. .n ”a...“ any ,,
.0. .1135? I
i...

. m
.. 3E5“?
. i a...

.8... . EL

{38%
at a}.
.-

. I? ..
4?».

.mfi

 

:"mh 2

Raw

 

purvnuy —~I~‘ >4 '

 

9»:va

9
afoot]

(port-29%;;

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

AN EMPIRICAL ASSESSMENT
OF MICHIGAN SECONDARY AGRICULTURAL
EDUCATOR PERCEPTIONS OF THE
TEACHING PROFESSION

presented by

Jeffry D. Hawes

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Doctoral degree in Agriculture & Extension
Education

 

 

WM/B 164/5:

Major Professor’ 5%
AV? 1 Y ZC 0/
{f I '

Date

 

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 cJClFIC/DateDuopss-pts

AN EMPIRICAL ASSESSMENT OF MICHIGAN SECONDARY
AGRICULTURAL EDUCATOR PERCEPTIONS OF THE
TEACHING PROFESSION
By

Jeffry D. Hawes

A DISSERTATION

submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Agriculture & Natural Resources
Education and Communication Systems

2004

ABSTRACT
AN EMPIRICAL ASSESSMENT OF MICHIGAN SECONDARY
AGRICULTURAL EDUCATOR PERCEPTIONS OF THE
TEACHING PROFESSION
By

Jeffry D. Hawes

The 2003 Michigan Association of Agriscience Education (MAAE) Strategic Plan
noted, “Districts with an AN RE program have faced a shortage of teachers for a number
of years. In fourteen of the last fifteen years, the supply of individuals holding a
secondary teaching certificate with vocational authorization has not met the demand.
Fifty-one programs have closed in the past fifteen years due in the large part to the lack
of teachers to fill vacancies, and numerous school districts have had to fill programs
without provisional teaching certificates” (Michigan Association of Agriscience
Education Strategic Plan, 2003).

This study investigated a variety of factors that may ultimately define the success
or failure of an Agriscience teacher in Michigan. In particular, this study focused on
stress indicators and sought to correlate the factors that may be attributed to low teacher
retention with demographics and a variety of internal and external factors to the
Agriscience teaching profession.

Findings indicated that MAAE teachers desire to make a positive difference as a
major motivating factor for pursuing a career in education. Moreover, a majority of the
MAAE teachers supported the tripartite mission of the agricultural education program
that is based on the traditional model of preparing students for a future career in the

agricultural industry by knowledge development through 1) classroom instruction,

2) skill development through supervised agricultural experience programs and
3) leadership development through the F F A organization.

Overall, Michigan Agriscience teachers reported high levels of job satisfaction,
overall frustration with a myriad of internal and external job characteristics. The single
greatest time commitment for Michigan Agriscience teachers was dedicated to their
regular teaching assignment averaging 20-24 hours per week. The second greatest time
commitment was in the area of preparation for teaching assignments averaging 8-12
hours per week.

The MAAE teachers identified both intrinsic and extrinsic factors as serving as
sources of stress. The intrinsic factors that received high responses as sources of stress
were institutional procedures, teaching load, FF A demands, and students. The study
identified other intrinsic factors that result in stress to a lesser degree. Those factors
include colleagues, committee work, faCulty meetings, review and promotion, and subtle
discrimination.

A majority of MAAE teachers indicated that they would still choose to pursue a
career in the field of education, while nearly 10 percent said they would not. Nearly half
of the MAAE teachers also reported that they had considered leaving their current

position for a non-teaching job.

DEDICATION

This dissertation is dedicated to my devoted wife Katherine, daughter Lauren
and son Michael for their love, support and patience. To my supportive parents Bill and
Jan Hawes, thank you for teaching me the value of hard-work and the importance of a

God centered life.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost, I must thank my major professor, Dr. Michael Woods, for
his assistance with this dissertation and for the guidance he provided me throughout my
doctoral program. He gave me personal encouragement and challenged me to the next
level through every step of my doctoral program.

I would also like to thank my Doctoral Committee, Dr. Randy Showerrnan, Dr.
Dave Krueger and Dr. Delbert Mokma for their assistance, support and guidance
throughout the entire dissertation process.

I also owe Kara and Kendra Butters an enormous debt of gratitude for their
continued support throughout my doctoral program. Also, to my friends and co-workers,
I would like to extend my appreciation for your friendship and fellowship that made my

time here at Michigan State University enjoyable and prosperous.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ........................................................... 1
1.1 A Challenge for Education ................................................. 1
1.2 Need for the Study ........................................................... 6
1.3 Statement of Problem ....................................................... 6
1.4 Purpose Statement ........................................................... 7
1.5 Research Questions ............................................................................ 8
1.6 Significance of the Study ................................................... 9
1.7 Limitations of the Study ..................................................................... 9
1.8 Summary ..................................................................... 9

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................... 10
2. 1 Introduction .................................................................. l 0
2.2 Historical Perspectives on the Establishment of ,

Agricultural Education ...................................................... 11
2.3 Adoption of Fonnalized Agricultural Education

Teacher Training Programs .................................................. 13
2.4 Recruitment and Training of Agricultural Education Teachers ....... 14
2.5 Impact of Teacher Attrition and Retention .............................. 17
2.6 Role of Stress and Burnout in a Teacher’s Life ......................... 18
2.7 Summary ..................................................................... 24

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY AND RESEARCH DESIGN ...................... 25
3.1 Chapter Preview ............................................................. 25
3.2 Population ................................................................... 25
3.3 Instrument Development ................................................... 26

3.3.1 Design ............................................................... 26
3.3.2 Content .............................................................. 26
3.3.3 Validity .............................................................. 27
3.3.4 Reliability ........................................................... 27
3.4 Data Collection .............................................................. 28
3.4.1 Initial Questions .................................................... 28
3.4.2 Follow-up E-mail ................................................... 28
3.4.3 Second Follow-up Questionnaire ................................ 29
3.4.4 Final F oIlow-up Questionnaire ................................... 30
3.4.5 Processing Procedures ............................................. 30
3.5 Data Analysis Procedures .................................................. 30
3.6 Summary ..................................................................... 31

vi

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION .......................................... 32

4.1 Chapter Preview ............................................................ 32
4.2 Description of Individual Demographical Data ......................... 33
4.3 Description of School System Data ....................................... 36
4.4 Questions 1 .................................................................. 37
4.4.1 Is there a clear sense of what factors led Michigan
Agriscience teachers to pursue a career in education?...... . . ..37
4.5 Question 2 .................................................................... 39
4.5.1 What components of the tripartite mission of
agricultural education interest the Michigan
Agriscience Education teachers the most?...........................39
4.6 Question 3 .................................................................... 40
4.6.1 Where do Michigan Agriscience teachers commit their
time in the management ofan ANRE program?...................40
4.7 Question 4 .................................................................... 43
~ 4.7.1 What types of activities related to education are
Michigan Agriscience teachers committed to beyond
their teaching aSSIgnment‘743
4.8 Question 5 .................................................................... 44
4.8.1 What types of attributes do Michigan Agriscience
teachers consider of importance? .......................................... 44
4.9 Question 6 .................................................................... 47
4.9.1 To what extent due intrinsic and extrinsic factors serves
as sources of stress for Michigan Agriscience teachers?.. 47
4.10 Question 7 .................................................................... 50
4.10.1 Do the experiences of Michigan Agriscience teachers
influence their decision to remain employed in
the educational field? ............................................................ 50
4.1] Summary ..................................................................... 52
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................... 53
5.1 Chapter Preview ............................................................. 53
5.2 Demographics ............................................................... 54
5.2.1 Conclusions Regarding Demographics of Michigan
. Agriscience Education Teachers. . . . . . .. ......................... 54
5.2.2 Conclusions Regarding Demographics of the School
System Data ......................................................... 54

vii

5.3 Question 1 .................................................................... 55
5.3.1 Conclusions ......................................................... 55
5.3.2 Recommendations .................................................. 55
5.3.3 Benchmarks... ...................................................... 56
5.3.4 Further Study ........................................................ 56
5.4 Question 2 .................................................................... 57
5.4.1 Conclusions ......................................................... 57
5.4.2 Recommendations .................................................. 57
5.4.3 Benchmarks ......................................................... 59
5.4.4 Further Study ....................................................... 59
5.5 Question 3 .................................................................... 60
5.5.1 Conclusions ......................................................... 60
5.5.2 Recommendations ................................................. 61
5.5.3 Benchmarks ......................................................... 61
5.5.4 Further Study ....................................................... 62
5.6 Question 4 .................................................................... 62
5.6.1 Conclusions. . . . . .. .................................................. 62
5.6.2 Recommendations .................................................. 63
5.6.3 Benchmarks ......................................................... 63
5.6.4 Further Study ....................................................... 64
5.7 Question 5 .................................................................... 64
5.7.1 Conclusions ......................................................... 64
5.7.2 Recommendations ................................................. 65
5.7.3 Benchmarks ......................................................... 65
5.7.4 Further Study ....................................................... 65
5.8 Question 6 .................................................................... 66
5.8.1 Conclusions ......................................................... 66
5.8.2 Recommendations ................................................. 67
5.8.3 Benchmarks ......................................................... 69
5.8.4 Further Study ....................................................... 69
5.9 Question 7 .................................................................... 70
5.8. 1 Conclusions ......................................................... 70
5.8.2 Recommendations .................................................. 70
5.8.3 Benchmarks ......................................................... 71
5.8.4 Further Study ............. . .......................................... 71
5.10 Summary ..................................................................... 71

viii

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A ........................................................................ 73
University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects
Letter of Approval

APPENDIX B ........................................................................ 74
University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects
Letter of Approval

APPENDIX C ........................................................................ 75
Survey Instrument

APPENDIX D ........................................................................ 85
Initial Cover Letter

APPENDIX E ........................................................................ 86
Follow-up E-mail

APPENDIX F ........................................................................ 87
Demographic Cross Tabulation

APPENDIX G ........................................................................ 111

Denotation of Write in Responses

BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................... 1 l3

ix

Figure 1:

Figure 2:

Figure 3:

Figure 4:

LIST OF FIGURES
Hebb’s Theory on Eustress and Distress ................................ 18

An Illustration of the Professional Efficacy Discrepency

Approach to Understanding Burnout .................................... 22
Model for Job Satisfaction and Burnout ................................. 23
Data Collection Procedures ................................................ 29

Table 1:

' Table 2:
Table 3:
Table 4:
Table 5:
Table 6:
Table 7:
Table 8:

Table 9:

Table 10:

Table 1 1:

Table 12:

Table 13:

Table 14:

Table 15:

Table 16:

Table 17:

Table 18:

Table 19:

LIST OF TABLES

Relative Demand by Field as Identified by the Association

for American Employment in Education ................................. 5

Demographics Characteristics of Respondents ......................... 35
Demographics of School Systems ........................................ 36
Importance in Pursuing Career as an Agriscience Instructor .......... 38
Teaching Interest ............................................................ 40
Hours Spent on Activities per Week ..................................... 42
Educational Activities ...................................................... 44
Personal and Professional Issues of Importance ........................ 46
Sources of Stress ............................................................ 49
Begin Career Again ......................................................... 50
Descriptive of Respondents ................................................ 51
Number and Type of Courses Taught .................................... 87
Importance of Issues as an Agriscience Instructor ..................... 88
Agree with Issues ............................................................ 89
Standardized Testing ....................................................... 90
Evaluation Methods ......................................................... 91
Instructional Techniques/Methods ........................................ 92

Cross Tabulation- Considered Leaving Your Current Position
for a Non Teaching Job by Gender, Marital Status,
and Years Taught ............................................................ 93

Cross Tabulation- If You Were to Begin Your Career Again,

Would You Still want to be an Agriscience Teacher by Gender,
Marital Status, and Years Taught ......................................... 94

xi

Table 20:

Table 21:

Table 22:

Table 23:

Table 24:

Table 25:

Table 26:

Table 27:

Table 28:

Table 29:

Table 30:

Table 31:

Table 32:

Cross Tabulation- Extent to which Institutional
Procedures/Red Tape has Been a Source of Stress
by Gender, Marital Status, Years Taught ................................ 95

Cross Tabulation- Extent to which FF A Demands has
been a Source of Stress by Gender, Marital Status,

Years Taught .................................................................. 96

Cross Tabulation- Extent to which Students has been a
Source of Stress by Gender, Marital Status, and Years Taught ...... 97

Cross Tabulation- Extent to which Colleagues has been
a Source of Stress by Gender, Marital Status, and Years Taught. . .. 98

Cross Tabulation- Extent to which Committee Work
has been a Source of Stress by Gender, Marital Status,
Years Taught ................................................................. 99

Cross Tabulation- Extent to which Faculty Meetings has been a
Source of Stress by Gender, Marital Status, and Years Taught ....... 100

Cross Tabulation- Extent to which Review and Promotion has
been a Source of Stress by Gender, Marital Status, Years Taught... 101

Cross Tabulation- Extent to which Teaching Load has been a
Source of Stress by Gender, Marital Status, and Years Taught ...... 102

Cross Tabulation- Extent to which Subtle Discrimination has
been a Source of Stress by Gender, Marital Status, Years Taught... 103

Cross Tabulation- Extent to which Keeping Up with Technology
has been a Source of Stress by Gender, Marital Status,
Years Taught ................................................................. 104

Cross Tabulation- Extent to which Managing Household
Responsibilities Has been a Source of Stress by Gender,
Marital Status, Years Taught .............................................. 105

Cross Tabulation- Extent to which Lack of Personal Time has
been a Source of Stress by Gender, Marital Status, Years Taught... 106

Cross Tabulation- Extent to which Marital/Spousal Friction has

been a Source of Stress by Gender, Marital Status, Years
Taught ........................................................................ 107

xii

Table 33:

Table 34:

Table 35:

Cross Tabulation- Extent to which Personal Finances has been a
Source of Stress by Gender, Marital Status, and Years Taught ...... 108

Cross Tabulation- Extent to which Keeping up with
Agricultural Industry Has been a Source of Stress by
Gender, Marital Status, Years Taught .................................... 109

Cross Tabulation- Extent to which Keeping up with Natural

Resources Issues has been a Source of Stress by Gender,
Marital Status, Years Taught .............................................. 110

xiii

GLOSSARY

To assist in a clear understanding of this study, the following terms that are used in the
Agriscience Education profession have been defined.

Agricultural Education: Term synonymous with Agriscience Education in Michigan.
Agriscience Education: The discipline dedicated to the formal education in Michigan
about agriculture and natural resources.

Agriscience Education Piggra_m_: A formal educational program authorized by the
Michigan Department of Education to provide education about agriculture and natural
resources.

Agriscience Educator: A certified profession that is licensed to teach Agriscience
education in a secondary school district or career & technical center in Michigan.

Annual Yearly Progress: Key cornerstone of the No Child Left Behind Act that serves as
a measure of year to year student achievement on the Michigan Education Assessment
Program.

Future anners of America: An intra-curricular student leadership organization that is an
integral component of an Agriscience Education program.

Highly Qualified Teacher: A specific term defined by the No Child Left Behind Act that
requires teachers by to hold a bachelor’s degree, hold full state certification, demonstrate
subject matter competency in the core academic subjects that the teacher teaches.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001: Public act designed to improve student achievement
and change the culture of schools through the re-authorization of the Secondary and

Elementary congressional act.

xi'v

Teacher Attrition: A gradual, natural reduction in membership or personnel actively
employed in the agricultural education profession, as through retirement, resignation, or
death.

Teacher Recruitment: To action of adding to individuals to the agricultural education
profession. I

Teacher Retention: Power to keep individuals employed in the agricultural education
profession.

Teacher Shortage: Amount or extent of deficiency of qualified and certified individuals

to enter the agricultural education teaching profession.

XV

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1 A Challenge for Education

On February 27th 2001 , George W. Bush during his State of the Union address
stated, “When it comes to our schools, dollars alone do not always make the
difference. Funding is important and so is reform. So we must tie funding to higher
standards and accountability for results” (White House, 2004). Following his
commitment to reform, on January 8, 2002, President Bush signed the No Child Left
Behind (NCLB) Act that has challenged the American educational system to embrace
reform by seeking stronger accountability for results, more freedom for states and
communities and encouraging proven educational methods (United States Department
of Education, 2003). Along with this reform is a challenge for education to prepare
and provide a highly qualified workforce that is prepared to meet the challenges in
education for the 21St Century (Paige, 2002).

Acting on President Bush’s charge to “Leave No Child Behind” in 2003,
Secretary of Education Ron Paige released the second annual report entitled Meeting
the Highly Qualified Teacher Challenge: The Secretary ’3 Second Annual Report on
Teacher Quality. In this report, Secretary Paige noted, “One of the most important
provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act is a requirement that by the end of school
year 2005-2006, all teachers of core academic subjects must be highly qualified. This

nation has many great teachers, but not nearly enoug ” (Paige, 2003).

For years there has been a general conviction among the educational
community, researchers and policy makers that teacher quality is instrumental to
quality instruction in school systems (Darling-Hammond, & Young, 2002; Decker,
Glazerrnan, & Mayer, 2004). The National Commission on Excellence in Education
(1983) recorded concerns over a highly qualified teacher workforce over two decades
ago by stating, “The commission found that not enough of the academically able
students are being attracted to teaching; that teacher preparation programs need .
substantial improvement; that the professional working life of teachers is on the whole
unacceptable; and that a serious shortage of teachers exists in key fields”.

Teacher shortages are an issue that has received a great deal of attention as
being a major concern to the field of education in the United States and has
subsequently sparked much debate (National Education Association, 2002). In 2002,
the National Education Association reported, “A historic turnover is taking place in the
teaching profession. While student enrollments are rising rapidly, more than a million
veteran teachers are nearing retirement. Experts predict that overall we will need more
than 2 million new teachers in the next decade”.

Several studies by Camp (2000; 2002), National Center for Educational
Statistics (2002) and North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (2004) have
reported varying levels of shortages and surpluses in teacher supply and demand in the
United States. In 2002, the American Association for Employment in Education
reported that, “Shortages of educators are evident throughout the country, with

variations depending upon each field and discipline surveyed, the distinct regions of

the United States, differences among urban rural, and suburban school systems, and
the demographical characteristics of both students and educators” (p. 3).

The approach to evaluating teacher shortages is critical to obtaining useful and
pertinent information for guiding and steering policy as it relates to teacher preparation
programs (North Central Regional Educational Laboratory, 2004). In 2004, the North
Central Regional Educational Laboratory reported, “Most national studies on teacher
supply and demand conclude that, nationally, there is an overabundance of teachers,
but shortages are showing up in certain curriculum areas and in certain geographic
areas” (p. 4). It is necessary to evaluate the research approach before accepting any
claim on teacher shortages or surpluses (North Central Regional Laboratory, 2004).
For example, a surplus of teachers appears to be evident when presented with
standardized data from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics that indicates annual
openings for teachers are less than half of the expected education graduates identified
by the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System. When comparing data, one
must include factors such as willingness of potential teachers to relocate, attrition rates
from retirement and teachers leaving the profession.

Traditionally, the Midwest has been a net-exporter of teacher due to the fact
that it trains more teachers than available positions, yet this trend has been changing in
recent years. Recent studies indicate that while it is probably still true that the
Midwest region still continues to produce a greater number of teachers than it needs,
shortages have already begun to show up in certain areas and geographic locations

(North Central Regional Educational Laboratory, 2004).

Even though it is unclear how specific a teacher shortage is, it is evident that
there are significant areas of shortages for specific curriculum areas. In 2000, the
American Association for Employment in Education released a research report that
evaluated educator supply and demand in the United States. According to the
American Association for Employment in Education (2000), “There are significant
shortages in the supply of K-12 teachers and administrators. These shortages are most
evident in special education, math, science and ESL/bilingual fields and disciplines.
However, nearly all of the 67 fields are either in a balance or shortage situation” (p.
13).

