<%BANNER%>

Predicting Preservice Agriculture Teachers' Intentions to Teach Utilizing Person Inputs, Contextual Influences, Teacher ...

xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101130_AAAAFE INGEST_TIME 2010-12-01T00:11:34Z PACKAGE UFE0010003_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 81033 DFID F20101130_AADEFK ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH rocca_s_Page_133.QC.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
e5221fd86bfed3939063f20a6cd72e51
SHA-1
d1724c486e877224a72faeb49dac3b22aca3ca1b
23599 F20101130_AADEEW rocca_s_Page_122thm.jpg
743c36c67641d357d8cb708a9b580d8b
2738a11fbe9df5ae486afa8d4cbfde0e91cfbffc
69449 F20101130_AADDZQ rocca_s_Page_026.QC.jpg
f0f7ed5fe242ad674c27421ddcdaf2e4
30ec3a904b012750aa035f8c2b61af83da50f7a6
86070 F20101130_AADCWO rocca_s_Page_089.jp2
d1bcb9c1679848b285a03e3be086950e
d60ec8543eb11648757d668c6900254991383d67
109803 F20101130_AADCVZ rocca_s_Page_074.jp2
341aa96c368741e0c20641524d6ef611
a8201e9232e53acde8d8eed733dc88d800393438
1053954 F20101130_AADDCI rocca_s_Page_053.tif
564ea6719ff55b140a46b60b0874ca14
93b193bdccfdcca1382b4058e1efcdf906919f66
82885 F20101130_AADCXC rocca_s_Page_105.jp2
d703c99631c6928711438840a14fa256
204720c097d160c901c995c6a42a837930c52932
F20101130_AADDBU rocca_s_Page_038.tif
c589ea2b8df1410e5e2fe17b86da8bdf
29a20a04c56c37c4508193e8a0678f63cb0d1bb4
78822 F20101130_AADEGA rocca_s_Page_144.QC.jpg
9ecba09954059352bc833e4c4264e5f2
6b2068f63e2ef1cd19ee902cde6eb3b68d59702d
25890 F20101130_AADEFL rocca_s_Page_134thm.jpg
666eb2d4803d8bfdb7a9befe96ab321e
e3746acb09d201be90d5abf13e8dd68dda67793b
74195 F20101130_AADEEX rocca_s_Page_122.QC.jpg
bc1dcc3fd338b8c86cd6a9dd69ac6a9d
c95cd9980c5290e28f2985e2b07ef71aae73ab01
23758 F20101130_AADDZR rocca_s_Page_027thm.jpg
0e9df61bea0bf868e63f1d850c7dde88
4e662899ba89be78d9ecea188bf8faaa0576401c
98035 F20101130_AADCWP rocca_s_Page_090.jp2
22a3a3ef75abc16defd143aede2bf6de
48dce23d91fcbb0af1e9d6dcdd0e80de93a0c024
F20101130_AADDCJ rocca_s_Page_055.tif
f0085122ae7340a3c3fb1e5e1d3636c4
953739715a3a9867b46464ad54995df53935acc3
60576 F20101130_AADCXD rocca_s_Page_106.jp2
8d6273244e5eb30d606f719258dc64e3
fb964311cbfe2d91195c7b91afdfd92c903a609e
F20101130_AADDBV rocca_s_Page_039.tif
020c97ba2fdcb0678e3bca70fa48be6e
81aeaecce95cb8e10f7134062996d5bf243cbd37
25445 F20101130_AADEGB rocca_s_Page_145thm.jpg
43da1b40bc1fc842fa6e37a41b66638a
7ccd9a8f6e2487b759b8f42fbc0490fdb2cf7d40
81900 F20101130_AADEFM rocca_s_Page_134.QC.jpg
b6375bd4962d5f58818c09d290cd5f65
4b26c675b7c67eaf4eea452e16dae79d60072784
24416 F20101130_AADEEY rocca_s_Page_123thm.jpg
edc26cdfeddda89f2f68a6feeba0135a
ef71e1748bbae94f2d947a1f62f82341047eff74
20490 F20101130_AADDZS rocca_s_Page_029thm.jpg
4e5252016b5ff211a77cb1a6d960ea7e
3fb1b6edae58b5e448e869a6435c88ca5fe83c65
90654 F20101130_AADCWQ rocca_s_Page_091.jp2
4201c4d48f7ffd6d5b2857abdee0e7c3
39a0cb802752baefe0e9f12707efddf26be00dde
F20101130_AADDCK rocca_s_Page_057.tif
dcb30157cde1cc6d618397704667f916
0e92df10303f50fe47cee6c213345401172f9a11
100453 F20101130_AADCXE rocca_s_Page_107.jp2
1a3d4dee27be1cc524a3e3568bb42999
d23ec0561deac623842f751f6189bbf40ae6d22f
F20101130_AADDBW rocca_s_Page_040.tif
7add0691c092d71d80161a7245b56f33
3c311accf9537f15b8563af90ff96a21cf4b751a
77851 F20101130_AADEGC rocca_s_Page_146.QC.jpg
b653330718f700574de6ceaa72fc946d
b169e338ed2c1672234250c14fffc34e71c0279f
25317 F20101130_AADEFN rocca_s_Page_137thm.jpg
5ca9ee1540b10edb0a5f6befd458c5dd
79a6c46840ce4c9883871a82314189f665f323d9
77905 F20101130_AADEEZ rocca_s_Page_123.QC.jpg
4afea8369435fa5db597d19dcd997f73
abbe5fe36221c5ab150e897733bd1ea8fa7f233d
64524 F20101130_AADDZT rocca_s_Page_029.QC.jpg
2dda583f8526b7d06cfcc01c33e5a47d
bab4694ac288abe371e155b50912449f0e133a11
76282 F20101130_AADCWR rocca_s_Page_092.jp2
57eb32caff64335d30694a442d4fe0f0
0cf2cb3e678a255ebdf1afdff0a6c3c4c76b0afb
F20101130_AADDDA rocca_s_Page_073.tif
e377724d0a6d8d4750ebdda6b5d9ebbe
7909900ec58985429a6b5bd54c3347e2b37d800a
F20101130_AADDCL rocca_s_Page_058.tif
b34a82082db81e81c1a6305ff54d7403
fb4873cecbe86e8f700da7f5fd5819f1ab910ca7
80841 F20101130_AADCXF rocca_s_Page_108.jp2
d73ed65ee3b5c11021f48db79d0749bc
6734aba739800e25c71ae6659be40563d98e5f16
F20101130_AADDBX rocca_s_Page_041.tif
3b4a50d30813cf5bf3ff220b1f9d3ba8
1017b80d25fcd940aaf64e31d4e9939ae7c8d945
26251 F20101130_AADEGD rocca_s_Page_147thm.jpg
dcc1caf86ccd2b7ba25e2204ef75e91d
b22fedcaceed0279d86ff94ae0c2c0a8bd8a4660
25916 F20101130_AADEFO rocca_s_Page_138thm.jpg
56d84e90d7666affb0a603ce56cc120f
a6de7cbcb968277fefc429706831e032f9699239
9637 F20101130_AADDZU rocca_s_Page_031thm.jpg
7dffbdbffa33b4c28e5f5626a61b898a
146ccded9d5ebc9c08c7d7d0e7280b3695792d5c
80497 F20101130_AADCWS rocca_s_Page_093.jp2
93a6c52cf7327329b9c4cd5a9bf2817f
fbfc82ced5c195255e788991d4b882252f090e60
F20101130_AADDDB rocca_s_Page_074.tif
5f7ccfb0a61e7ed5aa0278a9acc49033
f1914084c0b4b29ed97107262b0895189d2df89c
F20101130_AADDCM rocca_s_Page_059.tif
9cee74d5c255d0e1399aa2e2a8b8d8bd
5e2a956294ff00ce661a2d7b7b27d02a292f41f3
67684 F20101130_AADCXG rocca_s_Page_109.jp2
e0f13f2f01e6b907f3eed854d6c670a3
abbcd50d39a3a63c8be24fe203f73b6fce826312
F20101130_AADDBY rocca_s_Page_042.tif
995b1748cf23fa3af74b98df8f776568
9b68e37c8c9d6391b040b251b3696750503cff5a
84987 F20101130_AADEGE rocca_s_Page_147.QC.jpg
22f9d3c0d4d2114014d49cfe794501c8
9743fac3d5539deeb9d6473bef1c42286d629083
82225 F20101130_AADEFP rocca_s_Page_138.QC.jpg
337285d39a76806b540e9c58021e4418
b45dabc51dbb8d0f0f113f5630833a8a64c60d77
24651 F20101130_AADDZV rocca_s_Page_031.QC.jpg
c59dbc438136f05a612b6c96e7b0a24c
0486c37c968797662f26ef6ca82cf858106ab83e
71704 F20101130_AADCWT rocca_s_Page_094.jp2
46d0bf59d02cf04362b782a53827c9b6
03440dc80ab05749c5e1df42ad952612dcff8fbe
F20101130_AADDDC rocca_s_Page_075.tif
5d0952addd0ce94bf982911d49146fec
3b4f358256d44950f155c380f6ceed5485a4d52b
F20101130_AADDCN rocca_s_Page_060.tif
c8ccdcafb9998148daca7e93440eda8e
19c8793a478de3367c8abe00ff6c8118141774c6
84829 F20101130_AADCXH rocca_s_Page_110.jp2
4acb31f71058ca7ba8c5e12469e6b019
1411ac05051823df158a7e2a6229b749d2884857
F20101130_AADDBZ rocca_s_Page_043.tif
8b915c35928cdc13d064361c8631fb28
f07c4a946822c1a6cf6158943472f36c0f1e680a
76464 F20101130_AADEGF rocca_s_Page_148.QC.jpg
b866862dada999718c240a67992412b6
3ef8666ab236b47dce23b02a31694220b9101018
24846 F20101130_AADEFQ rocca_s_Page_139thm.jpg
6150cec78674bc477e618ffb3057a2bd
0e7d91edfc561f203def64f3c1e151c1a143f590
24329 F20101130_AADDZW rocca_s_Page_032thm.jpg
7c4c4f430b07ad76ab5bfc618e9682cf
42d5ef11cf10ef27cbe42bca92e7a63799755329
F20101130_AADDDD rocca_s_Page_076.tif
d8933e98728d51c2bf03d08570628513
d9169b41909d5bce02b5c134b8cfaa50b91e01fc
F20101130_AADDCO rocca_s_Page_061.tif
ce50637a030adde56e722eafdeb88aed
5c8f533df032429e2f9073b9f4b9eb982945c700
89841 F20101130_AADCXI rocca_s_Page_111.jp2
a0895650d864cff89a0ba8ba00df9360
674ef39ebb06400ddb0521f9a44e422e0c098eeb
92370 F20101130_AADCWU rocca_s_Page_095.jp2
60d1cafcd1e81c60c37d44ea2d8f982a
36443de29c16b2cd2bb831fe28c96241b5ebe01a
78050 F20101130_AADEFR rocca_s_Page_139.QC.jpg
f2762aa60bfc7e2079f803a42f7390a2
ed07710962f22be22b4b3e457df985aa599c260b
76219 F20101130_AADDZX rocca_s_Page_032.QC.jpg
958ed195e599c7f7a78aa22332d86c66
93f62ac40676c3d62fad581a1d33560708173079
F20101130_AADDCP rocca_s_Page_062.tif
f43fb420f5c510b8c4f40c77abf5b6ad
52f8e0fd054586fe5614fe47527cf3d4f326ad5d
105903 F20101130_AADCXJ rocca_s_Page_112.jp2
acfccac1b8af1ae3f8c726ad173f6395
303b6bb7770190ea344a4ed00fbee9754c1e4789
96476 F20101130_AADCWV rocca_s_Page_096.jp2
c86c28741c590dbcdc893e113ead16f1
8f91d4f7f4c0c40799bf0804480cebd295020990
25090 F20101130_AADEGG rocca_s_Page_149thm.jpg
3fa23ab36730616fcad5a4a5e211b683
7422a12d95ad79d3c67683f4289d279a75de915c
26176 F20101130_AADEFS rocca_s_Page_140thm.jpg
fdaf10c1101d8608e509770c08379a74
73f459c1821c656a5d69635a5315cf759c809fb1
78161 F20101130_AADDZY rocca_s_Page_033.QC.jpg
febd788819a2ca85be0041435ac0cd95
404a73fbf445f219269b3c24e7e3ee992c7294b9
F20101130_AADDDE rocca_s_Page_077.tif
8c7db0a12062bef386f04b6bec471d11
3f6b2f8804dc2de87df5145c6f974e2b1e9d513a
F20101130_AADDCQ rocca_s_Page_063.tif
69be85fd10e221bc8585daf6d869129c
3dd879f454f242206300d7bb3327c7b266ec5e1e
106344 F20101130_AADCXK rocca_s_Page_113.jp2
8a212c1d9acb4a6c18a1fe56f6a72340
2eca17edcb84e2cf52c4b88aa5809748991e5b03
62984 F20101130_AADCWW rocca_s_Page_097.jp2
360781b10c301b7472bd45127eea3341
0d6cfdac684c1993d51bb5e09fcf15f4cb36f8df
86089 F20101130_AADEGH rocca_s_Page_149.QC.jpg
3e0458666ebdf5eb9d3236282926211c
a089ab4d7b95d31810956b284393faa26d71faaa
81361 F20101130_AADEFT rocca_s_Page_140.QC.jpg
283d159083d820206d1fa1d96e6ae96c
390c572147b0b10425c20518a83198ba853986a3
24990 F20101130_AADDZZ rocca_s_Page_035thm.jpg
97ac1243bdea89292731df06fc660fc5
70db235dc9a941dbd0e43ea166c265c6bd1c74d8
F20101130_AADDDF rocca_s_Page_078.tif
ec2af2b5fbe247dfd0c107ba135078ba
1bd3b6a03117943ef3e6f3cba42b9f2581204ed3
F20101130_AADDCR rocca_s_Page_064.tif
83d289d3d4be26cfd2dc25c49a48053f
6f4866b56c41298011ca9b3e2e9435af92cc96b1
101676 F20101130_AADCXL rocca_s_Page_114.jp2
3e479b6d1f1ca6fe369f9cc001d9f941
cd053491459d23874512d013fae528c939e634fe
105459 F20101130_AADCWX rocca_s_Page_098.jp2
db097f39ae55171cc580c168e41ee033
0f6b784f5a9a6d22067bfb9038590e9b6a82ffc4
24426 F20101130_AADEGI rocca_s_Page_150thm.jpg
aecc8dc32dc481fb0a545579d073101d
a8f8e087f18fc79009600e93944b7e9da3ba4eb5
83890 F20101130_AADEFU rocca_s_Page_141.QC.jpg
8c03a217b25a62fca465efa0c969d8cf
fab4194b4f2c5164862dec190262383d9a193130
F20101130_AADDDG rocca_s_Page_079.tif
bdf9629fac921bfd4b9d0f5f00c3aade
497afae68fd6bf33bac5e7d5a572eb052b44a5a0
111294 F20101130_AADCYA rocca_s_Page_131.jp2
8e698484fa28301d19527885dc8ab79b
08be46fdb30d90861c72bced314be5862acb8b98
F20101130_AADDCS rocca_s_Page_065.tif
4540e189c60d0a2db8aef31564ae1234
7e5caacf080f6ac818d3b9279e1c2ab91d924a01
39875 F20101130_AADCXM rocca_s_Page_115.jp2
82f76860c4ca99edc30ccf9834479e0d
6f8984c2022b011803df704b5f5167047e957578
85482 F20101130_AADEGJ rocca_s_Page_150.QC.jpg
7d92f87c383b5f3d30746a876901f1d8
a5c839963d025f74a789bbf88df43e25b8967e0a
25564 F20101130_AADEFV rocca_s_Page_142thm.jpg
2782fb22e4ffcbcc25dc121d9d067127
0ea8eb34a190019964c1402b56a33c88d29ebef6
F20101130_AADDDH rocca_s_Page_080.tif
c612cd132f42a8bedc1d2346db6c3db9
7fd4c8276ee7b560a00ca0ae61f4a869c84cd72a
112826 F20101130_AADCYB rocca_s_Page_133.jp2
d04aaa1bbd2082bf46d5538e80183c0e
6032502b18313e6e82d0bf1d133d7ca2c5a9def8
F20101130_AADDCT rocca_s_Page_066.tif
479a013cc59964a97756de5164cee21d
671eeea42cf8d78695c0b0fdd3beae3a8e0bdaf0
94879 F20101130_AADCXN rocca_s_Page_116.jp2
0a0ed71871f96d74b5f15a204382ecf8
175270ce885fd76a458028e921013a97ae3bf1b9
64773 F20101130_AADCWY rocca_s_Page_099.jp2
a39d69fbfc8a6bf226cf4f8615bdd501
1b2c248b08b8450b2a5d9b7b89a8952a0317fcbe
66091 F20101130_AADEGK rocca_s_Page_151.QC.jpg
49bf24797f13c876423239c243edf4d9
997a8f782e1525d7c87b84422d8601a58211d4e5
80671 F20101130_AADEFW rocca_s_Page_142.QC.jpg
909a3785df683f30aa0c40c4d69008e9
4a3836b0a97ef5c87bdcfd71a902a18d82a84e60
F20101130_AADDDI rocca_s_Page_081.tif
4cd41d98601511632fe5947743d4fb6b
74f3e2cc8c9c060980191889bd48afbf5b64b721
115647 F20101130_AADCYC rocca_s_Page_134.jp2
80d3c2e2201746984905a8c38427f69b
21c4896db3ca59726ab3951273c89fdd5b6e99b1
F20101130_AADDCU rocca_s_Page_067.tif
6100278fa4a29116d6fcba79dfecec2f
dc4528a3d378dac93f12c1ad310e761e87a0f5b6
110240 F20101130_AADCXO rocca_s_Page_117.jp2
240ba6abd3572db01a3ecb0c56a78622
0247351738efe3f14b3077d8976a21e0aa25c189
85380 F20101130_AADCWZ rocca_s_Page_100.jp2
9826a84728328c2e3c5943798fd23fe7
319f66c5d220181f359e923025a9a399a57f8e74
54432 F20101130_AADEHA rocca_s_Page_163.QC.jpg
1002d24804efd01f0d3bf16c3e53e56d
29e9c26967b5474a33dd03dfe41979a1c1424e3a
46076 F20101130_AADEGL rocca_s_Page_152thm.jpg
9c26fd5452a4673b2aa95e2b130be14b
48ac01a1087991943d2d04992fc4126135e204b4
25929 F20101130_AADEFX rocca_s_Page_143thm.jpg
dc93c79fa23e75446ac66e81b4a1ce47
049bc4b727bcd21f77427635c823131964b5b9d2
F20101130_AADDDJ rocca_s_Page_082.tif
6f0c0eea496a7611f153db69277181fd
842dc19a1eeb718b228669913bd9c14e47915c16
112723 F20101130_AADCYD rocca_s_Page_135.jp2
1b0ff7a7f15535b2518bfeb2b7b48f70
873d4b900f8ce4dcb3222862797228f6047c65f3
F20101130_AADDCV rocca_s_Page_068.tif
99b34d65fb364d8ff33be9579db33e29
c18d95ffd789a705a3c21e0fdefbfc3f1555142a
104383 F20101130_AADCXP rocca_s_Page_118.jp2
9f678bbe6829460e581049d837578e43
51dadce28f5aa45d5726851974cbcf3d80a5b3b3
6678 F20101130_AADEHB rocca_s_Page_164thm.jpg
3fc888c24e9e418d733f8351f87ef24c
8c2924e97d85cdd7cb520e06da6c220568e3d36a
95792 F20101130_AADEGM rocca_s_Page_152.QC.jpg
6258522b992870dfc2c7f8af166dfa0e
faaf89f304e54024fbdf6f15d5b2e51f54d09542
83227 F20101130_AADEFY rocca_s_Page_143.QC.jpg
efbcdfe60ec1449cb2835d5cc3828fa8
93f9305d41813c207632c3ed65d0a014656e75a2
F20101130_AADDDK rocca_s_Page_083.tif
d93fa028e80130cf22fd7a5db4eef96e
b9b6800d535a1cc33b8c7280acabd3a03fc318b7
114123 F20101130_AADCYE rocca_s_Page_136.jp2
839b44d2ed5f03161a1155c23ead08cf
9501a4cbe5b1acd076245e6a47140db49473d28a
F20101130_AADDCW rocca_s_Page_069.tif
ba0217c8718f571bad97d212d61d71f0
3c03cbf3ff2205f244955965b5d15226066524d2
99835 F20101130_AADCXQ rocca_s_Page_119.jp2
38a43434b0b95b4f7c0e05bbc53b3337
aa3b62eeddf41133c06299bb9420631c1e5c1a10
26951 F20101130_AADEHC rocca_s_Page_165thm.jpg
1aaf0c6eedc332bb3572a0d40a310447
1f3658ea5e0071ce6a9b45120887d2bbadb2836b
53139 F20101130_AADEGN rocca_s_Page_153.QC.jpg
04333f46628ff3931f9c30232be05a03
204267e16baa4c75b658883f28e74109f0fa962c
25821 F20101130_AADEFZ rocca_s_Page_144thm.jpg
efd9c432276e0b94cbbb467fee62ca3e
ad5404d32d0e16aa3461b5199f4d0e7603c09f42
F20101130_AADDDL rocca_s_Page_084.tif
afbd31be0b0ebc2a3fe399ed9eb1f0cc
452ace8d364d490c7b4962cd3be35814eee47217
114694 F20101130_AADCYF rocca_s_Page_137.jp2
cfe1f41245585b0ab7e69cf55eafb817
d2d57c0cb09c54e62b0c19d4e5b3a361ac21185f
F20101130_AADDCX rocca_s_Page_070.tif
eb89f06f880140479199044fb7291c77
3279589ef5c6251b8b211c363266f8cc8c3cb929
101111 F20101130_AADCXR rocca_s_Page_121.jp2
cb7b91208d3d849e15e7a0cf1a5b8721
00a3053869f2da0c6ebdfe2cac0cf66b7f18b71f
F20101130_AADDEA rocca_s_Page_100.tif
45005d50c0824f6a60ce4497cdd4e278
d1a0ae3b134676d7081726981356c85dec1dcc83
47604 F20101130_AADEHD rocca_s_Page_166.QC.jpg
5bf73bdf971ccc49f267593cd242b412
99c8cc17dded5f4a6a9301d9762ffe2f3f94f875
99948 F20101130_AADEGO rocca_s_Page_154.QC.jpg
6de5222af93536774f4b85fb375d0b58
3a4902e17b8ea25dfa557664c63932aa31f847b1
F20101130_AADDDM rocca_s_Page_085.tif
85c173c54be99cd479e830e72dafcc0e
3c5fe63ad07d45cb577cfbc044d3e8106d902a84
116292 F20101130_AADCYG rocca_s_Page_138.jp2
8fe673ce0891f6a004b2b2f28ccb3c12
245e82d485d76b541360b7044358276955d01ccb
F20101130_AADDCY rocca_s_Page_071.tif
2452d63f32b8466262e7582eebe6165d
456754abfcabf37895f6a99ef3d58bbd37683d3f
103273 F20101130_AADCXS rocca_s_Page_122.jp2
