02058 

 
Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. (2015). Concerns-based adoption model 

(CBAM). http://www.sedl.org/cbam/ 
 
Sundberg, M. D., & Moncada, G. J. (1994). Creating effective investigative laboratories for 



Conner et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i1.75   25 
 

undergraduates. Bioscience, 44(10), 698–704. https://doi.org/10.2307/1312513 
 

The Nation's Report Card. (2015). NAEP - 2015 science assessment. 
https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/science_2015/#acl/chart_loc_1?grade=12 

 
Udovic, D., Morris, D., Dickman, A., Postlethwait, J., & Wetherwax, P. (2002). Workshop 

biology: Demonstrating the effectiveness of active learning in an introductory biology 
course. Bioscience, 52(3), 272–281. 
 https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0272:WBDTEO]2.0.CO;2 

 
Warner, A., & Myers, B. (2011). Agriscience teachers’ concern profiles for content area reading 

strategies. Journal of Agricultural Education, 52(4), 109–122. 
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2011.04109 

 
 
 
 
 
 
© 2021 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/). 
 