Agricultural education was identified as a field with shortages of teachers. As
noted in Table 1, Agricultural Education was perceived by faculty to have moderate
levels of teacher shortages (American Association for Employment in Education,
2000). Historically, the concern of teacher shortages is not a new problem for the field
of agricultural education as noted by Camp (2002). The number of newly qualified
potential teachers of agriculture fell from 1,749 in 1977 to 643 in 1994 and during that
same period Camp (2002) reported that the placement rates for the smaller number of
graduates also declined (p. 5).

In light of the fact that the field education has witnessed teacher shortages,
concern arises on the impact that the “No Child Left Behind” will have on certifying
teachers to meet the void (Darling-Hammond, & Young, 2002). The No Child Left
Behind Act has placed a tremendous challenge in front of the educational community
to strengthen their accountability systems and identify research based strategies for

improving student achievement by recruiting the best and brightest teachers. This

comes at a period in the American educational system where shortages of highly

qualified teachers are apparent in key teacher fields. Camp (2002), contended that

sound recruitment and retention strategies in a period where certain fields are having

difficulty ensuring that a teacher is even available for their current positions.

 

 

Table 1
Relative Demand by Field as Identified by the Association for American Employment
in Education.
Condiserable Shortage Some Shortage Balanced Supply
Emotional Behavioral Early Childhood Special Music-General
Disorders Ed. School Nurse
Multicategorical English as a second Languages-Classics
Seveer/Profound language Speech Education
Disabilities Technology Education Human Resources
Learning Disability Languages-Spanish Physical therapist
Mild/Moderate Disabilities Earth/Physical English/Language Arts
Mathematics Education Biology Languages-German
Mental Retardation Speech Pathologist Business Manager
Physics General Science Business Education
Bilingual Educatioin Superintendent Elementary-
Visually Impaired Library/Media Specialist Intermediate
Hearing Impaired High School Principal Elementary-Pre-Kind
Chemistry Middle School Principal Occupational Therapist
Computer Science Audiologist Elementary-
Education Elementary Principle Kindergarten
Dual Certificate School Psychologist Elementary Primary
Counselor Journalism Education
Gifted/Talented Education Art/Visual Education
Music-Instrumental Driver Education
Home Dance Education
Economics/Consumer Theatre Education
Science Theatre/Drama
Languages-Japanese Social Studies
Reading Education
Music-Vocal Physical Education
School Social Worker Health Education
Agriculture
Langgge-French

 

 

 

 

 

 

Recent studies (Arnerican Association for Employment in Education, 2000;
National Association for Agriscience Educators, 2002) have also identified higher than
average attrition rates for new and beginning teachers. The Ohio Department of Education
reported that only 66% of teachers were teaching ten years later (Ohio Department of
Education, 2000). More alarming is the fact that principals in Minnesota by a 5 to 1 margin
said that the teachers leaving the profession were more effective teachers in the district

(Hare & Nathan, 1999).

1.2 Need for the Study

Camp (2000; 2002) has concluded that various factors impact the successful
recruitment and retention for K-12 educators. However, studies that evaluate the reason
why teachers choose to do what they do and evaluate what factors that may alter the
individual’s decision to stay in the teaching profession are lacking. Thus, as the North
Central Regional Laboratory (2004) noted, there is a need for further evaluation of the
factors that affect one’s decision to pursue K-12 teaching as a career and to assess the
factors that may alter their respective decision to remain employed in the teaching

profession.

1.3 Statement of the Problem

To address the challenges facing agricultural education as it relates to maintaining
a highly qualified teacher workforce, education leaders within the profession must start
defining the problem and identifying solutions to address the teacher shortages (Camp,

2002). This in and of itself will create new challenges for education at the post-

secondary level where educational leaders must find new models for teacher recruitment
and preparation that can be implemented as a management tool that will allow them to
meet the future needs of certifying the highly qualified teacher.

As noted by the MAAE Strategic Plan (2002), agricultural education in Michigan
has endured a period of high attrition rates coupled with high teacher turn over for new
and beginning teachers in local programs. The combination of the two factors has
created a turn over ratio that if endured for long periods may reduce the quality and
number of sites where Agriscience education programs are potentially offered (MAAE
Strategic Plan, 2002). Research has also indicated that retention of agricultural education
teachers across the country is affected by their respective feelings of job satisfaction
(Cano and Miller, 1992). Moreover, Jarvis (2002) noted that stress and burnout is closely
associated with the low retention and high attrition rates of agricultural education

teachers.

1.4 Purpose Statement

In an effort to address the call placed by Camp (2002) to engage the profession’s
leadership to identify solutions that lead to resolving the teacher shortages, the purpose of
this study was to collect baseline data that will provide insight into the factors, both
intrinsic and extrinsic to the school system that may affect their commitment to education
as a career choice. Moreover, this study provides descriptive data for assessing teacher
perceptions that can be associated with factors that result in stress that may lead to higher
attrition rates. This study provides descriptive data on demographics, stress indicators

and reasons for entering the teaching profession.

Specifically, in an effort to identify factors that lead to higher attrition of new and

beginning teachers, this study focused on sources of stress that are related to the teaching

profession, the potential impact that may be associated with assessing why an individual

would choose to become an Agriscience education teacher and whether these issues share

commonalities or significant correlation to the demographical background of an

increasing diverse agricultural education teacher population.

1.5 Research Questions

To achieve the aforementioned research purpose the following research questions

guided this study:

1)

2)

3)

4)

5)

6)

7)

Is there a clear sense of what factors led Michigan Agriscience teachers to
pursue a career in Agriscience education?

What components of the tripartite mission of agricultural education interest
the Michigan Agriscience teachers?

Where do Michigan Agriscience teachers commit their time in the
management of an ANRE program?

What types of activities related to education are Michigan Agriscience
teachers committed to beyond their teaching assignment?

What types of attributes do Michigan Agriscience teachers consider of
importance?

To what extent due intrinsic and extrinsic factors serve as sources of stress for
Michigan Agriscience teachers?

Do the experiences of Michigan Agriscience teachers influence their decision

to remain employed in the educational field?

1.6 Significance of the Study

This study provides baseline data to assess what factors either retain or inhibit an
Agriscience teacher within the profession. It is hypothesized that by identifying factors
that are rewarding or unconstructive to Agriscience teachers will help provide insight that

can be utilized in advancing the preparation and training of Agriscience educators.

1.7 Limitations of the Study

The research will assume the results obtained from the Michigan Agriscience
teacher is a valid and accurate portrayal of their perceptions related to the questions under
investigation. The process of collecting data on the thoughts and perceptions of human
beings and the researcher assumes that an individual’s perceptions are consistent if the

instrument was distributed on a different day.

1.8 Summary

This study presents descriptive statistics on factors that are associated with the
teaching profession for Michigan Agriscience teachers. The goal was to provide base
line data to analyze the perceptions of teachers regarding the aforementioned research
questions. The subsequent chapters review related literature that aided in the
development of the conceptual and theoretical framework for this study (chapter 2);
outlines the methodology and research design of this study (chapter 3); presents the
findings of the study (chapter 4); and presents conclusions and recommendations that

may aid in the retention of Michigan Agriscience educators (chapter 5).

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF LITERATRE

2.1 Introduction
This chapter contains a review of literature that is pertinent to understanding
of the field of agricultural education and the inherent factors related to the work-life of
Michigan Agriscience teachers. Specifically, this chapter will outline the key research
and literature that are associated with 1) teacher satisfaction; 2) teacher stress; and 3)
teacher burnout as it relates to the recruitment, training and retention a highly qualified
workforce of agricultural education teachers. Specifically, chapter two outlines the
theoretical underpinnings needed to understand the aforementioned factors are associated
with the following research questions:
1) Is there a clear sense of what factors led Michigan Agriscience teachers to
pursue a career in education?
2) What components of the tripartite mission of agricultural education interest
the Michigan Agriscience teachers the most?
3) Where do Michigan Agriscience teachers commit their time in the
management of an AN RE program?
4) What types of activities related to education are Michigan Agriscience
teachers committed to beyond their teaching assignment?
5) What types of attributes do Michigan Agriscience teachers consider of

importance?

10

6) To what extent due intrinsic and extrinsic factors serve as sources of stress for
Michigan Agriscience teachers?
7) Do the experiences of Michigan Agriscience teachers influence their decision

to remain employed in the educational field?

2.2 Historical Perspective on the establishment of Agricultural Education

Early in America’s history, the concept of agricultural education was prevalent in
the American educational system. Herren and Hillison (1996) noted, “Agricultural
Education has had a close working relationship with land-grant universities since they
were started in 1862” (p. 1). The early agricultural education programs at the secondary
level were established as part of the common school movement under Horace Mann,
Massachusetts’s Secretary of Education. Mann’s belief in a state funded, compulsory and
universal system built the foundation for modern agricultural education programs to exist.

In 1917, agricultural education programs, formerly known as vocational
agriculture, were formally established at the federal level in the public educational school
system across the United States through the Smith-Hughes Act. The Smith-Hughes act
was derived from a joint commission established by President Woodrow Wilson. The
commission was charged to investigate the idea of national aide to vocational education
in the United States (Smith, 1999). The commission emphasized the need for vocational
training based on numbers cited from the 1910 census that indicated that over 12,000,000
million persons in the United States were involved in agriculture and over 14,000,000
million persons involved in manufacturing and mechanical pursuits for which there was

no training (Smith, 1999). The adoption of the Smith-Hughes Act established vocational

11

training as an integral component of the American educational system and was intended
to meet the need of a well-trained workforce to engage productively in a changing
industrial and agricultural base (Smith, 1999).

At the time of the adoption of the Smith-Hughes Act, the concept of experiential
education was not a driving force of the pedagogy of the traditional school that focused
primarily on intellectual thought and strict memorization (Dewey, 1956). A major
contributor to supporting the agricultural education movement was John Dewey’s work
on the concept of experiential education. Though Dewey was not the forerunner in
pragmatizing such an educational venture, he was instrumental in providing the
philosophical basis by which the case could be made for experiential education in
general. Dewey (1938) noted, “The logical outcome is a new philosophy of experience
and knowledge, a philosophy which no longer puts experience in opposition to rational
knowledge and explanation. Experience is no longer a mere summarizing of what has
been done in a more or less chance way in the past; it is a deliberate control of what is
done with reference to making what happens to us and what we do to things as fertile as
possible of suggestions (of suggested meanings) and a means for trying out the validity of
the suggestions” (pp5-6).

The concept of experiential education and the work of John Dewey served as a
philosophical basis for promoting agricultural education as the United State entered the
20th Century. The initiative through the Smith-Hughes Act to implement agricultural
education programming to prepare the future agricultural workforce created a need for

highly skilled teachers.

12

2.3 Adoption of Formalized Agricultural Education Teacher Training Program

Like the concept of agricultural education, the concept of teacher training for the
field of agricultural education has been on an evolving and changing path. From the
earliest state-funded programs, agricultural education has had a close working
relationship with land-grant universities in preparing teachers. This relationship between
agricultural education and the land-grant universities pre-dates the adoption of the Smith-
Hughes Act by the United States congress (Herren & Hillison, 1996). In 1862, the
Morrill Act established the land-grant university system and ties immediately began to
emerge with existing agricultural education programs (Herren & Hillison, 1996).

The Smith-Hughes Act further established formal training of teachers to serve in
the agricultural education programs (Herren & Hillison, 1996). However, the philosophy
of experiential training was short-lived on the basis that knowing how to perform a skill
did not predispose one’s ability to transfer that skill to the student. Since the act did not
specify at what type of institution that the teacher training must occur, both land-grant
institutions and common normal schools provided teacher training opportunities. This
led to the inclusion of agricultural education teacher training into the four-year
institutions requiring training to become a certified teacher. Even though agricultural
education teacher training has a long history, the profession has had difficulty ensuring
that there is an adequate supply of highly qualified teachers with the appropriate
certification and skills to teach in the profession (Camp, 2002). The Michigan
Association of Agriscience Educators (2003) noted, “Perhaps the most critical
components needed in order to have quality Agriscience and Natural Resources

Education (ANRE) programs is an adequate cadre of quality teachers.”

13

2.4 Recruitment and Training of Agricultural Education Teachers

During the 20th Century, the industry of agriculture had witnessed major technical
and industrial change that supported the need for the aforementioned vocational training
to prepare the future workforce (Smith, 1999). Conroy, Dailey and Shelley-Tolbert
(2003) noted, “Vocational agriculture programs trained the workforce for agriculture and
helped the United States to become the leader in world food production. Advancements
in technology and increased efficiency in agriculture production, however, led to changes
in workforce dynamics. These factors changed the infrastructure and the types of
workers who would be in demand” (p. 51). The establishment of vocational agriculture
programs had created a need for highly skilled teachers to train young people for the
industry of their day.

Today, the need for highly skilled teachers remains as the field of agricultural
education has changed from vocational based to a science-based curriculum. To meet the
needs of the industry, the 21St century agriculture education program is committed to
expanding curriculum for science training and other issues that are impacting the
agricultural industry. In 1988, The National Research Council published a report that
called for the need for student understanding of basic science concepts and that agricultural
education should be an instrumental player in that process. This spurred the development
of the Agriscience movement in Michigan and across the country to develop curriculum
that is science-based. This demand for a science-based curricula has created a continued
demand to develop an Agriscience teacher certification program that is relevant to the

needs of a changing industry.

14

The increase demand on schools to ensure that every teacher is not only certified but
qualified in their respective subject areas that they teach will increase the pressure on
preparing agricultural education students. This becomes a pressing concern to small
districts that hire agricultural education teachers to teach curricula outside of their certified
area (Camp, 2000).

The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act or more
prominently known as the No Child Left Behind Act has new provisions that may
negatively impact the teachers and support staff across the United States (National
Education Association, 1999). Accordingly, by the end of the 2005-2006 school years,
school districts must verify that all teachers working in a district that receives title I money
are classified as highly qualified. To all new and beginning teachers the following
definition must be fulfilled according to Paige (2002):

“A middle or secondary school teacher who is new to the profession,

means that the teacher holds at least a bachelor's degree and has

demonstrated a high level of competency in each of the academic

subjects in which the teacher teaches: (l) passing a rigorous State

academic subject test in each of the academic subjects in which the

teacher teaches (which may consist of a passing level of performance

on a State-required certification or licensing test or tests in each of the

academic subjects in which the teacher teaches); or (11) successful

completion, in each of the academic subjects in which the teacher

teaches, of an academic major, a graduate degree, coursework

15

equivalent to an undergraduate academic major, or advanced

certification or credentialing.” (Paige, 2002)

In the wake of a major concern for teacher shortages, the No Child Left Behind Act
has raised the bar for teacher quality standards. The No Child Left Behind Act evaluates
teacher quality as part of the Adequate Yearly Progress provision whereby school districts
are evaluated on whether all teachers in core academic areas are classified as ‘highly
qualified’. This would include all subjects that teach English, reading, language arts,
mathematics, geography, economics, the arts and foreign language.

This No Child Left Behind Act has sent reverberations through the educational
communities. This is primarily due to three reasons: 1) this act has placed increased
pressure on teacher preparation programs at post-secondary institutions to certifying a
quality teacher workforce; 2) this act has placed pressure on local districts to locate only
fully certified teachers; 3) this act has placed pressure on current teacher to achieve a highly
qualified status by the end of the school year in 2006.

The National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (2002) reported that
the teacher supply shortage can only be solved when the teacher attrition rate is reduced
and that high quality teacher preparation is a strong predictor of teacher retention. Quality
teacher preparation provides new teachers with the skills, confidence and competence to
begin their teaching careers. Teacher licensure should validate that teachers who enter the
classroom are highly qualified to be there (National Commission on Teaching and
America’s Future, 2002). The commission also indicated that schools actually have more
difficulty retaining teachers than recruiting teachers (National Commission on Teaching

and America’s Future, 2002). However, the pressures of an ever-changing and expanding

16

global economy have placed increased demands on teacher training programs at the post-
secondary level. One of the most important challenges facing colleges of agriculture today
involves recruiting, retaining, and educating high caliber individuals who are academically
prepared to function in a rapidly changing food, fiber and natural resources industry (Ball,
Dyer & Ganton, 2000). Student’s academic performance and their continued enrollment

are a concern for universities and their respective colleges (Dyer, Garton & King, 2000).

2.5 The Impact of Teacher Attrition and Retention

Teacher attrition rates reported in national and state studies have varied widely,
however, certain fields have been found to be consistently higher than general education.
(Gonzalez, 1995). The field of agricultural education has experienced higher than normal
attrition rates over the past two decades (Camp, 2002). Bennett, Edwards, Iverson,
Langone and Rows (1990) noted, “It is important for the Agricultural Education
community in the state of Georgia and nationally to understand better the reasons for
which teachers of agriculture leave the profession prior to retirement. Moreover, over the
past two decades, numerous studies have evaluated and identified different factors that
are believed to affect teacher retention rates”. Reasons for higher attrition rates are not
well understood. However, several studies have indicated that stress and burnout greatly

impacts the teacher retention rates (Brown, 1999; Carter, 1994; Jarvis, 2002).

17

2.6 The. Role of Stress and Burnout in a Teacher’s Life

A teaching career can be extremely rewarding, but can also be extremely
demanding. The field of education has been identified as a highly stressful occupation in
several studies over the past decade (Brown, 1999; Jarvis, 1999; Jacob & Place, 2001;
Swortzel, 1999; Schmitz, Schawarzer, Tang & Tung, 2001). Stress is a phenomenon that
is closely associated with a range of causal factors, both intrinsic and extrinsic to the
teaching profession (Jarvis, 1999). Merriam- Webster (2004) defines stress as “a mentally
or emotionally disruptive or upsetting condition occurring in response to adverse external
influences and capable of affecting physical health, usually characterized by increased
heart rate, a rise in blood pressure, muscular tension, irritability and depression”. Linde
(2000), categorized stress as either pleasant or unpleasant, pending a variety of factors.
Pleasant stress will tend to lead to productive activity, whereas unpleasant stress will lead

to emotional exhaustion (See Figure 1).

Peak Performance

   
  
 
 
 
  
   
  

Anxiet
Demands Seen as y

Challenge Poor Concentration

Problems with

Increased Decision Making

Motivation

Exhaustion
Boredom

Burnout

Few Demands Increased Demands Many Demands

 

Figure 1: Hebb’s Theory on Eustress and Distress (Linde, 2000)

18

Whether stress is perceived as pleasant or unpleasant is defined by the level of
demands placed on an individual. According to the Hebb’s model, pleasant stress will
tend to be seen as a challenge as long as there are few demands to moderate demand;
whereas, excessive demands will allow stress to have negative impact both emotionally
and physically. Hebb’s model has been substantiated by work that identified
unproductive levels of stress as harmful to teachers that can affect their teaching, personal
lives and their respective students (Jarvis, 1999; Schmitz, Schwarzer, Tang, & Tung,
2001). Jarvis (1999) noted, “Many of the frustrations and pressures we experience in our
social, personal, and work lives cause us to feel stress. Today’s fast-paced and ever-
changing environment has caused stress to become a part of our daily living”.

Adams (1999), identified internal stressors, such as role preparedness, job
satisfaction, life satisfaction, illness symptoms, locus of control and self esteem as major
contributors to teacher stress. Adams (1999), wrote that the most critical internal
characteristics in explaining vocational teacher stress were found to be illness symptoms,
self-esteem and role preparedness. Jarvis (2002), suggest that a number of stressors are
intrinsic to teaching, such as long working hours and workload emerged as top factors.
Adams (1999), study of vocational education noted the most important internal
characteristic in explaining vocational teacher stress were illness symptoms, self-esteem
and role preparedness. As the National Education Association (2004) noted, the issue of
teacher stress has been an increasing concern over the past few decades. Stress can

“make large workloads even tougher to manage, interfere with our personal and social

19

relationships, and as National Education Association’s own data bear out, ultimately send
educator hitting the exit door” (National Education Association, 2004).