2330aeca812a75b47213226e6e53350e
9a8e8de4d457f1efdd2ec2adef0bb98a91646443
F20101130_AADDEB rocca_s_Page_101.tif
4877e0bf580aef79f23d2a19c00189d3
a35e051b97e3b5aa25b5cde18e16f8fc23911cba
26587 F20101130_AADEHE rocca_s_Page_167thm.jpg
931d7fd60be2290b34238a85a51230b7
e58b77a551045a377375158910b1a1e476f09d09
35908 F20101130_AADEGP rocca_s_Page_155thm.jpg
54ee430b6155baa654dabba2b0f9d457
d77d2e44038c3854b910a424920dc74e200c5986
F20101130_AADDDN rocca_s_Page_086.tif
2974f965c8858b8d18ad688a2e56c1af
82b8e82030ed400a0bd731a18a7d0805e1c30277
109417 F20101130_AADCYH rocca_s_Page_139.jp2
13eab460339af482f437c81c3ff7ff40
1e83379c502f57181647e817aeb8ae37c27a756f
F20101130_AADDCZ rocca_s_Page_072.tif
191d80ecaef22d655a21eafd72bbb366
844a3f81884dbee762328bdb17772e1e595618e9
108752 F20101130_AADCXT rocca_s_Page_123.jp2
94c8e10b3665d82d618e1faf7584e7cb
cba0544a32a159f98fab593e8168373da10b83bc
F20101130_AADDEC rocca_s_Page_102.tif
d39baf1a9debbdc5bab94a4298a2a9af
bb66a9d0346c2e35c4cf0e033f02533272b0a210
26406 F20101130_AADEHF rocca_s_Page_168thm.jpg
0b764dd47cf407c8ce936b0049c64a84
e7c4b4ffa9230d1fa5516b550c20ea19e588abc3
18083 F20101130_AADEGQ rocca_s_Page_156thm.jpg
1372f1cccc151ed75292d971fba06971
3e7675a9d64bd5739fe7bd600ab4be96845359fd
F20101130_AADDDO rocca_s_Page_087.tif
006858cbe8256ec6c0b79908e0a4182e
f24141bcc4a600e0548f18842dec80e878b253b6
113051 F20101130_AADCYI rocca_s_Page_140.jp2
b96addeafafd3547fda0633f6abe1cdf
126f9e535e26fd46a04ab884dfc71d274b970d8f
91193 F20101130_AADCXU rocca_s_Page_124.jp2
29bb03c10dbc22c7e83f5b87fb9b306f
357bece019cee62243810bdf754f53bfe5899714
F20101130_AADDED rocca_s_Page_103.tif
c9eaf0c14f666a22d1b0af2a4940a032
c0d49584e3420bf722f7efafbe000ae41dd1514e
12622 F20101130_AADEHG rocca_s_Page_169thm.jpg
5373ea9909ac9fb70ac0dc4c25cf6ca0
8c3e5173231fc5b5a2780a32a417d7830aaf9917
58737 F20101130_AADEGR rocca_s_Page_156.QC.jpg
8cb2aa3691921b8a1611aaf53e7ecab7
ec25b7a83cbf620cf88c052ee60f176ff06165d3
F20101130_AADDDP rocca_s_Page_089.tif
9314fc88f4d9db4349b34f7862da70ff
88ebf6c69d748a3e6b0ed9e644a6faef32ce8db1
117401 F20101130_AADCYJ rocca_s_Page_141.jp2
8fa8f569cd28bb7a16f83063adecf9a4
6404d1339e78ccf989af9372111781215b7b4d67
140966 F20101130_AADCXV rocca_s_Page_125.jp2
83b88f10f8cad833fbc39815231e18e4
a8960c9e2e6b0345b1ac4fb72027db5fa15b90ad
F20101130_AADDEE rocca_s_Page_104.tif
fa9bf57e7b418c03162c93e5c8447ef4
acd244a9b2ff44c560992d592a3e3f62c15fe9e0
46277 F20101130_AADEGS rocca_s_Page_158thm.jpg
bd9dd7f13a94f25b8c4d89010be48d39
d78feffbee5afd96ed4b872c7e78b8bcdab71e91
F20101130_AADDDQ rocca_s_Page_090.tif
91f6eddcddfcff2f8c5d475d5b41500b
00338cf2b91fb5dbd3cd681c2a1fa05bcb8520a1
111785 F20101130_AADCYK rocca_s_Page_142.jp2
c1be2b8bac58d42620bce9f1ac15592b
915a5e3e94b9855979bf7e43a36c33f51ab18938
119530 F20101130_AADCXW rocca_s_Page_126.jp2
f0580e5361bb725da8e43467da1b4131
ebd76602c395c43a15197ffd02ab6fc03f4223c6
19796 F20101130_AADEHH rocca_s_Page_169.QC.jpg
8d8e286474bebac1ef474db4c0759cb9
6577ef9a65152ffe40daabd91018537535c35212
95185 F20101130_AADEGT rocca_s_Page_158.QC.jpg
e857bec458f72b55c400e860355c664c
f4558405ab67d10eaa4ece5962fa623a7a144bf7
117370 F20101130_AADCYL rocca_s_Page_143.jp2
58ebf54f5e47ef4dc7788ec6e70c070c
22e9c7eddd296b5a4a2bb8f9c3e1a13672de1b56
115818 F20101130_AADCXX rocca_s_Page_127.jp2
27951c0dd9dc06f50c0d7ade11dc22f7
899b5d2104fa6580e9b0956083daf08a1635b466
F20101130_AADDEF rocca_s_Page_105.tif
f1a28b5499728d524148ddedba08844f
e9d9404f54ad5bb4a0c04c9156d38dd9fdb9164d
F20101130_AADDDR rocca_s_Page_091.tif
c2ccea7f3f6b21d32dc63331fac9b58f
2fe4673066d132effd12b1ad7a6191ba241e6480
28170 F20101130_AADEHI rocca_s_Page_170thm.jpg
41ffd43fb86f3bc6c2abb3a8f2290765
8675cbf68c7ef1ff2febcf37383ffcc668225983
35253 F20101130_AADEGU rocca_s_Page_159thm.jpg
68408400e915f22988913117eadcd358
4717b0eaa2443f0a344e74eab98132ee0f39d933
111191 F20101130_AADCYM rocca_s_Page_144.jp2
f95eb6166b06fe4819648a0457a8d027
09752316032b351501e2ccf7f6bbe389d5e1dae1
109487 F20101130_AADCXY rocca_s_Page_128.jp2
5229700f768584de8fadb29483499138
a87f80973f82a2191bd17261acf1eea3e53a34b3
F20101130_AADDEG rocca_s_Page_106.tif
ec2bf5d482a457a9591347a4f20f9302
44c787f7aaaa363ae08ea0cda8a38e79d953d3d2
1051979 F20101130_AADCZA rocca_s_Page_158.jp2
20ad4d47f2214f32dbe40183d3467e67
970c0b494948a9721da037b86b63ac2add08a011
F20101130_AADDDS rocca_s_Page_092.tif
fce1fc2eb4cc75ce4c523d3928d9e516
239a097b93333b6034da94a7f6757a02fe2a7d26
70422 F20101130_AADEHJ rocca_s_Page_170.QC.jpg
a7b586da637dbb3964fb2a6dca45721a
fabff08fc9768f1a44edd083cf825bf06a6f05cd
52315 F20101130_AADEGV rocca_s_Page_159.QC.jpg
950a0cf98e328a95b808f5b76755c9fe
5cf8a04adbb8957fb35a168c75a196124f8daf9b
113289 F20101130_AADCYN rocca_s_Page_145.jp2
6537f5cabd2a24319ecc18f9d30b1e47
87c9912171e16c380641ae6f865fbfb130856081
F20101130_AADDEH rocca_s_Page_107.tif
12cfc86ee795eb0e78c2fd55d1e550d4
1518cf3c6a89d6a57e3c8e3f689a8b9bc0b39630
412135 F20101130_AADCZB rocca_s_Page_159.jp2
633914af1a7ab4f0338496e8d595ecef
75b301812fa0210d605509323b09fe96089d3e15
F20101130_AADDDT rocca_s_Page_093.tif
f3fce589a68cdf11a42a8ea84de9f6f0
d0b8852dae0bffa82b776ad3ce54e109fb14113e
26168 F20101130_AADEHK rocca_s_Page_171.QC.jpg
8c5d035db23dffd6091280f2d4989b7c
a1f16dc060ee3f15c74f62313bc536f6c3248884
38612 F20101130_AADEGW rocca_s_Page_160thm.jpg
ac7975e200c624df0f123396a3703f1c
38f2aa1ea3bfc25e20189d8c07d8e0f35f259026
109228 F20101130_AADCYO rocca_s_Page_146.jp2
95be1ba22e9bf896b2dbaeffd9b44b2b
f91535ab1444e6c3d20c110fb71172e86884b2f0
110625 F20101130_AADCXZ rocca_s_Page_129.jp2
ec8b5f8a703b3fecd08ab4e5458358b3
b656ea7eb5f7bf15b67fa284decd8786a1384897
1054428 F20101130_AADDEI rocca_s_Page_109.tif
8a9eac2fea46f5e48eebf9d8fba42367
557c98db794011e1c79833d9221355181c5148f5
791985 F20101130_AADCZC rocca_s_Page_160.jp2
d6057c878f46dd163574cc5cdf00e00b
5bfb6d0089f1ea2b2039d55615081aee540bc4e6
F20101130_AADDDU rocca_s_Page_094.tif
4559f3d377d2f352c19b8f74b34ba274
74b768f7186958ae306e05ceb52b4a73cbc5c4a2
82963 F20101130_AADEIA rocca_s_Page_179.QC.jpg
d0cd9e206c1006264e067fc856763235
1df428345e5ef27cef56e732623fe8499b11412c
24284 F20101130_AADEHL rocca_s_Page_172thm.jpg
9f45bdc6f91508146af2a3a4424494cb
b14540f559a96610a574afbbc4204b0fb4f4fcd8
34235 F20101130_AADEGX rocca_s_Page_162thm.jpg
7c30577cc14f909e7f5cdae8aad10ed9
b26593222f1148db6884bb9d1b57ce8176a96177
120683 F20101130_AADCYP rocca_s_Page_147.jp2
606137639eecfbfd2c4ecdeaf86ff8cf
a2b391cc03faffda3891a24741520acd9fca25f8
F20101130_AADDEJ rocca_s_Page_110.tif
889f0e121841731d91d1a73fb60033dd
f3d4e017ec3f27e6fe40e9890148ae43a969577f
569493 F20101130_AADCZD rocca_s_Page_161.jp2
8cad886b7cec1bc8ee16c1a494f24dd2
ae46d43fabafc7724aee1d1549d6c671a20439fb
F20101130_AADDDV rocca_s_Page_095.tif
d8da705631efcca0b2be6a1477c8e6e8
698cba9f08fed34a433503dd4986e7d12ef10b3d
24585 F20101130_AADEIB rocca_s_Page_180thm.jpg
eda36ff850c45d184d0d5cb201aed724
bfd3155ab0719a31e7d2d7fb5d3f380ab3e772df
58237 F20101130_AADEHM rocca_s_Page_172.QC.jpg
8821717ca57f8de12e2561740c87fe3b
6a1cac9aff83ff6ec273459757dedf1e1b649ab6
51078 F20101130_AADEGY rocca_s_Page_162.QC.jpg
137d6845b187ea1f07ecd056ec2f0f7a
2d0a8cb7534cd0483ee26032dfa37e9fe7ead81e
111870 F20101130_AADCYQ rocca_s_Page_148.jp2
5c4b4c22303c3a2fa1da3213a9008e3a
e352e6595295609d6c76f1e8732b422087fa8e4e
F20101130_AADDEK rocca_s_Page_111.tif
eb72fc15e189fa1819302021a141c6d6
2eee75d0fbebd2fa4e43a6aa5e2a053832775b59
420072 F20101130_AADCZE rocca_s_Page_162.jp2
6c9f102e02bf4db265645838294c7938
3a4baad47564e72d32bd1298e4d051b02783b721
F20101130_AADDDW rocca_s_Page_096.tif
961c95839726fdf11275ce093d00b0ba
86b277cc626dca85793850aad420d4501250810d
83730 F20101130_AADEIC rocca_s_Page_180.QC.jpg
eb6ef665f28e9be6080c22b2b37251a3
98599d216580ac3449ea690695c29624edc84ac9
13014 F20101130_AADEHN rocca_s_Page_173thm.jpg
f313d229c308c9e158f7af044202ff73
a0155c1b4603f5279af7501587fbc8698f9e29be
17774 F20101130_AADEGZ rocca_s_Page_163thm.jpg
5ddfa2886d40f3c2f4266915103e5054
91899c71e915c85184c59fdd90516989a72cf527
145181 F20101130_AADCYR rocca_s_Page_149.jp2
103e5852da5b34c83b40a54928e8aecd
d31a826fdea31a917e5137a6ef8069ae2ceb9ae6
F20101130_AADDFA rocca_s_Page_128.tif
cd279c427515be240d32a13d25e15f22
f56df41acdb982a1d4dbd67b3a78e76257d98e32
F20101130_AADDEL rocca_s_Page_112.tif
e3a9397d773107332406ba92335db5d3
fe41e1f4640404fda7f2cfcae6ae06d0108daea1
72669 F20101130_AADCZF rocca_s_Page_163.jp2
625d0ade29f4d327502d30979270c34e
cf95ccd52e6e1066bdcc477c5a1ef16da6f29b8d
F20101130_AADDDX rocca_s_Page_097.tif
d65900d401e9afd4dd60021a3835e2f0
1381c58b46e3cb9efc1c6b839b545c0f541fb41a
85317 F20101130_AADEID rocca_s_Page_181.QC.jpg
8bec8b311d1f9c8c44ffd1d2802a63b2
03b225d6ecb665fba1bd33fadf871a0e778eec88
20850 F20101130_AADEHO rocca_s_Page_173.QC.jpg
065941e5056eec2c4e4bd9899b7ad7dd
06d7f54be1ca0d471ed0059325fee50ebd295a9f
140058 F20101130_AADCYS rocca_s_Page_150.jp2
36f85e0f6f5c6ca36537371c953bcbd6
f7a7004a9862699e418ba33a9561bea086946406
F20101130_AADDFB rocca_s_Page_129.tif
85dc84779f8192b073c3c78a595878d3
dd0aa7e6437cc548c7d33997c4fce7926cbffcb8
F20101130_AADDEM rocca_s_Page_113.tif
15cd636eea467c08618fb3edeff2c7fa
b671dcf248068b9c41fdb6edf9d1881354447e10
22207 F20101130_AADCZG rocca_s_Page_164.jp2
a75f00a7c1a44d2e2a58d0c28075aa24
a8a188067eaeeef81adc5244bc05f4f66f9d4028
F20101130_AADDDY rocca_s_Page_098.tif
d03a877187c505dcd5f473d8ccfe3233
38be8e480077775db1f7a990ee5ac0c24c29f543
24849 F20101130_AADEIE rocca_s_Page_183thm.jpg
a27bb2a21921f90d5a40e8982575a76a
0a044df5f26d9f3fb9ae4cfeb9135f1312529fde
15022 F20101130_AADEHP rocca_s_Page_174thm.jpg
d99b86d1a2f879fec3323acd6214559f
85b56336dd3f1f96321ce64241303c12ed95f14f
913787 F20101130_AADCYT rocca_s_Page_151.jp2
9f8c68647499a5b40e175e240139ab0b
88bbdc491839bb4d4be68ebe91836b29f8a3bdf7
F20101130_AADDFC rocca_s_Page_130.tif
9c6adfbe10c366c7ce6ef5e65f1907ec
8fe59ae38132104adccd2c7a485640c9ec50b7dd
F20101130_AADDEN rocca_s_Page_114.tif
c10ea9bc1f8cb71082d780df44bf7931
aad3a7dcede34bb2f664fdee6a913c06a32f8e6e
853098 F20101130_AADCZH rocca_s_Page_165.jp2
3163106f308e3ab901dfadb680742412
7cc37f95b323ad65d7d1d42cccb47517d6a1c78b
F20101130_AADDDZ rocca_s_Page_099.tif
c8a4ad7aebe66bd1b0f820358e8c7c1d
95ddd4bd6cf4bf559e263eafaecf449cb3268349
81884 F20101130_AADEIF rocca_s_Page_183.QC.jpg
6fde7bf8f974c48e675bc06b2964c33c
2ed14c7628e95ace5cb66c431bef3c9496376e89
46791 F20101130_AADEHQ rocca_s_Page_174.QC.jpg
949cf18589e43c29f4a3691c4d77b8f5
435b8501e978eb5921ea54432c55fd9b1a0b9607
1051971 F20101130_AADCYU rocca_s_Page_152.jp2
902a6e739b4a61d766b33e322b05cd7d
a8391d6d87a94dfae8814042d0ca73c55f1ec93d
F20101130_AADDFD rocca_s_Page_131.tif
cbe1c4e368ec3bde95f0095ad4aef90c
163ba22924c92b91416108cfce0f9a4c39364310
F20101130_AADDEO rocca_s_Page_115.tif
e702725e2aa223c43c8a6400271c48a6
ee9df240cc4e2cdf77b02f2c7c636941ca603f89
498437 F20101130_AADCZI rocca_s_Page_166.jp2
2ccd7b8445a3e692d436238a9f74e22e
e45c48a73fdfae355245a39bf6e374f01b20d7b8
87289 F20101130_AADEIG rocca_s_Page_184.QC.jpg
b9ed0ddc190fbc0e92028ed1c83ec960
d70d405f8b17268f292245999be2d083e22f473a
15624 F20101130_AADEHR rocca_s_Page_175thm.jpg
6e5b5ff8d30155bcaab566f318534e0a
2f5aef39012aabb3289643ebba71ffb6c9e5598c
460360 F20101130_AADCYV rocca_s_Page_153.jp2
372758e383903222fb81b1c6027155d9
62ee70ceb1a5bbe1ecb91d60ae59c1fdde8dc393
F20101130_AADDFE rocca_s_Page_132.tif
ba0331d86cfdf01cf85473eb67a8ded1
d24732428055c17a56bfa453fc74b417b28f2717
F20101130_AADDEP rocca_s_Page_116.tif
f6605723f3fd8ff232a56dc0ec1a011d
960095faf360583f9c6fac801183c5b2bf03c0f1
839344 F20101130_AADCZJ rocca_s_Page_167.jp2
87bc525b0f2293430fc6ff053cf31d57
02347aaaead5dea93eba5eaa3c4ffd703ac02291
81682 F20101130_AADEIH rocca_s_Page_185.QC.jpg
396e608dd42cfcb6e5a693d6ad476178
7ba837f8255f1fb021fe258f3dcf4c7610f80c73
47533 F20101130_AADEHS rocca_s_Page_175.QC.jpg
acd084a47b4516c60e9bca687fe0f4a2
3d483d5ca17f247f549248f6496fef3f2e0283bf
1051904 F20101130_AADCYW rocca_s_Page_154.jp2
7379b460ce8eb76650ab132fc9089a0e
78efc7096087e8f4968b272fcadb1dcd440a4b64
F20101130_AADDFF rocca_s_Page_133.tif
c1eb04baed9182716395943f5ed7b5f4
4e86420d0a533cefb52c8239595b63865a8bbbe9
F20101130_AADDEQ rocca_s_Page_118.tif
72332999f58abfef5e8e2f61355fd02e
9f7511b1e2854515baf960e70aff1e168fe51db1
737421 F20101130_AADCZK rocca_s_Page_168.jp2
d7cfa71f79604042c1b1b6a043bc7d7d
b9ed39be2aa048ce1c62cd0d52c53965f7b83161
16683 F20101130_AADEHT rocca_s_Page_176thm.jpg
838ca34d1d582a7e2279235e2626473a
1981a9834c71c22da696c49f479e1c599c53cb59
505450 F20101130_AADCYX rocca_s_Page_155.jp2
b91aaa3a3ecdff27cb062fbad38f7d4d
bbe5122710ca22e7736882a3a7d7f60fcb39a591
F20101130_AADDER rocca_s_Page_119.tif
20c85671894b23208f3baca3869bc534
c5c467623de627c0280128ad10a89623e5441a07
127873 F20101130_AADCZL rocca_s_Page_169.jp2
6b4d0d5147c62e42bf63f1234e0a8046
dc7b28f3f2f2f29da6c191959ee3ff786f174f5e
25174 F20101130_AADEII rocca_s_Page_186thm.jpg
cacfb79908e41763b7d2f81b12c98a1b
e11e9dd83c29700e4a14f121541bbae8b4114386
53018 F20101130_AADEHU rocca_s_Page_176.QC.jpg
81ca684fa3357c0d07d9f0bc543dba16
5150751c5587b4e5d738170a38aa86271d644bb0
80601 F20101130_AADCYY rocca_s_Page_156.jp2
9f2b42fb85bd3cae20f81dde0a7d2502
ae28d373dab99d6a4e30f802f9b3f6bca388f06a
F20101130_AADDFG rocca_s_Page_134.tif
a86cd8ee3e88b9b6d5911fecf4f83e37
be9edc1f0adc29e427b9813ed6f97ef27712e027
F20101130_AADDES rocca_s_Page_120.tif
991c2c7e8f9c99e14d253223b79eebdc
91cca65056fbe86d79d1b10380f04f582dc43d48
777800 F20101130_AADCZM rocca_s_Page_170.jp2
5430d80baf21f722e7b7540a2d403ca2
cbb1f210bfb5a9de55e6ce4575c959216028ad5a
82854 F20101130_AADEIJ rocca_s_Page_186.QC.jpg
82d2d368cd70798e4785f0087fd69f8c
d87a4e193c9a0bde58d7f181c83962e15c92a7ec
10874 F20101130_AADEHV rocca_s_Page_177thm.jpg
78be6277f6b33de035da252a35a98aed
f4957cfe9426397cf8a7d8af8481dc55ee30a80d
115221 F20101130_AADCYZ rocca_s_Page_157.jp2
31a0102d60c7c3fc423df437656dc4f4
b5664f7cfcdd654cdd107a71299b98b168f439b2
F20101130_AADDFH rocca_s_Page_135.tif
69267c44e46f24f5c09e59f5bbc1ae8a
a19b0f69f2d1ddb5879b889f2a8dcf7324dfcc79
F20101130_AADDET rocca_s_Page_121.tif
ae65dc69fc6e3a853719de31cda7cff1
dd366ace7bb57a94fa0ba6aff86255c732302086
182971 F20101130_AADCZN rocca_s_Page_171.jp2
131793aaf43f768c8e896d5ccd3a3224
25a7d72e2f61959a44914f04dd0ef6e7cef4570c
25980 F20101130_AADEIK rocca_s_Page_187thm.jpg
b6ce0cde5db2802b8e227f9598438ce3
41bfba6972276494d0e3063f53e040b0d7e1b9ed
33703 F20101130_AADEHW rocca_s_Page_177.QC.jpg
96889f7d2c7a37c548efaef72deb9734
26cbafd752d017928f9a0da0429274b622626723
F20101130_AADDFI rocca_s_Page_136.tif
3b9e35da1c0149ef12b238e1102d353e
adfcd89e50d06f9897f908c48ab7e3e165fccd9b
F20101130_AADDEU rocca_s_Page_122.tif
b9b2b910dfc87a81182b2258bfc2a652
a3a41d629aa60f90e0ffc039d058550be0f6b845
638377 F20101130_AADCZO rocca_s_Page_172.jp2
b0af966963cd5b211b6316616107ef1a
10e24759c2a16da8284cf4fd5debca002291a3b9
88768 F20101130_AADEIL rocca_s_Page_187.QC.jpg
