Recipient Organization
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
G022 MCCARTY HALL
GAINESVILLE,FL 32611
Performing Department
Agricultural Education and Communication
Non Technical Summary
Within agricultural education there is little research examining effective teaching practices regarding the emphasis of STEM content naturally contained within the agriculture curriculum. Therefore, it is critical that researchers explore current teaching practices implemented by exemplary agriscience instructors. This will provide baseline data that will inform a conceptual model for testing the impact of recommended teaching practices on student learning. The issues of recruitment and preparation for careers in agricultural sciences overlap. Thus the goal of this project is two-fold: 1) to create awareness and interest at the middle and high school levels for careers in the agricultural sciences, and 2) to prepare students for success in college, leading to a sustainable supply of well-educated agricultural scientists.
Animal Health Component
34%
Research Effort Categories
Basic
33%
Applied
34%
Developmental
33%
Goals / Objectives
Identify practices, cross-cutting concepts, and disciplinary core ideas to be included in a secondary school agriscience program.
Identify teaching methods, resources (facilities, equipment, materials, etc), and techniques currently utilized by exemplary teachers.
Develop an innovation configuration for implementing an agriscience program.
Project Methods
Objective 1:Part 1. Four national panels will be appointed to propose a set of practices, cross-cutting concepts, and disciplinary core ideas that could be included in the agriscience curriculum. The panels include the following groups:1. Agriscience teachers who have participated in the National Agriscience Teacher Ambassadors Academy (N=50), selected randomly from all past program participants2. Agricultural education teachers who have not completed the NATAA (N=50), nominated by state supervisors and selected proportionately by geographic region3. Agriculture teacher educators (N=50), selected randomly4. State supervisors (N=25), selected randomlyA three-round modified Delphi Techniques process will be utilized. Participants will be asked to respond to three questions:1. What STEM practices should be included in the agriscience curriculum?2. What cross-cutting concepts should be included in the agriscience curriculum?3. What disciplinary core ideas should be included in the agriscience curriculum?Part 2. A national panel of 10 purposively selected experts from among teachers, teacher educators, state supervisors, and business and industry representatives will be convened at a central site to participate in the second phase of the study. The Delphi methodology will be utilized. Panelists will engage in dialogue regarding the lists of practices, cross-cutting concepts, and disciplinary core ideas that were generated during Part 1. In a two- to three-day period, panelists will discuss, refine, and agree upon the final set of items that are proposed to be included in the agriscience curriculum.Part 3. A panel of 20 experts representing science teachers, math teachers, science and math teacher educators, and science and math state education agency consultants will be selected from nominations by the national science and math teacher organizations, universities, and state education agencies. Participants will verify that the science and math practices, cross-cutting concepts, and disciplinary core ideas established in Part 2 are consistent with the national standards for science and math practices, cross-cutting concepts, and disciplinary core ideas.Part 4. A study will be conducted of agricultural education instructors nationally. A random sample of 600 instructors will be asked to participate in the study. Participants will be instructed to indicate the importance of, their knowledge of, and their ability to teach each of the practices, cross-cutting concepts, and disciplinary core ideas that were established in Part 2 and verified in Part 3 of the project. Using the Borich Model for conducting a needs assessment, the items will be rated by the instructors to determine the practices, cross-cutting concepts, and disciplinary core ideas that teachers indicate a need for in-service education, such as workshops, webinars and e-materials. . The Dillman Total Design Method will be utilized to help ensure an acceptable response rate, typically after six contacts. Non-response follow-up will be conducted to reduce error attributed to non-response.Part 5. The final part of this effort will include local school educators (e.g. principals, CTE directors, other administrators) in schools where agricultural education programs exist. A random sample of 100 participants will be selected. Participants will complete a survey instrument regarding their opinion of the extent to which the practices, cross-cutting concepts, and disciplinary core ideas are and should be part of a total agriscience education instructional program.Objective 2Part 1. Exemplary secondary agriscience educators within the United States will be identified and selected to participate in survey research. The teachers to be identified for the frame of the study are those who have been known to participate in STEM development in three different categories.The survey instrument will include areas of instructor Science Teaching Efficacy; perceptions of the effects of STEM integration on teaching practices; perceptions of the effect of STEM integration on student recruitment and retention; perceptions of STEM integration on peer culture; current teaching practices; and demographics.Part 2. From the broader population (N = 12) participants will be chosen for maximum variation within the STEM fields. Researchers will then examine participant teaching methods within the selected secondary classroom settings as participant observers. This will allow the research to gain an in-depth analysis of current methods of STEM content integration as exhibited by the selected population. Data collection will include researcher observation journal; semi-structured interview protocol for teachers, students, other teachers, administrators, and academic counselors; photo documentation of educational facilities; and video-taped instructional techniques of each participant. Photo-documentation will also allow for alignment with objective 3 and identification of facilities. A constant comparative method (Corbin & Strauss, 2008) will be used to code the interview and observations.?Objective 3:The Concerns-Based Adoption Model presented by Hall and Hord (2006) contains three diagnostic instruments to measure implementation of an innovation. Each instrument addresses a different aspect of the change process. Innovation Configurations (IC) clarify what full implementation should look like. Levels of Use (LoU) chart individuals behaviors in regard to the change. Stages of Concerns (SoC) measure peoples feelings and perceptions of change. These three diagnostic instruments can be used separately or in combination with others to assess the status and success of implementation of an innovation (Hall & Hord, 2006).Innovation Configurations (IC) describe what the change should look like when it is properly implemented (Hall & Hord, 2006). An Innovation Configuration map will be created, based upon the findings of Objective 1 and 2, to develop a common understanding of what is expected and to measure how an innovation has been implemented. Hall and Hord (2006) note, the innovation in action can take on many different operational forms or configuration; in addition, the tendency to adapt, modify, and/or mutate aspects of innovations is a natural part of the change process (p. 113). The development of Innovation Configuration maps is a very time consuming and laborious process. It will require the development and articulation of a clear description of the appearance of the desired implementation as well as various differing configurations which may occur. Developers will decide what the most desirable implementation is and how much fidelity to that conception is required for implementation to be satisfactory. Throughout the process all parties will be able to view and contribute to the Innovation Configuration map. However, an Innovation Configuration map requires all parties to decide on a consensus and operationally define an innovation. Once the Innovation Configuration map is completed, it will provide a valuable tool in identifying what components are being implemented well and which components need additional work. The Innovation Configuration map makes implementation more effective and efficient. It also documents the extent and quality of implementation for evaluation studies.