There is increasing evidence that stress is a major contributor to the health and
well being of teachers (Schmitz, Schwarzer, Tang, & Tung, 2001; F arrnber, 1991; Borg,
1990). The National Association of Head Teachers in May 2000 indicated that 40% of
respondents reported having visited their doctor with a stress-related problem in the
previous year and that 25% suffered from serious related health problems including
insomnia and depression (Jarvis, 2002).

Stress also has been cited as a major contributor to lower teacher retention rates
among new and beginning teachers (Camp, 2002; Jarvis, 2002). Stress is a major
contributor to why “one-third of teachers leave the profession within the first five years
of teaching” (National Education Association, 2004). The concerns are elevated for
teaching fields that are struggling to meet the demand for teachers and it also has created
increased concern for urban schoOl districts that experience the highest attrition rates
(Urban Teacher Collaborative, 2002). According to the Urban Teacher Collaborative
(2002), “Although teacher shortages affect schools and districts across the country to
varying degrees, urban districts are facing unique challenges, owing to rapidly growing
student enrollments, accelerating rates of teacher retirement, class size reduction
initiatives, and demanding working conditions” (p. 7). Moreover, school violence,
working conditions and salaries have been identified as factors affecting the supply of
educators (American Association for Employment in Education, 2002).

Teacher burnout has been identified as a major consequence to long-term

exposure to high stress levels and will result in poor morale, job satisfaction,

20

absenteeism, lowered productivity and high medical costs (Brown, 1999; Jarvis, 2002).
Friedman (2000), outlinesburnout as a commonly conceptualized three-dimensional
phenomenon consisting of exhaustion, depersonalization and un-accomplishment. The
interaction of all three variables is a progressive movement that will lead to stress, lower
levels of job satisfaction and frustration for not achieving the teachers perceived teaching
ideal (Friedman, 2000).

The burnout model (see figure 2) is a descriptor to illustrate professional efficacy
discrepancy. According to the model, burnout in teaching is the mesh between teacher
and school as an afflictive engagement between people with high expectation and the
harsh reality of occupational life (Friedman, 2000). Friedman (2000) describes the
relationship between stress and burnout as the inability of teachers to achieve their ideal,
thus creating tension, anxiety and dissatisfaction with their respective performance on the
job. Friedman (2000) notes, “The combined cognitive-emotional scenario may begin
with a sense of personal unaccomplishment and overload. Stressful events, combined
with high, unfulfilled expectations for self-fulfillment, produce such primary stress-
inducing experiences as a sense of personal unaccomplishment and sense of overload” (p.
597). Over long periods, such tension will create stress that may result in burnout.

This concept supports the research of Partridge, Slanton and Wadlington (1998)
who noted, “The highest risk for stress and bum-out may come at the beginning of an
educator’s career during preservice field experiences. Even though, preservice teachers
may have high academic achievements in core university classes, success as a teacher in

a high school setting is not automatic, thus leading to anxiety and distress” (p335).

 

High Level of
Idealism and
Commitment

 

 

 

 

 

Reality Schock:
Perceived gap
between expected and

 

 

observed sense of
professional self-

 

 

 

 

Sense of
unaccomplish-
ment,
frustration and
exhaustion

 

 

Burnout

 

 

 

 

The
Existential
Problem

 

 

 

 

Adaption,
Recuperation,
& Continued

Work

 

 

 

Figure 2: An illustration of the professional efficacy discrepancy approach to

 

 

Relingquishing
Professional
Work

 

 

understanding burnout. (Friedman, 2000).

Job satisfaction has also been researched as a key link between stress and burnout.
Numerous studies have been conducted to evaluate the level of job satisfaction of
agricultural education teachers (Bruening, & Hoover, 1991; Cano, & Castillo, 1999;
Cano, Castillo, & Conklin, 1999; Cano, & Miller, 1992; Hillison, & Watson, 1991;
Bowen, & Radhakrishna, 1991; Beavers, Flowers, Jewell, & Malpiedi, 1990). Figure 3

models the relationship that job satisfaction will have with stress and burnout.

22

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Individual Stressors:
Personality _ Work _ Coping Strain Burnout
Self Concept Outside Work Skills
Ideas/Goals Overall
Job Satisfaction
Dissipated
Stress

 

 

 

Figure 3: Model for Job Satisfaction and Burnout (Barrick, 1989)

Barrick (1989) noted, “Research has shown that burnout-prone individuals are not
lazy or underachievers, but are in fact characterize as overachievers, dynamic,
charismatic, empathetic, dedicated, idealistic and people oriented” (p. 35). Barrick
(1989) further notes that teachers who experience burnout lack essential coping skills,
thus suffer from high stress levels and low job satisfaction. Barrick (1989) concluded
that Ohio agricultural education teachers actually experiences high levels of job
satisfaction and low levels of stress (See Figure 3).

Factors that teachers found satisfying included achievement, advancement,
recognition, responsibility and the work itself, whereas factors that were dissatisfying
included interpersonal relationships, policy/administration, salary, supervision/technical,
and working conditions (Cano & Castillo, 1999). Research has also identified more
teacher dissatisfaction with financial support than with their working environment and
professional acceptance. Findings by Thobega and Miller (2003 ), indicated that
agricultural education instructors experience moderate levels of emotional exhaustion in

their work.

23

2.7 Summary

As demonstrated through the review of literature, the ability to retain teachers is a
concern to the field of education. More specifically this is a concern to the field of
agricultural education. Yet, to date research has primarily demonstrated the shortages in
terms of need, but do little to evaluate the reasons ‘why’ a teacher would choose to engage
in or choose to leave the teaching profession.

In chapter three, the methodology for a study to collect baseline data will be

provided, in an effort to better understand the life of an Agriscience education teacher in

Michigan.

24

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

3.1 Chapter Preview

The previous chapters outlined the scope of this study, the relationship of the
investigation to the existing research and conceptual framework used in this study. This
chapter explores the research design and methodology implemented. The methods for
data collection and analysis used in this study are presented in this chapter. The
following topics were discussed in this chapter: introduction, research design, population
and sample, data collection, research questions, validity, reliability, instrument

development, data analysis, statistical procedures and limitations of this study.

3.2 Population

The population for this study consisted of 130 Agriscience teachers in the state of
Michigan. For the purpose of this study, the term Michigan Agriscience teacher applies
to all individuals teaching in middle school, high school, or career/technical centers. The
census was performed using the 2002-2003 Michigan Agriscience educators Directory,
which included all Agriscience educators that teach in middle school, high school, and
career/technical centers. The population was geographically dispersed throughout the

state of Michigan.

25

3.3 Instrument Development
3.3.1 Mgr;

The researcher designed the instrument following an altered design recommended
by Dillrnan (2000) in Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. The
design of the survey instrument was a two panel booklet printed on 8/ 12 x 11 inch paper.
All panels of the survey included both closed and open ended questions. Space was
provided throughout the questionnaire for respondents to provide additional feed-back
and comments. The survey instrument is included in Appendix B. The survey was color
coded for tracking purposes.

3.3.2 §o_nt£n_t

The content of the instrument included a brief description on the inside cover with
a description of the survey and directions for completion. Items included in the
questionnaire were modified from the University of California, Los Angeles Higher
Education Research Institute Faculty Survey (UCLA, n.d.) and literature reviewed by the
researcher focused on the experiences of an Agriscience teacher in a Michigan ANRE
program. While the instrument contained twenty-three questions with sub questions, nine
questions with the sub questions was used for the research. Other demographical
questions were cross—tabulated with the questions.

Items on the questionnaire included demographics, teaching and personal values,
and what and how instructors taught agriculture. The study was a survey instrument used
to. collect the necessary data providing quantitative data. The survey instrument (see
Appendix B) contained open-ended, nominal, and ordinal questions and Likert-type

items.

26

The questionnaire collected data on demographics, teaching and personal values,
and descriptors for teaching environment in the local districts.- The questionnaire was a
survey instrument (see Appendix B) that contained open ended and closed ended
questions that collected nominal and ordinal data. All ordinal data utilized a Likert-type
scale and is described in detail for each question. Question nine used a 5-point scale that
was scaled as follows: 1 = Not at all, 2 = A little, 3 = A fair amount, 4 = Much, 5 = Very
Much.
3.3.3 Milt!
Validity is “the extent to which an instrument measured what it claimed to measure”
(Ary, Jacobs, & Razavieh, 2002, p. 242). The researcher presented the instrument to a
- panel of judges who evaluated for both face and content validity. The five experts were
selected based on their respective expertise in research and evaluation. The panel came
from the Department of Agriscience and Natural Resources Education in the College of
Agriculture and Natural Resources at Michigan State University.
3.3.4 Reliability

Reliability is “the degree of consistency with which it measures whatever it is
measuring” (Ary, Jacobs, & Razavieh, 2002, p. 242). The researcher presented the
instrument to a panel of judges who would serve as a pilot group to test the instrument for
reliability. The researcher selected a panel of twelve judges who served as Agriscience
education interns from Michigan State University. Since the researcher utilized secondary
data for this study, a post hoc reliability test was run using the Statistical Package for the

Social Sciences (SPSS 11.0). The Cronbach’s alpha was .7799 for this study. According

27

to Ary, Jacobs, and Razavieh (2002), the Cronbach alpha was within an acceptable range
for research purposes.
3.4 Data Collection

Data collection for the survey was conducted using a modified approach by
Dillman’s (2000) Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design. The instrument was
distributed through teacher conferences with non-responders receiving direct mail pieces.
The two conferences where the surveys were distributed were the summer and fall
Professional Development Institute conferences. Data collection included a questionnaire
that was distributed at a conference. Non-responders received a follow-up e-mail, a
second follow-up mailed questionnaire, and final questionnaire distributed at the Fall
Professional Development Institute. In order to facilitate tracking early and late
responders, the surveys were color coded; yellow for the first round, pink for the second
round, and blue for the third round.
3.4.1 Initial Questions

The initial survey was distributed at the Summer Professional Development
Institute for Michigan Agriscience teachers on July 9, 2003. The survey was distributed
in the conference packet and teachers were provided instructed to fill out the survey and
return during the conference subsequent sessions. For tracking purposes, teachers were
instructed to seal all surveys in an envelope and sign a sheet upon return. This would
ensure confidentiality of all respondents.
3.4.2 Follow-up E-mail

Since all 130 teachers were not in attendance at the conference, a follow-up e-

mail was sent on July 11, 2003. The e-mail thank those who completed the survey,

28

encouraged non-responders to mail completed survey soon and indicated that a mailing
would be provided to those who did not complete the survey (See Appendix B).
3.4.3 Second Follow-U uestionnaire

A second survey was sent on July 25, 2003 two non-responders to the initial
questionnaire and those not in attendance at the summer conference.

Distribution & Collection of Questionnaire

 

July 9'“, 2003
Initial Distribution of
Questionnaire

 

 

 

 

July 1 1‘“, 2003
Follow-up E-mail for
Respondents and
Non-Respondents

 

 

 

 

 

July 25‘“, 2003
Second Distribution
of Questionnaire

 

 

 

 

September 29‘“, 2003
Follow-up

Questionnaire

 

 

 

 

Figure 4: Data Collection Procedures

29

and self-addressed stamped envelope. The Agriscience education teachers were
instructed to write their name on the envelope to eliminate sending out multiple mailings.
The cover letter was on AN RECS department letterhead and signed by a faculty member.
3.4.4 Final Follow Up Questionnaire

A third and final survey was distributed to all non responders at the Fall
Professional Development Institute conference held September 29-30, 2003.
Respondents were instructed to fill out the survey in their conference folder and return
and sign a manila envelope.
3.4.5 Processing Procedures

For purposes of consistent processing, the researcher provided a color coded
survey along with a cover letter and self-addressed stamped envelop. All survey packets
included a survey, cover letter, and self-addressed stamped return envelope. To facilitate
proper identification of all surveys, respondents were instructed to write their name on
the outside of the envelope included with the instrument.
3.5 Data Analysis Procedures

The researcher utilized the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS)

version 11.0 to analyze all data. The researcher entered all data from the Surveys into
SPSS and all data was verified for accuracy in this study. If multiple responses were
given on the survey, the researcher selected the first response they came to as the official
response.

A record was kept of all early and late respondents and Cronbach Alpha’s were
run to determine if there was a difference between the groups. The researcher conducted

a post hoc reliability test for all questions added to the survey after the initial pilot test.

30

Descriptive statistics including frequencies, percentages, means, standard deviations,
cross tabulations, t-tests and Chi-squares were performed to describe the data utilizing
SPSS. A test for significant differences between demographical data and characteristics
associated with the experiences of an Agriscience teacher in a Michigan ANRE program
utilizing the Chi-square function in SPSS.

3.6 Summary

This next chapter provides an analysis of all data collected in this study. The
study population consisted of 130 Michigan Agriscience education instructors and 86
surveys were returned for a response rate of 66.2%. Statistics used to analyze the data
included: frequencies, percentages, means, standard deviations, cross tabulations, t-tests
and Chi-squares.

Research methods for this study of the Michigan Agriscience teacher’s
perceptions of factors related to their profession have been described. This chapter
provided an overview of the population, the development of the instrument development,
overview of the data collection procedures and the procedures used for data analysis.
Chapter 4 presents the finding of the research and Chapter 5 presents the conclusions and

recommendations.

31

CHAPTER 4

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Chapter Preview

The previous chapter outlines the scope of this study, the relationship of the

investigation to existing research, the conceptual framework used in the study, and a

research design and methodology for the study. This chapter will report the results of this

study regarding the objectives outlined in chapter one. All findings will be reported

utilizing descriptive analysis of tables that contain data to answer the research questions:

1)

2)

3)

4)

5)

6)

7)

Is there a clear sense of what factors led Michigan Agriscience teachers to
pursue a career in education?

What components of the tripartite mission of agricultural education interest
the Michigan Agriscience teachers the most?

Where do Michigan Agriscience teachers commit their time in the
management of an ANRE program?

What types of activities related to education are Michigan Agriscience
teachers committed to beyond their teaching assignment?

What types of attributes do Michigan Agriscience teachers consider of
importance?

To what extent do intrinsic and extrinsic factors serve as sources of stress for
Michigan Agriscience teachers?

Do the experiences of Michigan Agriscience teachers influence their decision

to remain employed in the educational field?

32

The data in this study were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social
Science (SPSS) version 11.0. Findings are presented to answer the research question
outlined in this study. The statistical procedures utilized for evaluating the results were
the calculations of frequency tables that included percentages, mean and standard I
deviation. Cross tabulations were run using SPSS to establish correlations using chi-
square.

According to Ary, Jacobs, & Razavieh (2002), a reliability test is “the extent to
which a measure yields consistent results” (p249). A reliability test found an
alpha=0.7799, therefore the survey was found to be reliable. A t-test was also performed
to investigate if there was a difference between early and late respondents. The
significance (2-tailed) ranged from 0472-0785, therefore as noted by Ary, Jacobs, &

Razavieh, there was no significance between early and late respondents.

4.2 Description of Individual Demographical Data

Demographic data were collected from respondents on the following: gender,
marital status, ethnicity, educational attainment, background, years of experience, type of
school system and type of teacher contract. The demographic data are reported in terms
of frequencies, percentages, mean and standard deviation and are listed in Table 2. The
descriptive data were broken into two categories, personal information and school system
information.

An analysis of the personal information data revealed that 54.8% (n=46) of the
respondents were male and 45.2% (n=3 8) were female. On the issue of marriage, 77.9%

(n=67) were married with the remaining 22.1% (n=19) single. Of the respondents, 98.8%

33

(n=98.8) were Caucasian with the remaining 1.2% (n=1.2) were Asian. Respondents
were also asked to identify whether they grew up in either an urban area with a
population ranging from 5,000 to over 1,000,000 or a rural area ranging from 5,000 or
less. Respondents indicated that 41.9% (n=36) were from an urban area and 58.1%
(n=50) were from a rural area.

In terms of educational attainment, respondents were asked to identify their level
of education that they are either working on or have achieved. According to the
respondents on the level of achievement for their bachelors, 4.8% (n=2) were working on
their bachelors, while the remaining 95.2% (n=4) achieved their bachelors. In regards to
the level of achievement on their masters, 35.6% (n=26) were working on their masters,
while the remaining 64.4% (n=47) achieved their masters. Two of the respondents

indicated that they had earned a doctoral degree.

34

Table 2.

Demographic Characteristics of Respondents

 

 

Variable n (%) M SD
Gender (N=84) 1.45 .501
Male 46 (54.8)
Female 38 (45.2)
Marital Status (N=86) 1.22 .417
Married 67 (77.9)
Single 19 (22.1)
Ethnicity (N=86) 1.03 .323
Caucasian 85 (98.8)
Asian 1 1.2
Background (N=86) 1.58 .496
Urban 36 (41.9)
Rural 50 (58.1)
Years Taught (N=85) 1.72 .933
1-10 Years 48 (56.5)
11-20 Years 17 (20.0)
21-30 Years 16 (18.8)
31-40 Years 4 (4.7)
Education .
Bachelors (N=42) 1.05 .216
Working on 2 (4.8)
Earned 40 (95.2)
Masters (N=73) 1.36 .482
Working on 26 (35.6)
Earned 47 (64.4)
EDS (N=2) 1.00 .000
Working on 2 (100)
Doctorate (N=2) 2.00 .000
Working on 2 (100)
Other (N=1) 1.00 .000
Earned 1 (100)

 

35

4.3 School System Demographic Data

An analysis of the school demographics data pertaining to the respondents
indicated that 37% (n=29) were on a nine month contract, 39.55% (n=34) were on a ninth
month plus summer contract, 19.8% (n=17) were on a twelve month contract and 7%
(n=6) classified their contract as other. The demographic data regarding school systems

is reported in terms of frequencies, percentages, mean and standard deviation and are

 

 

listed in Table 3.
Table 3.
Demographics on Schools Systems
Variable n (%) M SD
Middle School 17 100 1.00 .000
High School 62 100 1.00 .00
Career and Tech Center 23 100 1.08 .408
Type of Contract 2.00 .907
9 Month 29 33.7
9 Month & 34 39.5
Summer
12 Month 17 19.8
Other 6 7.0

 

36

4.4 Question 1

4.4.1 Is there a clear sense of what factors led Michigan Agriscience education

teachers to pursue a career in education?

Table 4 reports for the respondent’s perceptions of factors that influenced their
decision to pursue a career as an Agriscience education instructor. Descriptive statistics,
including measures of central tendency and variability were used to summarize and
analyze the data. Categorical analysis was performed using the following scales: Not at
all (M=1.0-1 .49), A little (M=1.50-2.49), A fair amount (M=2.50-3.49), Much (M=3.50-
4.49), Very Much (M-4.50-5.0).

With regard to factors important to pursuing a career as an Agriscience education
teacher, respondents believed that opportunity to impact student (M=4.58) and
opportunity to impact agricultural industry (M=3.68) and are ‘Very Much’ to ‘Much’
important, while opportunity to work with FFA (M=3.3 8), independence (M=3.3 l ),
opportunity to influence social change (M=3.27) and flexible schedule (M=3.l) are a ‘fair
amount important.

A concern over the degree certification for Agriscience education teachers was identified
(see Appendix F) when a respondent noted, “I would not mind teaching Agriscience, but
I would make agriculture as a minor and concentrate on more physical and earth

science.”

37

Table 4.

Importance in Pursuing Career as an Agriscience Instructor

 

 

 

Not A A fair Much Very
at all little amount much
n n n n n
Variable N M SD (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
Opportunity to impact 13 9 23 19 19
students 85 4.58 0.697
(15.1) (10.5) (26.7) (22.1) (22.1)
Opportunity to impact 85 3 68 1 126 1 l l 27 55
agncumal ‘nduSI’Y ' ' (1 .2) (1.2) (1.2) (31.4) (64.0)
Opportunity to work with
FFA 85 3.38 1.573 18 10 9 18 30
(20.9) (11.6) (10.5) (20.9) (34.9)
Independence 1 3 5 1 7 36 10
81 3.31 1.251
(15.1) (5.8) (19.8) (41.9) (11.6)
Opportunity to influence 3 4 8 34 36
social change 83 3.27 1.353
(3.5) (4.7) (9.3) (39.5) (41.9)
Flexible schedule 16 6 24 28 9
83 3.10
(18.6) (7.0) (27.9) (32.6) (10.5)

 

(1=not at all, 2=a little, 3=a fair amount, 4=much, 5=very much)

38

4.5 Question 2

4.5.1 What components of the tripartite mission of agricultural education interest

the Michigan Agriscience educator?