920ad4fc989ef73bc999e049bfc798fc
4e559bfe26b248d3614358dae7bbd199ad53d68a
22037 F20101130_AADEHX rocca_s_Page_178thm.jpg
7174077a25a22bf475f038c642c4f561
df14d28a4e1631da540f03577ff214192ed958b3
F20101130_AADDFJ rocca_s_Page_137.tif
82e58588afb4520fde12c2fc6743c66e
37c2976f8700d87408ce504ae00117d4067d9acb
F20101130_AADDEV rocca_s_Page_123.tif
42e5a7d2f260427c06da219e38c10d16
80379c6f8efaa426f7d77e425950c74ea3f10ef3
110038 F20101130_AADCZP rocca_s_Page_173.jp2
8aab569ea61d0f43a34e673fab357fba
076ad0bbc3568521a908005d24bfb7c82784e89e
86007 F20101130_AADEIM rocca_s_Page_188.QC.jpg
38ece27f7f68151a4a149974ad3524af
bc70e1554c3f55c6fee23576267dfab2d43fc578
74081 F20101130_AADEHY rocca_s_Page_178.QC.jpg
4def87b7d6a98744bc506226cc4e0756
07156eb548c55446531aad1d2037cec8f3ce2536
F20101130_AADDFK rocca_s_Page_138.tif
eedfbbc537f3d0d339ea53197acc3b33
1c66766ec4d9f075760aa673ac1c459431c12c6a
F20101130_AADDEW rocca_s_Page_124.tif
420912eb9bd0df74b5f684076feef156
bb1c0fbef9347b3cd06bb1795dff5569365ae9c3
73613 F20101130_AADCZQ rocca_s_Page_174.jp2
de05b8f24a5beb3a8e6bdf8c2f0d1ef2
46354f659d93a3fa8bd4c2955d2f85cc9604cb92
24676 F20101130_AADEIN rocca_s_Page_189thm.jpg
c57f2878cfb5e640523bf85569fdeb92
8509d308df931e93803cdd1bc9be903f1448fe2c
24769 F20101130_AADEHZ rocca_s_Page_179thm.jpg
50f90a38beb41372ee5c1b63eae46f73
e35928b2930d14cea2a4d8b91fb6813894d5047d
F20101130_AADDFL rocca_s_Page_139.tif
ed5064cb67745bf33624002ee80d01fc
a6faae4c68709b59ccdd8df0cf94f5f1d086baf7
F20101130_AADDEX rocca_s_Page_125.tif
02728ec3f06e46ec6d513c73c67239fd
268bf8bfc622e03d463ab47f7141ab345454715c
76729 F20101130_AADCZR rocca_s_Page_175.jp2
01684a99fff73e531429ec505745b461
d3594c78a805f847bc4b95ebf306815da1929a84
25271604 F20101130_AADDGA rocca_s_Page_155.tif
b84aef66506a46317f46d19ddc769b10
872e8777663db5ebd4dedf06f4ccb0df0c81b362
83838 F20101130_AADEIO rocca_s_Page_189.QC.jpg
acc792ed09dd00baa459ebfda4ebde7d
8932ec79cc63a1e16b11fa2e47dc441f01c74d14
F20101130_AADDFM rocca_s_Page_140.tif
963d4fa53856143dcacdac1ac651f272
be1f2df78fa9d9b9ec8e5f8b1bbbaadb9ddcadb2
F20101130_AADDEY rocca_s_Page_126.tif
12400dc03fd3f9749c19e2e3c2a5b639
7b739917a5f89095cb03dba09d61bfaccb60b46e
52566 F20101130_AADCZS rocca_s_Page_177.jp2
7f6ed8f93983346f77b00898df651e58
741fd186f33d6bb06d61569e4914897e11e320bb
F20101130_AADDGB rocca_s_Page_156.tif
7300d012b604002fc53ba6a954328a74
2ca5c924c3d9282b8a5c8658379f27bf102f6327
24472 F20101130_AADEIP rocca_s_Page_190thm.jpg
071fdbe09fc9051819189a03ffcbb8c0
8dc6137a5b9f8ca0fea0a987d07a9db2909dcf01
F20101130_AADDFN rocca_s_Page_141.tif
002b9a0bcb64d316596c069126588e07
056d1d14fbfa21c82dc9d19790df1437f0ab9b44
F20101130_AADDEZ rocca_s_Page_127.tif
0d69522a305de8dbada527e251ca3e6f
8e91ec646119dcdbd1716220d95a1b215c9cab59
122642 F20101130_AADCZT rocca_s_Page_178.jp2
bddd0d493d1024ef835a1439752e1b7e
09a3ab8072980ea5853d329cc1c20867a983b796
F20101130_AADDGC rocca_s_Page_157.tif
a3eba9354bf975733cf4b8054d9727f3
1b1485e9e76cc894643086476f00947f596ae5ad
85519 F20101130_AADEIQ rocca_s_Page_190.QC.jpg
38b7ad31d7b4ee2344664966ce47be6f
e2006a305c3aff0ad0657b50c6e0932b4b32cf9c
F20101130_AADDFO rocca_s_Page_142.tif
9bb1a55182059608f606a3953ec60806
b2608e624cabe66740375b0fba8328ae9693c5b5
133411 F20101130_AADCZU rocca_s_Page_179.jp2
4d86ee21918725475169dfe51067cd02
fe451b9c5fb55f838a404d4902d4fb39481ea31e
F20101130_AADDGD rocca_s_Page_158.tif
f94df272229f7dfcef43a1773e080371
9d0ecc718e4056d5de81a0bc18f10a8eb1a13b03
22472 F20101130_AADEIR rocca_s_Page_192thm.jpg
19a2670f6d175ea42505a2ec7e6671f3
0a50c1d9cf88249ac1d44a3c61fbb273dd37774e
F20101130_AADDFP rocca_s_Page_143.tif
638e2d2ba47369a1d0f4ad88b98c3e75
03105c92c59fc275bd576f7d0a83d8e263358361
136782 F20101130_AADCZV rocca_s_Page_180.jp2
4777762b8641b39e1e38ba969fb5d145
7f32051f0f7b15ca8c6fe9c83d3182103e2209c3
F20101130_AADDGE rocca_s_Page_159.tif
fdee14267a208fd06e816381931c273b
03c2f28aecf94521ad30cb1b967ed5db378cea8a
67302 F20101130_AADEIS rocca_s_Page_192.QC.jpg
0146dfe3574ef3ca8e751bda91a62658
457a734bbabc2d16117f6cf0730565ec1a7eb9ba
F20101130_AADDFQ rocca_s_Page_144.tif
7ce41cc776107026f2d1231b8d464957
0075c8ddbf35ce0f4376b75ebf6a6bbceab833e0
131405 F20101130_AADCZW rocca_s_Page_181.jp2
c8689051e828ce9d227b34bee76d63b5
65d4d59ad42d2f0d264eb631fec33d5a4e85a889
F20101130_AADDGF rocca_s_Page_160.tif
c0bc8b72419db8e6c4e27caf43b8bee9
368da83d5f411e0fc2166585dc8d248cce1e28d5
17353 F20101130_AADEIT rocca_s_Page_193thm.jpg
de6b7cc3e91eddc138941e9408832fdf
1999e854d129888cb68d4b96cd41ee058cf7133f
F20101130_AADDFR rocca_s_Page_145.tif
7f38ea8dcb91b1edd13996e6e35a7cef
8c75a966e55a3dae8a6c67d24a0760d80687af7d
127324 F20101130_AADCZX rocca_s_Page_182.jp2
e9a89ae2866f2db2cf2bc4ed50dabd33
4179429925cf2d19362e3425d0e3efbf3f5c1a80
F20101130_AADDGG rocca_s_Page_161.tif
22fcbdfc48317f1984d223778703ce71
5bc97156eb3002fd2484855a080cc6fb804886ac
53410 F20101130_AADEIU rocca_s_Page_193.QC.jpg
dbcf4225660a1750ad15a25ac62f8ba3
f0b6106c9830f0d90b15bbfe489edec68d172aef
F20101130_AADDFS rocca_s_Page_146.tif
393982e146406badf1a6ab5c0309bac8
2c7efa5b4772ab4faca81a718981796d40b19f5b
133003 F20101130_AADCZY rocca_s_Page_183.jp2
a349d5de164a5e4cbb4ad598214be3e1
90801832473b5fcdf2efb873601450312fba377d
F20101130_AADDFT rocca_s_Page_147.tif
a28f3125beeec5915064c996923d7af7
4dee3bc96fff0963f000b98255630f200e3d0c23
140397 F20101130_AADCZZ rocca_s_Page_184.jp2
279c61ad34f1937316d9e9298635c43d
95910a817fda995c53ce559b9cbc88cf2a1a5c5e
F20101130_AADDGH rocca_s_Page_162.tif
fed9f856de75cd4bb1eb2a8c118af58c
9701a4246d16aa110e9cf0c485814b070e62e284
F20101130_AADDFU rocca_s_Page_148.tif
b2723903cf358437260f33e7d4a73972
9807b75728ef63316d87b62886585a452f38a8a1
F20101130_AADDGI rocca_s_Page_164.tif
49b0defaf0bea8b6beee90bd2ba4cd11
14c5a8b95998a68fc63455baccd6b7be4c4887ed
F20101130_AADDFV rocca_s_Page_149.tif
237cf698953f36be853d50784919dddc
6bf90b927ad2e2e9ae1e525c7722d771f9f608f0
8423998 F20101130_AADDGJ rocca_s_Page_165.tif
4f0237c008b6d2b04f829c97db45abbc
4e25175c91972656ed8ae0db676aa94c14702c4a
F20101130_AADDFW rocca_s_Page_150.tif
cb39af5ef502fe95dbdb77f192b7c7ff
31a41cb53ca97cc42982c7b63ca1bc4b5d2d00c4
F20101130_AADDGK rocca_s_Page_166.tif
ddeb3fc35bcfb0cafc02ec30dde180db
70a576d1ec1edc6c23659545341fb7c108d1d2da
F20101130_AADDFX rocca_s_Page_151.tif
70b2d7ac8ab81c0fa2386a84560d3e4d
9363e2a38e2a2eab9ffdcf0e046e6b9ccabf28ce
F20101130_AADDHA rocca_s_Page_182.tif
277edb2fbe9fd8118f142cc036c2b498
2e3ce9e34403675752947b262e759975fcf58fbc
F20101130_AADDGL rocca_s_Page_167.tif
e70b55a2fdaa1d4155a303675e0e26ab
1af664bdfa9873b96751594434eb59c8b452cefc
F20101130_AADDFY rocca_s_Page_153.tif
68d5d637f8976081e2a89f991979e74d
b482378652e4166e33a43bc71da7dc0f37f917ec
F20101130_AADDHB rocca_s_Page_183.tif
ebdce3ab96c4c4f990fa33d98075b8c0
ec74bce54c1108158e441d512fa049c1bb2136b4
F20101130_AADDGM rocca_s_Page_168.tif
b4a2828471df1103ee8dfa69816fedcf
50ef105dc7d784097dd3bf60b37a20ded0b5d53b
F20101130_AADDFZ rocca_s_Page_154.tif
32215b9ecf9b62a3c1f23f4136076ed1
6b9d98e2587f45f39a598302c10fe624ffae11c0
F20101130_AADDHC rocca_s_Page_184.tif
c402884e9f5fc9c532b2e41f43afdf9c
bc9deb87a42aaa2e07ebedbe0f195e6a3ecea9f0
F20101130_AADDGN rocca_s_Page_169.tif
6b3b21676949f114a56b29767f94549c
a980100cc1ce4d3e7b30ca1ca308567e6413583d
F20101130_AADDHD rocca_s_Page_185.tif
55c80463d291537687838493ede6d1ca
f4f3a6d4c664a772ff0bf1e51176c6c5f32c319b
F20101130_AADDGO rocca_s_Page_170.tif
ce4c024ef78b5aea88daa63369d9e485
14f957ce9c3a1c084779c94ad3cd8d52118615b1
F20101130_AADDHE rocca_s_Page_186.tif
a9a789310ed29ce11f027938f0b4fed7
00d52907bebeaebf2c73050da1d7814de34ca3a1
F20101130_AADDGP rocca_s_Page_171.tif
5248f18ad6dc9192e2bea9487b29ba34
a1173e2cb6d8f62a6b3876bebab807d2de268153
F20101130_AADDHF rocca_s_Page_187.tif
c814eb1156fd5a14932cd73938d1bb0d
df26607517246e2ce7303910ae6b5711c1729c30
F20101130_AADDGQ rocca_s_Page_172.tif
4aa26f32d7b6c779c261faa64a35041b
a1ff3e958e8cef8cf35d2560621bc1c0c4aef1a0
F20101130_AADDHG rocca_s_Page_188.tif
1ab7535a665752867811d420d654109b
2828687898844b2de6bde949a793c5ddcc97113d
F20101130_AADDGR rocca_s_Page_173.tif
be02126d5c5ea64838a210978ac1010d
81182f46914c217c955cc77de0ec87dd22033573
F20101130_AADDHH rocca_s_Page_189.tif
4d77e7c3861ccd7d8f22e604354f668d
447f46934575f2bef80798fb18c63fc578876929
F20101130_AADDGS rocca_s_Page_174.tif
e2f2cd8ab28d75c34b3ca61f1f4be304
1860f5850cdf270ca323ede5a5d28cce6fdf636a
F20101130_AADDGT rocca_s_Page_175.tif
deafe070156d7dd1db0ed3325b640af7
c1b62234b067a9a43e38f59ce858db81a184f1c8
F20101130_AADDHI rocca_s_Page_192.tif
53703bf8c04eaf65763c27c1a55680c5
673cdd6f6a1e2f8409ffe00e4ceea5b76583f342
F20101130_AADDGU rocca_s_Page_176.tif
113abe9a28e8a7451faf1d2b0aa1aeca
1953bf9064c9d48c4620309c4c510070e1140fad
F20101130_AADDHJ rocca_s_Page_193.tif
f1d47082314e5f8ded863d064bea23bc
be57ae700489ee7c7b9ca94611a5a27312fc8b5b
F20101130_AADDGV rocca_s_Page_177.tif
83282f7b1bd1105a6ecaa6ef4e70827c
308906f682ddcebd5c9b3b28dbb0e494769c194d
10086 F20101130_AADDHK rocca_s_Page_001.pro
3576ffdd2606925f923dd1f48f9c1b9e
9ac3d53d00bb006aee16b70066fe5b0a63e92c47
F20101130_AADDGW rocca_s_Page_178.tif
8169d257809f84052229b0b7281a5fe2
570c3fdaccbf2e95212f06b6e0de025cf9800b79
48180 F20101130_AADDIA rocca_s_Page_019.pro
98eb9373011e345056fb98ff86ce5d6b
a5ceff24d420f39429edb80b4065576608834fb2
1226 F20101130_AADDHL rocca_s_Page_002.pro
9b860b4aa269e1f411856c70cc560195
e80e776895d240d1812910e53965ff6f5c717169
F20101130_AADDGX rocca_s_Page_179.tif
f6de1266ebb20ef1f9d41c706e252c17
1fddb1308e48f62eed3ca52d7f154d2086ee9d92
52648 F20101130_AADDIB rocca_s_Page_020.pro
cb443f9126c6c222ed1905b30f43dd2f
f704cdd931cdf403a0314bb5e29e88261654fea2
39952 F20101130_AADDHM rocca_s_Page_004.pro
c62396157668f2c361450ca411932411
342dfca4b70fee3de82a3cbaf9cf13183dfb1e6b
F20101130_AADDGY rocca_s_Page_180.tif
52196fb9cd5376966bd241e0f78cc80f
7e239c980b73611d4f333c07990cb3d461acc59d
41858 F20101130_AADDIC rocca_s_Page_021.pro
efe1618abefe9c8628289cb21f45dd4a
00d39cb9d00361da62d0e3fb60cdb9c9e724a92b
17031 F20101130_AADDHN rocca_s_Page_005.pro
c70a8eb22fde75f3ee9251ba9e5072c2
d52ca2803974c9c06e461efa55bbc86f69c2f87d
F20101130_AADDGZ rocca_s_Page_181.tif
f3db48aceb844b335c0944276ae7f29a
fcd7bac5a28b5b6e30637a968a91f51827a1f7c6
51516 F20101130_AADDID rocca_s_Page_022.pro
cf26c6b2f5b7a4c7978c6993bf9ba383
0e6b0f2fd97561441b98b0d24dcb318a68f89090
82634 F20101130_AADDHO rocca_s_Page_006.pro
4653b62a975824d7c4b3d70ad27baf80
b7db98270cd25cc7f22f91b6a4b4649fa10af711
53690 F20101130_AADDIE rocca_s_Page_023.pro
c7db06b7799a63323a93b65f7573e74e
41842d03fa57b03891d80f858af96a15909c77e1
107413 F20101130_AADDHP rocca_s_Page_007.pro
5f37cc741ae7a4eef6ffcfb2f59c4f99
a40973a46a53113fc3147b85f40f86bf1eaf5b13
51346 F20101130_AADDIF rocca_s_Page_024.pro
4b68f1efb1173681a21bc26838cb3649
f6d8e3f17176d72e405ae37895807d30292a6ad6
11600 F20101130_AADDHQ rocca_s_Page_009.pro
cf06bcbf51c770eb00f4be5dbf4c5a92
ab9a45c75acc52353323db2708baa401959ea0c6
29056 F20101130_AADDIG rocca_s_Page_025.pro
14651042ad86d1c5df3f6dc222b67453
27e32d0b3feac207f9d086dae28c3eb140b31d80
57080 F20101130_AADDHR rocca_s_Page_010.pro
62b8536b9ae6df0d8951e0f30ed0db6a
cfe6fc58da9df490217a35adf47d1611d06f431f
44428 F20101130_AADDIH rocca_s_Page_026.pro
13560580da4fbd261bbb1f7fa345ebac
41f5061d3a1ba1569db933a09c21fc768c9049f4
32771 F20101130_AADDHS rocca_s_Page_011.pro
aebb60cb308908d1ece796938b115de2
58a96c1c261f52062e718e23718f2eb2a51e4594
48712 F20101130_AADDII rocca_s_Page_027.pro
94ec2bd75d34f6383f2d5cbf1f6b60bc
65fc659255619d55af615418223bf207390667c4
9306 F20101130_AADDHT rocca_s_Page_012.pro
d52138e3feb88cec759ee6340dfbf0f3
491f80b6ddb1dfe3ff44411c50b946aca189a167
38658 F20101130_AADDHU rocca_s_Page_013.pro
8bb20a6a81a167b58c4053ecec8e9590
a8dd8c88662c9ecb2524f1bd5cd1320aa1f712e6
46699 F20101130_AADDIJ rocca_s_Page_028.pro
54e9c98853f37981e893325319cefb77
67363388c9d1356be4d7d316d2dcd8d400b7e184
41117 F20101130_AADDHV rocca_s_Page_014.pro
b6e667d68564e85574c05d8e6dcf8533
e1f9914903b4253fa699cd0b0622cd28f0f21661
40035 F20101130_AADDIK rocca_s_Page_029.pro
a6c9f2d884fc8929fa445d573a27b8b8
3534fe848ce5d1c9024fed6fca20a371a964178c
45225 F20101130_AADDHW rocca_s_Page_015.pro
105d906912d2369f1b59e980b32d21dc
a1b9aa026a84588cc8740a4279012fbaea194c5b
47377 F20101130_AADDIL rocca_s_Page_030.pro
a8e5524423cadb283f272eaf4bb7a806
cd29e910982cee6108380c56d78ff44b35f04b98
49679 F20101130_AADDHX rocca_s_Page_016.pro
a85878faa21d6a1b445938655b479175
bc14e0afcb450c8292ead69f1928f7d15c1ba26b
50209 F20101130_AADDJA rocca_s_Page_046.pro
bf4360cb076c82c9873614f07b8a534d
76e4bc42b30108d0e715922bab8d4b1d4915c0de
9560 F20101130_AADDIM rocca_s_Page_031.pro
5305d68b2723834710814e87689ae97f
ec922aaf1ea30f4c1e837037511947b35f073dd9
48073 F20101130_AADDHY rocca_s_Page_017.pro
25951b0a31aab9ddd8c1991f3c760ae8
4bca9b73108838c55fa58077d4d9c37d3cda9cf2
55159 F20101130_AADDJB rocca_s_Page_047.pro
28ed6acfab919c9d74bcfe82a13df7c4
321f81089ae6ef30753e981393fbcc17a0a3a032
48916 F20101130_AADDIN rocca_s_Page_032.pro
622efdb48ff6568713c394d414afebe6
faee157b8ccd1426d9a48204c8ee2ee32429bf7c
48070 F20101130_AADDHZ rocca_s_Page_018.pro
d743266484bb64e558797893b0e7e6c4
860c685c45aa5c6a66b1440a36d6ef5f22aca38a
49902 F20101130_AADDJC rocca_s_Page_048.pro
1b544aed8d0f9974d6b53a144911502c
f596e63f5e352615af908392342ec81f3a54ce17
54063 F20101130_AADDJD rocca_s_Page_049.pro
4dfaa95a68e69b7391977166e6c4d4ff
e6f7265d62cd23ea88a0ea689d7681a12dec3f9e
51057 F20101130_AADDIO rocca_s_Page_033.pro
556f319b4f64fac134a332f8c4f711f0
91b6d9cb331c3749dbb0cc0aab73a39eb50adbd7
49838 F20101130_AADDJE rocca_s_Page_050.pro
c261856505275f1cd24f90444d7d1cd3
fe262143d148f7cd3ba40bec2d3a103467f1babd
51817 F20101130_AADDIP rocca_s_Page_035.pro
4db8abf8fb7d55d7c4080cbbc8092e1b
132432610c3357e4460e59bf0e3cf8b6c7f8c748
49928 F20101130_AADDJF rocca_s_Page_051.pro
ace4b6023303c51fc5aa73f2379c9edd
636686b0e51fc77fce648a252f37eb074c59c1d7
49513 F20101130_AADDIQ rocca_s_Page_036.pro
545335d73eeee13c90101c3526f119d0
47ded3059e083503fc69d87b2aeb1f798efc8c51
50162 F20101130_AADDJG rocca_s_Page_052.pro
3022772ed662ec4f40c2b8bdad17b2bf
4f3e6b0c7e27e7b16c5ec8228d2f86fcf76ea571
50925 F20101130_AADDIR rocca_s_Page_037.pro
730a1bb62457f935ee7cb22ec26f747b
2a26398854540531452c6e0769eaf884344e1e8b
47299 F20101130_AADDJH rocca_s_Page_053.pro
3f5ac3c54bef7c5d55147bb0547b8f58
47bad938308c90c01fe8b944d7523dbaa315bf3a
50292 F20101130_AADDIS rocca_s_Page_038.pro
ee4d19f0fc4e5d7cba0c8ef9ab7b3889
14f067a0d230d823f7e4b562f8a0e3f126995b17
51141 F20101130_AADDJI rocca_s_Page_054.pro
ce958be3da0bde92047bcbdf71e125df
da20683d1e699eff2d94ba25b28c18757984684c
50929 F20101130_AADDIT rocca_s_Page_039.pro
8dbe18139cff9ba78dee56df12755113
89f812ce9838596872b10ae72806b0a3f4929b4b
46841 F20101130_AADDJJ rocca_s_Page_055.pro
d3b7ef73be82e6ae5cc4d159e91ca2fb
82d569f48810b7ec78266dac06bb4c0a1fe585cb
