Josh Stewart, B.S. A Thesis AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION

Transcription

1 Teacher Efficacy and the Perceived Importance of Record Keeping Skills in Agricultural Education Programs by Josh Stewart, B.S. A Thesis In AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Approved Dr. Scott Burris Committee Chair Dr. Jonathan Ulmer Dr. Steve Fraze Mark Sheridan Dean of the Graduate School August, 2014

2 Copyright, 2014 Josh Stewart

3 Acknowledgements There is no chance that I would be successful without the relationships I have been blessed enough to develop over the past ten or fifteen years. I have come to believe that everything happens for a reason, and that God has a plan if we are willing and patient enough to pay attention. Even looking back further, beyond my professional career, I realize that everything that I have done or been involved in has helped me develop into who I am today. I am most grateful for my faith, and my amazing family. My grandparents always told me how important family was to them, and I learned from my granddad that even if you have to work three jobs, taking care of that family is the most important thing. It is hard to quantify what I have learned from my dad, but most importantly, I learned that you have to show up and Make a hand, every day life (and business) is about service and doing right by others. My mom taught me what it takes to keep a family together and how to take care of each other, because family comes first. She also taught me that things could always be worse, but that sometimes you have to get it together and be more responsible for the outcome. I couldn t thank my brother and his family enough for being a shining example of what family should be. They seem to be going in fifteen different directions at all times, but always manage to stay together, show love and compassion to one another, and always follow God s call for their lives (no matter how crazy the idea may seem). Amanda, Baylee, and Adilee are simply just the best things that have ever happened to me. I don t even know if there are words to express how thankful I am every day to have them. I could not have made it through graduate school and this thesis ii

4 without them. No matter how busy it seemed, or how crazy our schedules were, we always found a way to make things work and, considering our next adventure, we are probably better for having gone through it. Last, I want to thank my committee. Dr. Burris - always the professional, friend, and mentor. It is an interesting road we have traveled, and I will be forever thankful for everything. I can attribute most of what I have done professionally, and some of what I have done personally, to your influence. I am grateful for your mentorship, and your friendship. Dr. Ulmer, thank you for your influence, positive encouragement, and for continuing to believe in my ability. Lastly, Dr. Fraze, I am honored to be able to say that our relationship has come nearly full circle. It is with great satisfaction that I can tell people that you were my professor as an undergraduate student, the chair of my department as a graduate student, and a member of my thesis committee. I very much appreciate the role that you three gentlemen have played in my life and will always be grateful for the direction and guidance. iii

5 Table of Contents Acknowledgements... ii Abstract... vii List of Tables... ix List of Figures...x I. Introduction...1 Background...1 Record Keeping...4 Defining Efficacy...5 Theoretical Framework...7 Research Problem...8 Purpose and Objectives...9 Definition of Terms...10 Limitations of the Study...11 Basic Assumptions...13 Summary...13 II. Review of Literature...15 Overview...15 Theoretical Framework...15 Albert Bandura...15 Dunkin & Biddle...16 Literature Review...17 iv

6 Efficacy...17 Self Efficacy in Agricultural Education...20 In-service and Pre-service Teacher Education...22 Record Keeping and SAE Programs...24 Summary...26 III. Methodology...28 Purpose and Objectives...28 Research Design...28 Population and Sample...29 Instrumentation...30 Part One...30 Part Two...31 Part Three...31 Part Four...32 Validity...33 Reliability...33 Data Collection...33 Data Analysis...34 IV. Results and Findings...36 Overview...36 Purpose and Objectives...36 Objective One...37 Objective Two...45 v

7 Objective Three...48 Objective Four...50 Objective Five...53 Objective Six...55 Summary...57 V. Conclusions, Implications, and Recommendations...58 Overview...58 Purpose and Objectives...58 Conclusions and Implications for Objective One...59 Conclusions and Implications for Objective Two...61 Conclusions and Implications for Objective Three...63 Conclusions and Implications for Objective Four...64 Conclusions and Implications for Objective Five...64 Conclusions and Implications for Objective Six...66 Recommendations...67 Recommendations for Practice...67 Recommendations for Further Research...68 Reference List...70 Appendices...76 A. Human Subjects Approval...76 B. Teacher s Sense of Efficacy Scale Permission Letter...77 C. Teacher Recruitment D. Data Collection Instrument...79 vi