Table 5 reports the respondent’s perceptions of the component of the tripartite
mission of agricultural education that interests the Michigan Agriscience educator. With
regard to teaching interest, 32.6% of respondents stated that equal balance between
F FA/SAE/instruction is of most interest; 32.6% of the respondents contend that they are
interested in all, but lean toward classroom instruction; 19.8% of respondents are interested
in all, but lean toward the FF A; 12.8% of the respondents identified their interest is heavily
in classroom instruction; 2.3% of respondents identified in all, but lean toward SAE; 2.3%
of respondents identified their interest very heavily in SAE; and 1.2% identified their
interest very heavily in FFA.

Both positive and negative responses were noted in relation to the implementation
of the tripartite mission of agricultural education (see Appendix F). One respondent
provided affirmative feedback indicating, “We are beginning an environmental
science/natural resources class in a career pathway structure. SAE’S will be very
important.” Another response identified the concern of FFA and SAE being removed from
the classroom experience to after school activities when another respondent denoted, “F FA
and SAE are after school. This year I will be teaching more non-ag classes. 80 I cannot

incorporate FFA/SAE in instruction.” (Agriscience Survey, 2003)

39

Table 5.
Teaching Interest

 

 

Variable (N=83) n %
Very heavily in FFA 1 1.2
Very heavily in SAE 2 2.3
Very heavily in classroom instruction 1 1 12.8
In all, but leaning toward FFA 17 19.8
In all, but leaning toward SAE 2 2.3
In all, but leaning toward classroom instruction 28 32.6
Equal balance between F FA/SAE/instruction 22 25.6

 

4.6 Question 3

4.6.1 Where do Michigan Agriscience education teachers commit their time in the

management of an ANRE program?

The findings in Table 6 depict where the respondents identified the hours spent on
a variety of activities that have been divided into two categories, internal and external to
the educational system. Descriptive statistics, including measures of central tendency
and variability were used to summarize and analyze the data. Categorical analysis was
performed using the following scale: minimal time commitment (M=0.0-2.0), moderate
time commitment (M=2.l-4.0), maximum time commitment (M=4.1 and above).

Respondents were asked on average how many hours were Spent per week on
activities identified it the questionnaire. With regard to time spent on internal factors,

respondents indicated that scheduled teaching (M=6.09) received the maximum time

40

commitment. Results also indicated that preparation for teaching (M=3.41), FF A
programming (M=2.76), advising students (M=2.73), after school programs (M=2.56),
preparing an FFA team for contests (M=2.52), supervising SAE projects (M=2.1 7) and
community service (M=2.04) recorded moderate levels of time commitments.

Lastly, committee work (M=1.94), committee meetings (M=1.94), consultation
with community stakeholders (M=1.91) and other administration related issues (M=1.76)
recorded minimal time commitments. In reference to the internal factors, Michigan
Agriscience teachers reported that they commit a majority of their time to working with
their students through teaching and their respective FFA program, while they spend less
time on administration and meetings involved with their progam

With regard to time spent on external factors, respondents indicated that
household/childcare duties (M=4.72) received the maximum time commitment, while
part time jobs (M=1.74) received the minimum time commitment. Results also indicated
that preparation for teaching (M=3.41), FF A programming (M=2.76), advising students
(M=2.73), after school prOgrams (M=2.56), preparing an FFA team for contest (M=2.52),
supervising SAE projects (M=2. l 7) and community service (M=2.04) recorded moderate
time commitments. In reference to the external factors, Michigan Agriscience teachers
are heavily committed to their respective families, but spend little time on part-time jobs

or related ventures.

.41

TNNHN .3- _ NuN .oNiue .EN 1 Nine .N-NuN .EnN .82.”. E0023 88% 2:8 95283

 

 

 

 

 

AN. : AN. 3 AN. 3 GO 3.9 SE A _ .N: 8.3: . .
_ _ _ N N v N_ 2 N2 _ 2 _ .N 8.. as. ea
8e: Se ANN: 3.. : Ge: as: ANN: NO . .
N_ N _ _ 2 z a _ _ N N: N NN 4 ON 8:3 Esgfifiogasz
mhsuan— 3535‘
- - - - NO 85 N69 233 . .
- - - - N N NN NN NNN 2. _ NN Suwanee? sec
- - - - 3ND :8 3.8 8.3 . .
- - - - N 2. mm 2 c3 .0 _ on NDEEBEN £55.83 5:: Saga—BU
- - - - AN: 8.: 5.8 :N: . .
- - - - _ c an 2 new we _ 2. $582: ooEEEoU
- - - - AN. 3 85 ANNE :N c . .
- - - - _ N 8 N. GNN a _ ON NE; 82558
- - - - AN. : 3%: 22.8 ANN: . .
- - - - _ 2 mm 3 Re 3 N mm 83.3. 23.6 ..o b_::EEoU
- - AN. : $3 $3 3e: ANNE ENC . .
- - _ N v 3 a _N N8 _ .2 N NN 38.35 EN NemEazm
AN. : AN: 89 2.3 85 8.8 QNO 8.ch ENE NNN NN
_ _ N N o N. NN N. 33:8 Le .52 F: 5 Nausea
- - GO - ANN: €an $.va ANN: . .
- - N - : NN NN : NN. _ 8 N 8 seamen 8:855
AN. : - 2va SE 2.3 :NNC 3N3 ANNV . .
_ - N s. N 2 a. N a. _ NN N _N 3525 News?
N: GO ANNV GO GO 9.. _ NV 6N0 as: . .
_ N N N N N NN 3 NNN _ 2 N NN Ngeeewea E
2N: SE 8.3 one END 3. _ c ANNNV AN: NN._ _ ..N NN
- _ N N _N N 8 _ Nessa Le 9:82..
ca : SE NO 8.: Es ANN; Gd ANNE . .
N_ :V N N v N N N EN _ 8 e NN N558. 833.6
233% .222...
NE E g E NE NE E «N» em 2 2 2.3.;
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
N N e N N N N _

 

x33 .8; 32.325. :o 2on N25:
.G 2%...

42

4.7 Question 4

4.7.1 What gpes of activities related to education are Michigan Agriscience

education teachers committed to beyond their teaching assigpment?

Findings in Table 7 reveal that 9.3% of the respondents held an administrative
position; 82.6% of the respondents had participated in a teaching enhancement workshop;
17.4% of the respondents placed assignments on the intemet; 22.1% of respondents
collected assignments on the intemet, 2.3% of the respondents taught a course
exclusively on the intemet; 47.7% of the respondents taught a course using community
service; 48.8% of the respondents team-taught a course with non agricultural education
teachers; 57.0% traveled outside the united states; and 73.3% of the respondents used the

intemet to access lesson plans.

43

Table 7.
Educational Activities

 

 

 

Yes No

Variable N n (%) n (%)
Participated in a teaching

enhancement workshop 84 71 (82'6) 13 05'”
Used intemet to access lesson plans 84 63 (73.3) 21 (24.4)
Traveled outside the United States 84 49 (57.0) 34 (39.5)
Team-taught a course with non ‘

agricultural education teacher 84 42 (48.8) 42 (48.8)
Taught a course using community

. 82 41 (47.7) 41 (47.7)

servrce
Collected assignments on the intemet 83 19 (22.1) 64 (74.4)
Placed assignments on the intemet 84 15 (17.4) 69 (80.2)
Held an administrative position 83 8 (9.3) 75 (87.2)
Taught a course exclusrvely through 83 2 (2.3) 81 (94.2)

the intemet

 

4.8 Question 5

4.8.1

importance?

What types of attributes do Michigan Agriscience teachers consider of

Table 8 reports the respondent’s perceptions of factors that influenced their decision to

pursue a career as an Agriscience education instructor. Descriptive statistics, including

measures of central tendency and variability were used to summarize and analyze the

data. Categorical analysis was performed using the following scale: Not at all (#10-

1.49), A little (M=l.50-2.49), A fair amount (M=2.50-3.49), Much (M=3.50-4.49), Very

Much (M=4.50-5.0).

With regard to factors important to issues of importance, respondents believed
that being a good teacher (M=4.74), being a good citizen (M=4.63), raising a family
(M=4.3 8), being a good colleague (M=4.27), influencing social values of student
(M=4.01) and being financial well off (M=3.07) as ‘very much’ to ‘much’ important.
Results also indicated that respondents perceived helping to promote racial understanding.
(W327), becoming involved in programs to help clean-up the environment (M=3.08),

obtaining recognition from colleagues (M=2.52) as ‘a fair amount’ of importance.

45

Table 8.

Personal and Professional Issues of Importance

 

 

 

Not A A fair Much Very
at all little amount much
n n n n n
Variable N M SD (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
. - - 1 20 63
Berng a good teacher 84 4.74 .469 (1 2) (23 3) (73 3)
. . . - 1 2 24 57 ‘
Berng a good citizen 84 4.63 .597 (1 2) (12 8) (41 9) (41 9)
. . . 4 4 3 18 55
Rarsrng a family 84 4.38 1.086
(4.7) (4.7) (3.5) (20.9) (64.0)
. - l 11 36 36
Berng a good colleague 84 4.27 .734 (1 2) (12 8) (41 9) (41 9)
Influencing social values 84 4 01 385 ' 5 17 34 28
of my students ' ‘ - (5.8) (19.8) (39.5) (32.6)
Being well-off 84 3 70 1 039 4 5 22 34 19
financially ' ' (4.7) (5.8) (25.6) (39.5) (22.1)
Helping to promote 84 3 27 1 010 2 16 35 19 12
racial understanding ' ' (2.3) (18.6) (40.7) (22.1) (14.0)
Becoming involved in 2 24 33 15 10
programs to clean up 84 3.08 1.020
the environment (2.3) (27.9) (38.4) (17.4) (11.6)
Obtaining recognition 84 2 52 1 197 34 15 12 7
, from my colleagues ' ' (18.6) (39.5) (17.4) (14.0) (8.1)

 

(1=not at all, 2=a little, 3=a fair amount, 4=much, 5=very much)

46

4.9 Question 6
4.9.1 To what extent due intrinsic and extrinsic factors serve as sources of stress
for Michigan Agriscience education teachers?

Respondents were asked to identify the factors that have served as a source of stress
in their lives. For the purposes of this study, the sources of stress were divided into two
categories and were identified as either intrinsic or extrinsic factors. Table 9 reports the
respondent’s perceptions of sources of stress for the internal and extemal factors.
Descriptive statistics, including measures of central tendency and variability were used to
summarize and analyze the data. Categorical analysis was performed using the following
scale: Never (Mr—1 .0-1.49), Rarely (M=1 .50-2.49), Sometimes (M=2.50-3.49), Frequently
(M=3.50-4.49), Always (M=4.50-5.0).

With respect to the intrinsic factors, respondents indicated that institutional
procedures/ red tape (M=3.65) frequently served as a source of stress. Respondents also
recorded that keeping up with technology (W279), committee work (M=2.74), colleagues
(M=2.73) and faculty meetings (M=2.61) sometimes served as a source of stress.
Respondents recorded that subtle discrimination (M=2.21) rarely served as a source of
stress.

In terms of internal factors associated with the classroom, respondents recorded a
higher than average perceived level of stress for teaching load (M=3 .42), FFA demands
(M=3.33), and students (M=3.25)

In respect to the extrinsic factors, respondents recorded that managing household
responsibilities (M=3.50), lack of personal time (M=3.38), and marital/spouse friction

(M=2.32) as serving as a source of stress ‘sometimes’ to ‘always’. Results also indicated

47

that respondents perceived personal finances (M=3.24), keeping up with the agriculture
industry (W265) and keeping up with the natural resources issues (M=2.5 3) ‘sometimes’
served as a source of stress. Finally, respondents noted that the review/promotion process

(M=2.46) rarely served as a source of stress.

48

Table 9.
Sources of Stress

 

 

 

Not A A fair Much Very

at all little amount much

n n n n n
Variable N M SD (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
Intrinsic Factors .
‘3:§?,§§“a1p‘°°ed“’e” 35 3-65 751 : (:8) (3337) (4:58) (13.5)
Teaching load 85 3-42 350 Z (128) (4339) (32:7) (13.5)
FFA Demands 34 3-33 ”23 (92.33) (13.5) (227.19) (3354) (1186)
Students 85 3-25 785 : (1151.;1) (5‘80) (22:9) (:8)
Colleagues 84 2-73 '766 (53) (337:) (4312.32) (128) (12)
Committee work 85 2'74 '9‘5 (7%) (33199) (3339) (23.39) (52)
Faculty meetings 85 2‘61 '952 (112;) (3%?2) (4:82) (128) (£2)
liai‘xgépmmmm 84 2'46 '9” (128) (4%)?) (32174) (11196) (12)
Subtle discrimination 85 2.21 .952 (23393) (431%) (2256) (:8) (:3)
W
21:31:25,535?” 8“ 3'50 '8“ (d2) (92.;3) (33254) (3373) (11196)
Lack of personal time 85 3.38 .976 (:5) (1136) (4387) (3%)?” (123)
Marital/spouse friction 82 3.32 .915 (1171) (437) (22:9) (8.71) (12)
Personal finances 85 3.24 .868 (:3) (112;) (51:) (23:4) (871)
$555330?” 85 2'79 '940 (871) (2295.51) (3392) (11978) (£3)
1:36:31; mdflstry 85 2'65 '869 (7%) (335.15) (37397) (112:6) :
1:35:22? W ”am! 85 2°53 '8” (:3) (4%?) (320) (1123;) :

 

(1=not at all, 2=a little, 3=a fair amount, 4=much, 5=very much)

49

4.10 Question 7

4.10.1 Does the experiences of Michigan Agriscience education teachers influence

their decision to remain employed in the educational field?

Respondents were asked if they were to begin their career again, would they still

choose to become an Agriscience education teacher. The findings in Table 10 illustrate

that 48.8% (n=42) respondents said “definitely yes”, 31.4% (n=27) “probably yes”, 9.3%

(n=8) “not sure and 9.3% (n=8) “probably no”.

 

 

Table 10.

Begin Career Again

Variable (N=83, M=1.79, SD=. 965) n %
Definitely yes 42 (43,3)
Probably yes 27 (31.4)
Not sure 8 (9.3)
Probably no 8 (9.3)
Definitely no - -

 

Cross tabulations were performed to distinguish if there was a significant

difference between demographical information and questions pertaining to respondent’s

career choice. The Alpha level is considered significant if p< 0.05, it is considered to be

statistically significant. The results (Appendix E) demonstrated that gender was

statistically significant F=6.368, p<0.041 in regards to whether the respondents had

considered leaving their current position.

50

Respondents were asked if they have considered leaving their current position for
a non-teaching job. In Table l 1, the findings indicate that 50.0% (n=43) respondents said
“yes”, 45.3% (n=39) “no”, with 2.3% (n=2) “not sure”.

One respondent indicated that he/she, “will be leaving my agrisience teaching
career to pursue an on-line teaching job that allows me more time with my family.”
Another respondent identified discrimination as a major concern and noted that he/she

had, “experienced cultural discrimination.

 

 

Table 11.
Description of Respondents

Yes No NA
Variable N n (%) n (%) n (%)

 

Have you ever received an

award for teaching 84 58 (67-4) 26 (30-2) - -

Have any of your
agricultural education 83 55 (64.0) 23 (26.7) 5 (5.8)
courses addressed diversity

Have you ever experienced
sexual harassment as an 84 17 (19.8) 65 (75.6) 2 (2.3)
agricultural teacher

Considered leaving your
current position for a non- 84 43 (50.0) 39 (45.3) 2 (2.3)
teaching job

Does your FFA chapter
require all members to
participate in community
service

84 29 (33.7) 46 (53.5) 9 (10.5)

 

51

4.11 Summary

Chapter IV presented the findings from the survey conducted on Michigan
Agriscience Education teachers’ experiences as it relates to the management of their local
ANRE program. Findings were reported on the seven questions under investigation. The

next chapter will provide the conclusions and recommendations for this study.

52

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Chapter Preview

The prior chapters provided the introduction, literature review, methodology, and
findings relative to Michigan Agriscience instructors’ perceptions regarding personal and
professions experiences related to their role as an Agriscience Education teacher. Based
on the finding in chapter IV, the following conclusions, recommendations, and
implications are presented for each of the seven questions under investigation.
The following are the research questions: 1) Is there a clear sense of what factors led
Michigan Agriscience education teachers to pursue a career in education?; 2) What
components of the tripartite mission of agricultural education interest the Michigan
Agriscience education teachers the most?; 3) Where do Michigan Agriscience education
teachers commit their time in the management of an ANRE program?; 4) What types of
activities related to education are Michigan Agriscience education teachers committed to
beyond their teaching assignment; 5) What types of attributes do Michigan Agriscience
education teachers consider of importance; 6) What extent do intrinsic and extrinsic
factors serve as sources of stress for Michigan Agriscience education teachers?; 7) Does
the experiences of Michigan Agriscience education teachers influence their decision to

remain employed in the educational field?

53

5.2 Overview of Demographical Data
5.2.1 Conclusions Rggarding Demogranhics of Michigan Agg'science education
Teachers

The Michigan Agriscience Education teacher base is demographically a
homogeneous population except on the issue of gender. Michigan Agn'science education
teachers were relatively evenly split between males and females. A majority of the-
respondents were married with nearly all Caucasian, except one respondent who was '
Asian. Overall, the Michigan Agriscience education teachers are young in terms of
service to the profession with more than half of the respondents having less than 10 years
of teaching experience and over two-thirds with less than 20 years of experience. Nearly
all of the respondents had earned their bachelors degree with over 95% of respondents
having earned or are working on their master’s degree.
5.2.2 Conclusions Rggarding Demogranhics of Schools System Data

As for the schools systems that conduct a Michigan AN RE program, nearly three-
fourths of the programs are located in a secondary school district and the remaining one-
forth are located in county programs identified as career and technical centers. Nearly
two-thirds of the school districts retain their teachers with contracts that extend beyond 9
months, while the remaining one-third are retained on a 9 month contract.
A majority of the Michigan ANRE programs teach one or more courses that are viewed
as Agriscience. Seventy percent of the Michigan ANRE programs teach 3 or more
courses that could be identified with the Agriscience title. Nearly two-thirds of Michigan

ANRE programs teach one or more courses that are viewed as natural resources. Fifiy-

54

five percent of the Michigan ANRE programs teach 1-3 courses that could be identified
with the natural resources title. Forty-six programs provide non-Agriscience courses as
part of the teaching contract and 33 programs provide adult community course as part of

the teaching contract.

5.3 Questions 1: Is there a clear sense of what factors led Michigan Agriscience
education teachers to pursue a career in education?
5.3.1 Conclusions

It is evident that a majority of Michigan Agriscience teachers desire to make a
positive difference as a major motivating factor for pursuing a career in education. As
the Michigan Agriscience Education teachers reported, the opportunity to impact
students, to impact the agricultural industry and to work with the FFA all received strong
support as a reason for entering the field of education. Interestingly, other factors that
can be attributed are personal benefits, such as independence and flexible schedules,
received less favorable reasons for teaching.
5.3.2 Recommendations

It is evident that the opportunity to impact the lives of students and the industry of
agriculture as a whole is a major motivation for one to pursue a career as an Agriscience
Education teacher. This is a positive notation for the Agriscience education program in
Michigan, due to the fact that the desire to make a difference is what Agriscience
Education teachers desire to accomplish. This message must be utilized in recruiting

efforts to draw young people into the profession. This message should also be utilized to

55

market Agriscience education teachers to secondary school districts and even utilized to
encourage new AN RE program to be implemented around the state of Michigan.