49964 F20101130_AADDIU rocca_s_Page_040.pro
13a470f156c4cd65f93256b2f3542f5b
2773fd30a438e6bcd15b8e34e5ce7e2f174b39c9
49570 F20101130_AADDIV rocca_s_Page_041.pro
2eaa6a9ddbacb9801be2e4773776064b
62b531e76bca94c9719822e56884009c5b40dc1c
50705 F20101130_AADDJK rocca_s_Page_056.pro
9f27c7a94c032123c811bf66b6e032ef
d28d1fa756a4cc07cf938ffead80ff59a1bcf2d0
47941 F20101130_AADDIW rocca_s_Page_042.pro
529da065befd6f0539d77f489c6c73e0
8c44f0ea7d09f7ca21b0ec68f8eee275c8c8f312
51592 F20101130_AADDKA rocca_s_Page_074.pro
dfe7415454a0510e658eb9bb6e5a843a
b53cee6286817d20f65338983ae107a287524b81
50956 F20101130_AADDJL rocca_s_Page_058.pro
6f14e3af4bf1b7e69d6d9bc69fd041de
ac9b8ff83910a39b596794cab97112342697b0ed
49916 F20101130_AADDIX rocca_s_Page_043.pro
73e1a5f5ed4a17b95a4c890c8ed63183
aaf2a7ca9c5ec8646991b964b4afb2843adeafd2
47531 F20101130_AADDKB rocca_s_Page_075.pro
f6572eef3937e5c499686f77e654cc48
f5f52af787326ac19b26086449034cee81fa3e27
48596 F20101130_AADDJM rocca_s_Page_059.pro
a4397b4254e82704e28123475f599e0b
3ec66c999cdfb1fc6231fcb986e93f29d542881c
48196 F20101130_AADDIY rocca_s_Page_044.pro
904e4a233f5939eb2c474b7b4a04c28d
af9a202fae346d9cf969bd2a72dbaf977d0fc5a3
48067 F20101130_AADDKC rocca_s_Page_076.pro
78160f0588b193a7bb7ed6cba65a3e63
46896142e9c0954cd3c74dd688003af48d8971f9
48502 F20101130_AADDJN rocca_s_Page_060.pro
a174def90461e6459bdcd5183a356c3f
49f7fe996432f757a18c54796f6890f4c9aff6a8
49251 F20101130_AADDIZ rocca_s_Page_045.pro
f5e48aa3f253ecca985a0812313accbf
4cb0fdcb69a88705bc16288303db351045234271
48431 F20101130_AADDKD rocca_s_Page_077.pro
5e05a96cead7b38c5823ccc79babf292
0e627183f939424ce8dd41783ba31084777f09a0
47960 F20101130_AADDJO rocca_s_Page_061.pro
de56ecca0b4af4b787b995c6e7b3760f
b87b273ac723781b1248a71d8fc48612215b5d7d
50574 F20101130_AADDKE rocca_s_Page_078.pro
4da352e415f0222ea4ec39f15d3082a6
b713b9e64d5040574313754491f2150ebb12b8b4
48416 F20101130_AADDJP rocca_s_Page_062.pro
490146c7a349771cb43f3c9233b66923
e1b7682eec9f10cbc47bd93a76c9f37ef441f0ae
52169 F20101130_AADDKF rocca_s_Page_079.pro
db8c324455e186d93c0f9ce186301c44
2cf036d060325b092e6a7c8013d28277df11545a
47177 F20101130_AADDJQ rocca_s_Page_063.pro
59017d67bf497e1bc3aaaf85cac9384d
144d5de44b014d705436373db12a17243260e7c1
49368 F20101130_AADDKG rocca_s_Page_080.pro
ea840fcde1c5a81ced9363146d896bff
0413eb336b86e7278f1b75192a75beccb69dc3ec
49810 F20101130_AADDJR rocca_s_Page_064.pro
f9e3c7c62df8760a25456eee036357bd
5af10f604b10b761c6f58dc751a8789746195667
45937 F20101130_AADDKH rocca_s_Page_081.pro
2119cd251287b949dc08c0951d751082
bb3cc53ba0128c97b06cd92ea27f0be3766269c5
50359 F20101130_AADDJS rocca_s_Page_065.pro
86e077a52c68f40936e1f0be81d43e70
f7c78fcb65aa330c883e9b74f35d882581f7b711
44779 F20101130_AADDKI rocca_s_Page_082.pro
29f8dad928a1166e7ea39139ca95787e
026d81f62bbb1fbe3f8850dd5d8adb7715dd6be0
62182 F20101130_AADDJT rocca_s_Page_066.pro
deeeaca2bd488b32fb4dabf16ef3367b
97cc1c9eed0aebfc850917a2446a532984bfe094
52130 F20101130_AADDKJ rocca_s_Page_084.pro
45176bb54905fc49464c119b1958e406
1831e9c8ca7506c1e5ae20d67be5697ae8f2c510
53108 F20101130_AADDJU rocca_s_Page_067.pro
6815e2474e91b5ed5e687869b859c628
8fe82b84e01c43d4f2561fcaa5ec63e5e3a999f5
45363 F20101130_AADDKK rocca_s_Page_085.pro
18b90d57059f3b87b88d172f5564771c
83bc77d59ece14dd3090cae2d47ded15c8ad1d36
49913 F20101130_AADDJV rocca_s_Page_068.pro
6723616ca83f3b2bae65b9bded8b789a
29d6fc72d8dee1e212d4433fcd13a4dbfdb6ef32
51052 F20101130_AADDJW rocca_s_Page_069.pro
ae6833439c3f3c99c48565e559c35e23
3c585c188a03925347e4ce32dc5adce6684b6c2e
18960 F20101130_AADDKL rocca_s_Page_086.pro
b18f9a05c91eb615dcf7aea441283c4b
ce80f02b57f34740cf8d8d048a767678d8dcb52c
49008 F20101130_AADDJX rocca_s_Page_070.pro
3c5113e0a81bac1bcb260c555e782cfd
0a2e3b7565a586c65f31794724ea2c1836bfdd0f
50987 F20101130_AADDLA rocca_s_Page_101.pro
48a06b59727b5bfae8542d1b1130fd89
ea520a20329ec0779506d86e707b72f090bccf3e
44177 F20101130_AADDKM rocca_s_Page_087.pro
3e9e7f119506c809332c603403956478
2d2966eb923247695611955feb0e34caeb1b57af
42587 F20101130_AADDJY rocca_s_Page_072.pro
f29fcfa2c84f5500d4b81d5f5c5105d1
cd6915e395e0847e1e6d2ec74d1372a0df5af311
40628 F20101130_AADDLB rocca_s_Page_102.pro
ae3246d65b17897fb4b0b6cf7e5abdec
2d46d608bd22d3fe3515d55f98b8c88c9e6395a8
47611 F20101130_AADDKN rocca_s_Page_088.pro
cf4de76964c38f32a2c2d63ddef490cb
5d6974522d1421c6a17c88fc0fd1d1f97aab2acd
50078 F20101130_AADDJZ rocca_s_Page_073.pro
e3c50c212d18f1f3785900ac1015a444
2b858a28f10cf5d9bd1e92683ed39fbe145bece0
45820 F20101130_AADDLC rocca_s_Page_103.pro
86491f2141ec67626d4e735509ef0efb
55764219b5a54a2b82e6efbcccdc3c45ccf1f579
51374 F20101130_AADDKO rocca_s_Page_089.pro
57125038f29715c311a8f918fc4a01b7
aca39bb1839a2892dd8085f72a0f364a1b92248c
44422 F20101130_AADDLD rocca_s_Page_104.pro
edb8b834652986fb7d660d6c07ea4f13
a844aa8a0ff60b9682c67ea587187a36a3658041
55162 F20101130_AADDKP rocca_s_Page_090.pro
06ed35974533b6abcaa43a0d634ccbf8
6049258155b91e49936f81455ab319348ef6da52
44329 F20101130_AADDLE rocca_s_Page_105.pro
ac589718805c1cc776c6aee58fd5fb31
79ced23182b011066af9afe6611a978a17b215ac
44006 F20101130_AADDKQ rocca_s_Page_091.pro
81160675f24645e122ca048003e464bd
f2d083cd6f068f9a980f81b1cca6e557dd6db8a9
53543 F20101130_AADDLF rocca_s_Page_107.pro
e2d9891547fee48b3e4b2d7968a2fc62
27229f5e43ea58bc5be547d85032071ef446f423
42720 F20101130_AADDKR rocca_s_Page_092.pro
de194fe7765ad3810f2fd7f07b0b34b8
43c80715c75bc0485cf35d8d29b082118c2285d6
36823 F20101130_AADDLG rocca_s_Page_108.pro
5f34878381cc449b6a406ee546e4c509
20bfec1b13e60f42938d1e3dfc1455822210b29a
39643 F20101130_AADDKS rocca_s_Page_093.pro
65028b34a8662b2f70b9b95b9403fbe5
225b3295f0c270afd3ceb4d50de0a92ec344a5eb
34597 F20101130_AADDLH rocca_s_Page_109.pro
5e2a8acf33a7987b0f30edf38887831e
161d6905e9e272e0fbae149481c7e28aeeb0a192
43061 F20101130_AADDKT rocca_s_Page_094.pro
4029c52f5747738ac298856ccd4923f1
619359ca8c2771c5a39d11cc5b271b7370361e9e
50010 F20101130_AADDLI rocca_s_Page_111.pro
5c313ef9f38489e45a085a3c251ed738
31976afa9b7adaf247ef04ee4de399de9bb1c417
41397 F20101130_AADDKU rocca_s_Page_095.pro
a86f2bd153cd6635272e512dfb658b29
c846609e9079490abaf8c43fd6457c5d9b3e5fef
51861 F20101130_AADDLJ rocca_s_Page_112.pro
4787f113110e8cd237c85abaac363232
8b9a8fd989b8d288513282bcf82cb75fe13c541f
50951 F20101130_AADDKV rocca_s_Page_096.pro
0c1c1428b0376bd741744b814be47896
18a4502964799809f57cd095c093b2c69b2716f9
49796 F20101130_AADDLK rocca_s_Page_113.pro
6b630a1e7cdeac9fbb136e9889f16826
30733bb6270fe1ee461d289a52ce389c92602b4e
32856 F20101130_AADDKW rocca_s_Page_097.pro
f9014227e3d3919318b82e3597e3c450
5653555c7a4b4819bcd332bb11c6f80853786c89
47806 F20101130_AADDLL rocca_s_Page_114.pro
3fac1e40417c91d713743842752277b2
0f3e7aedbdfc15148e3027a1f2bc1d1914478942
52238 F20101130_AADDKX rocca_s_Page_098.pro
45f756fd9f0f1eb7ba0a33ea96d08030
49cd62bf9b004ac56efd62980923ecf7ef9b1d7f
51423 F20101130_AADDMA rocca_s_Page_129.pro
e39ac83bee94a0198af239f68ac4c73d
5098638df24025d2f8a22916ecc120978f13d46f
36720 F20101130_AADDKY rocca_s_Page_099.pro
63e1cdb54368649777d7f204d5164453
e488d27aefab3683c1c00755a9265de3157037a0
50415 F20101130_AADDMB rocca_s_Page_130.pro
22d8db8fe1b16a58682cd19ce811c761
60ce7d18a03fcce4169f41f793cb3cf5699bb8d3
16693 F20101130_AADDLM rocca_s_Page_115.pro
878de6c3a76bc1f9b43bcabc2d6da48a
45db7c34d471071ffe549821818fc393ce7813d1
49115 F20101130_AADDKZ rocca_s_Page_100.pro
d307bfc57958585bc8fb789338c1e592
20cd71613fd46b1fb3ff052fdd563e9915d8389e
14948 F20101130_AADCJA rocca_s_Page_171thm.jpg
7cdcf19a5e048bf81d40ddc4312ebbe1
052384eb349c1b39a502b932e17736074b1c21ae
51578 F20101130_AADDMC rocca_s_Page_131.pro
370950715f57129e5fdb279dbf9e1c50
a06b315a860f4986319d1ce3cdc3cfc941493c73
42173 F20101130_AADDLN rocca_s_Page_116.pro
380c626768782dcb806f0764e2c4ba6b
d58d48c7d2a097633f7de41cf56e4d3f719b15dd
24743 F20101130_AADCJB rocca_s_Page_047thm.jpg
ebb0f552712be129e6218026524b2d3e
23e4be9c20dcedcce50131972139e2fc155fc940
54803 F20101130_AADDMD rocca_s_Page_132.pro
07a2a14d86648a32b8cef58bbf65dd19
315db6096caff83c7593c269331b8f9a66d3b8c0
50296 F20101130_AADDLO rocca_s_Page_117.pro
714d0d9112cf91c7044c1af2112eecc8
b60a2fb7bfc60b20bd58f5fb2d6a3bdb13716e30
25070 F20101130_AADCJC rocca_s_Page_036thm.jpg
8f18b662254336be9dcdaa3c20a25f98
067d70adaeb2273c83723cd2f530b3834951fbfa
52541 F20101130_AADDME rocca_s_Page_133.pro
b1c388311b86743c5e763c59801b9e9b
58a77fb3fdab615d48b7970a1b25d9cceea6f49a
47794 F20101130_AADDLP rocca_s_Page_118.pro
3903770bc8c81914ab1cc755f1168883
d96a75d594c98a046a3084faac770c56664ebd87
F20101130_AADCJD rocca_s_Page_054.tif
af0e5d02fa23565c89a3414bf63df2e9
02a32c84bb1e311628b399d4804eec118cfdaccd
54660 F20101130_AADDMF rocca_s_Page_134.pro
f8814f0c08dcfca150a0834af602369d
2084c8e9a24cd692073b2907609d4a8f706633fc
45320 F20101130_AADDLQ rocca_s_Page_119.pro
02ecad1b15ecf4c76cc55dc28288f535
c24689d0ab8b1b947c400331f94c4dc199411a9e
F20101130_AADCJE rocca_s_Page_045.tif
0c5b011efddeebd701ca061abc61b00e
0d6607d39221d675ba5265b24be0d8a9acf1cede
F20101130_AADDMG rocca_s_Page_135.pro
83b81dd558eec8bd19507f825b7c47fc
d1c88f28b7f2e84c2ca51be9a52e305e4480b114
46682 F20101130_AADDLR rocca_s_Page_120.pro
979464a461b37d577fc971c1ee496edd
d7c233ea282079e342121f6b29994bb70a7a2adf
F20101130_AADCJF rocca_s_Page_053thm.jpg
32402ee760609c2c87378631e52119b3
a4e4b69cad000c6e92507fa2e6fd1347ab1fb80b
53035 F20101130_AADDMH rocca_s_Page_136.pro
5d4f6cd6d8c3fe6da47c06694875e9d5
fc3ee074e71c9017f3b8838f798fb25b123b8613
46064 F20101130_AADDLS rocca_s_Page_121.pro
be294bc3ae4f05bfb072dc3aa7eb5cef
d5ce49f5e9cbcae06cd841643611c1bb6c3bcb97
92417 F20101130_AADCJG rocca_s_Page_104.jp2
0d87dfc226ded7b01aef0009ecd33ab2
21d88e5cf8d1687d24c09b6c5bd3bc6af579d658
54991 F20101130_AADDMI rocca_s_Page_138.pro
da5a4d172092b0d4235f2c2163e480fd
4efcfe59215716cc62d3387dc931be30433be72c
79345 F20101130_AADCIR rocca_s_Page_016.QC.jpg
44161895ebb7a552c04cc54e0fb5a75e
1dde68683afa1d3b174d81404052fe3e991eba27
47268 F20101130_AADDLT rocca_s_Page_122.pro
dbd6075f65c6bb901fd49bf28817986b
c39a5898d52c945dfeeb00b70494d43344538458
2186 F20101130_AADCJH rocca_s_Page_098.txt
3793e46a0d9c994a9b5f754e119e2e20
9ebc641807d6cbd2df30347876b07df1b7f7d371
51428 F20101130_AADDMJ rocca_s_Page_139.pro
ac03109f9c6537c70d54a2cc84a7ea47
eb86865bd6418422812a5833969e59231a5b89d4
3428 F20101130_AADCIS rocca_s_Page_008.txt
8a6dfe9e2c41e166354a38a7915b5c67
d1c51228058e2b5ec0e89685fff8f7de6278f10d
51683 F20101130_AADDLU rocca_s_Page_123.pro
12d067a7eae41e52174a377d4f7ae856
69b9fbed67b367757da0840c52c6b92a367479c1
1910 F20101130_AADCJI rocca_s_Page_019.txt
93eefb83653a68de6d290e2c36c54143
f8b1c4e5cc20a1a87d38905f9e0b571308a6c549
52902 F20101130_AADDMK rocca_s_Page_140.pro
39b504d163d7b6437ff7f0122a2868cb
7f7a8bd22dbcde22615a3ff75f18114df6118426
201680 F20101130_AADCIT rocca_s_Page_113.jpg
3ba54a3f4b2daaaad093199c3afbf0ef
52b33b344c4ba350056e6e6b9d22eda7cc2593b0
41396 F20101130_AADDLV rocca_s_Page_124.pro
c6c7aa35f411f33ade136dd0d85517bf
9206152ee5818fb3ae186864018369488d452d16
24667 F20101130_AADCJJ rocca_s_Page_046thm.jpg
0cf89853694a82279d6939621c2a7d50
874b1add9a36ab57a1dc280dfc40f1c8db8037ea
55471 F20101130_AADDML rocca_s_Page_141.pro
70c93a3bca0ef16aade20fa8cdbc21e8
1336d98a0668f62cdc909bc935a2346bfd61969a
71661 F20101130_AADCIU rocca_s_Page_167.QC.jpg
957e0134665c40c1ce8eec7a4abe3870
4eca48541d1d9af22765d94df902c085b9c7047f
69618 F20101130_AADDLW rocca_s_Page_125.pro
f439937e619c91db15eeebde02b82fae
a2bd4443d16035878ca22e87f938bf995d6515e8
37697 F20101130_AADDNA rocca_s_Page_156.pro
791ff884e5936a49c1f9fabd024c599d
30c7bb4b775daf1b9c663085f88a2865dcec2ba0
66446 F20101130_AADCJK rocca_s_Page_104.QC.jpg
fcad13bb95058ff23bf13b293cc3e61f
84a5af18d97a0b6861a2a3cce10253ed1fcbe1dd
52142 F20101130_AADDMM rocca_s_Page_142.pro
2a1a0da9847429d648b91a3f358f43dc
d3085e0eaaed174e741d45b25d4b1c8c5ffaa965
1352 F20101130_AADCIV rocca_s_Page_003.pro
2385e5f2fc03d2f7769a0671bebd22b3
c43067c0053f44bdb65c2d7feb7440b69f10eeda
57238 F20101130_AADDLX rocca_s_Page_126.pro
20a382e06b4e0493575ef0837fd518d8
dabf40bde0ac15709468fbe08db49c0597cea2e7
56883 F20101130_AADDNB rocca_s_Page_157.pro
eacdcbef7f1643cfe849b833a4655d6d
61977ff649f58dbda8dee0577330cf73241e13e3
1993 F20101130_AADCIW rocca_s_Page_146.txt
8b1c4235e286ff0aa4783e931416ef05
6bf6bcc6f9924264a530f1bf493a8533ad64d633
54983 F20101130_AADDLY rocca_s_Page_127.pro
183c76d1865034709ba8df4c9f2aaf30
b17f720d2be3ba11c95867e0279548ed2695945b
53727 F20101130_AADDNC rocca_s_Page_158.pro
28169555a87d14cf0adb42082b8211ed
a60633a5592e28f2d20ef8f1bc409af501de22a6
116349 F20101130_AADCKA rocca_s_Page_007.QC.jpg
4f0ab8d60e1c6164859363785889e00e
8edb89d44376041c06057d491048fccde0a4d996
253606 F20101130_AADCJL rocca_s_Page_183.jpg
ddaa0dfdf2e61abdc9aee82fcee32592
c2c39aa6782248ba1371b0268c24ae566dd21665
55504 F20101130_AADDMN rocca_s_Page_143.pro
80ab02b760f850eb698e310a077de242
efed091df9387cd98625bf9fdab85994d420f351
1946 F20101130_AADCIX rocca_s_Page_128.txt
735811864191d16103c9edf5e30c8db1
6f5aa3e90dc44bbc886226379550a59bdc933449
49485 F20101130_AADDLZ rocca_s_Page_128.pro
7c41ed4fc81ef1082486e5eee1306f06
dd3bdb85058938d157b7033651a1f82f7a559bdf
17954 F20101130_AADDND rocca_s_Page_159.pro
2e257945d1149fa7033cd4e11fe9f37d
fe30d1e28ce08ead9b21dd582503410dc34be254
49720 F20101130_AADCJM rocca_s_Page_057.pro
ec0f957a570480e2414c7ec72399279d
13e6a1e053b4d41f7bb6f7cecf0b7999b5647f9e
51108 F20101130_AADDMO rocca_s_Page_144.pro
ebaaf47644f64f48a63b74920c80bd80
77fc591148a6546fa2e8847898d96ffc08d25687
214741 F20101130_AADCIY rocca_s_Page_054.jpg
6477a189f4c51ed285c23139a83483c3
3abb95d890024c6bd431340e8072cd0ae0cec404
79476 F20101130_AADCKB rocca_s_Page_034.QC.jpg
6b0ee8be2f89fe84ea152559e9ee40e6
70caf7d08f7aea3303fac3bd2441cf55789214df
35706 F20101130_AADDNE rocca_s_Page_160.pro
210212c57e6d489fabfe442ca53f18f2
171a13ec4e4d9879d6613b1ca13ef46ff58ebf70
1891 F20101130_AADCJN rocca_s_Page_088.txt
5851f68f9d2da1cb98ec746bdcc60bee
d06bb2a009f16440f5c174f1893a82f4134d20ea
53055 F20101130_AADDMP rocca_s_Page_145.pro
dbb4090fa806447a50b74e35aa118183
c0bf25d4e0b8584baf12ae75abb21d2fb6b0deb1
106868 F20101130_AADCIZ rocca_s_Page_057.jp2
9bab3e9db6a12456db515b784fc473eb
d0d3cb4d931ef551ad510613d88c536f797f7383
F20101130_AADCKC rocca_s_Page_056.tif
25be866aeac0a81bdf8498265122339e
da111bb1439f0ba90bdfe26893472196d00b5df8
24395 F20101130_AADDNF rocca_s_Page_161.pro
7e2dacb6ed27573f696a335e667daaad
160853ded96e799df383635381d34c9fa30d3310
31447 F20101130_AADCJO rocca_s_Page_106.pro
b8096f8eb5cdd0996c3e0c29f303571b
1285bde3a995d13e9ca1f11883b028a1f7440493
50693 F20101130_AADDMQ rocca_s_Page_146.pro
8ae7bbaaee74cc9c5b49320ef78ea8a4
badb4a7c193818c8d1028c49334ed88cc4add41e
1962 F20101130_AADCKD rocca_s_Page_070.txt
7e68e2c56cfa89c5560fc7f662b6ee22
d8788852e115a84e791eba9ff8c208d0d0cfa132
17482 F20101130_AADDNG rocca_s_Page_162.pro