8 Abstract The importance of record keeping as a component of SAE programs in FFA and agricultural education has been well documented. Likewise, the construct of self-efficacy, and the further investigation of teacher self-efficacy, has emerged as an important indicator of teacher and student success. The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between the perceived efficacy of teachers and the importance of record keeping skills in agricultural education, and to explore the professional development needs of agriculture teachers concerning record keeping concepts. The sample consisted of agriculture teachers from within the Area 1 FFA Association (panhandle region) of Texas. 108 teachers were identified and there were 61 usable responses yielding a 57% response rate. Personal teaching efficacy was measured using the short form of the Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale. The remainder of the instrument was developed by the researcher to measure the value of record keeping in FFA SAE programs, as well as the importance and perceived confidence to teach a specific set of record keeping concepts. Demographic information was obtained to describe the participants and explore relationships between efficacy and participant characteristics. The study found that agriculture teachers believe that record keeping is important and they largely expressed confidence to teach most record keeping concepts. On the other hand, the data revealed that the majority of respondents reported that less than 25% of their students actively maintained a record book and that teachers place the majority of the value of record keeping in documenting student FFA accomplishments. Therefore, the conclusion can be made that the record book system currently in place in Texas is not being utilized by the majority of this population as a means to teach record keeping vii

9 concepts. The needs assessment showed that little in-service training would be necessary to improve importance and confidence levels. The study also found moderate relationships between efficacy and confidence to teach record keeping concepts and years of teaching experience and the confidence to teach record keeping concepts. As expected, there was a substantial relationship between efficacy and years of teaching experience. Further investigation into record keeping in SAE programs is warranted. The study should be duplicated on a more substantial population to achieve a better understanding of teacher self-efficacy related to record keeping concepts, however, a universal list of record keeping concepts related to SAE programs should be created. It would be beneficial to analyze results of the same study duplicated in other areas across the state, as well as other states, to create a better picture of how record keeping concepts are being taught and utilized in agricultural education, and to determine possible needs for pre-service and in-service training. viii

10 List of Tables 3.1 Data Collection Timeline Educational Demographics of Participants Number of Students Advised Receiving State and American FFA Degrees Receipt of State FFA Degree as a High School Student Number of Students on Current FFA Roster Percentage of Students Maintaining Record Books and Teacher AET Confidence Currently or Previously Taught Agribusiness Management and Marketing The Value of Record Books in Record Keeping Part One The Value of Record Books in Record Keeping Part Two Frequencies of Ranking Variables Perceived Level of Importance of 15 Key Record Keeping Concepts Perceived Level of Confidence to Teach 15 Key Record Keeping Concepts Teacher s Sense of Efficacy Scale Short Form Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Between Efficacy, Years of Teaching Experience, and Confidence to Teach Record Keeping Concepts...55 ix

11 List of Figures 1. A Model for the Study of Classroom Teaching (Dunkin & Biddle, 1974) Needs Assessment: Importance vs. Confidence...57 x

12 Chapter I Introduction Background The history of agricultural education can be traced back well before the passage of the Smith-Hughes Vocational Education Act in 1917, although it was the Smith- Hughes Act that established vocational agriculture programs in public secondary schools in the United States (Stewart & Birkenholz, 1991), and provided federal funding for vocational education in secondary schools (Hillison, 1996; Stimpson & Lathrop, 1954). In the early 1920 s, a Future Farmers club for boys was formed, and in 1928, the Future Farmers of America (FFA) was founded as a national organization. By 1935, FFA membership had topped 100,000 with more than 3,900 chapters in 47 states, Hawaii and Puerto Rico (National FFA Organization, 2014). Today there are 579,678 FFA members, 7,570 chapters, and more than 11,000 secondary agricultural education teachers, nationally (National FFA Organization, 2014). According to the National FFA Organization (2014), the shortage of qualified agriculture teachers is the greatest challenge facing FFA and agricultural education. The Official FFA Manual (2013) states, Agricultural education prepares students for successful careers and a lifetime of informed choices in the global agriculture, food, fiber and natural resource systems. The agricultural education Three Circle Model includes equal parts of classroom/laboratory instruction (contextual learning), supervised agricultural experience programs (work-based learning), and student leadership organizations (Talbert, Vaughn, & Croom, 2005). In the Texas Essential Knowledge and 1

13 Skills (TEKS) program standards for each course listed under Agriculture, Food, and Natural Resources (AFNR), chapter 130.A, the student is expected to develop a supervised (improved, advanced) agricultural experience program as it relates to agriculture, food, and natural resources. Two of the components that reflect competence of this standard are to apply proper record-keeping skills as they relate to a supervised experience, and design and use a customized record-keeping system for the individual supervised experience (Texas Education Agency, 2010). In the Teacher Education Philosophy Statement on SAE (October, 2012) the American Association for Agricultural Education (AAAE) stated the SAE program is documented to show student development and success through recordkeeping that contributes to a student portfolio and can be adapted to fit the needs of individual students with consideration of contextual variables. The Texas Examination of Educator Standards (TExES) Preparation Manual for Agricultural Science and Technology (2006) lists three separate domains within the certification test framework. Domain II is Agribusiness and Economics. The fifth competency states the agricultural science and technology teacher understands agricultural entrepreneurship, business management, and ethical issues in agricultural business (Texas Education Agency, 2006). Included in the list of skill areas in which the beginning teacher should be competent are, 1.) understands basic principles and methods of financial management and types, characteristics, and purposes of budgets and recordkeeping systems used in agricultural businesses, and 2.) understands the use of computer hardware and software applications (e.g., spreadsheet, database, communication) in agriculture-related issues (Texas Education Agency, 2006). The sixth competency states 2