To assist in this effort, the Department of Community, Agriculture, Recreation
and Resource Studies that is charged with conducting the Agriscience teacher education
program at Michigan State University should create a full time programmatic position
that is designed to focus on program recruitment and teacher recruitment. This position
should focus on the recruitment of students into the post-secondary teacher education
program at Michigan State University who have an interest in serving the factors that are
outlined above. This is critical to conducting successful campaigns to broaden AN RE
programming efforts in Michigan and expanding the number of programs.

5.3.3 Programmatic Recommendations

Benchmark 1: Develop a program expansion plan that seeks to develop a new site
for Agriscience education programs at the secondary level and implement new teacher
recruitment program to expand the diversity and make-up of Agriscience education
teachers.

Benchmark 2: Recruitment seminars and on-site visits should be conducted
through out the state and on an annual basis to assist in the Agriscience program
expansion efforts.

5.3.4 Further Recommended Study

Recommendation is to conduct a study to further analyze what characteristics
would teachers attribute to being an effective teacher or being a good citizen. This study
would provide valuable insight to what teachers’ value regarding the perception of the

terms used in this study. A good teacher can and will be different things to different

56

people. Also, a study of secondary school district principals should be conducted to
evaluate the types of programming they seek to incorporate into their local districts and to
ascertain if the profile of the Michigan Agriscience teacher and Agriscience education

program with their districts are a good fit.

5.4 Question 2: What components of the tripartite mission of agricultural
education interest the Michigan Agriscience education teachers the most?
5.4.1 Conclusions

A majority of the Michigan Agriscience Education teachers support the tripartite
mission of the agricultural education program that is based on the traditional model of
preparing students for a future career in the agricultural industry by developing student
knowledge through classroom instruction, skill development through supervised
agricultural experience programs and leadership development through the FF A
organization. One-fourth (25.6%) of respondents indicated that they believe there should
be an equal balance between classroom instruction, supervised agricultural experience
programming and F FA programming. Slightly more than one-half (54.7%) recorded that
they are interested in all three but lean toward one of the components. Only 16.3% of
respondents indicated that their interest resides heavily toward one component of the
model.
5.4.2 Recommendations

A vast majority of the Michigan Agriscience Education teachers are in general
supportive of the tripartite mission of agricultural education. However, it is unfortunate

that not all programs implement the full tripartite mission of agricultural education. To

57

expand the full agricultural education model in all districts, it is critical to establish
criteria and evaluate programs that do not offer all three ANRE program components.
This must be accomplished through an annual review processes that will restrict Perkins
funding (added cost dollars) to programs that are unable to substantiate involvement in all
three-components, meeting minimum criteria identified by the Michigan Department of
Education.

The first step in this recommendation is for the Michigan Department of
Education to conduct an annual evaluation process that requires local Michigan ANRE
programs to provide written documentation that includes student enrollment information
that is cross-referenced with student involvement in FFA and supervised agricultural
experience programming. All reports must be submitted utilizing a standardized format
approved by the Michigan Department of Education.

The second step in this recommendation is that all reporting will be evaluated by
the Michigan Department of Education state representative for Agriscience and Natural
Resources Education and establish benchmarks that will associate the level of funding to
the student involvement in all three components of the agricultural education program.

The third step in this recommendation is that the Michigan Department of
Education must develop a master list that can be considered a state approved supervised
agricultural experience program. The development of the list must be constructed in
conjunction with the efforts of the agriculture and natural resources industry and
Michigan Association of Agriscience educators.

Another key recommendation to expanding the concept of the full tripartite

mission of agricultural education is by providing tangible experiences where all students

58

in the Agriscience education program experience the complete model. This can be
accomplished by implementing an on-site teaching facility that would focus on providing
all three components of the tripartite mission of agricultural education. Along with this
teaching facility should be the implementation of a collegiate FFA program and the
opportunity for supervised agricultural experiences at Michigan State University that will
model the Michigan AN RE program. This will reinforce the concept of the importance
of the total ANRE program and allow the Agriscience student to gain a working
knowledge of the total Michigan ANRE program.

5.4.3 Benchmarks

Benchmark 1: Design and implement an Agriscience teaching facility at Michigan
State University that will provide hands-on learning opportunities for 100% of
Agriscience teacher education students to gain knowledge and experience of the total
tripartite mission of agricultural education.

Benchmark 2: Ninety percent of secondary students must be enrolled in a
Michigan Department of Education approved ANRE program, maintain membership in
the FF A organization and have maintained a viable supervised agricultural experience
program.

Benchmark 3: Ninety percent of students must maintain records in the local
AN RE program that substantiate their involvement in the FFA organization and a
establish a viable supervised agricultural experience program.

5.4.4 Further Recommended Study
Since a majority of the respondents agree and support all three components of the

tripartite mission of agricultural education, further studies should be conducted to

59

determine what programmatic functions of each of the three areas are most valuable to
student learning and are valued by the Agriscience teacher. This would provide great
insight into tailored professional development to provide needed training for teachers.
For example, this study did not address the degree of teacher interest in career
development events, nor did it address to what extent these activities support curriculum.

This is one programmatic function of many that should be explored.

5.5 Question 3: Where do Michigan Agriscience education teachers commit their
time in the management of an ANRE program?
5.5.1 Conclusion

The single largest time commitment for Michigan Agriscience Education teachers
is dedicated to their regular teaching assignment averaging 20—24 hours per week. The
second largest time commitment was in the area of preparation for teaching assignments
averaging 8-12 hours per week. Beyond the commitment to teaching, FFA programming,
advising students, after school programs, preparing teams for contests and supervising
agricultural experience programs received a cumulative time commitment estimated at 48
hours per week. Community service, committee work, committee meetings, consultation
with stakeholders and other administrative functions constitute a cumulative estimate at
36-40 hours per week. Michigan Agriscience education teacher commit approximately
20 hours per week to managing their household and or child-care duties, while part-time
jobs constitute a weekly commitment of approximately 8 hours.

Not surprising, the Michigan Agriscience education time commitments positively

correlatewith the intrinsic and extrinsic factors that serve as sources of stress. The

60

intrinsic factors that received high responses as sources of stress were institutional
procedures, teaching load, F FA demands and students that relate to their teaching
commitment. The extrinsic factor that created the most stress was managing their house-
holds which was another major time commitment for Michigan Agriscience Education
teachers.
5.5.2 Recommendations

Based on the conclusions, the researcher recommends that Michigan State
University’s Agriscience teacher education program incorporates extensive time
management planning into the undergraduate curriculum, graduate curriculum, new and
beginning teacher programming and MAAE professional development opportunities.
The Michigan State University Agriscience teaching facility, described in the
aforementioned recommendation, would also be an integral component to preparing
future and new and beginning teachers with training on how to managing the extensive
demands of a Michigan ANRE program.
5.5.3 Benchmarks

Benchmark 1: Provide training to 100% of the teacher education students by
addressing time management and program management training on an annual basis.

Benchmark 2: Provide annual in-service training on time management during
professional development activities for Michigan Agriscience teachers.

Benchmark 3: Evaluate ANRE program and assess what specifically creates the
time management crunch and use evaluation to make programmatic changes in terms of

calendars of activities.

61

5.5.4 Further Recommended Study

Based on the data from this study, the researcher would like to further investigate the
time commitments of the Michigan Agriscience education teachers by exploring when
and where the commitment above and beyond teaching is occurring. For example, what
actually creates a work environment that creates the need to work extensive hours and
what can be done to reduce the time involved with program management. Currently, the
data suggest that teachers are putting in more than an 80 week, and the researcher would
suggest that teacher responded to certain questions by overstating their commitment
inadvertently. For example, a teacher may indicate that they train FFA teams for 8 hours
a week, but is this for a brief period or the entire year.

5.6 Question 4: What types of activities related to education are Michigan
Agriscience education teachers committed to beyond their teaching assignment?
5.6.1 Conclusions

In respect to a variety of professional activities associated with education, a
majority of teachers have participated in teaching enhancement workshops while,
approximately half of the teachers have taught courses using community service projects,
team taught courses with a non-agriculture education teacher and have traveled outside
the United States. More than two-thirds of the Michigan Agriscience education teachers
have utilized the intemet to access lesson plans. Surprisingly, less than ten percent of the
Michigan Agriscience education teachers have held administrative position within their
respective school districts. Relatively few teachers have utilized the intemet to teach
courses or even place assignments on the intemet. However, nearly two thirds have

utilized the intemet to access lesson plans for use in the classroom.

62

5.6.2 Recommendations

A key recommendation is for Michigan State University’s Agriscience teacher
education program to incorporate training that will address the types of activities that a
majority of teachers are engaged in while managing a Michigan ANRE program. The
first step is to require students to engage in planning and conducting community service
projects in a local commrmity around the State of Michigan. This initiative should be
closely tied with and used to advance the concept of service learning, which is a teaching
method that integrates the use of community service in the classroom instruction. A
recent study denoted that elements of service learning are not widely utilized by
Agriscience teachers, even though a majority engages in community service projects
(Stewart, 2003).

A second step is to incorporate team teaching activities as a requirement for future
teacher educators. To make this application as real as possible, the team teaching should
occur in front of secondary students from around secondary programs in the state of
Michigan. A final step is to require Michigan State University teacher education students
to present professional development workshops through professional development
institutes and other educational opportunities.

5.6.3 Benchmarks

Benchmark 1: Require 100% of Agriscience Education students to engage in
planning and conduction community service projects.

Benchmark 2: Require 100% of Agriscience Education students to conduct a
professional development workshop during teacher professional development institutes

and other in-service opportunities.

63

Benchmark 3: Provide extensive and continuous in-service training to Michigan
Agriscience education teachers on the topics of intemet usage and technology
development for the management of a local AN RE program. Also re-incorporate the
technology courses in the undergraduate program that were taught in the Department of
ANRECS.

5.6.4 Further Recommended Study

A qualitative study should be conducted to further investigate the lack of use of
intemet technology in the classroom and to better understand why Michigan Agriscience
Education teachers do not utilize technology and the intemet more frequently. A further
study collecting data that evaluates the barriers and reasons why teachers are not utilizing
on line courses or technology would provide needed insight. Factors that should be
investigated could be the lack of technology in local school districts, the lack of teacher

training or lack of funding to identify a few factors to include.

5.7 Question 5: What types of attributes do MichiganlAgriscience teachers
consider of importance?
5.7.1 Conclusions

In reference to what Michigan Agriscience teachers consider important, a vast
majority of teacher ranked being a good teacher, citizen and colleague, influencing social
values of students, as well as raising a family, as issues of great importance. Moderate
levels of importance were reported on being well off financially, helping to promote

racial understanding and becoming involved in programs to clean up the environment.

64

Obtaining recognition from colleagues received only a fair amount of relevance as
importance to the Michigan Agriscience Education teachers.
5.7.2 Recommendations

The Michigan Agriscience Education teachers identified with what one would
consider the altruistic ideals for education. An Agriscience Education teacher that desires
to better the lives of others is clearly the type of individual we all hope will serve in the
field of education. This positive aspect of the Michigan Agriscience teachers should be
utilized as part of a promotional campaign to encourage new districts to establish
Agriscience Education programs. Currently, Michigan ANRE programs are present in
one-fifth of Michigan’s school districts. It is essential that we begin to build inroads into
new districts and promote this positive trait of the Michigan ANRE teachers to encourage
the development and implementation of new programs.
5.7.3 Benchmarks

Benchmark 1: Develop education brochures that identify what Agriscience
Education teachers believe in and why this belief system is valuable to all districts.

Benchmark 2: Distribute the brochure to all school superintendents, principals
and counselors in the state of Michigan where an ANRE program does not exist and

follow up with invitation to discuss the Michigan ANRE program.

65

5.8 Question 6: To what extent do intrinsic and extrinsic factors serve as sources
of stress for Michigan Agriscience education teachers?
5.8.1 Conclusions

The Michigan Agriscience Education teachers identified both intrinsic and
extrinsic factors as serving as sources of stress. The intrinsic factors that received high
responses as sources of stress were institutional procedures, teaching load, FF A demands
and students. The study identified other intrinsic factors that results in stress to a lesser
degree. Those factors include colleagues, committee work, faculty meetings, review and
promotion and subtle discrimination.

Extrinsic factors that were viewed as high sources of stress include managing household
responsibilities, the lack of personal time, marital /spousal friction and personal finances.
Other extrinsic factors that were perceived as sources of stress, but to a lesser degree
include keeping up with technology, the agriculture industry and natural resources issues.
It is evident that the intrinsic factors associated with teacher’s primary responsibility of
managing the ANRE program and extrinsic factors dealing with their personal life serve
as the greatest sources of stress. This is consistent with findings that identify workload,
working hours, competing job roles, classroom discipline and students as major sources
of stress to teachers (Jarvis, 2002).

Cross tabulations with sources of stress by demographics revealed that there are
significant differences between genders and years of teaching experience when dealing
with technology as a source of stress. Cross tabulations also revealed that there is a
significant difference between genders when it deals with keeping up with technology as

a source of stress.

66

5.8.2 Recommendations

Due to the fact that stress is a key factor that has led to higher attrition rates
among teachers with less than five years experience, it is essential to provide experiences
to Agriscience teacher education students that will prepare them for the challenges in the
teaching profession. This was supported by a study that evaluated teacher stress and
burnout where eight teachers indicated that they considered leaving teaching at the end of
the first year and three of the teachers said they intended to quit within the first few years
(Friedman, 2000). One of the respondents in this study noted, “When I was in teacher-
training college, I was optimistic. I told myself that teaching would put me under
pressure, but that I wouldn’t skimp on my labor or efforts. It’s not like that anymore.
There is tremendous time and resources pressure (Friedman, 2000)”.

Stress management should be implemented to focus on both intrinsic and extrinsic
characteristics to help students in the undergraduate education program be prepared to
deal with such stresses. This would best be accomplished by allowing Agriscience
teacher education students to experience stress as a part of their training in the
undergraduate program. This training is essential to young teachers being able to identify
stressors and manage those stressors so that they may proceed into the teaching
profession with the skills to lead a well balanced and successful life-style.

Stress management begins with the preparedness of teachers prior to leaving the
Department of Education at Michigan State University. Michigan State University’s
teacher education program does provide a full academic year that is committed to student
teaching, but there is only moderate review of the quality of the student teachers

experience by Agriscience faculty. The majority of the supervision is conducted by the

67

on-site teacher with whom the student is placed and there is no guarantee that each
student’s experience will receive the full attention needed to be successful once they
graduate from the university. To address this issue, more practical, hands on experiences
must be provided during the student’s time at Michigan State University, under the direct
supervision of the Agriscience faculty.

In conjunction with prior recommendations, the researcher would recommend that
Michigan State University’s Agriscience teacher education program implemented an on-
site teaching facility that would allow student’s to engage in teaching that could provide
stressful situations identified in this study under the direct supervisions of the Agriscience
faculty. During this training, a major focus can be placed on teaching future teachers the
skills to deal with class-loads, students and FF A program management (three of the
highest level stressors for teachers in the field).

This would be accomplished by annually bringing high-schools students to the
university to provide real students for the Agriscience teacher education students to
practice and perfect their skills. This opportunity may also prove beneficial to counsel
students early on to assess if teaching is the right field for them. This experience could
also be utilized to recruit other students they may not have considered teaching as their
profession of choice. Either way, experiential learning as noted by Dewey is the key to
true learned experiences and Agriscience faculty would have better insight on how to
assist the educational endeavors of their respective students.

It is also recommend that continued in-service and professional development be
provided to new and beginning teachers to assist in their development as they apply the

skills to managing stress that is created and related to the teaching profession.

68

5.8.3 Benchmarks

Benchmark 1: Develop an Agriscience Education classroom facility at Michigan
State University.

Benchmark 2: Utilize the facility to provide hands-on opportunities for 100% of '
students enrolled in the teacher education program at Michigan State University to teach
high school students during their entire stay at the university.

Benchmark 3: Provide in-service training to 100% of new and beginning teachers
through summer professional development on the topic of stress management.

5.8.4 Further Recommended Study

There are many avenues of research that can follow this study. Specifically,
research to assess the types of classroom experience that provide the greatest amount of
stress. Ideally, a longitudinal study that could investigate in-depth the types of personal
experience that teacher endure would provide valuable information for planning and
developing in-service opportunities for stress management.

Further research could also be conducted to address present coping skills of the
Michigan Agriscience education teachers. Cross tabulations with sources of stress by
demographics revealed that there are significant differences between gender and years of
teaching experience when dealing with technology. Cross tabulations also revealed that
there is a significant difference between genders when it deals with keeping up with
technology. Additional studies should be conducted to determine if there is any

relevance to the findings.

69

5.9 Question 7: Does the experiences of Michigan Agriscience teachers influence
their decision to remain employed in the educational field?
5.9.1 Conclusions
While a majority of Michigan Agriscience Education teachers indicated that if

they could begin again that they would still choose to pursue a career in the field of
education, nearly 10 percent said they would not. Nearly half of the Michigan
Agriscience teachers also reported that they had considered leaving their current position
for a non teaching job. One respondent noted, “Will be leaving my Agriscience teaching
career to pursue an on-line teaching job that allows me more time with my family.’
Coupled with the knowledge that teachers identified numerous sources of stress with the
teaching field, it is reasonable to assume that the field of Agriscience education may deal
with a relatively young teacher population for an extended period of time. With the
current attrition rates in the field of education, it is unlikely that the same individuals
assuming teaching positions today are likely to continue that service for a thirty year
period.
5.9.2 Recommendations

The researcher recommends that the Michigan ANRE program review and identify
procedures that may potentially reduce the stress loads for teachers. This may results in
altering how programs are managed, when conferences and events are conducted or even
the streamlining of activities to reduce time-commitments of the Agriscience Education

teachers.

70

5.9.3 Benchmarks

Benchmark 1: Provide counseling to Agriscience teacher education students that
can provide insight to the types of issues that teachers will need to address to be
successful.
5.9.4 Further Study

Conduct an evaluation that would allow Agriscience teachers to identify what
factors associated with the teaching profession would make them reconsider their desire
to teach. Is it due to time commitments, stress or other factors not associated with
teaching specifically.

Cross tabulations with sources of stress by demographics revealed that there are
significant differences between gender and years of teaching experience when dealing
with technology. Cross tabulations also revealed that there is a significant difference

between genders when it deals with keeping up with technology.

5.10 Summary

This study was undertaken to better understand the reasons why an Agriscience
Education teacher has selected the field of education for their career and begin to collect
baseline data that will provide insight into the factors, both intrinsic and extrinsic, that
may affect their commitment to education as a career choice. This study was conducted
in response to the Michigan Association of Agriscience Educators strategic plan that
identified teacher recruitment, training and retention as a top priority for the agricultural

education profession in Michigan.

71

The findings from this study have provided baseline data that will provide insight
into the life experiences of an Agriscience teacher both personal and professional. These
data will provide a stepping stone to identify new areas needed for further investigation
that can be utilized to provide professional development planning to address Agriscience
teacher needs that are unique to the state of Michigan. As ANRE programming continues
to expand its boundaries, leaders within the profession must make it a top priority to

evaluate the impact of the respective changes on teacher success.

72

APPENDIX A

UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE ON RESEASRCH
INVOLVING HUMAN SUBJECTS

MICHIGAN STATE
U N I v E R s I T Y

April 30. 2003
TO: Midiael wooos
408 Ag. Hall

RE: IRB# 02.293 CATEGORY: t-l.1-2 EXEMPT

RENEWAL APPROVAL DATE: April 28. 2003
EXPIRATION DATE: March 28. 2004

TITLE‘ A PROFILE OF SERVICE LEARNING IN MICHIGAN SECONDARY AGRICULTURAL
' EDUCATION AND FFA PROGRAMS

The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects' (UCRIHS) review of this project
is complete and I am pleased to advise that the rights and welfare of the human subjects appear to
be adequately protected and methods to obtain informed consent are appropriate. Therefore. the
UCRIHS APPROVED THIS PROJECTS RENEWAL.