4ef3f5101163f7a71dcfc66f625a503d
ff64339a3842b4eec6a3575b822d4d345265990d
109236 F20101130_AADCJP rocca_s_Page_046.jp2
7c90468bf81875ae23046ac1dfafb0e3
c1f14703baa7f0afe3c90d4f9e29104416935b58
57475 F20101130_AADDMR rocca_s_Page_147.pro
24775d37da47728fc7a41e929e40c27d
8c80da3b3710681e8699deafdb861cd4de920c2c
23947 F20101130_AADCKE rocca_s_Page_045thm.jpg
d4b58e96c838b7bfe1dc31606afbff0a
bd1a872fee66a7ae2cd94727cf9843a9fd0772d3
35513 F20101130_AADDNH rocca_s_Page_163.pro
0c282f398202fa258b3f810abcf4d4f3
d25f2274bfb2091a5babe872fa0b52779ef96659
86207 F20101130_AADCJQ rocca_s_Page_008.pro
56f88a68d033180c8572284ddcee74e9
137ce13b5565ad5fc69e0678e709800b2e093fed
52299 F20101130_AADDMS rocca_s_Page_148.pro
299c637539cf2d75780bb0cd82b2f713
dc727b7ba079e4a5ada02a4dbc7600ad3096696a
23724 F20101130_AADCKF rocca_s_Page_062thm.jpg
ad01c7f6902b1e49a20b5ba2e91eeae9
5dec31a1d53b1d4b74bf422c8882106c998d283d
9082 F20101130_AADDNI rocca_s_Page_164.pro
0c28c9e08437c4a4e184cb40cbf6cd97
d4cec5feefe5a3c8e8e7a5e2b28ceb6e05b11318
80866 F20101130_AADCJR rocca_s_Page_102.jp2
021143fc673269e83c89cb6b88fc7fbc
d68e0adc418ac257bad27e7e533638afa8f6f5ad
71039 F20101130_AADDMT rocca_s_Page_149.pro
35c2451074c1fe03ee6a1f7481ca39c7
db31c6eee87167f1af70c568f3795f6a76f82ce6
1624 F20101130_AADCKG rocca_s_Page_004.txt
fb12dcadedcb58053f9e8d564f1e01dc
1755b8db51dd31ec0477d1acd381b1270a92c7c3
39884 F20101130_AADDNJ rocca_s_Page_165.pro
002f47914b6530d63cad800829a22e4c
e777ab9fa42985ccf76af2d3a2c953a913f9e12b
32813 F20101130_AADCJS rocca_s_Page_009thm.jpg
b377cf7c0b53e099e10eaeb82ee69dbf
f927a0fb9ce951ae6777d394f58c5556a63bf246
69398 F20101130_AADDMU rocca_s_Page_150.pro
44b4a81b903375dcc82e853644857c99
6e33affcf4b3f99384128224ed8b9e3c513d8987
13473 F20101130_AADCKH rocca_s_Page_071.pro
b067ec96f86469993ca6bc8cea754287
fca0ab212a927af1c2cbae3c568c143554fe9dcf
23179 F20101130_AADDNK rocca_s_Page_166.pro
380f5ea4e9eef2674a87f0dc8f8a1c25
788fefb08133ae604b28d4e9aec77defe2c10bb0
179030 F20101130_AADCJT rocca_s_Page_103.jpg
39793d9a3159add138bb972c233501b6
09dbbf947c8f58d48c90cde70625b61c88ce2149
50552 F20101130_AADDMV rocca_s_Page_151.pro
0822212d63e76a7899df718bdb2d684a
25cb2134edf94ae3d1686615a3e2274cda420d58
72816 F20101130_AADCKI rocca_s_Page_053.QC.jpg
cdb525d8eb59062605ce319cf6751ce2
99bd6abe413c57815cbeee4e7ea9255c5c922f27
40104 F20101130_AADDNL rocca_s_Page_167.pro
570972fc9d2754af32fb16d3acdd201f
838658109d51352392bdce06375bf11eeef9f323
78266 F20101130_AADCJU rocca_s_Page_046.QC.jpg
508f31bd2f0506a4247d63b0a0288fec
4f3db3b89af267351efc7f198450ac4034199094
59353 F20101130_AADDMW rocca_s_Page_152.pro
70c840fd49dec578f3c7b88164026ee7
fac702a77990418a5e264b8e3b5e27c9b24ee097
2329 F20101130_AADCKJ rocca_s_Page_157.txt
cd44ea630dacbacdc26f4275228c46b1
04dceb7bf9f53e6e2e47ddfbc55ff817981c70eb
60991 F20101130_AADDOA rocca_s_Page_183.pro
c6f0fa14e9b0f0dd7de192365ec1954b
d1973c60083c6f4c0272a05df40c306869648dc8
33458 F20101130_AADDNM rocca_s_Page_168.pro
d12bc93f954d197efb61b6598a4d10e5
7b3f085a0d51355741926d58ec3a63fdb1fe9458
19901 F20101130_AADDMX rocca_s_Page_153.pro
3b35e2b5f572afa99acf19965a9704df
da505def7addddd59a6ead34552c4f6d24155444
41413 F20101130_AADCJV rocca_s_Page_110.pro
f0ed69a168e28655112632d021208385
87a45bf47d79e406dcd8a0c6fae877c98c2a50ad
1430 F20101130_AADCKK rocca_s_Page_106.txt
8354193a581da593e364548148e75d01
5e996fd2fe2174b56263ff73ba972985e6ffc3fa
61505 F20101130_AADDOB rocca_s_Page_185.pro
c51bcc69c0b991841254a917536d1ef3
2e42daf3dd27ea62ee74a748a3e520f13dc65f12
5751 F20101130_AADDNN rocca_s_Page_169.pro
50d5174feeef0fd5c9b2dce2506c32e3
202e8b3e8fc24f3aa2297aaa96f6619ceafee0cb
63079 F20101130_AADDMY rocca_s_Page_154.pro
578960b18c667b314f3bd2baa3d6a7ab
5f189a7bf47e592f333c3a11ee268942f65a83d4
1317 F20101130_AADCJW rocca_s_Page_174.txt
f3e5c10df7e5faa3f2d56bd8f1fdc976
6c7069ed3bf586d6c991021c0bd38d84e12f0e3b
225044 F20101130_AADCKL rocca_s_Page_137.jpg
a599834efcb48d565dd947acfdcf2fea
f39e8ad5610b80490906c99756340d10f92038b0
63076 F20101130_AADDOC rocca_s_Page_186.pro
1e977c84266dfd5587b56723252cc253
3d069aa79cbead33c6dea6b4a83f3475d27e46ee
22178 F20101130_AADDMZ rocca_s_Page_155.pro
b07c34615ddbf950dfa0bec6f7bc3870
a5dccd934db28b838c43587f6472862f597741aa
54784 F20101130_AADCJX rocca_s_Page_155.QC.jpg
4c9a91fef15bc09413ac0544dac66e3d
7e2d141aa40dd9bbbf47ea47e530a91a85d32c3d
F20101130_AADCLA rocca_s_Page_152.tif
687e62152b64a8bb8703b338ce3809d1
7dd0c97aca8634115017b22b844200feb16f9703
66391 F20101130_AADDOD rocca_s_Page_187.pro
0dc288171876efd7f63e35e01be5a92e
076c99c9c2e2efb9ec429ff6f041523f79b6686c
33449 F20101130_AADDNO rocca_s_Page_170.pro
ca91c2c2dcf9739201263a28938d5460
0b0c942a3f8a43f5f0a7e3a9848f03a534dfb13b
269215 F20101130_AADCJY rocca_s_Page_190.jpg
0b8cb04c323ae711be0b5ab3d1b3cbd3
87a33fa521d96346c246f4883130dbe54691001e
19416 F20101130_AADCLB rocca_s_Page_089thm.jpg
05cab0a93269a8e673148b288079f8e1
0319439dba4fadf86beb2d7d4ce71f17dc6e99e3
22425 F20101130_AADCKM rocca_s_Page_177.pro
2cf8d60669b1ad2c52b3d6546ab21075
0880683f088b5b334ba319cd18811bb50491215b
65055 F20101130_AADDOE rocca_s_Page_188.pro
20fe0e709fd6315c79e6d13eaee42f29
c81bd33b64286f88656c6b2913b4de346b0a9f02
8962 F20101130_AADDNP rocca_s_Page_171.pro
2185eef78fe970c406c976a1f13c63dc
b76e45756d7ecbd7cd1e5314ef7c2901b8d7711b
214016 F20101130_AADCJZ rocca_s_Page_142.jpg
ab7910549b1bc56f739436ce32edb49d
011df702fe450bf7157124428f0f01a7f2cc908e
71884 F20101130_AADCLC rocca_s_Page_028.QC.jpg
31ad09b7ed50454d844e231b843de501
c605d92cd297e199bed68ad1b08d45a016fb420a
207915 F20101130_AADCKN rocca_s_Page_041.jpg
c07b8a4e71e5c9794d97357be5f80173
f7a15cc803bbf9e0d2abaf5abc3b9e07c23fa60c
61903 F20101130_AADDOF rocca_s_Page_189.pro
77a0821e21815c07a0d9d1655cf67816
95be2c02c7a4ece0cbd0bd2c12b85ce61fb2065a
26077 F20101130_AADDNQ rocca_s_Page_172.pro
83969ae2fff7c57d5d3279b2727f38b5
5ed7e947e3d2455507f917acddefbb46e2670857
F20101130_AADCLD rocca_s_Page_108.tif
f718c43be23bef5cc55284f2df15f605
134bd9923973201d6b91263afc157fff440447e3
50934 F20101130_AADCKO rocca_s_Page_034.pro
513c7eb09f76808a881263df5598e584
7ff46b9d6b6f85967e69fdf2e3b9550d5a1f0afa
63598 F20101130_AADDOG rocca_s_Page_190.pro
7d193eb2cdaff2f90a4c59003ba8f0c5
ef98cc6a3c532e54eee109794a0e88a1f3231b94
5112 F20101130_AADDNR rocca_s_Page_173.pro
956bbacc5ca10e1df6c520c42ef7f7eb
1e21972cc3e9721220d03fda42245121eec20a87
F20101130_AADCLE rocca_s_Page_088.tif
08efc6574d1fc026875ba6af2c3a1fec
f73d9fe994ab262b90b64ad5759aad2114f576f8
212484 F20101130_AADCKP rocca_s_Page_034.jpg
f5231a60fc282aa9563b924f82b3473a
891581f64df1b2d06ab57c010f7c64161e4a96a7
23752 F20101130_AADDOH rocca_s_Page_191.pro
d1b2c58ccee3c7656e7e1c9ad88ab4c3
596cc224f05546bf3f55f0f18f6dd3fdd7a0a174
32208 F20101130_AADDNS rocca_s_Page_174.pro
e944cff7ce1247510a6fd2a2d46194ac
339114fd6bd86fa1d08c0c46e546032b9897f681
210866 F20101130_AADCLF rocca_s_Page_069.jpg
1b200f0b52277b1477770702cbb7e725
d8bee7746a6d70e9e84e495ee8a34b6d30db47f5
F20101130_AADCKQ rocca_s_Page_163.tif
7f62d82295f19d5d9b1db4143934067f
efdeb5a5891f8bb12ee70b7b7dadffaf7905bcd7
41788 F20101130_AADDOI rocca_s_Page_192.pro
3e0d2ac9bfb19ad3c8a5257c3ddb49e6
47aea9fcd74c8888f989653afb38899946332e5e
33397 F20101130_AADDNT rocca_s_Page_175.pro
a0866a567d0615a9fd12d96233dc0917
cd00a97a8aaaa8b3b4fbf22b36f99cf510aa925b
16231 F20101130_AADCLG rocca_s_Page_164.QC.jpg
4c503605afc04c6840a3b384117ac04e
ead98d205f8268d360694c8b3522552f453aa6b0
5882 F20101130_AADCKR rocca_s_Page_002.QC.jpg
ca6e1eea535815b62058023b633ac008
eb33b3a04ab099e94173ae2e9660559437ab3baf
32165 F20101130_AADDOJ rocca_s_Page_193.pro
efb766749c4bc7a5c842050834b8fc3c
e4078136cccae54d5d9e234ea57549adcb6dc69e
37958 F20101130_AADDNU rocca_s_Page_176.pro
b58721219e6166cd188f866e70acd445
b259dbd8c1730ce5c6721c6cf36158d0ba385633
F20101130_AADCLH rocca_s_Page_190.tif
c0150c85aa6d6b4c57f75ebda3b8b0c4
97e0fba3d43e51962cbb8b3798f2063109ec2cad
166206 F20101130_AADCKS rocca_s_Page_105.jpg
349b3ef69c38b4c7f6f74bf3cdf07195
e3d5d498cb033496f4c94acb369433ea0ae75397
533 F20101130_AADDOK rocca_s_Page_001.txt
3e1b40a822b5d110bac46da2b0333139
32552c67419f7da905100074fea5791f04198d6a
56062 F20101130_AADDNV rocca_s_Page_178.pro
4b04ff49a224182e8cfe856e2de77135
15997033f96db275cd9850346208cb3ccf37e784
2017 F20101130_AADCLI rocca_s_Page_117.txt
a89f7a67d235c123b11f5640c064603a
32f43f5845ec288504b34a2e62acdb52289e1918
224887 F20101130_AADCKT rocca_s_Page_024.jpg
152ac07931eb850003a89b97a1fb5ba8
b8f204d8be1df133b97146826bfd15311cfc89b5
113 F20101130_AADDOL rocca_s_Page_002.txt
43195e46ddabc38ad9f363686f5ad4cd
dce6fbc66718b4a18e33dd9a1d1870e77519e84f
61402 F20101130_AADDNW rocca_s_Page_179.pro
906ac4954f21251f0053a0ada7a2d547
fd41f647281ba8800e060961c786a2ab23ad626f
108678 F20101130_AADCLJ rocca_s_Page_130.jp2
e8e0d9234412ae67fabced14a26a5ab8
35bd280fe838e4978934ce2d7c88f7e438257dad
22915 F20101130_AADCKU rocca_s_Page_107thm.jpg
5a2317fa477b7f371751da9b0515b190
160a29335cded8cd3d6522825783833055a2ad8f
2095 F20101130_AADDPA rocca_s_Page_020.txt
8eec09c1f97a7cc90a145c7b0c67005a
4228be9e85431e7aba3b90a7de96f105d7006a14
106 F20101130_AADDOM rocca_s_Page_003.txt
b12a9b937d21a651cf6b2b4dcd3d52cf
5d17a78ef45b56c5f0f62d41ed0a9e2b9d795a5b
63443 F20101130_AADDNX rocca_s_Page_180.pro
413b0e37014914d76d5919167a5adde1
b7654e8357300fe54d47c1b1ac68ef27ddc8d7ab
73399 F20101130_AADCLK rocca_s_Page_088.QC.jpg
208f41f99489ef5782a63e661379d535
14d4e4308586cef37b5be75950c9a72475c6a29d
117874 F20101130_AADCKV rocca_s_Page_132.jp2
fa3aabe6da0a46eb4a20ddbfe1f69443
640f7d3b78d9adc2e81ef12fd36ed13ef2ca8120
1702 F20101130_AADDPB rocca_s_Page_021.txt
2253d87d936f70df4214b3a41c4555a7
c35eb2d23b4b5a64b389cb5924c6016bf55f18ae
690 F20101130_AADDON rocca_s_Page_005.txt
25002932d250f60af14d6d2baf2f9be6
beeac86f056767a6eb9ff67aee5314527b2a940b
60612 F20101130_AADDNY rocca_s_Page_181.pro
ed80fa95203e730b75b5d7f5082c6e88
0ff82e8544086a75737920bd8eb5fb57ec8335db
1604 F20101130_AADCLL rocca_s_Page_156.txt
9ca343feed047bc3f0bda931ab0ac8aa
0df3435445191bb3a6c569de3643b9898893ceac
24977 F20101130_AADCKW rocca_s_Page_078thm.jpg
15acd755601113d6540cab8ce70f6264
4bdcbe1b2bb03594dbf39818f8921cf086b71e8e
2134 F20101130_AADDPC rocca_s_Page_022.txt
48906b123752d70c9b2718de8927824c
5a806decefcfb1ecf23b77ebe52fd44cf23daf12
3423 F20101130_AADDOO rocca_s_Page_006.txt
52c4ff4d8ea5859efc3da47fe797549a
6238a0e60a7144dbb97eca7a922011bfa72dd72c
58576 F20101130_AADDNZ rocca_s_Page_182.pro
0d37d656b4280069609275cd318ff9cd
a9924bcf70fc95814b319cdbde27c27f1a0e6773
36143 F20101130_AADCMA rocca_s_Page_161thm.jpg
d2e798baa760bbc10100a2a52d8070b4
8888c8bcda8e2bb9ce236539c3cf920750b8b6e0
66208 F20101130_AADCLM rocca_s_Page_184.pro
c81d796c99d26744a6e680307121a4a7
3b7048e638edb898d6ebb7ff414fd0c39b444798
201184 F20101130_AADCKX rocca_s_Page_120.jpg
6d14bef102d62cca739bf2290577df1e
ffcc46e09a282ccf444aa11a0ae65028368fa932
2196 F20101130_AADDPD rocca_s_Page_023.txt
9d6a7822fd6e1d0e6c3b48d3abd355ed
2f2d31de3ef60f3ce9a881c24bfa458dbd420d38
24779 F20101130_AADCMB rocca_s_Page_184thm.jpg
fb60c5828d05810dd06d2f7f8a325e4f
ffff085bf2b45f52f4afede9adc03978e75ad612
F20101130_AADCKY rocca_s_Page_191.tif
59d38e5cf3999471332c739aacf8b46d
a5c722b1db1a5f56ad7e32e7c0a2c9f702843d7d
2155 F20101130_AADDPE rocca_s_Page_024.txt
7785a5cc362c520a68b7c331ef0a18d6
f0d7230eac466c9aace1639bc1b2eac2378b34a9
4394 F20101130_AADDOP rocca_s_Page_007.txt
01a97d73285f20e6d3b05c356811fc10
f1882fc30c1b64afd11bda0848905e6bceb37f0b
24469 F20101130_AADCMC rocca_s_Page_073thm.jpg
afd74a24c92f26c5ea15ca2c2a6cc9a9
6dc7c997e111f0e40ea8d2340bc8f2a60b9f36cb
85761 F20101130_AADCLN rocca_s_Page_176.jp2
b719d7c94f48e10dfb5bce8971d26314
7549c6318bd180694be6e9e0d387220cc88ffc04
24470 F20101130_AADCKZ rocca_s_Page_019thm.jpg
81e2c0d6715850c1451def2b55bef91f
3e01885402272255177b0944346d8da58fb24bc1
1198 F20101130_AADDPF rocca_s_Page_025.txt
f9d2ce8eae54fce718b3e9051bc2dab6
369766fd9387d2fcb5870fe6bfb786b8caa6525b
460 F20101130_AADDOQ rocca_s_Page_009.txt
257aefaa5e8f6d68f64fb6a4ac2f3319
d8a35d5347dec0579978dd99660e9ae8eba5b39f
1698 F20101130_AADCMD rocca_s_Page_124.txt
3b584d0c5159c301469fcfdf2b1e2e5c
6a5248fc9b21ae80510b422198c6ffa448cc7f58
24537 F20101130_AADCLO rocca_s_Page_148thm.jpg
7f8c77cf944cd36873a54050e8a52003
87f08722c3092af0b6516b0947a5721af23311ad
1819 F20101130_AADDPG rocca_s_Page_026.txt
e12ae2b87d37c598e951612643c4559e
80b72bab3b33dda5008715be17d0ec603d948407
2286 F20101130_AADDOR rocca_s_Page_010.txt
73208b3f44776b1203a2eccb0194797d
bf5023c5647aaa2f29d4773384239c91b879fa8e
59213 F20101130_AADCME rocca_s_Page_161.QC.jpg
046e4f39f129a78ccd1510ce9cdc351d
edcf350b17b30bafbbfd52f4c99a0b783d392991
1850 F20101130_AADCLP rocca_s_Page_120.txt
d965a879e5ebde5f3a3efed635dbcb51
94de5110818cc67683a3400fe2455b7c954a908e
1924 F20101130_AADDPH rocca_s_Page_027.txt
3fbb93493f5566368ff4cdd6711dcb99
2bb428efbe1ad948730414d698a95da483e3443a
1307 F20101130_AADDOS rocca_s_Page_011.txt
a7c38fe04eb7e9619994e9c2bff1c4a3
09b6d05cfb44b26e411481643185729f7da0127a
221046 F20101130_AADCMF UFE0010003_00001.mets FULL
2d55b17f8985686786c2b9dd7b0ab99c
e5379fd2f9d36b78233d8b83c04a36c000221db0
F20101130_AADCLQ rocca_s_Page_117.tif
19349525ea2c8e7ddfe6246edb66b8e4
cebc8078ead77a16e7d8931bb4120ecca5594034
1846 F20101130_AADDPI rocca_s_Page_028.txt
90f2942d6a61150f6bfc53213a7cd2ed
25e842d15fd48e493cfaa3d338dacc9d66d74042
391 F20101130_AADDOT rocca_s_Page_012.txt
ff5f6f24760187280a251351e54412f7
993205dc407efb674acd455447bfacbf94f80944
104090 F20101130_AADCLR rocca_s_Page_120.jp2
18103594b1e71090619dee9a1cdaa7a2
b8d716dd28d7ddd4c4857aba5939ba5fd7e9ad4b
1643 F20101130_AADDPJ rocca_s_Page_029.txt
ef13d9ac8ff87b9feee6f54fa7e4cb8d
761a09abc5c323ef9b2cd7129580eafd6ab28fde
F20101130_AADDOU rocca_s_Page_013.txt
680a547677da6074e08cb7fc0f4c9904
49af1636da35dbb3b80cc87d02772ff542612743
1974 F20101130_AADCLS rocca_s_Page_077.txt
410130217647722440310393147717a3
a553b1595fdda29af47424ae94cfa7d664e39fd4
1875 F20101130_AADDPK rocca_s_Page_030.txt
90bca5d8ac55cae2b6a6b7beef15ef45
8973cbaeb0935c3f247be5508202d103a3eabace
1637 F20101130_AADDOV rocca_s_Page_014.txt
8281c1ab52cd3320d0757f08005bdfec
53fb7d14b7ecfbc6b905f582f10b1a5930786e85
67498 F20101130_AADCMI rocca_s_Page_001.jpg
5059add8b7176306de20adf206c86594
09fb2d0054f05adfec7ef2d45fb7842f5bfd8aba
875 F20101130_AADCLT rocca_s_Page_155.txt
284a25cc8bf309fa668f03222cebbdd2
a2787af072ab50f13402f6ef25b82278e13482ec
405 F20101130_AADDPL rocca_s_Page_031.txt
eef35281ce86c35e11ed6d163364ff01
4d6bac4cef40623fc994900bf5c919c5ee5a6f24
1859 F20101130_AADDOW rocca_s_Page_015.txt
4b93d417bd6d42db71d9c0f94bc3d1ba
fdaad2950a5b4b1090549381ce46dd66f06bacaa
14930 F20101130_AADCMJ rocca_s_Page_002.jpg
5c2cf47e337f851b53736f7b201596d1
c1400c882ddbd801e852da88b990906d32fc61af
985 F20101130_AADCLU rocca_s_Page_191.txt
961a1de57fff55e60ebc8e7119bc4cb4
c3ec811dcac211c195b2890e5b4fbc355ba1015a