14 the agricultural science and technology teacher understands the application of economic and marketing principles to agricultural enterprises. Competency skills listed include that a beginning teacher, 1.) understands key economic principles (e.g., risk, supply and demand, marketing, value added) in agricultural businesses and how to apply knowledge of economic principles to business-related decision making, among others (Texas Education Agency, 2006). According to Croom (2008), Supervised Agricultural Experience (SAE) programs are accepted as an integral component of the agricultural education model throughout education. Likewise, the theoretical framework for SAE is rooted in experiential learning (Lewis, Rayfield, & Moore, 2012). Since the organization of agricultural clubs and the implementation of the SAE predecessor, Stimson s home projects, agricultural education students have been learning to do through participation in SAE programs (Lewis et al., 2012). Furthermore, in the TEKS (2010) program standards for each course listed under Agriculture, Food, and Natural Resources (AFNR), chapter 130.A, the student is expected to develop a supervised (improved, advanced) agricultural experience program as it relates to agriculture, food and natural resources. Two of the components that reflect competence of this standard are to apply proper record-keeping skills as they relate to a supervised experience, and design and use a customized record-keeping system for the individual supervised experience (Texas Education Agency, 2010). While there are numerous expectations and standards for teachers to teach agribusiness principles, is there adequate preparation or pre-service training in this subject area? Any record book system currently in place serves as the application, but the true lessons are found in the economic principles and financial foundations the FFA and 3

15 agricultural education system was built on and those being taught in agriculture classrooms. According to Stair, Warner, and Moore (2012), one of the challenges experienced by teacher educators is providing pre-service teachers with the necessary skills they need to be successful in the classroom. Concerns of early career agriculture teachers can be further complicated by the extra responsibilities of managing Supervised Agriculture Experience (SAE) projects and the advisement of the FFA chapter (Stair et al., 2012). Is the efficacy of a teacher in any given subject area related directly to the amount of pre-service or in-service training received in that area? An initial step in the process of determining the training needs may very well be to measure efficacy of agriculture teachers. The purpose of this study is to determine the relationship between perceived efficacy of teachers and the importance of record keeping skills in agricultural education, and to explore the professional development needs of agriculture teachers concerning record keeping concepts. Record Keeping According to the Internal Revenue Service, good records will help you monitor the progress of your business, identify the source of receipts, keep track of deductible expenses, prepare your tax returns, and report items supported on your tax returns (taken from The term record keeping may refer to many different things, depending on the literature or usage. It is important to further explore and define the term for use in this particular study. Throughout the course of a student s SAE project, there are many opportunities to apply the lessons learned in the agriculture classroom. Record book systems, in any format, are designed to give the student the opportunity to record the events relative to the SAE. This might be done in a journal (where daily, weekly, or 4

16 monthly activities are recorded) or in a financial record keeping system (used to track income and expenditures), or a combination of both. Record keeping may also be considered a key piece of instruction included in each AFNR course, learned in the classroom and put into practice through an SAE program. For the purpose of this research study, record keeping refers to the financial (agribusiness and economic) principles and concepts that are related to the AFNR educational standards for agriculture courses in Texas, those needed for the completion of an SAE project, learned through classroom instruction and hands-on application by use of a record keeping or record book system. Defining Efficacy According to Bandura (1997), it should be noted that the construct of self-efficacy differs from the colloquial term confidence. Confidence is a nondescript term that refers to the strength or belief but does not necessarily specify what the certainty is about.a self-efficacy assessment, therefore, includes both an affirmation of a capability level and the strength of that belief. Confidence is a catchword, rather than a construct embedded in a theoretical system (Bandura, 1997). Self-efficacy is the belief in one s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to manage prospective situations (Bandura, 1994). Teaching efficacy is the ability of a teacher to analyze the task related to teaching and feel competent in accomplishing that task (Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy, & Hoy, 1998). Competent teachers and the expected skills they ought to possess may be the most important factors contributing to the success of students (Stripling, Ricketts, Roberts, & Harlin, 2008). Stripling et al. (2008) also stated that teaching efficacy of the pre-service teacher in agricultural education could be the key to determining the success 5