This letter notes approval for the changes made in investigators. title. and
instrument.

RENEWALS: UCRIHS approval is valid until the expiration date listed above. Projects continuing
beyond this date must be renewed with the renewal form. A maximum of four such expedited
renewals are possible. Investigators wishing to continue a project beyond that time need to submit a
5-year renewal application for complete review .
REVISIONS: UCRIHS must review any changes in procedures involving human subjects. prior to
initiation of the change. If this is done at the time of renewal, please include a revision form with the
renewal. To revise an approved protocol at any other time during the year. send your written request
with an attached revision cover sheet to the UCRIHS Chair. requesting revised approval and
referencing the project‘s tRBrt and title. Include in your request a description of the change and any
revised instruments. consent forms or advertisements that are applicable.
PROBLEMS/CHANGES: Should either of the following arise during the course of the work. notify
UCRIHSpromptly: 1) problems (unexpected side elitists. complaints. etc.) involving human subjects
or 2) changes in the research environment or new iniormation indicating greater risk to the human
(ml-’5 5 subjects than existed when the protocol was pre‘rlOLSI', reviewer: and approved.

RESEARCH ,

ETHICS AND If we can be of further assistance. please contacr us at 517 355-2 l80 or via email.

STANDARDS UCRIHS®msu edu
University Committee an

 

Research Involving Sincerely. 7
Neon Subjects WV/
Minn Star ‘1; '
m omit / m
ha Liam \l

«iii Ashir Kumar, MD.
rims-2m UCRIHS Chair
FAX; ”Wm-w

trier. mm mm
E-auit comm AK

73

APPENDIX B

UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE ON RESEASRCH
‘ INVOLVING HUMAN SUBJECTS

MICHIGAN STATE

UNIVERSITY

 

August 26. 2004
TO: Michael WOODS
408 Ag. Hall

RE: IRBn 02.293 CATEGORY: t-t,1-2 EXEMPT

RENEWAL APPROVAL DATE: August 25. 2004
EXPIRATION DATE: August 24. 2005

TITLE‘ A PROFILE OF SERVICE LEARNING IN MICHIGAN SECONDARY AGRICULTURAL
' EDUCATION AND FFA PROGRAMS

The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects' (UCRIHS) review of this project
is complete and I am pleased to advise that the rights and welfare of the human subjects appear to
be adequately protected and methods to obtain informed consent are appropriate. Therefore. the
UCRIHS APPROVED THIS PROJECT'S RENEWAL.

This letter also notes approval for the addition of Jeff Hawes as co-investigator.

RENEWALS: UCRIHS approval is valid until the expiration date listed above. Projects continuing
beyond this date must be renewed with the renewal form. A maximum of four such expedited
renewals are posslble. Investigators wishing to continue a project beyond that time need to submit a
5~year renewal application for complete review.
REVISIONS: UCRIHS must review any changes in procedures involving human subjects, prior to
Initiation of the change. If this is done at the time of renewal, please include a revision form with the
renewal. To revise an approved protocol at any other time during the year. send your written request
with an attached revision cover sheet to the UCRIHS Chair, requesting revised approval and
referencing the project's IRBII and title. Include in your request a description of the change and any
revised instruments, consent forms or advertisements that are applicable.
,, .: up ' ROBLEMSICI-IANGES: Should either of the following arise during the course of the work, notily
' " CRIHS promptly: 1) problems (unexpected side effects. complaints. etc.) involving human subjects
or 2) changes in the research environment or new Information indicating greater risk to the human
. ubjects than existed when the protocol was previously reviewed and approved.

   
   

If we can be of further assistance. please contact us at 517 355-2180 or via email.
“"95 WUCRIHS@msu.edu.
RESEARCH
ETHICS ANDSincerely,
STANDARDS .
IInIversIty coiiiiiititu en Mgi
Research Involving

Renter! Subjects
"I '. “mmPeter Vasilenko. PhD.

m w, ”UCRIHS Chair

Fast It“. All
48824

511mm
fAX:5I7I432-4503
Mmmmlwits
EM Mew

PV: rt

cc: Jeff Hawes
412 Agriculture Hall

74

Wham-ester,
nut-4mm

Appendix C

AgriScience
Teacher
Survey

Exploring the AgriScience
experience.

AN R Education and
Communication Systems
Michigan State University
408 Agriculture Hall
East Lansing, MI
48824.1039

 

75

Dear Agriscience Instructor:

The recent release of the Strategic Plan for Agriscience and Natural Resource Education
in Michigan outlines six main objectives: quality programming; teacher recruitment,
preparation and retention; greater diversity; ANR career cluster expansion and support;
promotion and marketing; and expanding personal and financial resources. In order to
achieve these objectives, it is important to have your insights. Therefore, we would
appreciate your input with this survey. The anticipated time to complete the survey is 15
minutes. If you have any questions about the survey, please email either Michael Woods
(mwoods@msu.edu) or Courtney Stewart (stewa280@msu.edu).

 

fl. Gender: (circle one) LMale I Female ]

2. Are
a Married

b. Unmarried with
c.

 

 

3. Racial/Ethnic group: (Circle one)
a White/Caucasian
b. African American/Black

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l
2
c. American Indian 3
d. Asian American/Asian 4
e. Latino/Chicano 5
f. Other (pleasegspecify): 6
4. Please circle the highest degree Degree Currently
earned and/ or degree pursuing.
Iiamcd Working On
a. Bachelor’s (B..\., 8.5., etc.) I 2
b. Master’s (M..\., MS, etc.) 1 2
c. Edi). l 2
d. Phl) I 2
e. Other (please specify): 1 2

 

 

 

 

 

76

 

5. Which of the following best describes the type of place
where you gew “J? (Circle one)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a Major metropolitan area
(over one million people)
b. Large city (100,000 to one 2
million people)
c. Medium sized city 3
(25,000 to 99.999 people)
d. Smaller city (5,000 to 4
24.999 people)
e. Town or village (2,500 to 5
4,999 people)
f. Country or a very small 6
town (under 2.500 people)
g. No choice describes where 7
1 live. because I have
moved oflen
h. Other (please specify): 8
6. How many years have you taught agricultural
education at the secondary level?
7. Is the school you teach in a (Circle all that apply)
a Middle School I
b. High School 2
c. Career/Tech Center 3
d. Other (please specify): 4
8. Do you have a... (Circle one)
a. Nine-month teaching contract I
b. Nine-month teaching contract with summer option 2
c. Twelve month teaching contract 3
d. Othgplease specify): 4

 

 

 

9. How important were each of the following in your decision to

pursue a career as an Agriscience instructor?

(circle the number that best reflects your
answer for each item)

 

Not at all

 

Opportunity to work with the FFA

 

Independence

 

Flexible schedule

 

Opportunities for teaching

 

mortunity to influence social change

 

Opportunity to impact students

 

Opportunity to impact agriculture industry

 

Other fipecify):

 

Other (specify):

 

Fevmnnepge

Other (specify):

 

 

 

NNNNNNNNNN Alime

_——_——_—_—

wwwwwuwmwm Afairamount

 

AbAAAA-bbkb Much

 

mmmmmmmmmu Verymuch

 

 

77

 

 

 

10. How many of the following courses have you taught in the
past year?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Circle a number for each item) 0 l 2 3 4 5+
a. Agriscience related 0 l 2 3 4 5+
b. Natural Resources related 0 l 2 3 4 5+
c. Non-Agriscience 0 l 2 3 4 5+
d. Adult community course 0 l 2 3 4 5+
e. Other (specify): 0 l 2 3 4 5+
f. Other (specify): 0 l 2 3 4 5+
LE- Other (specify): 0 l 2 3 4 5+

 

 

to be an Agriscience Teacher? (Circle one)

II. If you were to begin your career again, would you still want

 

Definitely yes

 

. Probably yes

 

Not sure

 

. Probably no

 

 

capo-p

. Definitely no

MhUJNfl

 

 

12. Which of the three components (FF A, SAE, classroom)
of agricultural education do your interests most reside?
(circle one)

 

Very beam in FFA

 

Very heavily in SAE

 

Very heavily in classroom instruction

 

In all, but leaning toward FFA

 

In all. but leaning toward SAE

 

In all. but leaning toward classroom instruction

 

oranges?!»

Equal balance between FFA. SAE. and classroom
instruction '

 

 

\lO‘MbWN—

 

Comments:

 

 

 

78

 

 

 

13. During the present term, how many hours per week on the
average do you spend on each of the following activities?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 ~ ° ° 3
T Q "' - q I ¢
. . g — Ir. 3', «S I“ - .4
(Circle a number for each Item) "' " N
a. Advising students 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
b. After school programs I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
c. Committee work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
d. Committee meetings I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
e. .Community or public 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
servrce
1'. Consultation with
community I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
stakeholders
g. FFA programming I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
h. . Household/childcare l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
duties
i. Other administration 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
j. Part time job I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
k. Preparing an FFA team for
a l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
contest
I. Preparing for teaching I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
m. Scheduled teaching 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3
n. Supervising SAE projects I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
14. Agricultural education has had a long
history surrounding community service. 8 {-3
Please circle the number that best 5 z, 5 g g
reflects your answer for each item 3: 8 ‘5' 3' g
0 I I- _
z a: :2 u. <
a. implemented community service elements
. . . l 2 3 4 5
into your agncultural education course(s)?
b. The community service activities aligned
. l 2 3 4 5
With class content
c. The students had an integral part in planning
. . . . l 2 3 4 5
the community servrce activrty
d. The community service activities met I 2 3 4 5
community needs
e. Time was taken before the community I 2 3 4 5
service activities to discuss the project
f. Time was taken afier the community service
. . . . . l 2 3 4 5
activmes to discuss the preject
g. Reflection activities. such as journal writing,
. . l 2 3 4 5
papers, group discussmns, were performed
h. Transportation issues causes difficulty to l 2 3 4 5
Jerform community service activities
i. Access to funding causes difficulty when l 2 3 4 5
performing community service activities
j. Community service activities take too much
. l 2 3 4 5
time to perform
k. Community service activities take too much I 2 3 4 5
time to organize
1. Establishing community partnerships takes I 2 3 4 5
too much time

 

 

 

 

 

 

79

 

 

 

15. Are you engaged in any of the following activities?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Circle an answer for each item) Yes No
a. Held an administrative position I 2
b. Participated in a teaching enhancement I 2

workshop
c. Placed assignments on the lntemet l 2
d. Collected assiflments on the lntemet I 2
e. Taught a course exclusively through the I 2
lntemet
f. TW 8 course usinchommunity service I 2
__g. Team-taught a course with a non pg ed teacher I 2
h. Traveled outside the United States I 2
i. Used the lntemet to assess lesson plans I 2
16. How important are each of the following items to you?
5 a
a E 3
._ o ' E

. : 3.? i ‘5 e
(Circle the number that best reflects your answer a — - = g
for each item) 2 < < 2 >
a. lnfluencmg soc1al values of my I 2 3 4 5

students
b. Raising a family I 2 3 4 5
c. Being well-off financially I 2 3 4 5
d. Becoming involved in programs to I 2 3 4 5
clean up the environment
e. Helping to promote racial
. l 2 3 4 5
understanding
f. Obtaining recognition from my
colleagues for contributions to agricultural I 2 3 4 5
education
g. Being a good colleague I 2 3 4 5
h. Being a good citizen I 2 3 4 5
i. Being a good teacher ' I 2 3 4 5
17. Do any of the following statements describe you, w
please circle either Yes, No or NA (not >‘.’ E 2:
applicable):
a Have you ever received an award for
. l 2 3
teaching?
b. Have any of your agricultural education I 2 3
courses addressed diversity?
c. Have you ever experienced sexual harassment I 2 3
as an agricultural teacher?
d. Considered leaving your current position for a
. . l 2 3
non-teaching job?
e. Does your FFA chapter require all members to I 2 3
Janicipate in community service?

 

80

 

 

 

 

18. How important are each of the following items to you as an

agricultural education instructor?

(circle the number that best reflects your answer
for each item)

 

Not at all

 

a. Develop student’s ability to think clearly

 

b. Prepare students for employment

 

c. Prepare students for higher education

 

(1. Help students develop personal values

 

e. Enhance students’ self understanding

 

f. Prepare students for responsible citizenship

 

g. Enhance students' knowledge of diversity

———————

'Jlkh mmmum Verymuch

 

h. Prepare students to understand the impact of
globalization

 

i. Other (specify):

 

j. Other (specify):

 

 

k. Other (specify):

 

 

NNN N NNNNNNN Alitflc

 

what» u: wwwwwww Afairamount

 

AAA A AAAAAAA Much

 

MMMM

 

Comments:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

19. Please indicate the extent to which each
of the following has been a source of
stress.

(circle the number that best reflects your
answer for each item)

 

Managing household responsibilities

 

Review/promotion process

 

Subtle discrimination

 

Personal finances

 

Committee work

 

nos-99's

Faculty meetings

 

Colleagues

 

.5 I

Students

 

F FA demands

 

a —o
0

Institutional procedures/"red tape"

 

Teaching load

 

Marital/spousal friction

 

Lack of personal time

 

Keeping up with technology

 

Keeping up with agriculture industry

 

'PPPB’F-

Keeping up with natural resource
issues

 

Other (please specify):

5°

 

Other (please specify):

 

 

"‘3‘

Other (please specify):

 

 

NNN N NNNNNNNNNNNNNNN Rarely

 

must» in wwwwuwwuwwwwwww Sometimes

 

AAA A AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA Frequently

 

 

mum UI mmmmmmummmummmm A|wgy3

 

81

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0
9
L
20. Please indicate your agreement with each a g if 3
statement. ,§ ‘5 = 3‘ to
'° ‘5 e 3 <
2» s "a -= 2-
ea 3 «a i N)
. S " c " 8
(Circle the number that best reflects your answer ,1; g e 5 3
for each item) ‘0 z m
a. Agricultural education curriculum should
. . I 2 3 4 5
promote globalization.
b. Agricultural education curriculum should
. . . . l 2 3 4 5
address socral diverSIty issues.
c. Agricultural education should encourage
students tobeinvolved in community I 2 3 4 5
service
d. Pressure to prepare for FFA activities
often prevents me from being completely I 2 3 4 5
effective in my teaching
e. Agricultural education curriculum needs I 2 3 4 5
to change to reflect contemporary issues.
f. FFA programs need to change to reflect I 2 3 4 5
new issues in agriculture.
g. Agricultural education in public schools is
l 2 3 4 5
prepared to meet future needs.
3." >.
.‘>’ E
21. Standardized testing influences my... 3 f; 3‘3 >.
v 8‘ g 7.
.3 I: 3 >
g. = 5 = 3%
= i é ‘3 8.
. t‘ ° .5 "‘ g:
(Circle the number that best reflects your answer 0 5 e E o
for each item) > z m >
a. Teaching methods I 2 3 4 5
b. Curriculum objectives l 2 3 4 5
c. FFAprogramming I 2 3 4 5
d. Use of SAE projects I 2 3 4 5
e. Use of community service I 2 3 4 5
fOtherzgpecify) I 2 3 4 5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

82

 

22. How often do you use the following evaluation methods in
your agricultural education course(s)?

 

Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Always

(Circle the number that best reflects your
answer for each item.)

 

'Jt

. Multiple-choice exams

 

. True-false exams

 

. Essay exams

 

Short-answer exams

 

. Quizzes

 

. Weekly assignments

 

. Student presentations

 

. Research papers

 

. Journals

 

hon—.Sm—fiognc’m

. Student evaluations of each I
others’ work

 

k. Grading on a curve I

 

l. Competency-based grading I

bkhhbbébbbbbb Frequently

NNNNNNNNNNNNN
wwwwwwwwwwwwu
MM'JIMMMUIMMMMM

 

 

 

 

 

 

m. Take home homework I

 

 

23. How often do you use the following instructional
techniques/methods in your agricultural education
course(s)?

 

Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Frequently
Always

(Circle the number that best reflects your
answer for each item.)

a. Class discussions
b. Computer-aided
instruction
c. Cooperative learning I
(small groups)
d Field trips
e. Demonstrations
f. Group projects
8
h
i

 

—

 

NM
ww
AA
mu.

 

 

 

 

 

lndependentmjects
Extensive lecturing
Multiple drafts of written I
work
j. Community service as part I
of coursework
k. Student SAE projects I 2 3 4 5
l. lntegation of F FA events I 2 3 4 5

 

—————

 

NNNNNNN
wwwwwww
##Abbbb
MMMMMMM

 

N
DJ
b
Us

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments: Please provide any additional comments you believe are important to
advancing the Agriscience curriculum within Michigan, or skills areas needed by future
Agriscience Instructors not identified.

 

 

 

 

 

 

83

Thank you for your time and assistance with the survey.

Education & Communication Systems
Michigan State University
408 Agriculture Hall
East Lansing, MI 48824.1039

517.355.6580 x 202

mwoods@msu.edu

84

APPENDIX D

 

 

To: miagscience@msue.msue.msu.edu
From: “Michael D. Woods”mwoods@msu.edu
Date: 11 July 2003, 12:59:43 PM

Subject: Assistance needed

Dear Teachers,

For those of you that attended the recent PDI, you where invited to participate in a survey
looking into the life of an ANR instructor. We where very pleased to receive 38
completed surveys. However in order to insure that we have the best picture of the
activities that Michigan Agriscience teachers take art in, we really need to get the rest of
your responses. If you did not complete the survey at the PDI, could you please check
your registration packet for the survey, complete and return to me at the address listed on
the back of the survey. In order to eliminate redundant mailings, please put your name on
the envelope. Your name will not be linked to the survey, it will only be used to ensure
that your name is removed from future mailings requesting participation.

In light of the current issues taking place here at MSU regarding the future of the
ANRECS department and the unveiling of the MAAE strategic plan, your insights will be
very helpful in providing the best academic program and recruitment efforts for future
Agriscience teachers.

Your assistance is greatly appreciated. Should you have questions or need further
information, please contact me via e-mail (mwoods@msu.edu) or phone (517) 355-65 80
x 202. Again, thank you for your time and assistance with this study.

Best regards,
Michael Woods

Michael D. Woods, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor

ANR Education & Communications Systems
408 Agricultural Hall

Michigan State University

East Lansing, MI 48824-1039

Office: 517.355.6580 x 202

Fax: 517.353.4981
E-mail: mwoods@msu.edu

85

APPENDIX E

July 24, 2003

Dear <name of Agriscience Instructor>,

The recent release of the Strategic Plan for Agriscience and Natural Resources Education
in Michigan outlines six objectives: 1) quality programming; 2) teacher recruitment and
retention; 3) greater diversity; 4) ANR career cluster expansion and support; 5)
promotion and marketing; 6) expanding personal and financial resources. What you and
other Agriscience Instructors say on the enclosed survey will help achieve these
objectives, hence it is important to have your insights. A self addressed stamped
envelope has been enclosed for your ease in returning the survey. The anticipated time to
complete the survey is 15 minutes. '

In order to eliminate redundant mailings, please pt your name on the envelope when
returning the survey. Your name will not be linked to the survey; it will only be used to
ensure that your name is removed from future mailings requesting participation. Please
note that on the backside of this letter, you will find all human subject confidentiality
information. Your assistance is greatly appreciated in advancing Agriscience education
in Michigan.

Should you have questions, please contact me at 517.355.6580 x202 or
mwoods@msu.edu. Thank you for your time and assistance with this study.