1986 F20101130_AADDQA rocca_s_Page_046.txt
99cafb9496db83d09bc663c745003c0e
99b2f53dfe8f6f8e648ac9e1f0ff44806d6ddddb
1927 F20101130_AADDPM rocca_s_Page_032.txt
118dacb58e6a2e04895d258ad7f93611
1d3b3e313ed7e9287093eddf5abf6ee2f1a66da4
1960 F20101130_AADDOX rocca_s_Page_016.txt
1ac45af6ab050e8b5719bd5a93350bfd
83990bec76dac50983b2bbb3160ecf57de562be4
15222 F20101130_AADCMK rocca_s_Page_003.jpg
857e5c30914aff7d4762e735c931f46d
de3c0ea3c97cdb2033895cd5c16c78609577fbeb
8002 F20101130_AADCLV rocca_s_Page_071thm.jpg
1ee4da5dc91dfff04babc7f329c0e811
7623a658d6bb695c96f7671f27a2e3751ba75144
2194 F20101130_AADDQB rocca_s_Page_047.txt
37710e965c162d3356418d0e275c68fa
ea7ca027bf2213aa334b6d7c9e770f0146b85d77
2043 F20101130_AADDPN rocca_s_Page_033.txt
a438636710cd14da4d25d7bb2a7cb671
f0b04d82bd83d5629bc092a5f244c453d065f332
1897 F20101130_AADDOY rocca_s_Page_017.txt
a162c70bea74d6a7856071b138d41c5a
b273131b86cc3b54792078d7e6f953a3ddbe3200
172564 F20101130_AADCML rocca_s_Page_004.jpg
e1e530c83ca435d16bbafc7598bd1a17
ef29eb72a6c5a8e65490b748eed11ba17aa5851a
53662 F20101130_AADCLW rocca_s_Page_137.pro
42b5ffa09d6c4d3165550ecb881f6205
f52c825e1d4d6bd69703413e8241c44ac9c37a8a
1970 F20101130_AADDQC rocca_s_Page_048.txt
af2795abcc85ce8d7a64f4cf231018d0
028563f3168df520ea9424824a254bf3dcae629e
2003 F20101130_AADDPO rocca_s_Page_034.txt
c2c94143eb796b3d9fc1aa718a078777
a185d7a93fab8382680e112bf74773e3c806c322
F20101130_AADDOZ rocca_s_Page_018.txt
a0e3aceb45b8a360267a0525b5bbddc8
4407f8346ecbad35e1f89de534fb71c5b95ad255
77647 F20101130_AADCMM rocca_s_Page_005.jpg
9615eb462af85b0762f027a9e2daab97
6e5579e0e1254d2350bbd14545ceef6f45e4ea9f
18421 F20101130_AADCLX rocca_s_Page_108thm.jpg
c032d2232c44fbb6ceb2a19b117ab9bc
9d480cd117d92037d8bdf9fcd14a16383e214028
206275 F20101130_AADCNA rocca_s_Page_019.jpg
ef7369c6b2de6e90638693ee1ec48165
a6240a5fb2f0b971b9847749cf963108bc5ccf90
2146 F20101130_AADDQD rocca_s_Page_049.txt
00d1104fc17418d23ab7acb70133f373
dd128c16d5ddb52632e5eacb2709016a2ec7ffe2
2032 F20101130_AADDPP rocca_s_Page_035.txt
fe09342caf49b4b41e87dbfa86643593
040d2d881c1e7fbc31284591dca7bc11359885d0
264240 F20101130_AADCMN rocca_s_Page_006.jpg
14b5f27b9424bb75115b5b759979bd39
4a17fe541576a149357b9e44a641c73b76c94b74
51220 F20101130_AADCLY rocca_s_Page_008thm.jpg
de825267b9df80c4c1330a51c40dfa27
863b6926e1dfaccfd1b145ccbe928845a803f6f5
216164 F20101130_AADCNB rocca_s_Page_020.jpg
c71c09ff8a46ef88207d40169428dc00
0a91530f9f9d7901b50235af387071734c0c9dd7
F20101130_AADDQE rocca_s_Page_050.txt
796637e92c5cfe42838105265eeb6d1f
04614b31431049364b0d3efe9a44561ead4a51e6
48177 F20101130_AADCLZ rocca_s_Page_083.pro
14a5dd0897f06b9fc7a21974cf7f6059
dd726d3507a698bc7157c62767925ca37f68333c
176311 F20101130_AADCNC rocca_s_Page_021.jpg
99473082e51d3e3cc88330e20e275e75
9dd948d21fb1f0fa76437dd60c5b0e596c0bce25
1959 F20101130_AADDQF rocca_s_Page_051.txt
2f210379f671df8378d7323ff57ac0bd
6a2f8da13397a4aaf45df0998e12cda2492f08af
1953 F20101130_AADDPQ rocca_s_Page_036.txt
ec96ccc9e8abdc67b3fcaaf6c7bc0d8b
4c7940b444b0da0aff6d5a481d9d5cd310267f7c
348650 F20101130_AADCMO rocca_s_Page_007.jpg
71e16f073310a841d1d91d793d2aa2b8
0a2d35f5e2b438e830eda64fe2ca31b322763227
213818 F20101130_AADCND rocca_s_Page_022.jpg
5ee7addce68f8bb71110150c3982e451
814eeca8d8c3ed5a4f3fef455b869e7f2249adf5
1977 F20101130_AADDQG rocca_s_Page_052.txt
06eb950c25499dd42cbd04751a3d9c90
b5fc43c99223a20912f7d3a2126ae49b185f9e14
2042 F20101130_AADDPR rocca_s_Page_037.txt
c9b22c6beeff90f297e6445be470b274
470aba826ca2d268841b20f271f197a5a1231259
311646 F20101130_AADCMP rocca_s_Page_008.jpg
e649b27681840af947d9d14749ba3211
0e8cfc7a762a0c0a648b029bd6e8527b8141d775
216011 F20101130_AADCNE rocca_s_Page_023.jpg
3bd81aa9806f5e434b3c2f7a03b5295e
ecca1bcdfc5482425d8e9860e7a0be4a5f83a750
1868 F20101130_AADDQH rocca_s_Page_053.txt
cd9329f080f5549a31a37e75eff44fff
b072ba96e11201e3df95c315c5f0760d7303aa46
1979 F20101130_AADDPS rocca_s_Page_038.txt
7211ad86f2cfde7d052d65d8822e37ce
dba2dd798d2626b47b8d8966767624a7c42128b5
86961 F20101130_AADCMQ rocca_s_Page_009.jpg
e30b39d359d224de8aadd736adc44f08
21003f597079c16ccc9c9141d9bc6206d669ddd9
127940 F20101130_AADCNF rocca_s_Page_025.jpg
77af397391234b128b6ba11c669aed90
69c3ecbd131a6bb09127d288abb11d467e855601
2048 F20101130_AADDQI rocca_s_Page_054.txt
bf5e8e816bd9d3f0ff3fb5efbb1ef1d7
fbec981852a68fb48f3de63ac4e9a3ed5a6b47fc
2004 F20101130_AADDPT rocca_s_Page_039.txt
345d66f935d2102b08365046e61a68f0
b374ea951c23cda203f6acd8005a39a318d8c120
258272 F20101130_AADCMR rocca_s_Page_010.jpg
06850901e08f213beda01d287b4c19bb
64063f62a7ed6917d0a662ca83e9fefcc6f27ff5
184503 F20101130_AADCNG rocca_s_Page_026.jpg
5d491f6aacaafcefbc066d8e4fff8599
109822162069452603d39eb78e34da9d92ff76dc
F20101130_AADDQJ rocca_s_Page_055.txt
87688d60f485ecffd599c29219fdc9be
90e019669c76aebd6dd8bd59896428de1dd397c4
F20101130_AADDPU rocca_s_Page_040.txt
78a092892c79f46687fd00796a2fe5de
fd0014010e645e14b7dbd28e0ba5885bb31ee948
172731 F20101130_AADCMS rocca_s_Page_011.jpg
62b16257fa601ec7411d7a259ab84760
c5176b525ca213415e9f7ea82fa59b855425b8ed
207014 F20101130_AADCNH rocca_s_Page_027.jpg
2eaf41f3a524d85f343eb5e5c37eda5a
256080d5ca6dd449a5f4831fbfb5de34d448ca77
1996 F20101130_AADDQK rocca_s_Page_056.txt
85db3db5c9af74f3af73dcb24a6c8433
6c669c76c7e4ee7d711e05763a6c989cb751ac2b
1950 F20101130_AADDPV rocca_s_Page_041.txt
b80ee06e6e601f02d933ed318e67558e
7ab77787c74215b0d38d17486d2a435a1930955b
64909 F20101130_AADCMT rocca_s_Page_012.jpg
6022b8316b627878b83d787223c2034e
394386f26d87c4a8097b652c37063f668c0b357c
198272 F20101130_AADCNI rocca_s_Page_028.jpg
9d2edd6ff4b89d93d7074918b0c721da
ecdb4e06c82a6dba06a48ce150cf3272b74b30ae
F20101130_AADDQL rocca_s_Page_057.txt
b5706a76b10e632ef108d03c8c4da91b
c690734b843c11ecb29934e27c15f2f8a7e55dea
1895 F20101130_AADDPW rocca_s_Page_042.txt
0284e3aa45ae892b9cedb2f6493448bf
93afb1f2f214a72f9ab791d50cf138d15b340e8a
174917 F20101130_AADCMU rocca_s_Page_013.jpg
1302ec31bf0f3b82f2df14ef6263d913
26974c4dff5ac7eb721358a72e2fd81e3565cabe
174114 F20101130_AADCNJ rocca_s_Page_029.jpg
8d299932fd944f992ea0ea2f1cd56815
7bd6c626ab90442c4a55e639c17dc74877b60292
2000 F20101130_AADDRA rocca_s_Page_073.txt
98bc8054983a0eedc0382a373fd119bc
7c3a33197a7090176d961fa55cd7e7f05a968ea0
2005 F20101130_AADDQM rocca_s_Page_058.txt
f3695c5cf7659cd78f8ee7c85ce2e031
47d59a1c3989c919d179cf49d2e671d063a01c54
2008 F20101130_AADDPX rocca_s_Page_043.txt
1d5488c1656337d27831c7add2583a67
7d58e7e50c06f399ba24ba379b901d99d92e2ab8
174951 F20101130_AADCMV rocca_s_Page_014.jpg
5f4dd3e0a34c9a4102cab7e47f066c6e
6795c02452251e6a28a1c27cd210b820aaeded70
198105 F20101130_AADCNK rocca_s_Page_030.jpg
a89e77f9b291f253a5121f7ddc0dc411
05d4fcc4b22b288f1b9d451d5c6b88887d8e68fa
2028 F20101130_AADDRB rocca_s_Page_074.txt
e0cd4be593d78df21bfd47c44a080279
37ae9e985d0283c2248f654f5a95d720ecbe530f
1913 F20101130_AADDQN rocca_s_Page_059.txt
055db3fdd76385ef510d6027e05d77e0
31a11f4478d5e1f79c2b5749a361a3375e89e953
1907 F20101130_AADDPY rocca_s_Page_044.txt
60d65bfb355e31faacb206e93a096a76
bc5cdc0d99d0d23e06cc7b03fb8f3f38f1e17adb
187156 F20101130_AADCMW rocca_s_Page_015.jpg
a6f968223c2f7a53432349585c5239bf
b8ddfcb61d3fd67ce5d4526a75aea433ccab2a08
70875 F20101130_AADCNL rocca_s_Page_031.jpg
d00c21a358120d8ce1f84cf639544712
41bd21adc101ef38f224b04b415220e58216895e
1879 F20101130_AADDRC rocca_s_Page_075.txt
d8a2016c5fc795403507fae54f736e40
7b91990f7871f8101602c4b2a1b79a8bed5c8836
F20101130_AADDQO rocca_s_Page_060.txt
52d6a7233e1c57cff101947459b345ab
7eb1a54f8b92eed33b79fe3fcfd982337fd234c2
1943 F20101130_AADDPZ rocca_s_Page_045.txt
90e33633db9d4e90e8bb4769ab2f655c
fe0b5af560ba8ce07955f84c709ce99d0185ae29
211711 F20101130_AADCMX rocca_s_Page_016.jpg
5203a7c9fa3b4e067cc4d88537a04123
fac2bd0cea2222201e1e6c5226462b21974db6bc
203928 F20101130_AADCOA rocca_s_Page_048.jpg
d1d961e67c3c7a32de2c955222879feb
104cff79752374b481766501496da6d69b697193
202934 F20101130_AADCNM rocca_s_Page_032.jpg
7c48779b794340d4e97971fa1b11fc46
2ebfd65fa662665c8e8331c37df3c34848a0889c
1902 F20101130_AADDRD rocca_s_Page_076.txt
e76325757353b854df3176b524b15e58
7816ed9d9583311fa1409b5a60b0c79ed031b001
1894 F20101130_AADDQP rocca_s_Page_061.txt
74bd982d46c4c1145d86928423909709
5799eb6553e358df8353a35553e48a6a74510461
200024 F20101130_AADCMY rocca_s_Page_017.jpg
bdf92802d5ef4de1caf293e560673c01
48426a76f1f9f0bd9c48dd668e05c6f8ade18925
222639 F20101130_AADCOB rocca_s_Page_049.jpg
f9834dd5b5e5eb2b085b163acd9df9cb
d920a620b078b5a52f6c6cd0c451c746c80401af
211018 F20101130_AADCNN rocca_s_Page_033.jpg
646e076e617ec61a9f3218fa25350030
1e96563fa811c933c1ef3dae3427cdac47e3a2aa
1988 F20101130_AADDRE rocca_s_Page_078.txt
cb64dabcfd61155ceb34df3cff926fd9
672e336fac309fabc7aa525cea443dd435b6a146
1911 F20101130_AADDQQ rocca_s_Page_062.txt
95f3fd6f9082d21d11f9d9203e6a5710
5723c2793f96c009acc68ab082d5cabfc92cd8e7
204931 F20101130_AADCOC rocca_s_Page_050.jpg
f6590ef55cf8352dbf8b0ec19d147346
ff4bb1d30397c7fa99f70ccc3b6e4f238ccf0799
219910 F20101130_AADCNO rocca_s_Page_035.jpg
9dbb98078a48ced6617bebd3d355572f
89ce98395ccc906caa729039fd42faa53fe145e5
204424 F20101130_AADCMZ rocca_s_Page_018.jpg
677a78170d63b5953a7475ca95474a0a
3cc3e424e6efbdcf5e647b7644e423ea9e3061f0
2084 F20101130_AADDRF rocca_s_Page_079.txt
f7c9caa4678de105cbf5102c78ef4970
51ccf6135e53b584b39c8e2c80cd9bdde22981d2
211441 F20101130_AADCOD rocca_s_Page_051.jpg
68816d2c38bed167f45ceb116d48800f
e6a4114781e35ea5e7261abbf9c49199eb9b4ba6
1948 F20101130_AADDRG rocca_s_Page_080.txt
07c7618d6ed1cdb0e91746ba5f09f633
899b150498443059d1bb2a18999b7301639005f7
1864 F20101130_AADDQR rocca_s_Page_063.txt
cde4c686fc90fe193e8af7dad41a7156
836dbdd7d21a6d3b7bfcff8f4c03d3f573146e15
209858 F20101130_AADCOE rocca_s_Page_052.jpg
a2a4c2444f58d07ec039f825e7291fad
2752f378157ed4a71af1ff47ffab7fa024b5aa90
206917 F20101130_AADCNP rocca_s_Page_036.jpg
c9a4f61fba4e85125da730dcaa29aac4
20266100c1f66415833da8b0be5779efc494598b
1818 F20101130_AADDRH rocca_s_Page_081.txt
27fac6314cd68041d90fd436667b4710
6dac4edd772c41d9664d52494ce3dbcf2903846b
F20101130_AADDQS rocca_s_Page_064.txt
d4bdaa3fd9e999a38e9b1715ff19fac2
3fa7e3e61a8cc7488c5eb8eb8d96882e3f95957a
198425 F20101130_AADCOF rocca_s_Page_053.jpg
49247e214a81c325f2a24c485500807d
ba9ebd0f1968358d953fa87dab9882b46304ed03
211097 F20101130_AADCNQ rocca_s_Page_037.jpg
d7e01be2063fdba7aca819fad0c31d8a
f6aab19e1cd472040d73e60ddeeb66ae669c1e46
1784 F20101130_AADDRI rocca_s_Page_082.txt
cec82d85c3c2eb848f618f251043f51f
04f1b25d6f8ca9ea79d19ad83709df42973fe6c0
2024 F20101130_AADDQT rocca_s_Page_065.txt
c9a63e0e772cd67f067e1a2ed0071db7
ba2f537d1da6b44df0f6f2455a30a02d7fc4bcb8
198043 F20101130_AADCOG rocca_s_Page_055.jpg
928ff7b3f5ef576225a468555755b8bc
eb02521fbce34792e18deda2eb8540d174325580
210587 F20101130_AADCNR rocca_s_Page_038.jpg
94d5bc0b0d41d0cc18b96038e4f74623
e3fae16a8a65645a094500635e6a55922b9b27d3
1908 F20101130_AADDRJ rocca_s_Page_083.txt
51b226d58e6dd31c626f097b46221275
5d1e1dabc020a528a6dda868e08e6e539361d721
2561 F20101130_AADDQU rocca_s_Page_066.txt
c34dadd090cb87f21e0a8cb027c1a3bf
4b347bea36ce5b0b24782e300db2eba9780227c0
210852 F20101130_AADCOH rocca_s_Page_056.jpg
2925d21cb17cfacb44edc27ecc6ec445
ab765f02bde1c4eeb7dac10936b386e30722d09a
211904 F20101130_AADCNS rocca_s_Page_039.jpg
d29c3c1610bb9f76c783e83e76d907a1
1b7df2c3c93dbe9d406af032a1bfc574a5221c34
2088 F20101130_AADDRK rocca_s_Page_084.txt
df4e20cf18dc78237c0c1c5be257163d
2b44d916fe77f7735725bcd488957cbe4aed494c
2087 F20101130_AADDQV rocca_s_Page_067.txt
39044029ae81c2ef2b0ced15a071d530
09fbee77e4b50e1c48582442a1169c6a6fed2b20
206947 F20101130_AADCOI rocca_s_Page_057.jpg
54c1ff1e831add5afc21d6b2192d9418
b107c2c78a555886d468a72a692d74e5ae645741
209235 F20101130_AADCNT rocca_s_Page_040.jpg
dabe788526588ab53d88e882e8a4ebbe
1e271d93f6c7b91cae66ca0a0436c08656dbb699
1797 F20101130_AADDRL rocca_s_Page_085.txt
b1f3405b908076cd3b0520f44a648fdd
ea2a7f488b0b6bc655bcc916d67dd3611e470b5d
1992 F20101130_AADDQW rocca_s_Page_068.txt
8c1d8cae158b3127d2a32928eeaa9b64
d8b22ae316a1774f12d1921ef47b42247437099b
210731 F20101130_AADCOJ rocca_s_Page_058.jpg
9b6e30cb596f8a42c7779e26bc58dc2b
e900c918637ce32eab2faeea771f1b9cfae039c6
200608 F20101130_AADCNU rocca_s_Page_042.jpg
e3068a843cbaf767c0db3b5c57db0045
f1660a7914740bed042b41e8ac1a532fdc9910df
1798 F20101130_AADDSA rocca_s_Page_102.txt
19bf1bbbc8505ba866e0293b8785856e
9561486d7eea8d81317f03e871f368915a09c961
800 F20101130_AADDRM rocca_s_Page_086.txt
3199264f7687c4bd418a0e978f950afd
0d35bc0c14a4b89baf90727a6b39b3ec7297c316
2006 F20101130_AADDQX rocca_s_Page_069.txt
d7b2b6813d32450cf743e20cf55be674
bff03ab9f290cddd6bbd42df3567c99b220d3e0a
202097 F20101130_AADCOK rocca_s_Page_059.jpg
a0443b832ff07b3f8b6cdab258437185
ca0e25a7bc16c60d2601d6b6704eb312eb49d42b
210564 F20101130_AADCNV rocca_s_Page_043.jpg
857bf7a4e88d11735e22b5e921ce415b
39b3b3a0f0470b04528976ce8c71d396b2eac9b5
2040 F20101130_AADDSB rocca_s_Page_103.txt
e752075094c854bfafeae67b18c666c7
d014e716bad64d6a3ca496928bd2c702063dfad2
1820 F20101130_AADDRN rocca_s_Page_087.txt
f2e61954304f699621318d1f9b77d9d8
e19538736cce9c627a474c97e31bf57e730d3c99
576 F20101130_AADDQY rocca_s_Page_071.txt
2cabfe4a93233d45dc2d890f9301f4e3
176285200c238c0c9e0bf94ea585629028819bb9
206841 F20101130_AADCOL rocca_s_Page_060.jpg
7dddf777fb11fd6da25d360fbfef6f96
f08bd620d9d2ef5712a985dce20dc01ea78ee0eb
202890 F20101130_AADCNW rocca_s_Page_044.jpg
3d5f96ffb71412953e665a015a927f83
752621779321abf0916dbc1e7a92bc972419f068
1799 F20101130_AADDSC rocca_s_Page_104.txt
dcd730327dd8c2c01a78281e493175ab
d06d8209e9a930ce5ad6de36eaa15b467fa91f30
2575 F20101130_AADDRO rocca_s_Page_089.txt
b7bef86762240a0f60528efa401fdc0f
5c337e6a0514204b08b9587192f8abfa6f9c4dd6
1765 F20101130_AADDQZ rocca_s_Page_072.txt
a325b7e0630763231164de907be74123
8692fd02f3d7fcee813686b48c04060bec854bab
205268 F20101130_AADCOM rocca_s_Page_061.jpg
8de3d8c9073a724fb48d10c5c5dd0668
912327a5bd58b5bc9f040ba06022e2a5d5088724
209577 F20101130_AADCNX rocca_s_Page_045.jpg
5648f2c31abccb1537db9c74c62b9f32
5edd9446fc835e6b099a5f5f0e688b2720440e9e
196899 F20101130_AADCPA rocca_s_Page_076.jpg
45c34726534a0625bc33803d5e7ba7b7
2266c3ea37e6270f2c18287d4cdde2901af69c24
2300 F20101130_AADDSD rocca_s_Page_105.txt
d61fb1cf65f71b7cf71acbf8a52befd5
804f89f3502fb9146d28839cdd44626dfafadf43
2635 F20101130_AADDRP rocca_s_Page_090.txt
9af79aa3e629314a9097fc55463fac92
566544a569951f89b4e3f3dc495ab41962b7f939
202094 F20101130_AADCON rocca_s_Page_062.jpg
2262bef522f8eec53bf9f706e0b3e2c9
8f843a23d287d3b4d1c6c7719dddbe6ff1317e3e
210015 F20101130_AADCNY rocca_s_Page_046.jpg
8d7e2fdddb324f9099aa433cdbb99415
247a9cac5c09bf30fe3d2bcf3420292bf556c274
202966 F20101130_AADCPB rocca_s_Page_077.jpg
4adb145c637679700532be6a571f315d
43bbe829cf35281356baa72e60b577263d25c37a
2441 F20101130_AADDSE rocca_s_Page_107.txt
7feb66118e3941b6b389740455ff9635