17 or failure of the teacher. Gibson and Dembo (1984) defined teacher efficacy as a multidimensional construct composed of two independent dimensions: personal teaching efficacy and general teaching efficacy. According to Burris, McLaughlin, McCulloch, Brashears, and Fraze (2010), content efficacy is the level of confidence an agriculture teacher possesses in agribusiness and economics, plant and soil science, animal science, agricultural mechanics and technology, and natural resources and environmental science. Self-efficacy, as described by the personal and general efficacy sub-scales, fails to recognize the contribution of content efficacy to overall teacher efficacy (Burris et al., 2010). Teacher educators attempt to sort out which factors contribute to developing preservice teachers and which factors may undermine their development, especially preservice teachers confidence in their abilities to teach (Knobloch, 2006). Teacher s sense of efficacy is a type of self-efficacy and a belief-oriented motivation construct (Knobloch, 2006). Teachers have greater job satisfaction when they believe they can teach and make positive impacts (Hoy & Miskel, 2001). The notion of teacher confidence, or teaching efficacy, is another concept [in addition to professional development and content efficacy] that is prevalent in agricultural education research (Ulmer, Velez, Lambert, Thompson, Burris, & Witt, 2013). Studies have shown that high levels of efficacy do not always correlate positively with actual teacher performance. This disconnect between teacher performance and teacher confidence might indicate teachers are not prepared to integrate science [or record-keeping concepts] into their classroom (Ulmer et al., 2013). What evidence is there to show that high teacher and content efficacy correlate positively with teacher and student performance? 6

18 Theoretical Framework One of the most promising developments in education is the advent of models that attempt to define the variables extant in teaching and teacher education and that suggest potential areas of inquiry that can inform teachers and teacher educators (Cruickshank, 1990). According to Cruickshank (1990), a prototypical model of teaching was suggested by Mitzel (1960). He proposed that teaching as a phenomenon must take into account three sets of variables: teachers and pupils, their interactions, and the product of those interactions (Cruickshank, 1990). Dunkin and Biddle (1974) expanded on Mitzel s model (Cruickshank, 1990). This model, after Mitzel, presents the four major variable types: presage, context, process, and product (Cruickshank, 1990). According to Cruickshank (1990), Presage variables are those that influence teachers and their teaching behavior and fall into three subtypes: formative, experiential, and properties (primarily psychological). Presage refers to a sign or warning that something will happen, or a feeling of foreboding. It makes sense that presage variables would determine teacher efficacy and an agriculture educator s efficacy related to teaching agribusiness and economics principles. A study of self-efficacy would not be complete without including Bandura s (1977) social learning theory. In fact, a great number of studies over the last three decades have been framed by Bandura s work on self-efficacy. Albert Bandura offered perhaps the most influential theory of learning and development. This research will also reference Bandura on numerous occasions, but will focus primarily on the presage variables as seen in the Dunkin and Biddle (1974) model. Presage variables concern the characteristics of teachers that may be examined for their effects on the teaching process 7

19 thus, teacher formative experiences, teacher-training experiences, and teacher properties (Dunkin & Biddle, 1974). The focus will be on teacher preparation, and its relevance, or correlation, to teacher efficacy and efficacy related to teaching agribusiness and economics (record-keeping) principles. Although the pre-service teacher preparation curriculum is often talked about, most of what is said about it can best be described as conventional wisdom or expressions of opinion on what is commonly believed to be true (Cruickshank, 1990). On the other hand, there is a wide range of research concerning the effects of length of experience, post-secondary education level, and experience in the classroom on efficacy. According to Burris et al. (2010), this raises the question of whether there is a difference in the level of personal teaching and content efficacies due to teaching experience. One could draw the conclusion that a more experienced teacher would likely have a greater sense of self efficacy, as well as a high level of efficacy related to teaching record-keeping concepts, or any other topic simply because of the teaching experience and comfort level in the classroom. Research Problem There is a wide range of research concerning the effects of length of experience, post-secondary education level, and experience in the classroom on efficacy. It is important to determine the teacher and/or content efficacy of teachers. The determination of the level of efficacy and the perceived importance of teaching record keeping skills could offer more context to a pre-service agricultural teacher education program. Is this an area where the quality of training has been overlooked? 8

20 While there are numerous expectations and standards for teachers to teach agribusiness principles, is there adequate preparation? According to Stair, Warner, and Moore (2012), one of the challenges experienced by teacher educators is providing preservice teachers with the necessary skills they need to be successful in the classroom. Concerns of early career agriculture teachers can be further complicated by the extra responsibilities of managing SAE projects and the advisement of the FFA chapter (Stair et al., 2012). Any record book system currently in place serves as the application, but the true lessons are found in the economic principles and financial foundations the FFA and agricultural education system was built on. Is the efficacy of a teacher in any given subject area related directly to the amount of training received in that area? An initial step in the process of determining the training needs may very well be to measure the teaching and content efficacy of agriculture teachers concerning record-keeping principles (agribusiness and economics) and the perceived importance to include these concepts in agricultural education programs. Purpose and Objectives The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between perceived efficacy of teachers and the importance of record keeping skills in agricultural education, and to explore the professional development needs of agriculture teachers concerning record keeping concepts. The specific objectives that guided this study were: 1. Describe demographic characteristics of participants. 2. Examine the role of record books in record keeping. 3. Determine agriculture teachers perceived level of importance of specific key record keeping concepts. 9