Best regards,

Michael D. Woods Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
ANRECS

86

APPENDIX F

 

 

 

Table 12.
Number and Type of Courses Taught
0 1 2 3 4 5
n n n n n
Variable N M SD (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) N
Agriscience 3 8 12 l 7 21 23
84 4'36 1445 (3.5) (9.3) (14.0) (19.8) (24.4) (26.7)
Natural resources 16 22 11 3 4 4
60 2'48 L455 (18.6) (25.6) (12.8) (3.5) (4.7) (4.7)
Non-Agriscience 12 l O 8 7 4 5
46 2'91 1‘67] (14.0) (11.6) (9.3) (8.1) (4.7) (5.8)
Adult community 33 158 1.2 23 7 - l 1 1
course ' (26.7) (8.1) - (1.2) (1.2) (1.2)
Other 4 1 - 1 1 -
7 2'14 1'676 (4.7) (1.2) - (1.2) (1.2) -
Other 4 - - - - 1
5 2.00 2.236 (4.7) _ _ _ _ (1.2)
Other 4 - - - - -
4 1.00 - (4.7) _ _ _ _ _

 

(respondents could choose between 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5)

87

Table 13.

Importance of Issues as an Agriscience Instructor

 

 

 

Not A A fair Much Very
at all little amount much
n n n n n
Variable N M SD (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
Develop student’s ability - - 3 37 44
to think clearly 84 4'49 '570 - - (3.5) (43.0) (51.2)
Prepare students for - 1 7 37 39
employment 84 4'36 '688 - (1.2) (8.1) (43.0) (51.2)
Prepare students for - 1 18 36 28
higher education 83 4'10 .775 - (1 .2) (20.9) (41.9) (32.6)
Help students develop - 3 6 37 38
personal values 84 4'31 '760 - (3.5) (7.0) (43.0) (44.2)
Enhance students’ self 84 4 25 .674 - l 8 44 31
understanding ' - (1.2) (9.3) (51.2) (36.0)
Prepare students for 84 4 44 .682 - - 6 35 43
responsible citizenship ' - - (7.0) (40.7) (50.)
Enhance students’ 82 3 66 933 l 6 30 28 17
knowledge of diversity ' ° (1.2) (8.0) (34.9) (32.6) (19.8)
Prepare students to
. l 9 35 27 12
understand the impact of 84 3.48 .91 1
globalization (1.2) (10.5) (40.7) (31.4) (14.0)
Other - - - 1 l
2 4.50 .707 _ _ _ (1.2) (1.2)

 

(1=not at all, 2=a little, 3=a fair amount, 4=much, 5=very much)

88

Table 14.
Agree with Issues

 

 

 

Not A A fair Much Very
at all little amount much
n n n n n
Variable N M SD (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
Agricultural education
. 2 3 12 53 15
curriculum should 85 3.89 .817
promote globalization (2.3) (3.5) (14.0) (61.6) (17.4)
Agricultural education
. 2 5 11 51 16
cumculum should 85 3.87 .870
address social diversity (2'3) (5'8) (2'8) (9'3) ('6)
Agricultural education
should encourage - 1 4 35 45
students to be involved in 85 4'46 '646 - (1 .2) (4.7) (40.7) (52.3)
community service
Pressure to prepare for
FFA activities often
. 7 9 13 40 15
prevents me from being 84 3.56 1.155
completely effective in (8.1) (10.5) (15.1) (46.5) (7.4)
my teaching
Agricultural education
curriculum needs to 2 4 17 38 24
change to reflect 85 3'92 ’94] (2.3) (4.7) (19.8) (44.2) (27.9)
contemporary issues
FF A programs need to
1 4 11 43 24
change to reflect new 83 4.02 .855
issues in agriculture (1.2) (4.7) (12.8) (50.0) (7.9)
Agricultural education in
public schools is 3 23 6 39 14
prepared to meet future 85 3‘45 H60 (3.5) (26.7) (7.0) (45.3) (16.3)
needs

 

(1=not at all, 2=a little, 3=a fair amount, 4=much, 5=very much)

89

Table 15.

 

 

 

Standardized Testing f
Not A A air Much Very
at all little amount much
n n n n n
Variable N M SD (%) (%) (00) (%) (%)
Teaming methOds 85 3'14 '915 (ll2) (2293) (2256) (4:0?7) (53)
Curriculum objectives 1 16 13 49 6
85 3'51 '92] (1.2) (18.6) (15.1) (57.0) (7.0)
FFA programming 3 15 50 15 2
85 2'98 '771 (3.5) (17.4) (58.1) (17.4) (2.3)
Use of SAE projects 2 16 47 16 4
85 3'05 '815 (2.3) (18.6) (54.7) (18.6) (4.7)
Use of community 2 13 54 14 2
service 85 3'01 '7‘5 (2.3) (15.1) (62.8) (16.3) (2.3)
Other 4 3.0 0.0 : : (447) Z :

 

(1=not at all, 2=a little, 3=a fair amount, 4=much, 5=very much)

90

Table 16.

 

 

 

Evaluation Methods

Not A A fair Much Very

at all little amount much

n n n n n

Variable N M SD (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
Multiple ch01ce exams 85 3.42 .905 (35) (135) (33:2) (43:3) (7%)
True-false exams 35 3.24 .972 (SIS) (11:1) (32:6) (4%?7) (4‘l7)
Essay exams 84 3.29 .926 (335) (1150) (33:4) (31:)9) (£0)
Short-answer exams 85 3.71 .721 : (:7) (3%:2) (5:155) (13.5)
91112295 . 84 3.85 .720 I (335) (223(3) (528) (1151.31)
Weekly 3881891119” 35 3.99 .866 (:2) (733) (2333) (43:9) (3352)
Student presentations 84 3 .68 .697 : (f3) (3372) (4‘27) (13 .5)
Research Papers 84 3.13 .954 ($5) (21:1) (320) (3%)?2) (:8)
1911111315 , . 84 2.82 1.214 (1150) (3&2) (2125.)1) (21:1) (92)
“a“ .5 a?» 874) a?» a?» a?»
Gram“ ”acme 35 2-14 “67 (3352) (2%) (21:1) (538) (:8)
grzfiziegtenCy-based 84 3.07 1.170 (128) (111%) (4312)) (11:6) (1128)
Take home homework 85 3.08 1.003 (:8) (21:39) (3:34) (2237) (7%)

 

(1=not at all, 2=a little, 3=a fair amount, 4=much, 5=very much)

91

Table 17.
Instructional Techniques/Methods

 

 

 

Not A A fair Much Very

at all little amount much

n n n n n
Variable N M SD (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
Class discusswns 85 3.89 .690 : (:3) (21:1) (55891) (11:3)
fixatizgalded . 85 3.35 .827 (:5) (58) (4‘27) (320) (:8)
Cooperative leammg 85 3,67 .605 : (53) (32:6) (5593) (:7)
ka1 trips . 85 3.09 .734 (2.3) (123) (559l3) (212%) (:3)
Demons‘rfmns 85 3.55 -779 : (£0) (4%)?7) (402) (13.5)
Group P1101395 . 85 3.64 952 : (2?:3) (32:4) (sllz) (7%)
Independent pm) ects 85 3 . 5 5 _743 : (:8) (431%) (13:0) (:2)
Ex‘e‘is‘ve lecmng. 35 2-69 317 (:7) (3373) (43:9) (1150) (1l2)
$311391“ 8”“ °.f‘”““e" 84 2-51 703 (:7) (433:) (402) (7%) :
Efflmgt‘g‘gsxrzlf as 85 2-72 908 (£3) (30%) (33:54) (23.39) :
StudentSAE pI'OjCCtS 85 3.02 1.175 (1150) (11:3) (3%?” (33:2) (371)
initiation of FFA 85 2.96 1.2, (1172) (11196) (33199) (226.37) (all)

 

(1=not at all, 2=a little, 3=a fair amount, 4=much, 5=very much)

92

Table 18.

Cross Tabulation - Considered leaving your current position for a non teaching job by

Gender, Marital Status, Years Taght

Variable

Gender

*(N =82)
Female

Male

Marital Status
"(N =84)
Married
Single

Years Taught
:1: u:( N =83)
1-5

6-10

11-15

16-20

21-25

26-30

30-35

Yes

14
28

fl
NNNNONNQ

Considered Leaving Current Position

No

21
17

10

~NmmA-h;

Not Sure

 

*x2=6.368, df=2,p=.041, ** xz=l .456, df=2, p=.483, ***x2=4.363, df=12, p=.976

93

Table 19.

Cross Tabulation — If you were to begin your career again, would you still want to be an
Agriscience teacher by Gender, Marital Status, Years Taught

Would You Still Want to be an Agriscience Teacher

 

 

Definitel Probabl Probabl Definite]
Variable Yes y Yes Y Not Sure No y No y
Gender
*(N =82)
Female 22 1 5 4 5 -
Male 19 11 4 3 -
Marital Status
"(N =84)
Married 34 18 8 6 -
Single 8 9 - 2 -
Years Taught
an“ N =83)
1-5 16 12 4 4 -
6-10 5 4 1 2 -
11-15 7 2 - 1 -
16-20 5 1 - 1 -
21-25 5 5 2 - -
26-30 1 3 - - -
30-35 2 - 1 - -

 

*xz=.363, df=3, p=.948, **x2=4.475,dF3,P=-215, ***x2=14.727, dF18,p=.681

94

Table 20.

Cross Tabulation — Extent to which Institutional Procedures/Red Tape have been a
Source of Stress by Gender, Marital Status, Years Taught

Extent to Which Institutional Procedures have been a Source of
Variable Stress

Never Rarely Sometimes Frequently Always

Gender

*(N =82)

Female -

Male -

Marital Status

"(N =84)

Married - 4 23 32

Single - 10

Years Taught

an *( N =83)

1-5 - 2 15

6-10 - 2 3

11-15 - - 1

16-20 - - 5
1
3

ll 18 6
18 23 3

MN

_
Ox
{:3
in

'-‘\l\l
lU-‘N' 0‘

21-25 - -
26-30 - . 1
30-35 - -

 

*x2=2.351, df=3, p=.503, **x2=.114, df=3, p=.990, ***x2=34.889, df=18,p=.010

95

Table 21.

Cross Tabulation — Extent to which F F A Demands have been a Source of Stress by

Gender, Marital Status, Years Taught

Variable

Gender

*(N =82)
Female

Male

Marital Status
"(N =84)
Married
Single

Years Taught
:1: at :1-( N =83)
1-5

6-10

1 1-15

16-20

21-25

26-30

30-35

Extent to which FFA Demands have been a Source of Stress

Never

NO’s

Rarely

Iu—ot—olmm

Sometimes

I]
13

H—tmphwoo

Frequently

ll
21

NNANL/taf,

Always

M

AG

un—aNI—IO\

 

*xz=4.641, df=4,p=.326, **xz=3.962, df—‘4,p=.4l l, ***xz=l6.120, df=24,p=.884

96

Table 22.

Cross Tabulation - Extent to which Students have been a Source of Stress by Gender,
Marital Status, Years Taught

Extent to which Students have been a Source of Stress

Variable Never Rarely Sometimes Frequently Always
Gender

*(N =82)

Female -
Male -
Marital Status

* *(N =84)

Married - l 0 3 5 l 9
Single - 3 8 5
Years Taught

:1: :1- 4: (N =83)

l -5 -
6-10 -
1 1-1 5 -
1 6-20 -
21 -25 -
26-30 -
30-3 5 - -

16 ll
25 13 2

O\\l
b.)

WM

l—iud'p-to
—w\)O\O\\l;
Nu—wtw-b:
It—air—Alw

 

*x2=1.460, dfi3, p=.691, **x7=4.467, dFB, p=.21 5, ***x’=16.194, elf-18, p=-579

97

Table 23.

Cross Tabulation — Extent to which Colleagues have been a Source of Stress by Gender,
Marital Status, Years Taught -

Variable

Gender
I"(N =82)
Female
Male
Marital Status
"(N =84)
Married
Single
Years Taught
:1- 4: :1: (N =83)
1-5
6-10
1 1-15
16-20
21 -25
26-30

30-3 5

Extent to which Colleagpes have been a Source of Stress

Never

Rarely

10
22

o—Iu—smwhm;

Sometimes

17
19

28

H
NNO‘tb-D'Jttltm

Frequently

\J

In—IIu—oNQ

Always

 

*x2=7.172, df=4, p=.127, **x2=7.362, df=4,p=.118, ***x2=10.020, df=24ap=o994

98

Table 24.

Cross Tabulation — Extent to which Committee Work has been a Source of Stress by

Gender, Marital Status, Years Taught

Variable

Gender

*(N =82)
Female

Male

Marital Status
"(N =84)
Married
Single

Years Taught
:1: :1: :1:( N =83)
1-5

6-10

1 1-1 5

16-20

21-25

26-30

30-35

Extent to which Committee Work has been a Source of Stress

Never

DJ

NA

Rarely

11
18

Hu—UJWN-h;

Sometimes

14
15

\IB

F-‘h-‘UIUJ-bflo

Frequently

\O\O

u—tc—nhu—IA—om

Always

 

*x’=1.769. df=4,p=.778, ** x2=4.466, df=4,p=-347, ***x2=1 8-8599 df=24a 19:-759

99

Table 25.
Cross Tabulation — Extent to which Faculty Meetings have been a Source
of Stress by Gender, Marital Status, Years Taught

Extent to which Faculty Meetings have been a Source of Stress
Variable Never Rarely Sometimes Frequently Always
Gender
*(N =82)
Female 6 8 l8 ‘
Male 16 8 -
Marital Status
"(N =84)
Married 10 21 23 10 2
Single 1 5 12 1
Years Taught
a1: :1: :1: (N =83)
1-5
6-10
11-15
16-20
21-25
26-30
30-35 -

(I!

p—n

\)
b)
N

IINIOO
.9390»): Q:
NI Grok/1m;
r—I WNw—et—

I

 

*x2=6.826, df=4,p=.145, **x2=5.823, df=4, p=.213, ***x2=29.399, (11%24, p=.205

100

Table 26.
Cross Tabulation — Extent to which Review and Promotion have been a Source of Stress
by Gender, Marital Status, Years Taught

Extent to which Review and Promotion have been a Source of
Variable Stress

 

 

. Never Rarely Sometimes Frequently Always
Gender
*(N =82)
Female ' 5 14 11 6 -
Male 5 21 15 4 1
Marital Status
“(N =84)
Married 9 28 21 8 -
Single 2 7 6 2 1
Years Taught
at at: *( N =83)
1-5 2 15 ll 6 1
6-10 2 6 4 - -
11-15 2 7 1 - -
16-20 1 4 2 - -
21-25 4 1 4 3 -
26-30 - 2 2 -
30-35 - - 3 - -

 

*x2=2.229, dfi4, p=.694, **x2=3.800, dF4, p=.434, *** x2=28.462, 6119-24, p=-241

101

Table 27.

Cross Tabulation — Extent to which Teaching Load has been a Source

of Stress by Gender, Marital Status, Years Taught

Extent to which Teaching Load has been a Source of Stress

 

 

Variable Never Rarely Sometimes Frequently Always
Gender

*(N =82)

Female - 4 19 10 4
Male - 7 l 7 l 7 5
Marital Status

* *(N =84)

Married - 9 3 0 21 6
Single - 2 6 8 3
Years Taught

a1: :1: :1: (N =83)

1-5 - 4 16 11 5
6-1 0 - 2 5 4 l
1 1-1 5 - - 6 4 -
16-20 - 3 3 l -
2 l -25 - l 4 6 1
26-30 - l 2 - 1
30-35 - - - 3 -

 

*x2=1.902, (1)93, p=.593, ** x2=l .864, df=3, p=.601 ***x2=20.293, df=18, p=.3l7

102

Table 28.

Cross Tabulation — Extent to which Subtle Discrimination has been a Source

of Stress by Gender, Marital Status, Years Taught

Extent to which Subtle Discrimination has been a Source of

 

 

Variable Stress

Never Rarely Sometimes Frequently Always
Gender
*(N =82)
Female 6 13 14 3 1
Male 13 22 8 2 1
Marital Status
* *(N =84)
Married 1 7 29 16 3 1
Single 3 7 6 2 1
Years Taught
:1: :1: :1: (N =83)
1-5 4 17 11 3 1
6-10 3 6 3 - -
1 1-15 4 5 - - 1
16-20 4 2 - 1 -
21-25 4 3 5 - -
26-30 1 2 1 - -
30-35 - 1 2 - -

 

*x2=5.822, d124, p=.213, **x2=2.883, df=4,p=.578 ***x2=25-060: dF24:P=-403

103

Table 29.

Cross Tabulation — Extent to which Keeping up with Technology has been
a Source of Stress by Gender, Marital Status, Years Taught

Extent to which Keeping up with Technology has been a Source

 

 

Variable of Stress

Never Rarely Sometimes Freflently Always
Gender
*(N =82)
Female 6 12 10 9 -
Male 1 13 22 8 2
Marital Status
"(N =84)
Married 5 19 26 14 2
Single 2 6 8 3 -
Years Taught
:1: :1: :1:( N =83)
1-5 7 15 11 3 -
6-10 - 4 7 1 -
11-15 - 2 5 2 1
16-20 - 2 2 3 -
21-25 - 1 5 5 1
26-30 - 1 3 - -
30-35 - - 1 2 -

 

*x2=9.304, df=4, p=.054, **x2=1 .015, df=4, p=.908 ***x2=35-945: df=24,p=.050

104

Table 30.
Cross Tabulation — Extent to which Managing Household Responsibilities
has been a Source of Stress by Gender, Marital Status, Years Taught

Extent to which Managing Household Responsibilities has been a
Variable Source of Stress

Never Rarely Sometimes Frequently Always

Gender
*(N =82) -
Female 1 1 13 16
Male - 20 15 4
Marital Status
"(N =84)
Married 1
Single -
Years Taught
:1: :1: :1:( N =83)
1-5 1
6-10 -
11-15 -
16-20 -
21-25 -
26-30 -
30-35 -

\I
(It

ML]!
98:
as
U)“

....._..—-t—:t—:t w
NNUI-hi-‘A;
:w-tswo‘ofit‘,

I N1 NNA

 

*x2=5.998, df=4,p=.199, **x2=2.577, 81194, p=.63l ***x7=15.210, df=24, p=.914

105

Table 31.
Cross Tabulation — Extent to which Lack of Personal Time has been a Source
of Stress by Gender, Marital Status, Years Taught

Extent to which Lack of Personal Time has been a Source of
Variable Stress

 

 

Never Rarely Sometimes Freflently Always
Gender
*(N =82)
Female 1 4 15 1 1 6
Male 2 4 20 15 5
Marital Status
”(N =84)
Married 2 8 26 22 8
Single 1 2 9 4 3
Years Taught
:1: :1: :1:( N =83)
1-5 2 4 17 10 3
6-10 - 3 4 4 1
1 1-15 - 1 3 3 3
16-20 — 1 4 2 -
21 -25 - 1 5 3 3
26-30 1 - 1 2 -
30-35 - - 1 2 -

 

*x2=.787, df=4, p=.940, **x2=1.349, df=4, p=.853 ***x2=20.054, df=24, p=.694

106

Table 32.

Cross Tabulation — Extent to which Marital/Spousal Friction has been a
Source of Stress by Gender, Marital Status, Years Taught

Extent to which Marital/Spousal Friction has been a Source of

 

 

Variable Stress

Never Rarely Sometimes Frequently Always
Gender
l"(N =82)
Female 8 17 7 2 1
Male 7 17 16 5 -
Marital Status
"(N =84)
Married 7 30 21 7 -
Single 8 5 3 - 1
Years Taught
:1::1::1:( N =83)
1-5 9 14 10 2 -
6-10 2 3 4 3 -
11-15 - 5 2 2
16-20 1 3 3 - -
21-25 2 6 2 - -
26-30_ 1 2 l - -
30-35 - 2 1 - -

 

*x2=4.698, df=4, p=.320, **x2=17.230, dfi4, p=.002 ***x2=2l.654, df-‘24, p=.600

107

Table 33
Cross Tabulation — Extent to which Personal Finances has been a Source of
Stress by Gender, Marital Status, Years Taught

Extent to which Personal Finances has been a Source of Stress
Variable Never Rarely Sometimes Frequently Always
Gender
*(N =82)
Female -
Male 2
Marital Status
M(N =84)
Married 2 8 39 13 4
Single - 3 5 8
Years Taught
:1: :1: :1:( N =83)
1-5 1
6-10 -
1 1 -1 5 -
16-20 -
21-25 1
26-30 -
30-35 -

15 13
28 8 2

Gk
LII

F-‘li—‘Nt—‘N-k
b.)

