Characteristics of effective instruction and student engagement: A case study of two exemplary Florida agriculture teachers




qualitative observation, effective teaching practices, Student Content Engagement Model


Student disengagement has been an ongoing problem for educators in the United States. Engaging students is critical to ensuring students see the value of their education. The purpose of this exemplar case study was to understand how effective teaching impacts student engagement of high school agriculture students in Florida. Two Florida agriculture teachers, identified as exemplary agriculture teachers, and 22 students served as participants. Three methods of data collection were involved in this study: teacher interviews, student focus groups, and teacher observations. The top five characteristics of effective teaching described by Rosenshine and Furst (1971) were used as a priori themes for the data analysis. These characteristics were clarity, variety, enthusiasm, business and/or task-oriented behaviors, and student opportunity to learn criterion material. The teachers used all five of the characteristics to engage students. Students reported high levels of engagement and positive feelings about class. Further studies should be conducted to replicate the study with a larger group of exemplary agriculture teachers. The study recommends that teacher educators considering teaching pre-service teachers how to demonstrate the characteristics of effective instruction to impact engagement. We recommend agriculture teachers consider reflecting on their use of the characteristics of effective instruction.


Download data is not yet available.


Baines, L., & Stanley, G. (2003). Disengagement and loathing in high school. Educational Horizons, 81(4), 165-168SAGE Publications.

Benner, M., Brown, C., & Jeffrey, A. (2019). Elevating student voice in education. Center for American Progress.

Carlson, P., Martinez, R., & Lasater, M. (2011). Student disengagement: A national concern from local perspective. National Social Science Proceedings, 48, 54–70.

Cohen, D., & Crabtree, B. (2006). Lincoln and Guba’s evaluative criteria. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

De Lay, A. M., & Swan, B. G. (2014). Student apathy as defined by secondary agricultural education students. Journal of Agricultural Education, 55(1), 106–119.

DiBenedetto, C. A., Easterly III, R. G., & Myers, B. E. (2015). Can scientific reasoning scores predict the likelihood of SBAE students' intent to pursue a STEM career, a career in agriculture, or plan to attend college? Journal of Agricultural Education, 56(1), 103–115.

Edgar, D. W., Retallick, M. S., & Jones, D. (2016). Research priority 4: Meaningful, engaged learning in all environments. In T.G. Roberts, A. Harder, & M.T. Brashears (Eds). (2016). American Association for Agricultural Education National Research Agenda: 2016-2020 (pp. 1–6). Department of Agricultural and Communication.

Estepp, C. M., & Roberts, T. G. (2013). Teacher behaviors contributing to student content engagement: A socially constructed consensus of undergraduate students in a college of agriculture. Journal of Agricultural Education, 54(1), 97–110.

Fernandez, J. M., Goecker, A. D., Smith, E., Moran, E. R., & Wilson, C. A. (2020). Employment opportunities for college graduates in food, agriculture, renewable natural resources and the environment, United States, 2020-2025: Report Summary.

Friedel, C. R., & Anderson II, J. C. (2017). An exploration of relationships between teaching practices in secondary agricultural education programs and student engagement. Journal of Agricultural Education, 58(2), 180–197.

Hodges, T. (2018). School engagement is more than just talk. Gallup.

Kuhn, E. (2020). 5 Ways to engage today’s agriculture students. Reality Works.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E.G., (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publishing.

McLaughlin, M., McGrath, D. J., Burian-Fitzgerald, M. A., Lanahan, L., Scotchmer, M., Enyeart, C., & Salganik, L. (2005). Student content engagement as a construct for the measurement of effective classroom instruction and teacher knowledge. American Institutes for Research.

Medelyan, A. (2020). Coding qualitative data: How to code qualitative research. Thematic.

National FFA Organization. (2019). Agricultural education about FFA. National FFA.

Quin, D., Hemphill, S. A., & Heerde, J. A. (2017). Associations between teaching quality and secondary students’ behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement in school. Social Psychology of Education, 20(4), 807–829.

Roberts, T. G., & Ball, A. L. (2009). Secondary agricultural science as content and context for teaching. Journal of Agricultural Education, 50(1), 81–91.

Rosenshine, B., & Furst, N. (1971). Research on teacher performance criteria. In B. O. Smith (Ed.), Research in teacher education: A symposium. Prentice-Hall.

Van Uden, J., Ritzen, H., & Pieters, J. (2014) Engaging students: The role of teacher beliefs and interpersonal behavior in fostering student engagement in vocational education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 37, 21–32.

Washor, E., & Mojkowski, C. (2014). Student disengagement: It's deeper than you think. Phi Delta Kappa International.




How to Cite

Gilbert, C., Easterly III, R. G., Bunch, J. C., Galindo, S., & Dossett, J. (2023). Characteristics of effective instruction and student engagement: A case study of two exemplary Florida agriculture teachers . Advancements in Agricultural Development, 4(1), 5–16.




Most read articles by the same author(s)