21 4. Determine agriculture teachers perceived confidence to teach specific key record keeping concepts. 5. Explore relationships between efficacy and characteristics of participants. 6. Identify the professional development needs of agriculture teachers concerning record keeping concepts. Definition of Terms The following are terms and definitions used for this study: AAAE: American Association for Agricultural Education. AAAE is dedicated to studying, applying, and promoting the teaching and learning processes in agriculture ( n.d.). AFNR: Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources. Chapter 130.A of the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) for Career and Technical Education ( n.d.). Agricultural Education: Agricultural education teaches students about agriculture, food and natural resources. Through these subjects, agricultural educators teach students a wide variety of skills, including science, math, communications, leadership, management and technology ( n.d.). Agricultural Education Three-circle Model: classroom and laboratory instruction, leadership development, and experiential learning. The successful integration of each of these three components results in a strong program that produces well rounded individuals who are prepared to be leaders in agriculture, business, and industry ( 2014). 10

22 Area 1 FFA Association: the panhandle region of Texas; one of ten FFA areas in Texas, divided by geographic regions of the state; 38 counties, 89 chapters, over 5,000 FFA members, approximately 120 agriculture teachers ( 2014). Content Efficacy: the level of confidence an agriculture teacher possesses in agribusiness and economics, plant and soil science, animal science, agricultural mechanics and technology, and natural resources and environmental science (Burris, McLaughlin, McCulloch, Brashears, & Fraze, 2010). Efficacy: the power to produce a desired result or affect ( FFA: The National FFA Organization. Formerly known as the Future Farmers of America (est. 1928). FFA Mission Statement: FFA makes a positive difference in the lives of students by developing their potential for premier leadership, personal growth and career success through agricultural education (National FFA Organization, n.d.). Presage Variables: concerns the characteristics of teachers that may be examined for their effects on the teaching process teacher formative experiences, teacher-training experiences, and teacher properties (Dunkin & Biddle, 1974). Pre-service Teachers: of or relating to the period before a person takes a job that requires training, especially in teaching ( 2014). Professional Development: the advancement of skills or expertise to succeed in a particular profession, especially through continued education ( 2014). 11

23 Record Book: a compilation of the known facts regarding something or someone ( 2014). Record-keeping: the process of keeping a journal or record of what you have done (National FFA Organization, LifeKnowledge Lesson MS.69, n.d.) SAE: a practical application of classroom concepts designed to provide real world experiences and develop skills in agriculturally related career areas (National FFA Organization. Introduction to SAE. Retrieved from Self-efficacy: the belief in one s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to manage prospective situations (Bandura, 1994) Teaching Efficacy: the ability of a teacher to analyze the task related to teaching and feel competent in accomplishing that task (Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy, & Hoy, 1998) TEKS: Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) are the state standards for what students should know and be able to do; the state curriculum standards (Texas Education Agency, 2014). TExES: Texas Examinations of Educator Standards; criterion-referenced examinations designed to measure a candidate's knowledge in relation to an established criterion rather than to the performance of other candidates ( 2014). 12

24 Limitations of the Study This study was limited to the responses of agriculture teachers in a geographic region of Texas, operationally defined as Area 1 (or the panhandle region). The results of this study do not reflect all Texas agriculture teachers and should not be generalized to this population. This study was also limited by the term record keeping. Record keeping may be defined in many ways. The list of agribusiness and economic (record keeping) concepts used was based entirely on the record book system currently in place in Texas. The results of this study do not reflect any other state s means for keeping FFA records for the purposes of SAE reporting and should not be generalized to any other population besides that of the respondents. It can also be understood that the number of responses from participants was a limiting factor. Basic Assumptions Agriculture teachers were chosen for this study because of the assumption that they have knowledge about the FFA SAE program. It was also assumed that the responses from participants were honest and not intended to deceive the researcher or negatively influence the results of the study. Summary Research supports the belief that SAE s are regarded as beneficial to students, and that SAE s help make agricultural education vocational (Dyer & Williams, 1997). There have been studies to show that teacher and content efficacy are affected both by type of certification (traditional or alternative), and pre-service and in-service training of teachers. Likewise, there have been studies that measure the confidence and competence of teachers to integrate science and math content into their agriculture education 13

25 programs, however, little is known about the quality of pre-service and in-service training for teachers concerning record keeping concepts as they relate to FFA SAE programs and agricultural classroom instruction. The volatility of the current education system combined with the need for quality agricultural education programs, makes this study justifiable. SAE is a key component of the agricultural education model, and financial literacy and understanding of record keeping (agribusiness and economics) concepts, a key component of the SAE program. 14

