Agriscience teachers beliefs about STEM illumination after an immersive professional development experience: A Q Sort study

Catherine A. DiBenedetto; Natalie K. Ferand; Richie Roberts; Aaron J. McKim; Rustie L. Robison; Logan Dale; Brian E. Myers

doi:10.37433/aad.v6i3.607

Authors

Catherine A. DiBenedetto Clemson University, South Carolina, USA https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1802-0854
Natalie K. Ferand Virginia Tech University, USA https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9505-1764
Richie Roberts New Mexico State University, USA https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2993-4945
Aaron J. McKim Michigan State University, USA https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0600-3611
Rustie L. Robison Clemson University, South Carolina, USA https://orcid.org/0009-0000-8164-3857
Logan Dale Louisiana State University, USA https://orcid.org/0009-0005-0965-2181
Brian E. Myers University of Florida, USA https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2593-9159

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i3.607

Keywords:

behavioral intention, experiential learning, teacher self-efficacy, SDG 4: Quality Education

Abstract

This study examined agriscience teachers’ beliefs regarding how a professional development (PD) experience illuminated the importance of integrating STEM into the floriculture curriculum. Sixteen teachers from 12 states were selected through a competitive application process to participate in a USDA-NIFA funded PD program. The PD included five months of virtual sessions and a 10-day domestic travel experience, exposing participants to the floral distribution channel, site visits with industry professionals, and hands-on learning with scientists. Q methodology was used to explore participants’ beliefs. Teachers sorted 36 statements, developed using Ajzen’s (1991) Theory of Planned Behavior, into a quasi-normal distribution. Factor analysis revealed three belief types: (a) STEM Advocates, (b) STEM Illuminators, and (c) Illumination Attempters. STEM Advocates emphasized the importance of STEM for critical thinking and student engagement. STEM Illuminators valued technical STEM content knowledge gained through PD. Illumination Attempters acknowledged STEM’s importance but reported a need for additional support and training. Findings suggest immersive, content-specific PD can positively influence teachers’ self-efficacy and behavioral intentions. We recommend additional support tailored to teacher needs and use of Q methodology to explore how teacher beliefs influence instructional behaviors.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl, & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Action control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 11-39). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-69746-3_2

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(1), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

Ajzen, I. (2006). Behavioral interventions based on the theory of planned behavior. University of Massachusetts System. http://www.people.umass.edu/aizen/pdf/tpb.intervention.pdf

Akcan, A. T., Yıldırım, B., Karataş, A. R., & Yılmaz, M. (2023). Teachers’ views on the effect of STEM education on the labor market. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1–1. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1184730

Brown, S. R. (1980). Political subjectivity: Applications of Q methodology in political science. Yale University Press.

Ferand, N. K., Bommidi, J. S., Somers, R., DiBenedetto, C. A., & Myers, B. E. (2025). Agriscience teachers’ perceptions of integrating science within school-based plant science curricula. NACTA Journal, 68(1), 273-282. https://doi.org/10.56103/nactaj.v68i1.173

Ferand, N. K., DiBenedetto, C. A., Myers, B. E., & Barry, D. M. (2022). Implications of science illumination on student content knowledge of technical floriculture and core scientific ideas. Journal of Agricultural Education, 63(2), 165–181. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2022.02169

Ferand, N. K., DiBenedetto, C. A., Myers, B. E., & Barry, D. M. (2023). Implications of science illumination on student motivation to learn science in agriculture. Journal of Career and Technical Education Research, 48(2), 60–79. https://doi.org/10.5328/cter48.2.60

Ferand, N. K., DiBenedetto, C. A., Thoron, A. C., & Myers, B. E. (2020). Agriscience teacher professional development focused on teaching STEM principles in the floriculture curriculum. Journal of Agricultural Education, 61(4), 189–202. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2020.04189

Ferguson, L. E., Bråten, I., Skibsted Jensen, M., & Andreassen, U. R. (2022). A longitudinal mixed methods study of Norwegian preservice teachers’ beliefs about sources of teaching knowledge and motivation to learn from theory and practice. Journal of Teacher Education, 74(1), 55–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224871221105813

Guskey, T. R. (1995). Professional development in education: In search of the optimal mix. In T. R. Guskey & M. Huberman (Eds.), Professional development in education: New paradigms and practices (pp. 114–131). Teachers College Press.

Hendrix, R., Swortzel, K., Greenhaw, L., Jagger, C., & Walker, R. (2020). Agricultural educators’ levels of personal teaching efficacy towards STEM education. Paper Presented at the 47th Annual American Association for Agricultural Education Conference, 669–981. http://aaaeonline.org/resources/Documents/National/2020Meeting/2020AAAEPaperProceedings.pdf

Jeanpierre, B., Oberhauser, K., & Freeman, C. (2005). Characteristics of professional development that effect change in secondary science teachers' classroom practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(6), 668–690. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20069

Mauldin, C. (2012). Overview of the Q interpretation process. Media Marketing Inc.

McKim, A., Velez, J. J., Lambert, M. D., & Balschweid, M. A. (2017). A philosophical review of science and society within agricultural education. Journal of Agricultural Education, 58(2), 98–110. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2017.02098

National Research Council. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18290

Nolin, J. B., & Parr, B. (2013). Utilization of a high stakes high school graduation exam to assess the impact of agricultural education: A measure of curriuculum integration. Journal of Agricultural Education, 54(3), 41–53. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2013.03041

Ramey-Gassert, L., & Shroyer, M. G. (1992). Enhancing science teaching self-efficacy in preservice elementary teachers. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 4(1), 26–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173752

Roberts, R., English, C. W., & Alston, A. J. (2020). Fostering identity development in teacher preparation: Service-learning’s role in empowering agricultural education majors to teach STEM concepts. Journal of Agricultural Education, 61(3), 214–232. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2020.03214

Scales, J., Terry, J., & Torres, R. M. (2009). Are teachers ready to integrate science concepts into secondary agriculture programs?. Journal of Agricultural Education, 50(2), 100–111. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2009.02100

Schmolck, P. (2014). Q method manual. Peter Scmolck. http://schmolck.org/qmethod/pqmanual.htm

Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411

Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783–805. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00036-1

Wang, H. H., & Knobloch, N. A. (2022). Preservice educators’ interpretations and pedagogical benefits of a STEM integration through agriculture, food and natural resources rubric. Journal of Pedagogical Research, 6(2), 4–28. https://doi.org/10.33902/JPR.202213513

Watts, S., & Stenner, P. (2013). Doing Q methodological research: Theory, method, and interpretations (2nd ed.). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446251911

Wigfield, A. (1994). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation: A developmental perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 6(1), 49-78. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02209024