7d28d7dc355089fa5d7771a589887b2857f8c4a5
F20101130_AADDRQ rocca_s_Page_091.txt
0b7eb60a812324578cb9373436623eb1
d189c2d0f6de02190a7f3f5345bc46e72401f617
201899 F20101130_AADCOO rocca_s_Page_063.jpg
d5f04ba5f7eda2bef1f6084af9d7875b
9dc451121854fad512b624858bb0de1b153105d5
230487 F20101130_AADCNZ rocca_s_Page_047.jpg
d08fe060d8703c3160455fbf44ee1a9d
a9c11f03ea018bb94fd2b89aac8230fc0353192c
211467 F20101130_AADCPC rocca_s_Page_078.jpg
fe874997423c27d7036d13e2b4e64871
179a85ea0758db7e32443cb64f58c99ab64f860b
1471 F20101130_AADDSF rocca_s_Page_108.txt
e03094ed91109677f93c5775ba8c56c3
ccb1aad61d2f2cec47440eff820ba453dfcfb74f
2054 F20101130_AADDRR rocca_s_Page_092.txt
f0a973d4271ba5620af71b458b170846
55db636e37d32cd57a1b2c61af45b5d0acc55dde
211743 F20101130_AADCOP rocca_s_Page_064.jpg
3fceac6edef9f68e003023368b4c43c5
a9c8a447c903de2e2211af2ef14f0fb12bd87e62
216530 F20101130_AADCPD rocca_s_Page_079.jpg
a6e8def5845b5603f0f0034c23bc67c0
1326507ba5b890d21686b1ea750a2c6f06b2ff47
1514 F20101130_AADDSG rocca_s_Page_109.txt
c32edaba7f1b80817eaa8d668f016883
34b0afacf4b282361906c61978e503e557d2d893
208635 F20101130_AADCPE rocca_s_Page_080.jpg
505f235381db81979b2b728e35dc94b9
a2c95166b1833d37df22b049e697bb5200efd226
1708 F20101130_AADDSH rocca_s_Page_110.txt
dd2e062a8b88311a477e83c2bc1645f4
9142423e389901d08c81549abb0065e978212f13
1785 F20101130_AADDRS rocca_s_Page_093.txt
b2098f596b61436bf736aa70e57572fa
4ca815586807d5ea19a118f34d53e24a1662ba40
211880 F20101130_AADCOQ rocca_s_Page_065.jpg
2824986964b5d073e27b27e03cb3b1f1
55f6ef550fea7e6f6cb0986a31d3d51f05368cf0
193712 F20101130_AADCPF rocca_s_Page_081.jpg
dc63d90d5d3db098b5b240401e1d91fd
3d86fefd924f01d2d80773f14217d05388a61fd3
2289 F20101130_AADDSI rocca_s_Page_111.txt
b2781883e11a6343fe8038c82bde7eeb
b0a79bcc6fecdb2813edf937551ac602b81a1154
2136 F20101130_AADDRT rocca_s_Page_094.txt
2f67265d2cb6f9ebf3ab98450af8ba30
95351c393d728616c1e46b037e744a11602b82e8
241281 F20101130_AADCOR rocca_s_Page_066.jpg
7ed00ede0ff1ce125461e318e806245b
9c93e0f0fecf9a0714fecddbd87ca29c06794e94
188578 F20101130_AADCPG rocca_s_Page_082.jpg
a455e843902aeb5b83a93817140cb43d
a432de6980f8bdb4beeb5e8d3e4ca77b320ea84d
2206 F20101130_AADDSJ rocca_s_Page_112.txt
42cb5301e3758ebf2af3cf41b80416fd
533c27bb2b3ce6714290f27e1046eaf453459d56
1647 F20101130_AADDRU rocca_s_Page_095.txt
0635f79748efad48aba6d0acaf1fe37e
fc7689b8a757b7ebeca92e5ab294bf4b0295bbae
220008 F20101130_AADCOS rocca_s_Page_067.jpg
cea6a2922c88e92e99843f2083882b71
9b55e18e571dc502d9761fc5141c28ff95c903cf
202158 F20101130_AADCPH rocca_s_Page_083.jpg
e67ed100c1f83fd31d17778dc40614d6
5c165b6a5d5c8a9b16edbccb724dff131beac92f
2079 F20101130_AADDSK rocca_s_Page_113.txt
b0b8e8a38ad33ee9df8ec47af4322a22
467a0cbbb8bb63d8645a1d7629f7c0150e9b3fef
2358 F20101130_AADDRV rocca_s_Page_096.txt
8fab611c2bdb05c55c2fb7ad11892042
7cbcdd7435d74d810f696ac80f7013c46184e444
205813 F20101130_AADCOT rocca_s_Page_068.jpg
edc0777fb86d2d4e4364ecd72885233d
5328fce211d513fbaedd1f958e504f4803db45d5
217185 F20101130_AADCPI rocca_s_Page_084.jpg
4c14af0538350100529d81edf634caab
27fc03dfc40c9eb9825d4c5a6bc011baf53eec76
2023 F20101130_AADDSL rocca_s_Page_114.txt
a955f0592f9f6b9095d37af3e346ac81
1795cb277e599792d3325739d80b0068a2262ca7
1544 F20101130_AADDRW rocca_s_Page_097.txt
ddc9753dec37943d499834b39dec3a50
520cb946eda6590a3d322d2b9b8c5c0d397ece7a
204900 F20101130_AADCOU rocca_s_Page_070.jpg
18fd46cbb83aa57650fd2869a167bd42
f5cb8f9928d466b2cb91d1f27767a9ce2a0bd845
190845 F20101130_AADCPJ rocca_s_Page_085.jpg
045fc156df04e4237725a22bb937e429
73f44e6abbc4c1990204847409e4ee187e0d3a15
2066 F20101130_AADDTA rocca_s_Page_133.txt
6c24d425c009c0ac66917274ebe0b1a9
3fd504615b7aa40bf2617c17f68b4980f43af3b0
665 F20101130_AADDSM rocca_s_Page_115.txt
7e4b24eea3368e3508c340714f270ecf
c0b2f1a327fa6d5a403182ba674f6e2b7ae67933
F20101130_AADDRX rocca_s_Page_099.txt
830c4ad01455d71f89c5ce282a23fd65
0b9b52dac19d7ad266588254ba59c66fbcf178c0
60332 F20101130_AADCOV rocca_s_Page_071.jpg
62dfdfb11b2b8a733bad5074f02e0af4
ed1265bd312d8ca29567fd3186d8f53b75087d69
85141 F20101130_AADCPK rocca_s_Page_086.jpg
f8810a40581337d6ed4fe8e057f84cc9
cc36f18050fc7efcd586a817191703c324a0aef9
2135 F20101130_AADDTB rocca_s_Page_134.txt
5c1be2cdf3505cc5baea7d7f65382bbb
ded6bde4975944d32691419c02c7ec5e36806b7b
F20101130_AADDSN rocca_s_Page_116.txt
74a9ac6bff1bf6346f794fa330eb7fa8
02d0e9dc41ba29eef22fa144d916d27fddc5a520
2322 F20101130_AADDRY rocca_s_Page_100.txt
c83fd4ab0a5927e608f1701d46f61376
df9be2314b72c1e871bab536aeca9abd72fd5798
173555 F20101130_AADCOW rocca_s_Page_072.jpg
3b2dc6311028bdfd1e97fb9a5cbdab16
ce143aec9b4172ec45169370a6393ebb73767244
179948 F20101130_AADCPL rocca_s_Page_087.jpg
0e199d3b27145b5c0d7f674af2a59295
566d30915377d9ba8e82fd2b38f0dc7f7be0365f
2065 F20101130_AADDTC rocca_s_Page_135.txt
58cb68d566a581d85d91972e394e294f
908e27a703f4fd17371e29549789dc5194a325a4
F20101130_AADDSO rocca_s_Page_118.txt
94e5586269e03bcc7b196e9a872f034d
185023769e041a3a27a0c6eec87f8f1a1310f1cc
F20101130_AADDRZ rocca_s_Page_101.txt
3437bffba239946f6dea95e1b671e219
7149abf148173f34b10209aca464399776f42c96
206690 F20101130_AADCOX rocca_s_Page_073.jpg
507ef9080e950b90419a914556e90e63
fa3d23de25e5a7d64118449fa13a8f5a32633646
158637 F20101130_AADCQA rocca_s_Page_102.jpg
135913642667d340ba21da46ec90ea73
e2543f79bd832e074d935e04e8b0a284e5cafd93
198621 F20101130_AADCPM rocca_s_Page_088.jpg
efce053ab82bc9922f72ca23ad1f1a50
014779e5bef1030b3c2f673b89aed9b463e683b4
2077 F20101130_AADDTD rocca_s_Page_136.txt
6ccdc7404ccb9decd57ff6b6431daeae
45fa09bf6ce6835678475da3f4baed60126398b9
F20101130_AADDSP rocca_s_Page_119.txt
c567f72fa695f1bf4b7d2f42169e39ab
df04a7c8573e9661a61d1a21bb104e33a2d35c46
210799 F20101130_AADCOY rocca_s_Page_074.jpg
480e328e3ede000a34b9a945db6f79a6
af7dc7c24f59795a53ff7148b9a443aa732458a1
182234 F20101130_AADCQB rocca_s_Page_104.jpg
d58693fc43a12bc589f7cb85a3660411
ec914dfacb7beaccbe4f88be267d9e8e4b0130a6
173899 F20101130_AADCPN rocca_s_Page_089.jpg
9a296868ae32e5c5a7e13832fb2955fb
0858816bc4d59105c55bddd1d54eb1886711770a
2102 F20101130_AADDTE rocca_s_Page_137.txt
500c4644881b272f18000ae81a0675e5
715607909565a5261012e1e6f03236848255a458
1831 F20101130_AADDSQ rocca_s_Page_121.txt
6369349a0296927c64083919ebf00ff7
8c9e1ad6fdd8a4d8fd5b5d6ee8b85b178a13c6df
191217 F20101130_AADCOZ rocca_s_Page_075.jpg
c825c695519d164c7ad832bf6d27e33c
322250f6a73851a49362bc0050829cf6bcce4e7d
120071 F20101130_AADCQC rocca_s_Page_106.jpg
09d30348ba16235ab0d66cf5ca695273
7a364ba864ed109d39287f167835a077aacde564
196944 F20101130_AADCPO rocca_s_Page_090.jpg
d4b5131b26f339c3cdc5ba4d0b93271c
b01717db98ce8cfc2aa08a8f83af75f4d1c00604
F20101130_AADDTF rocca_s_Page_138.txt
6a98e73af3e82d4d88b0719c480af95a
192a20a73ecf930e48af9ef96fe45a3919bd16c1
1885 F20101130_AADDSR rocca_s_Page_122.txt
67b899b4f388cf4a5f5fc4372644ad5f
829533001796dc3dd941de57e80840bb995eef8c
192563 F20101130_AADCQD rocca_s_Page_107.jpg
cdd069c339b7c58546e4b9e8a42dca44
cfd7130dd6ceb4f80d6f8e5e3727f7e464f6e2df
173831 F20101130_AADCPP rocca_s_Page_091.jpg
800e385d21924241df395a81c69957bd
ffb901dab5c7ab7d80212d55c35a6abc63a1c84f
2022 F20101130_AADDTG rocca_s_Page_139.txt
9dea443ca5eb2dfe290c9474b4e5f62e
7330f45b88450140141b1f5e43e2c8e17dfa542a
2030 F20101130_AADDSS rocca_s_Page_123.txt
16c649f6245db50b940266dbe07d4648
6cdd5a3f8f2f88de1fbda3a852c93ac585d30118
152860 F20101130_AADCQE rocca_s_Page_108.jpg
d9240df21e417e8cdd0363de32501c40
153f624b814748c9bfaa5902775eba0378214e91
147953 F20101130_AADCPQ rocca_s_Page_092.jpg
bf02f2cea42595c876d902004eb25307
dd945d76447b49e814282d5bf3c5589dbd3ff7c4
2068 F20101130_AADDTH rocca_s_Page_140.txt
918d7abb89f5cee35cb44d073636191e
9347126d9b089e64ec4ea8dd161eaaf4857b2629
99922 F20101130_AADCQF rocca_s_Page_109.jpg
e7020272b1c0fe5d8598b792d3333f8b
9164e1dbeb7dd27f259802deadca0d7680aef079
2172 F20101130_AADDTI rocca_s_Page_141.txt
f8b9ceab6cf2421f528bec5ea42bfa8f
ca4e9fa398c382680860d08bb852e14e8a90bd51
2863 F20101130_AADDST rocca_s_Page_125.txt
50aaaba3b29bed6708f76dfbe46dde09
f2b2a99c495129d51f71b7270cb22f353ef97c31
168561 F20101130_AADCQG rocca_s_Page_110.jpg
c6dacc7219d644aef6e9b7972d5d81bf
a56005a65422d49b7115882707cc0ae819b80f6c
164251 F20101130_AADCPR rocca_s_Page_093.jpg
a281d0efd16b5b903647e3bb5334f4a2
31c4040285b691bd1464e07ef7c981ae5831c22b
2044 F20101130_AADDTJ rocca_s_Page_142.txt
0a94987e354830924f9bc23a49d624e0
50bc942a5b6065a9ee99c9ea1f23d44488e39995
2333 F20101130_AADDSU rocca_s_Page_126.txt
c94f23e764175cb53844b085d7a1da27
5cc45e9466371d40e73761a7453430405712988b
175078 F20101130_AADCQH rocca_s_Page_111.jpg
dd0607bfb0046afdf8aa62be5b7959ca
2b3d4e783d2da6fca9870e037eadaa5aca0dcdc9
145249 F20101130_AADCPS rocca_s_Page_094.jpg
b83211db75b6643dbcfefe61cc8b6003
b515babfd09ab34f42a1f5ef348780dafa6b754e
2177 F20101130_AADDTK rocca_s_Page_143.txt
5dc54d9c46384e991204a90119d4e541
0aa64c9a07dbb484b0e2d7c7cd0d960673a8f86e
F20101130_AADDSV rocca_s_Page_127.txt
a6066002e58b1d1d34f95a1fc026eb3c
c13949415cc7713157029849d696fb8b28aa3417
203202 F20101130_AADCQI rocca_s_Page_112.jpg
77d20065cd839fe07a9dacccbf14cfd9
5b211ec87ceb64816358e133f2e1435e97535280
176297 F20101130_AADCPT rocca_s_Page_095.jpg
31d5a91905202e7b43b46aa066404112
9da30696bb0b55cd0c45dd752dccf706a26a5918
F20101130_AADDTL rocca_s_Page_144.txt
495cc87494c987a1084e4e0398235ff5
eaaaf8b39ecaea9ea8f87092a93ed146d33c805d
2027 F20101130_AADDSW rocca_s_Page_129.txt
50a3b4660ef8197e058adab0c41f5f3f
dec10f253342002e7940aca691d814a0e8ecb816
195554 F20101130_AADCQJ rocca_s_Page_114.jpg
bbb4ce60fed2de50fea396499158452b
0ef350fec52d8ab5d6d2af0832855028b3c32ab4
191130 F20101130_AADCPU rocca_s_Page_096.jpg
74158ef6521cad2aa2c40d6742b91fb5
65fa534e12cbbd6e3330aa545dd857249e987121
1562 F20101130_AADDUA rocca_s_Page_163.txt
b5ee8be8b2833a067357c24a8ba897d4
1248a2e9189f2c6dccfbde37324a2ef647a44f82
2081 F20101130_AADDTM rocca_s_Page_145.txt
73f997feaeb4f4c4661fe9ecd70ad6d6
9dbc91090ea4e77edb02ee61c3d2c789cc17d212
1990 F20101130_AADDSX rocca_s_Page_130.txt
e04e13828f010d65051d94cea56f631a
71da6399318be9f1b936d8e5f80bd3eac982adca
73441 F20101130_AADCQK rocca_s_Page_115.jpg
c443c5a2dc7d44502dedce90cac2ce65
76a9fc3565642b21b29c7ddfca9dfd983b717e73
123875 F20101130_AADCPV rocca_s_Page_097.jpg
c1434a31e18fda863ecbb2fd0daa4219
2d73471beb817764a5f665e5e6bd3b7eef741163
457 F20101130_AADDUB rocca_s_Page_164.txt
9e525e4196129145d890fa6138be38b7
ba9fe955cf369b5c7ab1ba4770268f7026f5fe69
2252 F20101130_AADDTN rocca_s_Page_147.txt
3463a78775f6c3139af5a518bee39983
29a9eb183d9ea264d975fd4bdd9fbc9c2388b298
F20101130_AADDSY rocca_s_Page_131.txt
ba2af4af703ebe3133d54c3d762a4e3a
1c6e444c57a18eba9bd1312ec41702bb82325c98
178209 F20101130_AADCQL rocca_s_Page_116.jpg
547880d91a8c331c883c8aca6d9bea0e
7582136929c547ea3291a1cdf2dd5da7f6bcc6dd
213193 F20101130_AADCPW rocca_s_Page_098.jpg
213f5cd977fe7d5f6ee799b94e6711d3
ffe8e982233cb8906ff697312799521989e14740
1972 F20101130_AADDUC rocca_s_Page_165.txt
066062f0080477b5f1a487e6f0506374
1b5143723b7c132bf21adb80d62e7449c875fae6
2083 F20101130_AADDTO rocca_s_Page_148.txt
8821af6ad4bbc194c2fa899d161f3718
8cf221ae3bc2d1c08dd0ebfa50f11eb39de59181
2142 F20101130_AADDSZ rocca_s_Page_132.txt
cb0d27e87c5be3d62dcd22259c5e7a6b
1a280e103cd984bc1e5cfa25a4fdbd5dd2363f43
227708 F20101130_AADCRA rocca_s_Page_132.jpg
b34aa35ba4ba0002725827a890685183
fb1d63b2eaaa83730f1e96cc222e65dfc7638989
209014 F20101130_AADCQM rocca_s_Page_117.jpg
f2b9bd26d22251fe72c72c920347c90d
1a522bc52abf06b86a33c6547f7ee1e661de5cb7
126798 F20101130_AADCPX rocca_s_Page_099.jpg
b387f1929c655d6a96b93154e8b1edef
036282d026b5a65f73e1ca6d3ec1a219a088bac6
1017 F20101130_AADDUD rocca_s_Page_166.txt
78d18674251cc41dcc961325f290ed4c
fc77a726927ab5bf70edca45efc6444cb9937b2c
2911 F20101130_AADDTP rocca_s_Page_149.txt
f474f3a157ce967e7804ad33f08f102b
c4690d81105d5621f6b7ab6aa6c3d71004db1b5e
221838 F20101130_AADCRB rocca_s_Page_133.jpg
c079df6c9aa80af98b530ae0e5647330
703bd208e08c597d440d4be72348e543f509cc89
201948 F20101130_AADCQN rocca_s_Page_118.jpg
a3180bd101daa081188c9ca935f0453b
cd7883dd1f56335ab1305a2dae6079872b4266f8
165385 F20101130_AADCPY rocca_s_Page_100.jpg
1fc79389f5264a8b26e7d368bd43f115
dc113c4a4e3cd23642df156aeebef0861e8bf619
1837 F20101130_AADDUE rocca_s_Page_167.txt
52a04c498e4500439330d7a7937457dd
79f27aafa3ec8111903144ec022c5b8a30b11cac
2823 F20101130_AADDTQ rocca_s_Page_150.txt
2a420fa1b0b2e0960708db55d136ab97
e76233d9b42043650a07bddfd4f7b2db3cc130eb
223277 F20101130_AADCRC rocca_s_Page_134.jpg
87be6317deb78f34810721491a99c46c
0d0be4295a688d5ebb8d39563e06a8fd2860c4a4
192483 F20101130_AADCQO rocca_s_Page_119.jpg
e5b6f20adba23ca1490ac10660a23487
f5ccffd942587110c6d17ce0efb0f2b476e795eb
199696 F20101130_AADCPZ rocca_s_Page_101.jpg
b6d4405d123344aa9c6a9c0b65543855
ba705936cb3bb8db8f7fc454f31e46d245fbb0d7
1570 F20101130_AADDUF rocca_s_Page_168.txt
b691d5440188a8638daa59a9a789a8ac
d821890f49f22006ef66333486039fc6a0efdc06
2666 F20101130_AADDTR rocca_s_Page_151.txt
8a0b897e0f3b49059cf63046b8f89afb
fe6a3cb6416e2785df0e0cbe9aaa302610ff13db
216345 F20101130_AADCRD rocca_s_Page_135.jpg
f1cc03f9ebe532b0bbed6803ab71303d
c608e399fefd9297ba1a2d21e2adebc50bb63f16
194464 F20101130_AADCQP rocca_s_Page_121.jpg
b7c9e230b32aa565c1067037c55f1452
95421bed7b585aa34ef63d13d62baadcff8780a0
83352 F20101130_AADEAA rocca_s_Page_035.QC.jpg
c7d904e2e0414769a409dd40bc198198
2c5d7781b8567634fc32dae86247c5256e8849d5
258 F20101130_AADDUG rocca_s_Page_169.txt
42f935d44fc4a69c1708a8fd13c1700f
fd0491d5f63f50187c4149ce5dbe68b87aa460cf
2591 F20101130_AADDTS rocca_s_Page_152.txt
ae5563115db493178663677c8d082e17
c99ae939d2b19edde1441b6a49484c4b7084bbf4
218624 F20101130_AADCRE rocca_s_Page_136.jpg
d6d4970b329d4f521045bc905cc6b869
e197d3a3a1e2ee585b0acc76c10adbc22a223bf8
195820 F20101130_AADCQQ rocca_s_Page_122.jpg
5c02d33daf8bbc8048d56ad247b78dd4
83f4a0a41ed8774598c1fdf33c57c3bfbaa35a9c
77511 F20101130_AADEAB rocca_s_Page_036.QC.jpg
ecf827c78b60712e26dab7bc9124f012
8d24f63b38fc155a705f34a480808ca2b52b7d57
1646 F20101130_AADDUH rocca_s_Page_170.txt
f30624bd1cc113c00efdffe0c04375ca
702cda0bae4e2668a33af3d83d1292fd745f3d48
787 F20101130_AADDTT rocca_s_Page_153.txt
9f1d71831bfd984c6a2346cabac31706
0815f97c96590e03f7dc76c5c96ccfec1ff15ecd
230238 F20101130_AADCRF rocca_s_Page_138.jpg
09c2de00a34dfb465b214b440349f23d
452df679d1b69022280919d1ed826bec72f59ff1
212485 F20101130_AADCQR rocca_s_Page_123.jpg
5927c7d28689eb8f747a129862e6c3c1
4a87b5ac47426c3184678558deb3f31c6c7da90c
23597 F20101130_AADEAC rocca_s_Page_037thm.jpg
d89e98bd8c52f60d8b8f5ee85288c7fa
be0e7203930b70120c2a3dcdcdce364341241231
569 F20101130_AADDUI rocca_s_Page_171.txt
88e7ff57941bc219d6d25f00059f2ec6
7defd6f31d796c122195a9276d66f825538735e9
210420 F20101130_AADCRG rocca_s_Page_139.jpg
3e9514f9f080b5d7fdfe0876e294904c
f2b3b27d59280f0f62c79fcd378648733452e3d8
78494 F20101130_AADEAD rocca_s_Page_037.QC.jpg