26 Chapter II Review of Literature Overview This chapter serves as a review of literature and research related to self-efficacy, teacher and content efficacy, and pre-service and in-service teacher preparation. It will provide an understanding of the teaching model proposed by Dunkin and Biddle (1974), in particular, the presage variables seen in the model. This literature review will also include references to Bandura s work on self-efficacy, and will define record keeping as it relates to the FFA SAE program. Theoretical Framework Albert Bandura A study of self-efficacy would not be complete without including Bandura s (1977) self-efficacy theory, and subsequent work on the social learning and cognitive theories. In fact, a great number of studies over the last three decades have been framed by Bandura s work. Albert Bandura (1977) offered perhaps the most influential theory of learning and development, and formally defined perceived self-efficacy as personal judgments of one s capabilities to organize and execute courses of action to attain designated goals, and he sought to assess its level, generality, and strength across activities and contexts (Zimmerman, 2000, p. 83). According to Bandura (1986), human functioning is central to cognitive, vicarious, self-regulatory and self-reflective processes in human adaption and change. How humans function and perform is viewed as the product of a dynamic interplay of personal, behavioral, and environmental influences 15

27 (Bandura, 1986). Bandura regarded self-efficacy as one of the most important factors contributing to an individual s behavior based upon social cognitive theory (Wolf, Foster, & Birkenholz, 2010). Self-efficacy beliefs determine how people feel, think, motivate themselves and behave (Bandura, 1994). A strong sense of efficacy enhances human accomplishment and personal well-being in many ways in contrast, people who doubt their capabilities shy away from difficult tasks which they view as personal threats (Bandura, 1994). Dunkin and Biddle According to Cruickshank (1990), a prototypical model for teaching was suggested by Mitzel (1960). He proposed that teaching as a phenomenon must take into account three sets of variables: teachers and pupils, their interactions, and the product of those interactions. Dunkin and Biddle expanded on Mitzel s model (Cruickshank, 1990). In The Study of Teaching (1974), Dunkin and Biddle offered a model that includes four major variable types: presage, context, process, and product (Figure 1). Figure 1: A Model for the Study of Classroom Teaching (Dunkin & Biddle, 1974). 16

28 According to Dunkin and Biddle (1974), we must concern ourselves with the processes of teaching itself, with the actual behaviors of teachers and pupils as they play out the complex drama of classroom teaching. Throughout the model appear arrows. Each presumes a causative relationship. Thus, we presume that teacher formative experiences occurred prior to, and tend to have a causative effect on, classroom events and not vice versa (Dunkin & Biddle, 1974). This study focused on presage variables. According to Cruickshank (1990), Presage variables are those that influence teachers and their teaching behavior and fall into three subtypes: formative, experiential, and properties (primarily psychological). Dunkin and Biddle (1974) defined presage variables as those concerning the characteristics of teachers that may be examined for their effects on the teaching process, thus teacher formative experiences, teacher-training experiences, and teacher properties. According to Dunkin and Biddle (1974), teacher formative experiences include every experience encountered prior to teacher training, and for older teachers subsequent experiences as well. Teacher-training experiences include the college or university attended by the teacher, courses taken, the attitudes of instructors, experiences during practice teaching, and in-service and postgraduate education. Teacher properties consist of the measurable personality characteristics the teacher takes with him/her into the teaching situation. Literature Review Efficacy Arthur Combs said, Perhaps the most important single cause of a person s success or failure educationally has to do with the question of what he believes about 17

29 himself (Pajares, 1992, p. 307). Efficacy is often related to a measure of confidence, usually to achieve a goal or set of goals. Pajares (2000) described self-efficacy as the confidence that people have in their ability to do the things that they try to do. Bandura (1997) defined self-efficacy as a belief of one s capability to execute the actions necessary to achieve a certain level of performance. When considering education, a teacher s perception of their efficacy towards classroom practice could have many interconnected factors (Jansen & Thompson, 2008). With regard to their content, selfefficacy measures focus on performance capabilities rather than on personal qualities, such as one s physical or psychological characteristics (Zimmerman, 2000). Selfefficacy, as described by the personal and general efficacy sub-scales, fails to recognize the contribution of content efficacy to overall teacher efficacy (Burris, McLaughlin, McCulloch, Brashears, & Fraze, 2010). There are still many questions concerning efficacy and teacher efficacy to be answered, and likely questions that have yet to be asked. A contributing factor to the confusion surrounding teacher efficacy can be traced back to its beginning. Teacher efficacy was first conceived by the RAND researchers as the extent to which teachers believed they could control the reinforcement of their actions student motivation and performance were assumed to be significant reinforcers for teaching behavior (Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy, & Hoy, 1998). Thus, teachers with a high level of efficacy believed they could control, or at least strongly influence, student achievement and motivation (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). Teacher efficacy is described as the extent to which teachers believe they can influence student learning (Dembo & Gibson, 1985). Bandura (1977) identified teacher efficacy as a type of self-efficacy a cognitive 18