#
u—tl NI mu}:
1

 

*x2=7.924, dfi4, p=.094, **x2=8.485, df=4, p=.075 ***x2=19.462, df=24, p=.727

108

Table 34
Cross Tabulation — Extent to which Keeping Up with Agricultural Industry
has been a Source of Stress by Gender, Marital Status, Years Taught

Extent to which Keeping Up with Agricultural Industry has been
Variable a Source of Stress

Never Rarely Sometimes Frequently Always

Gender
*(N =82)
Female 5 16 11
Male 3 17 20 6 -
Marital Status
I""‘(N =84)
Married 8 27 22
Single - 8 9
Years Taught
:1::1: :1:( N =83)
1-5 7
6-10 -
11-15 -
16-20 -
21-25 -
26-30 1
30-35 -

M
1

N \O
1

I HxlN-fi-oo:

H

NNwww-bh

:—:1 N191»: N
I

 

*x2=2.285, (1H, p=.515, **x2=3.215, dje3, p=.360 ***x2=24.131,dj%18,p=.151

109

Table 35
Cross Tabulation — Extent to which Keeping Up with Natural Resources Issues
has been a Source of Stress by Gender, Marital Status, Years Taught

Extent to which Keeping Up with Natural Resources Issues has
Variable been a Source of Stress

Never Rarely Sometimes Frequently Always

 

Gender

*(N=82)

Female 3 1 8 l 1 5 -
Male 3 14 1 8 1 1 -
Marital Status

"‘ *(N=84)

Married 6 25 22 1 3 -
Single - 9 7 3 -
Years Taught

:1: :1: :1: (N=83)

1-5 ' 5 1 7 l 0 4 -
6-10 - 8 3 1 -
1 1-1 5 - 3 5 2 -
16-20 - 1 3 3 -
21 ~25 - 5 5 2 -
26-30 1 - 2 1 -
30-35 - - 1 2 -

 

*x2=3.505, df=3, p=.320, **x2=2.232, dfi3, p=.526 ***x2=24.165, df=18, p=.15.

110

APPENDIX C
Teacher Comments on Question 9
“Flexible schedule? Don’t you mean overworked??”
Teacher Comments on Question 11
“Limited job opportunities north of US 10”

“I would not mind teaching Agriscience, but I would make agriculture as a minor &
concentrate on more physical and earth science.”

Teacher Comments on Question 12
“I try to do all 3.”

“FFA & SAE are after school. This year I will be teaching more non-agriculture classes.
So cannot incorporate FFA/SAE in instruction.”

“If better (any) SAE materials were available on paper it would be greatly appreciated.”
“This is due to set-up of my school. Lat job FFA was discouraged.”

“We are beginning an environmental science/natural resource class in a career pathway
structure. SAE’s will be very important.”

“Students participate in VICA because I do not want to be the only instructor from the
school in overnight trips! VICA has at least 10 or more staff members going.”

“We don’t call it SAE but hands on projects in and outside of the classroom.”
Teacher Comments on Question 13:

“What do you mean by a term? 9 weeks? Semester? Year? Summer? I answered based on
last semester (spring).”

Teacher Comments on Question 14

“Did you mean access to funding?”

111

Teacher Comments on Question 17

“Have also experienced cultural discrimination.”

“Diversity! 1 am an Asian American Female teaching Agriscience in Detroit Public
schools.”

Teacher Comments on Question 18

“Many of these overlap self understanding, citizenship, and personal values go hand in
hand.”

Additional Teacher Comments

“Ag teachers need to be on the cutting edge to rapidly change curriculum to reflect the
changing job market and demographics in the district area, state, nation and world.”

“Ag Teachers who are stagnant will be faced with dwindling enrollment.”

“Agriscience curriculum needs to include practical applications to enhance student
learning.”

“Technical Skills important, but little money available.”
“Current Michigan issues posted & updated on website for instruction.”

“Will be leaving my Agriscience teaching career to pursue an on-line teaching job that
allows me more time with my family.”

“Lack of technical equipment such as computer projectors and student access to
computers during class often hamper use of new methods.”

“My program is floriculture, retail and greenhouse production. I do not teach natural
resources and agriculture.”

“Keep in mind, SAE & F FA is not yet implemented.”

112

Bibliography

Adams, E. (1999). Vocational teacher stress and internal characteristics. Journal of
Vocational and Technical Education, 16(1).

American Association for Employment in Education. (2000). Research report an
educator supply and demand in the united states. Ohio. Retrieved February 1 1,
2004 from, http://www.ub-careers.buffalo.edu/aaee/ chorg

Anderson, T. J ., Barrick, K. R., & Hughes, M. (1992). Responsibilities of teacher

education for vocational teacher professional development programs. Journal of
Agricultural Education, 33(2).

An'kewuyo, M. O. (2004). Stress management strategies of secondary teachers in Nigeria.
Educational Research, 46(2), 195-207.

Ary, D., Jacobs, L., C., Razavieh, A. (2002). Introduction to research in education.
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Athanasou, J. (2003). Factors influencing job choice. International Journal for
Educational and Vocational Guidance, 3(1), 205-221.

Baker, M., & Hedges, L. (1991). Professional education and differences between
graduate career choice. Journal of A gricultural Education, 32(3).

Bakker, A. B., Bosveld, W., Dierendonck, D., Schaufeli, W. B., & Sixma, H. J. (2000).
Patient demands, lack of reciprocity, and burnout: A five-year longitudinal study
among general practitioners. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(1).

Banset, E., Barrett, L. A., & Gilbertson, O. (1995). A model for the evaluation and
reward of teaching in agricultural education. Journal of Agricultural Education,
36(2).

Barrick, K. R. (1989). Burnout and job satisfaction of vocational supervisors. Journal of
Agricultural Education, 30(4).

Beavers, K. C., Flowers, J. L., Jewell, L. R., & Malpiedi, B. J. (1990). Relationship
between levels of job satisfaction expressed by north carolina vocational
agriculture teachers and their perceptions toward the agricultural education
teaching profession. Journal of Agricultural Education, 31(1).

Bell, L. C., & Fritz, S. M. (1992). Deterrents to female enrollment in secondary

agricultural education programs in nebraska. Journal of Agricultural Education,
33(4).

113

Birkenholz, R. J ., Greiman, B. C., & Walker, W. D. (2002). The induction of novice
teachers: A study of first-year agriculture teachers in missouri. Journal of
Agricultural Education.

Birkeland, S. E. & Johnson, 8. M. (2003). Pursuing a sense of success: New teachers
explain their career decisions. American Educational Research Journal, 40(3),
581-617.

Blatchford, P., Edmonds, S., Martin, C., & Moriarty, V. (2001). Teaching young children:
Perceived satisfaction and stress. Educational Research, 43(1), 33-46.

Boettcher, G., & J oerger, R. (2000). A description of the nature and impact of teaching
events and forms of beginning teacher assistance as experienced by Minnesota
agricultural education teachers. Journal of A gricultural Education, 41(4).

Bowman, R. F. (2003). Reframing the dialogue about committed teaching. Educational
Forum, 68(1), 52-61.

Bowen, B. E., & Radhakrishna, R. B. (1991). Job satisfaction of agricultural education
faculty: A constant phenomena. Journal of Agricultural Education, 32(2).

Brown, S. (2003). Working models: Why mentoring programs may be the key to teacher
retention. Techniques, 78(5), 18-21.

Brown, Z. A., & Uehara, D. L. (1999). Coping with teacher stress: A research synthesis
for pacific educators. A special report of the Office of Educational Research and
Improvement.

Bruening, T. H., & Hoover, T. S. (1991). Personal life factors as related to effectiveness
and satisfaction of secondary agricultural teachers. Journal of Agricultural
Education, 32(4).

Camp, W. G. (2000). A national study of the supply and demand for teachers of
agricultural education in 1996-1998. Virginia: Virginia Polytech Institute.
Retrieved March February 11, 2004
from.http://aaaeonline.ifas.ufl.edu/Reports/teachersupply2002.pdf

Camp, W. G. (2002). A national study of the supply and demand for teachers of
agricultural education in 1999-2001. Virginia: Virginia Polytech Institute.
Retrieved March February 11, 2004
from,http://aaaeonline.ifas.ufl.edufReports/teachersupnlv2002.pdf

Camp, W. G., & Talbert, A. B. (1994). A year in the lives of three beginning agriculture
teachers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 35(2).

 

Cano, J ., & Castillo, J. X. (1999). A comparative analysis of ohio agriculture teachers’
level of job satisfaction. Journal of Agricultural Education, 40(4).

114

Cano, J ., Castillo, J. X., & Conklin, E. A. (1999). Job satisfaction of ohio agricultural
education teachers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 40(2).

Cano, J ., & Miller, G. (1992). A gender analysis of job satisfaction, job satisfier factors,
and job dissatisfier factors of agricultural education teachers. Journal of
Agricultural Education, 33(3).

Cano, J ., & Miller, G. (1992). An analysis of job satisfaction and job satisfier factors

among six taxonomies of agricultural education teachers. Journal of Agricultural
Education, 33(4).

Carter, S. (1994). Teacher stress and burnout: Organizing systems to support competent
social behavior in children and youth. A special report of the Office of Special
Education and Rehabilitation Services, Washington DC.

Christmas, 0. L. (1990). The level of agreement among superintendents, principals, and
instructors concerning adult agricultural education. Journal of Agricultural
Education, 31(3).

Chung, N., & Garton, B. (1996). The inservice needs of beginning teachers of agriculture
as perceived by beginning teachers, teacher educators, and state supervisors.
Journal of Agricultural Education, 37(3).

Chung, N., & Garton, B. (1997). An assessment of the inservice needs of beginning
teachers of agriculture using two assessment models. Journal of A gricultural
Education, 38(3).

Cochran, J. E., Gartin, S. A., Lawrence, L. D., & Odell, K. S. (1990). The job and marital
satisfaction of secondary agriculture teachers and their spouses. Journal of
Agricultural Education, 31(3).

Connors, J. J ., & Mundt, J. P. (1999). Problems and challenges associated with the first

years of teaching agriculture: A framework for pre-service and in-service education.
Journal of A gricultural Education, 40(1).

Conroy, C. A., Dailey, A. L., & Shelley-Tolbert, C. A. (2000). The move to agriscience and
its impact on teacher education in agricuture. Journal of Agricultural Education,
41 (4).

Coughlin, M. T., Gartin, S. A., & Lawrence, L. D. (1988). Benefits and problems

experience by spouses of vocational agriculture teachers in west Virginia. Journal of
Agricultural Education, 29(1).

115

Council of the Great City Schools. (2000). The urban teacher challenge: Teacher demand
and supply in the great city schools. Retrieved March 14, 2004 from,
http://www.cgcs.org/../pdfs/utc.pdf

Cremin, L. (1957). The republic and the school: Horace mann on the education of free
men. New York: Teachers College.

Croom, B. (2003). Teacher burnout in agricultural education. Journal of A gricultural
Education, 44(1), 1.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Futures of teaching in american education. Journal of
educational change, 1(4), 353-3 73.

Darling-Hammond, L., & Youngs, P. (2002). Defining highly qualified teachers: What
does scientifically-based research actually tell us? Research News and Comment.
Retrieved March 1, 2004 from,
http://www.aera.net/pubs/er/pdf/vol3 1_O9/AERA3 10903 .pdf.

Decker, P., Mayer, D. & Glazennan, S. (2004). The effects of teach for america: Findings
from a national evaluation. Mathematical Policy Research. Retrieved March 1 1,
2004 from, http://www.garibaldi.com/properties/mathematical.html

Delnero, J ., & Montgomery, D. (2001). Perceptions of work among california agriculture
teachers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 42(2).

Densten, I. (2001). Rethinking burnout. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(1).
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan.
Dewey, J. (1956). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan.

Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method. New
York: J. Wiley.

Dobbins, T. R., & Layfield, D. K. (2002). In-service needs and perceived competencies
of south carolina agricultural educators. Journal of Agricultural Education, 43(4).

Drake, J. B., & Findlay, H. J. (1989). Influence of selected experiences on perceived levels
of competence of secondary vocational agriculture teachers. Journal of Agricultural
Education, 30(3).

Dyer, J. E., & Kalrne, N. (2000). Perceptions of iowa secondary school principals toward
agricultural education. Journal of Agricultural Education, 41(4).

116

Dyer, J. E., & Osborne, E. W. (1999). The influence of science applications in agriculture
courses on attitudes of Illinois guidance counselors at model student-teaching
centers. Journal of A gricultural Education, 40(4).

Farber, B. A. (2000). Treatment strategies for different types of teacher burnout. Paper
presented at the APA Annual convention, San Francisco, August 1998. Retrieved
March 1, 2004 from, http://www.apa.org/.

Filler, L. (1965). Horace mann on the crisis in education. Ohio: Antioch Press.

Fisher, D., Frey, N., Rodenberg, K., & Samuels, P. (2001). Growing a community of high
quality teachers: An urban professional development middle school. Education,
122(2), 310-319.

Flowers, J ., & Pepple, J. (1988) Assessment of the morale of beginning vocational
agriculture teachers in illinois. Journal of Agricultural Education, 29(2).

Friedman, I. A. (2000). Burnout in teachers: Shattered dreams of impeccable professional
performance. Psychotherapy in Practice, 56(5), 595-606.

Gonzalez, P. A. (1995). Causes and cures of teacher attrition: A selected bibliography
focusing on special educators. A special report of the'National Association of
State Directors of Special Education.

Gonzalez, P. A. (1995). Factors that influence teacher attrition. A special report of
National Association of State Directors of Special Education.

Hancock, C. B. (2003). An examination of pre-service teaching intensity in relation to in-
service teacher retention and attrition. Journal of Research in Music Education,
51(2), 166-178.

Handley, C. S., Harrison, B. C., Kotrlik, J. W., & Redmann, D. H. (2000). Information
technology related professional development needs of Louisiana agriscience
teachers. Journal of A gricultural Education, 41(1).

Harper, C. (1970). A century of public education. Connecticut: Greenwood Press.
Hebert, M., & Kotrlik, J. W. (1990). Effects of spousal satisfaction and selected career
factors on the job satisfaction of extension agents. Journal of Agricultural

Education, 31(3).

Henderson, J. L., & Nieto, R. D. (1991 ). Morale levels of first-year agricultural education
teachers in ohio. Journal of Agricultural Education, 32(1).

Herren, R. V. (1996). Agricultural education and the 1862 land-grant institutions: The rest
of the story. Journal of Agricultural Education, 37(2).

117

Hillison, J. (1996). Agricultural education and the 1862 land-grant institutions: The rest of
the story. Journal of Agricultural Education, 37(2).

Hillison, J ., & Watson, L. W. (1991). Temperament type and job satisfaction among
selected west virginia agricultural education teachers. Journal of Agricultural
Education, 32(4).

Jacob, S., & Place, N. T. (2001). Stress: Professional development needs of extension
faculty. Journal of A gricultural Education, 42(1).

Jarvis, M. (2002). Teacher stress: A critical review of recent findings and suggestions for
future research directions. Stress News, 14(1).

Jewell, L. R. (1988). Differences between length of employment contracts of vocational
agriculture teachers and their level of involvement with ffa activities. Journal of
Agricultural Education, 29(1).

Law, S. (1999). Leadership for learning: The changing culture of professional
development in schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 37(1), 66-80.

Lee, J. S., & Westrom, L. E. (1990). The interaction of secondary agriculture teachers
health and the school as a workplace. Journal of Agricultural Education, 31(3).

Menchaca, V. D. (2003). A wake-up call for principals: Are your novice teachers
leaving? Catalyst for Change, 33(1), 25-27.

Merriam-Webster. (2004). On-line Dictionary. Retrieved March 31, 2004 from
http://www.m-w.com/

Michigan Association of Agriscience Educators. (July 2003). Strategic Plan.
Retrieved February 11, 2004 from, http://teach_anr.com/

Miller, W. W., & Muller, J . E. (1993). Are the more academically able agriculture teacher

candidates not entering or remaining in the teaching profession. Journal of
Agricultural Education, 34(4).

Miller, G., & Thobega, M. (2003). Relationship of supervision with job satisfaction and
retention of high school agriculture teachers. Journal of Agricultural Education,
44(1).

Moss, J. W., & Rome, C. (1990). Satisfaction with agricultural education student
teaching. Journal of Agricultural Education, 31(2).

Mundt, J. P., & Nesbitt, D. L. (1993). An evaluation of the university of Idaho beginning
agriculture teacher induction program. Journal of Agricultural Education, 34(2).

118

Murray-Harvey, R. (1999). Under stress: The concerns and coping strategies of teacher
education students. Paper presented at the Colloquium in Field Based Education
Flinders University, Adelaide. Retrieved February 11, 2004 from,
m://www.caper.com.au/testud.htm

Myburgh, C., & Poggenpoel, M. (2002). Teachers’ experience of their school environment:
Implications for health promotion. Education, 123(2), 260-279.

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The
imperative educational reform. Washington, DC: US. Government Printing
Office.

National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. (2002). Unraveling the teacher
shortage problem: Teacher retention is the key. A position paper was presented at
a symposium in Wahsington DC. in 2002. Retrieved March 31, 2004 from,
http://www.nctaf.org/documents/nctaf/Unraveling_Shortage_Problem.doc

National Education Association. (2004). Attracting and keeping quality teachers.
Retrieved May 15, 2004 form,hm)://www.nea.or2/teachershortag§

National Education Association. (2004). Stressed out. Retrieved May 15, 2004 from,
http://www.nea.or2/neatoday/O401/stressed.html

National Center for Education Statistics. (2002). Digest of educational statistics.
Retrieved March 4, 2004 from, http://nces.ed.gov/

North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. (2004). Educational Policy. Retrieved
March 4, 2004 from, http://www.ncrel.org/

North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. (2004) Teacher shortages in the
Midwest: current trends and future issues. Retrieved March 4, 2004 from,
http://www.ncrel.org/

Ogden, W. R. (2002). The real crisis in the classroom: Where have all the teachers gone.
Education, 123(2), 365-369.

Partridge, E., Slaton, E., & Wadlington, E. (1998). Alleviating stress in pre-service teachers
during field experiences. Education, 119(2), 335-348.

Perkins-Gough, D. (2003). Keeping good teachers. Educational Leadership, 60(8), 96.

119

Pierson, D. E. (1998). A model of a pre-service teacher preparation program. Education,
118(3), 327-329.

Schumacker, L. G., & Thomson, G. W. (1998). Selected characteristics of the national ffa
organization’s agriscience teacher of the year award winners and their agriscience
programs. Journal of A gricultural Education, 39(2).

Schmitz, G., Schwarzer, R., & Tang, C. (2001). Mental health outcomes of job stress
among chinese teachers: Role of stress resource factors and burnout. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 22(1).

Smith, N. B. (1999). A tribute to the visionaries, prime movers and pioneers of vocational
education. Journal of Vocational and Technical Education, 16(1).

Stewart, C. (2003). An empirical assessment of Michigan secondary agricultural
educators use of the service learning model. Master’s Dissertation.

Troman, G. (2000). Career under stress: Teacher adaptations at a time of intensive
reform. Journal of Educational Change, 1(3), 253-257.

US. Department of Education, Office of Policy Planning and Innovation, Meeting the
Highly Qualified Teacher Challenge: The Secretary ’s Second Annual Report on

Teacher Quality, Washington, DC, 2003. Retrieved March 11, 2004 from,
http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/teachprep/2003title-ii-report.pdf

Van der Linde, C. (2000). The teacher’s stress and its implications for the school as an
organization: How can tqm help. Education, 121(2), 375-382.

120

 

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

4

IIIIIIIII

1111(1)):(1111111111

4102