30 process in which people constructed beliefs about their capacity to perform at a given level of attainment these beliefs influence how much effort people put forth, how long they will persist in the face of obstacles, how resilient they are in dealing with failures, and how much stress or depression they experience in coping with demanding situations (Tshannen-Moran et al., 1998). While the construct of teacher efficacy (also called teacher self efficacy) can be complex and hard to understand, it is not a new concept in agricultural education research. A large majority of the literature related to efficacy in education makes a strong connection between high levels of efficacy and successful, effective, and efficient teachers. Likewise, a large amount of the literature contains the same references, which is evidence that it is a widely studied topic, and the sources cited most frequently are considered the standard. People differ in the areas in which they cultivate their efficacy and in the levels to which they develop it even within their given pursuits (Bandura, 2006). Efficacy can be described as the power to produce a desired result, and according to Bandura (1997), self-efficacy differs from the colloquial term confidence confidence is a catchword, rather than a construct embedded in a theoretical system. However, selfefficacy and more specifically, a teacher s sense of efficacy is an important variable in teacher development and how teachers teach (Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy, & Hoy, 1998). According to Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2001) teacher self-efficacy has been found to be a very powerful construct with connections to student achievement, motivation, and student self-efficacy. Perceived self-efficacy is defined as people s beliefs about their capabilities to produce designated levels of performance that exercises influence over events that affect their lives (Bandura, 1994). In an educational setting, 19

31 teaching efficacy can be defined as the perceived degree of effectiveness of instruction on learning (Weasmer & Woods, 1998). Teacher efficacy is an essential characteristic of qualified and highly motivated agriscience teachers because as teacher efficacy increases the amount of effort applied by teachers increases as well (Burris et al., 2010). Gibson and Dembo (1984) defined teacher efficacy as a multi-dimensional construct composed of two independent dimensions: personal teaching and general teaching efficacy. Similarly, Burris et al. (2010) described personal teaching efficacy as involving a teacher s evaluation of their own capability to bring about student learning, and that content efficacy is the level of confidence an agriculture teacher possesses in agribusiness and economics, plant and soil science, animal science, agricultural mechanics and technology, and natural resources and environmental science. Duncan and Ricketts (2008) posited that there is more to teaching agriculture than content and pedagogical process. The majority of literature available concludes that numerous factors contribute to self-efficacy and teacher efficacy. Self Efficacy in Agricultural Education Teacher self-efficacy is a concept studied across all educational content areas. Self-efficacy in agricultural education has been studied, and is often related to teacher preparedness or comfort levels. Wingenbach, McIntosh White, Degenhart, Pannkuk, and Kujawski (2007) asked, Are new agricultural science teachers knowledgeable and comfortable with teaching agriculture curricula, according to an established set of state standards (i.e, competencies)? Wingenbach et al. (2007) also cited the findings of McLean and Camp (2000) who examined selected pre-service agricultural teacher education programs and concluded that content depth of teacher preparation programs in 20

32 [agricultural education] varied widely across the institutions (pg. 33). Wingenbach et al. (2007) concluded that pre-service teachers had varied knowledge and comfort levels concerning TEKS objectives, revealing perceptions of adequacy in seven of the eight applied agricultural science and technology skill areas. Robinson and Edwards (2012) found that first year teachers in Oklahoma increased their level of self-efficacy throughout their first year of teaching. The alternatively certified teachers indicated the largest amount of growth across three teacher self-efficacy constructs (Robinson & Edwards, 2012). Furthermore, the traditionally certified teachers performed significantly better on the student achievement indicators standard than did the alternatively certified teachers (Robinson & Edwards, 2012). Because of their lack of pedagogical preparation, it is important to understand how alternatively certified teachers compare to traditionally certified teachers regarding their level of self-efficacy to teach secondary agricultural education (Robinson & Edwards, 2012). Whittington, McConnel, and Knobloch (2006) concluded that novice teachers in agriculture were efficacious at the end of the school year. Forty-two teacher characteristic variables were correlated with the summed efficacy score and six were found to have significance. Out of these six variables, only two (the teachers agreement with the statement that their student teaching experience was excellent, and the number of class preparations for which the teacher is responsible) were found to have significant relationships to teaching efficacy (Whittington et al., 2006). Whittington et al. (2006) also concluded that first-year, second-year, and third-year teachers are similarly efficacious at the end of the school year. 21

33 In-service and Pre-service Teacher Education Competent teachers and the expected skills they should possess may be the most important factors contributing to the success of students (Stripling, Ricketts, Roberts & Harlin, 2008). According to Knobloch (2006), student teaching is important for preservice teachers development. Knobloch (2006) also stated that teacher educators attempt to sort out which factors contribute to developing pre-service teachers and which factors may undermine their development, especially pre-service teachers confidence in their abilities to teach. Professional development in regard to the incorporation of science and math has received much attention in the agricultural education profession (Ulmer, Velez, Lambert, Thompson, Burris, & Witt, 2013). Interpreting changing levels of self efficacy while improving effective behaviors can be one goal of teacher education programs (Barns, n. d.). Agriculture teachers have had and continue to have a need for inservice education (Garton & Chung, 1997). Garton and Chung (1997) also stated that inservice needs can be identified using a needs assessment approach, and that those needs should focus on enhancing instruction and program development and administration. The specific in-service needs with the highest ranking should be given priority when planning and developing in-service programs for beginning teachers (Garton & Chung, 1997). Joerger (2002) recommended that an assessment of needs of beginning agriculture teachers be conducted on a regular basis, and that the information gathered from this routine assessment be used to design professional development programs for beginning teachers of agriculture. The continuing trend toward increasing diversity of curriculum offered within secondary agricultural education programs is driving a change in pre-service and in- 22

34 service technical training for agriculture teachers (Peake, Duncan, & Ricketts, 2007). According to Joerger (2002), access to appropriate and timely in-service education activities is critical to the initial success, effectiveness, continued development, and retention of beginning agricultural teachers. The primary reason for providing seamless and continuing education for beginning teachers is to improve their overall effectiveness and efficiency (Joerger, 2002). Jansen and Thompson (2008) found that although a teacher may be very confident in their ability to teach, subject knowledge has a stronger implication on confidence to enhance mathematics. Stachler, Young and Borr (2013) stated that the need for quality professional development to enhance CTE courses with the integration of STEM concepts is unmistakable. Likewise, Stachler et al. (2013) cited numerous studies indicating that professional development for teachers is largely inadequate, intellectually superficial, fragmented, and disconnected; and posed the question, How can teachers shift their pedagogy to effectively integrate core academics into their CTE curricula without losing the true nature of CTE content? (p. 14). There is also evidence that suggests different in-service needs based on certification type. Roberts and Dyer (2004) found that school administrators are forced to hire uncertified teachers to fill vacancies that might otherwise go unfilled due to teacher shortages, and that the task then becomes to prepare these individuals with the necessary skills to be successful. According to Roberts and Dyer. (2004) the literature base is lacking in knowledge about the in-service needs of alternatively certified agriculture teachers, and little is known about the in-service needs of uncertified teachers who seek certification by alternative methods. It should surprise few that the in-service needs of agriculture teachers appear to change over time (Roberts & Dyer, 2004). Research from 23

35 academic areas other than agricultural education indicates differences in the needs of traditionally versus alternatively certified teachers (Roberts & Dyer, 2004). Borko and Mayfield (1995) determined that student teaching in general, and guided teaching relationships in particular, are critical sites for the implementation of any educational reform agenda. Student teaching is a central component of virtually all pre-service teacher education programs (Borko & Mayfield., 1995). Likewise, Duncan and Ricketts (2008) argued that with the change in agricultural education comes the need to continually identify whether agriculture teachers are truly meeting the needs of their clientele (students). Record Keeping and SAE Programs Agricultural education literature is fraught with studies concerning efficacy and in-service training, however, literature concerning efficacy and in-service training in relation to record keeping in SAE programs specifically, is virtually non-existent. The National FFA Organization defines record keeping as the process of keeping a journal or record of what you have done (National FFA Organization, LifeKnowledge Lesson MS.69, n.d.). For the purpose of this research study, record keeping refers to the financial (agribusiness and economic) principles and concepts that are related to the AFNR educational standards for agriculture courses in Texas, those needed for the completion of an SAE project, learned through classroom instruction and hands-on application by use of a record keeping or record book system. The agricultural education Three Circle Model includes equal parts of classroom/laboratory instruction (contextual learning), supervised agricultural experience programs (work-based learning), and student leadership organizations (Talbert, Vaughn, 24

36 & Croom, 2005). Supervised Agricultural Experience (SAE) programs are accepted as an integral component of the agricultural education model throughout education (Croom, 2008). The theoretical framework for SAE is rooted in experiential learning (Lewis, Rayfield, & Moore, 2012). However, a growing concern over the lack of student SAE participation has developed among members of the profession (Lewis et al., 2012). Croom (2008) questioned If this model is composed in such a way that classroom instruction, FFA, and SAE are integrally linked and equally weighted components, then why do the FFA and SAE components generally subordinate themselves to instruction? (p. 111). The challenge of agricultural educators is to use students SAE programs as effectively as possible (Leske, 1992). Since the organization of agricultural clubs and the implementation of the SAE predecessor, Stimson s home projects, agricultural education students have been learning to do through participation in SAE programs (Lewis et al., 2012). Positive benefits of SAE programs can be found throughout agricultural education literature. According to Hanagriff, Murphy, Roberts, Briers, and Lindner (2010), extensive evidence of the educational value of SAE exists in the literature. According to Stewart and Birkenholz (1991), common benefits were identified in the areas of personal finance, maturation, increased responsibility, development of employment skills, and recognition for achievements. Through a Delphi study of SAE and FFA programs, Jenkins and Kitchel (2009) found several quality indicators, including up-to-date records provided by students, among others. Furthermore, in the TEKS (2010) program standards for each course listed under Agriculture, Food, and Natural Resources (AFNR), chapter 130.A, the student is expected to develop a supervised (improved, advanced) agricultural 25