6c7ee7a033d04c1265067503e8849f68
776dbfb3325c9ad2ca2422f8d9f4bca57a8b7465
1367 F20101130_AADDUJ rocca_s_Page_172.txt
692dfd38e278454b2a61676a878b8289
313561773064cb050a6094443411b39c966fa92f
2720 F20101130_AADDTU rocca_s_Page_154.txt
59b6f9b23e9c9e8c83e134ec430164bd
dc6c8053f71f43aa45f3767fad775196a862d5ce
217216 F20101130_AADCRH rocca_s_Page_140.jpg
b61055fab9cc961614bc54f45df23b66
574599d6a9d3bc88952527a929d65ac2d79526f1
172113 F20101130_AADCQS rocca_s_Page_124.jpg
6fd6adec54a5bebba50a105802fade49
2a7f1b692eee37c76b8850c07e65bbd8595f3d80
24430 F20101130_AADEAE rocca_s_Page_038thm.jpg
55e72d6cd78047034a87d2a82a57cc6c
ffee8a886d0dd37d5b2d01961cb7a372f651aad7
260 F20101130_AADDUK rocca_s_Page_173.txt
a97d51830fc2671291fbd674d2147acb
e31442d0438711b9ab2a356233880df107867f7a
2112 F20101130_AADDTV rocca_s_Page_158.txt
329293851c16b1d9f1411443bd34c615
5714b18e203501217c9362a23942f098239e6148
228752 F20101130_AADCRI rocca_s_Page_141.jpg
942660e5c400f0ad63afd15cad7eab33
b9ce4d1b7c2cf3c3ddd90a1838c3852eca92a0d3
273654 F20101130_AADCQT rocca_s_Page_125.jpg
1e706a15421d1010ae1e9c9916cf82f8
05409ea6dfa78651e77e60bdc05554a5e3469c4e
24586 F20101130_AADEAF rocca_s_Page_039thm.jpg
80e3a8342c67972c6d0c5d233d241536
94e161c3be95f1609689546c060db384ad9ee7c5
1310 F20101130_AADDUL rocca_s_Page_175.txt
3db10656e9e6bb3b05f818b8347f2d85
165c99ed3ec8686db975de39171aa225e2338b3e
750 F20101130_AADDTW rocca_s_Page_159.txt
0c12c3ccba2faa00daa8d377bf5e0c6d
5bb07eb49f4da11b5c65c87ccf36bef1adaae37d
225800 F20101130_AADCRJ rocca_s_Page_143.jpg
71dad84e52d79051fa4111fb66db597e
95722b741c87a24f397e70a0f4cc77613e10b1af
229007 F20101130_AADCQU rocca_s_Page_126.jpg
bcf34fa090f6b0bf57395015b45a32ec
5fa01c3d59ed1df8c3210fe7c23be1c54f673d5e
80747 F20101130_AADEAG rocca_s_Page_039.QC.jpg
1a3454e5dba9a957ec7877adbc588f5a
8549f8a2fbc35cebaacbf8c766bd69bfc854cec4
2577 F20101130_AADDVA rocca_s_Page_190.txt
732b2f6ffe2eb7f22f7bacfdeaaa7839
65d0ae8100d65e0f60401f4ebb84d28807dba90d
1486 F20101130_AADDUM rocca_s_Page_176.txt
e0e8b458495056a892ebcf877bed4763
67911f3b7b34648d402628d430be90ab699c8b7c
1699 F20101130_AADDTX rocca_s_Page_160.txt
a94dca2cd52ded1962268a08b8793faa
4329db412b103f187abfc4bbf3ce0c73ebe6870d
212680 F20101130_AADCRK rocca_s_Page_144.jpg
13d2831ee97af8f10259cc788604b1b8
9711e290b97825f46909fecb9aefed3c43fcb43e
223845 F20101130_AADCQV rocca_s_Page_127.jpg
1022b3cae62dccfabd9bcf3e8c4b6dde
a0fab14e35e45ffc8d0185c28971a1373500aae4
24443 F20101130_AADEAH rocca_s_Page_040thm.jpg
add5db2926147c0d8621a40aa8b8fe8b
075f44195076f3c0e94e2ba3186e1b2d02bbbf11
1701 F20101130_AADDVB rocca_s_Page_192.txt
c48364187f83c490c08d1372e8c6e7d1
52df3826adf127cfe93a98366006af5c8c51f979
892 F20101130_AADDUN rocca_s_Page_177.txt
58ac773370a827b5d3bcc49d80fe5814
ee2d4f0fe44a21f7cdc0080e287890e0badeb32b
1019 F20101130_AADDTY rocca_s_Page_161.txt
fc1edf4b7643f4367be766b79491f169
e2e3fa22b305bfaa0fa78ed4c838ef4d6151d6b2
216460 F20101130_AADCRL rocca_s_Page_145.jpg
41b9d26fec3c0290a0a5436c2c7cdf6d
ccbc894340a57b12d08f4f6026cb98334a8b7660
210591 F20101130_AADCQW rocca_s_Page_128.jpg
2dba0208fee62e5e8f5759799a1a6687
6c292bc6b7ae314f3523a64202c1128c7951c187
78032 F20101130_AADEAI rocca_s_Page_040.QC.jpg
076aa10c3b41490826d89d4bb0c75f01
cf9d1597358a713a7606beaf163f935972e5e12e
1283 F20101130_AADDVC rocca_s_Page_193.txt
de021c0de7805b58178521f6e05058d1
c1f30e7218d61f628304871682d71460ff380c18
2266 F20101130_AADDUO rocca_s_Page_178.txt
d9c8cada786e0b6902907bd4f2a6fe6b
1859e583a28181aa1e092f34ac5ae1b6e5d21a54
F20101130_AADDTZ rocca_s_Page_162.txt
c83f6a722d2ee42d9feac0e874deb4cb
d44f11475a8d04775903f2a24a678fc4b042470e
211608 F20101130_AADCRM rocca_s_Page_146.jpg
a5310ef58ce5773d718bb663e9b4d977
367e46b5cccfce16e603406a4a2f66632f3bdf30
215101 F20101130_AADCQX rocca_s_Page_129.jpg
522bdad4e26b73afb59bbffbbccfc877
87bf93482774b61491627e015d2c1297766c0563
174703 F20101130_AADCSA rocca_s_Page_160.jpg
f21810451138bc7f990910dd27e6f5bc
db19a919411f7e9b8297a9e873fbf61137b1c912
76273 F20101130_AADEAJ rocca_s_Page_041.QC.jpg
1eda9e7a5e4fd31c2858412017a5989c
445f7ffbf88b39200c434f4d98c9e4df92e7ade8
1936691 F20101130_AADDVD rocca_s.pdf
4b8681607b65fde7be050c4123bad17f
bbfca0045d5037a7d0e7a504208764b530cedeb6
2475 F20101130_AADDUP rocca_s_Page_179.txt
45249a1fce1de155687195ba9cf1d55a
da2c53881ef086ffd113fae9d4f0954ac2b81211
238439 F20101130_AADCRN rocca_s_Page_147.jpg
b9f78aa514c6567517c0c9ff82d9661d
fc9c1542bd8ec5a4a771eb3d9c0c6f91c524a04e
210280 F20101130_AADCQY rocca_s_Page_130.jpg
76325ae9aa5dfc0e2b5678975983b199
07082191f548ddb0acb60f4669dc9c4275d9932f
133538 F20101130_AADCSB rocca_s_Page_161.jpg
5d8ce86cd3d05c17bd553cb8fa9a7db8
6960adfc2a5e90f4468d5e2ca1ccb6763a16056a
23649 F20101130_AADEAK rocca_s_Page_042thm.jpg
a5a39941a32ea94b81a0e35b4338f2bf
6c6eb542fc7d06ca336123235dc0eafaeeb8a8f5
24943 F20101130_AADDVE rocca_s_Page_034thm.jpg
619198f33a49d4d8d52b3debb0083c2b
dbf1f882056d492211243570d9801e08d877feab
2572 F20101130_AADDUQ rocca_s_Page_180.txt
6e391be9bd1b4803109473badf4a738e
f878ecbe2057267de7010206828fd3690d8d3790
214987 F20101130_AADCRO rocca_s_Page_148.jpg
e00e651d1480c51c48a252947a16b072
63d661210e175ba40dd731680026181ee2e66191
214930 F20101130_AADCQZ rocca_s_Page_131.jpg
406d98110018a9b998d3a2920fdcc15c
4b208c14ddee7b1c4fd25bc6a7519599bb045848
103962 F20101130_AADCSC rocca_s_Page_162.jpg
be7460d5e8b86e90dd89ca2d7a5ccaf2
7f1ea61060dea21d482cc1b61fc06dc9fb847c86
23222 F20101130_AADEBA rocca_s_Page_055thm.jpg
e3fc4a4db47e6b1a49a03286bf7b4909
490d5ca1ff94702c747b5f7f9a87aa121055ca74
74782 F20101130_AADEAL rocca_s_Page_042.QC.jpg
4127eb9353c38eaa433fd5064370f31f
f60b0c47b94b03dbd8f4c2e7ac4727d88ee55fb6
12044 F20101130_AADDVF rocca_s_Page_191thm.jpg
22f2aff772f0bc4d1d94c25e15518b56
dee8871a8359b702bef23782627b960652833331
2454 F20101130_AADDUR rocca_s_Page_181.txt
5f741ce095df9eadc9fb4cec3e3b6d45
178a5a54fe9c00160639fbe9c12dc54956fe05ab
275053 F20101130_AADCRP rocca_s_Page_149.jpg
51159abd83d838c1ef7c0a3d6580e8c1
cf4ac37f2574b2f82f14edfe1266821b6ae50675
151435 F20101130_AADCSD rocca_s_Page_163.jpg
61bbcb3318518ea77611cb0a52f2536b
0f363bf29198605011d7e6222a9719c9915f9641
23654 F20101130_AADEAM rocca_s_Page_043thm.jpg
d2f447b2256db3a9d61777b2d071e6d1
5cd3669c24d64699accea4a23657637b0adeefa5
22862 F20101130_AADDVG rocca_s_Page_076thm.jpg
8ab66cf59710e9c6a51bf894a8431f01
dc2a000c0b7b87844e9451facc37318c587e316c
2373 F20101130_AADDUS rocca_s_Page_182.txt
a15d514f17344ffb77c00aff79e92d84
fb546610181a13c2dfe54451da1af72f46e74c9c
269292 F20101130_AADCRQ rocca_s_Page_150.jpg
44234bce8e1ddd34e72e02ff30df6dbe
089f2b49f7998c552321db3131f5365896b112f8
44821 F20101130_AADCSE rocca_s_Page_164.jpg
eba5514c94c16e78e10439501a57602c
3c4fe0ba85551aa008c43b57881514b313153ccd
73145 F20101130_AADEBB rocca_s_Page_055.QC.jpg
681bb00234705fad0fe4ec7fc47aca2d
ce8101eaf5e8f922b5fd27dcba0a33d01faac947
74557 F20101130_AADEAN rocca_s_Page_043.QC.jpg
785d0f2e0665ae7b5982e4bf067ea5ba
1287819d4d67fe913091f1327aaf8eb9219d5cd9
24086 F20101130_AADDVH rocca_s_Page_048thm.jpg
2fe21b1c9c2b82cb4b88edc28f7f4a0c
05bdfaed9e604a2061ae74175388c1172d3a12a9
2479 F20101130_AADDUT rocca_s_Page_183.txt
f05c13811812977f96616b95486865d7
cc92a27de6e82c13b64b702147d4eeead20a22e7
158499 F20101130_AADCRR rocca_s_Page_151.jpg
59282e6b9f6716df884f01ece64e3a0b
9108869e985dcb2c54f5f1c74fd3eda3e4f36cc9
186965 F20101130_AADCSF rocca_s_Page_165.jpg
dd30fc189c9182673ba1e88601e5011a
dcc05978123ea836d4dfd03508f4e4a8a99c9f7b
24124 F20101130_AADEBC rocca_s_Page_056thm.jpg
7ea9609374c3c96fe099671700f64d88
c1d2cab270596129c68e8de42b92d6592d7bab92
23891 F20101130_AADEAO rocca_s_Page_044thm.jpg
7b02e2bf6975ed1727bd9b58acec8b86
25259da3a540af4250f88ccc8460818b602a5ca8
25180 F20101130_AADDVI rocca_s_Page_135thm.jpg
ec1e2abd52dd7089382c57159189c1a4
51d3914e73df74108481b2e89c3b8ab9e89adf4c
2674 F20101130_AADDUU rocca_s_Page_184.txt
e5664a2c8761741da13d094ee9dd89bf
5587c02c97be4fa2baa54d60b33a29c301788633
256057 F20101130_AADCRS rocca_s_Page_152.jpg
cf3098ce44b3b4cf025467a36c13704e
9a24dfeb742e23547eefbe6eb6411c91b2dd14ee
118613 F20101130_AADCSG rocca_s_Page_166.jpg
620b56f15c758e34a364580d23724060
bce28432aaeb564d9901735837da76e9560021b6
76883 F20101130_AADEBD rocca_s_Page_056.QC.jpg
8a4da8a5846d6bc4d26e91080d5a012a
0cebe29358a7dad2b811db407597dafe888b32d9
74846 F20101130_AADEAP rocca_s_Page_044.QC.jpg
0f086b2e461a9b93d4f94454e85663c8
ca99ad602ab9e3ae91c7d7ec70fafdd2b02d83c2
82611 F20101130_AADDVJ rocca_s_Page_137.QC.jpg
a70c386b6ef0c814d754eeb4ba0e7799
a162aa28994bced5e6f56d10b716bd856cfb5efa
182284 F20101130_AADCSH rocca_s_Page_167.jpg
7e34303ebe3f32fa18852bd450dece9b
f7e9edec9eec7e9b1055fdee4d7c178ddf3dafb0
76032 F20101130_AADEBE rocca_s_Page_057.QC.jpg
869787ea4e55ed8e86b98cca8cb71bca
19101be3aff3cc5b0631f37054aaa7e1da9607a1
77769 F20101130_AADEAQ rocca_s_Page_045.QC.jpg
d20d3c0aa647e11d4de6687500125767
acc0ddbd4ede44229cf577d61d6b6155f1f53203
26320 F20101130_AADDVK rocca_s_Page_188thm.jpg
75f5f525be7a19a51c600deca8cf8443
4e97febb35cbbc38385f67d24844de1f2eb66469
2500 F20101130_AADDUV rocca_s_Page_185.txt
d73eeff187adad33730eb7baac60b869
fc57b00d422652ee963df3570d32f988f9d1d4ed
115056 F20101130_AADCRT rocca_s_Page_153.jpg
80dbb4dd58636e2f13b39247c0ebaf11
7a98d00c4bc26ba4555ca38880dd57a9afb80597
163842 F20101130_AADCSI rocca_s_Page_168.jpg
21686117d086f4e75c474e26d110b646
70ea0466074ea0bcc56a8d0b4611286ae7b93111
77400 F20101130_AADEBF rocca_s_Page_058.QC.jpg
c0e178d73d9136c6a9d7444653960700
eb25e90c715afdffe643ecbb0d89484a8ff6c7ca
77073 F20101130_AADEAR rocca_s_Page_048.QC.jpg
8b5387c76220d61988b7034b3372e807
cfbb0c96f792562c5e92be1650d2472aa0606ce5
22756 F20101130_AADDVL rocca_s_Page_113thm.jpg
87a744915d86a1dfdbc0a3967470412b
8c060a93888202f1d3b683aeb4220dbfd3f439a7
F20101130_AADDUW rocca_s_Page_186.txt
0938e628e375d96404d766aacae8119e
8cf6589c3059ea10c001827d16b8e0ce01112195
273570 F20101130_AADCRU rocca_s_Page_154.jpg
230136442cf62856fa0fe61a8755ffd5
5672882f48d46045b8501043a0bd5ac54d15a147
40437 F20101130_AADCSJ rocca_s_Page_169.jpg
840f947105a6e706204e2367cd2eae99
4f2b789ed4aa7eb1f6a6491421504f21d50d8297
23848 F20101130_AADEBG rocca_s_Page_059thm.jpg
753b3f5d53ee8434f2451562cda3b741
b685b6f874eaf991604e4e9bc0ceaf51c89506d4
23628 F20101130_AADEAS rocca_s_Page_050thm.jpg
0200203e52747fe63648018b1655e319
02f9546c3d3310c6462196870c324b0b840b6eaf
82378 F20101130_AADDWA rocca_s_Page_136.QC.jpg
72ba95d6414d224a40e7fc449ab5aa1f
c0d2b1810eb1a7774da73174e8729d4bb19599e2
20075 F20101130_AADDVM rocca_s_Page_166thm.jpg
345e7af8a630acf1c3f20c5a7064fdec
a44dec801fe89cd1ae316e3bba589c0b49a7a53a
2699 F20101130_AADDUX rocca_s_Page_187.txt
70c8d71e8cf00d3b4618c481fd87afda
c6d00a002a9dfa12bdd33956c0152c5141636a20
127092 F20101130_AADCRV rocca_s_Page_155.jpg
2db654b784edeb063481268156fdc0fd
d8d33ce44d20639440695c204b12ddd49e057fd1
175366 F20101130_AADCSK rocca_s_Page_170.jpg
cf7497657c2c7c1f5cbef0c15d80c4d7
b095a68e6ea26ab048dc7ebe88ee0838aabad9b1
75807 F20101130_AADEBH rocca_s_Page_059.QC.jpg
b3258b484af3717b311643e1f366636b
ee7f2af18943416d632dcd796e11cdb60e343c90
78011 F20101130_AADEAT rocca_s_Page_050.QC.jpg
1c86db42547a8e6c00207c74836ee4eb
bb7bb6291a1692d3b850ea22b239d4a97288bb75
78045 F20101130_AADDWB rocca_s_Page_128.QC.jpg
86e784fe5bb96713d687392b092709ac
11aa52cdfef80a17c4aaf508c79e64f50fad2b51
55083 F20101130_AADDVN rocca_s_Page_092.QC.jpg
64aaa0aa4a65b82190c3b51a8ba47853
26339e490b16200a43e7ff746823c30aa96055c7
2633 F20101130_AADDUY rocca_s_Page_188.txt
998f89833afc94ffbccdde5f6b706a2e
bfdea4bd863c73441ac17c84c07425a2e5abcb7d
57606 F20101130_AADCSL rocca_s_Page_171.jpg
093cb22b1c03d5d407f72f97cbf4a9e7
166c6eb8525b07d5af76579ad35cc5de23d4921e
159413 F20101130_AADCRW rocca_s_Page_156.jpg
63436efd97a137338e6444e33d81c221
13aba9e9c6a75f2923f92bce9efcdd44a1aa8861
24458 F20101130_AADEBI rocca_s_Page_060thm.jpg
7b5d48ff0c840ba3a3fe9251d7393242
323c3764857f2a4b9e3461e312b219dbde3a4dc5
24532 F20101130_AADEAU rocca_s_Page_051thm.jpg
27546cb8824dd9ab17e4399977f622de
fe303b497051864b21bbce0299bc74d2d07d4ce5
20824 F20101130_AADDWC rocca_s_Page_157thm.jpg
6d317838321cb3460595f1d109923672
af195c7543795d87caa436ef7a94a3c657e209fd
66291 F20101130_AADDVO rocca_s_Page_014.QC.jpg
f4389fb7ad7115cd524edd7534105c8a
eab9a202e122d3fede15ea61b4ab2089c4fe5ec6
2514 F20101130_AADDUZ rocca_s_Page_189.txt
e0345af9694a34a974188e0083b465e3
41ce4ecdc06d95f5f09b3a735a7d1bd439c8f568
276536 F20101130_AADCTA rocca_s_Page_187.jpg
bef49b0273efb608202658501306e3b0
c7b806db65e18a094ea6b8c2fbc672e321c6c75f
139461 F20101130_AADCSM rocca_s_Page_172.jpg
d168f49b046f43252529f74540f177bd
5d5bdde0b926f5d0a2e302dea527cb1041d6a520
229061 F20101130_AADCRX rocca_s_Page_157.jpg
127c7224fe27a339555811948c7b3603
b665982054b1e213cde7c9a227f1f416396c9e42
76291 F20101130_AADEBJ rocca_s_Page_061.QC.jpg
4d5d6ba0552445c7fcdbc293a8f161f2
c1e9814d8304d02932f812d79efe4db6f06f40f2
79475 F20101130_AADEAV rocca_s_Page_051.QC.jpg
d995cb54daf3eb74f20a14c160ed00e7
66ade3c732f3b64e40b2d21109d70d93aa009bbc
24267 F20101130_AADDWD rocca_s_Page_033thm.jpg
5d496cc3b528a6ae82590bf6a8fc48be
ad6d650ed1254fcd6f1c7119c9deec3588fe3b97
75544 F20101130_AADDVP rocca_s_Page_027.QC.jpg
7567a2b93c2a10b28f1db0253d8ce339
784e13b9278c57528344d7304d8cc634e92357fc
267524 F20101130_AADCTB rocca_s_Page_188.jpg
777184d5b41728eafc518bf93682fd94
d2489c66bb06dd32b482e3dc0f09e5c696fd7daf
39395 F20101130_AADCSN rocca_s_Page_173.jpg
ba4614474e2402cd09cd9b10c5cf222b
3afd55a952b1833944e12deece5f89b4f58d7bcd
251388 F20101130_AADCRY rocca_s_Page_158.jpg
bd6887dedfed733326d28efbebf9cb0d
3c6775faba67026fa88b0f012a82f80907aeb1d7
74992 F20101130_AADEBK rocca_s_Page_062.QC.jpg
66e9e62f0c1bd30ab31fe16599506c29
6b1cc31b8770eb4821ce3e43022992b115d53616
25160 F20101130_AADEAW rocca_s_Page_052thm.jpg
e1e2437b8ba296e62ec61c0c7e4838b0
4f2f23a35ca30291c5238482e448712aa987e724
34416 F20101130_AADDWE rocca_s_Page_191.QC.jpg
39f0cbbb622e0c6430f046e7420d2e77
8609108df5edbdda12f0c99502f7a8f358ecc31c
7682 F20101130_AADDVQ rocca_s_Page_001thm.jpg
0478919b608113cff1c74d7a8f723d8d
df821195884e122938fdf6be02448dcee6089eaa
255675 F20101130_AADCTC rocca_s_Page_189.jpg
71599f4f2339385ba42914b2255b4653
6457013f7ddcdf609685c0109240414742dec25f
147835 F20101130_AADCSO rocca_s_Page_174.jpg
231695ddb1eae4e8ba5b8681453f1838
fd2d55ecd39d6484e34faa8df11b32e12b660969
102806 F20101130_AADCRZ rocca_s_Page_159.jpg
3406fe1a1c7af25727403044955d96f2
07af9405bcd92292ca13b47ac50c64c1752966df
64844 F20101130_AADECA rocca_s_Page_072.QC.jpg
17401fe49771ae0047dd6c2f56e9252f
a46b6bd79e174149e9f47e66cf0cdce170a9a10d
74866 F20101130_AADEBL rocca_s_Page_063.QC.jpg
42a5f76a4c8b26292e022c1bc0e6c16b
1ecc53588ef6c40fa2d4d67e819f7e77f392b2b6
79700 F20101130_AADEAX rocca_s_Page_052.QC.jpg
c77f533c22cef62407e5699dfd888276
75268872ce72e22ca6f25b132e8767ce23e67e4e
80879 F20101130_AADDWF rocca_s_Page_064.QC.jpg
127eab68de49a4adef05ffaca1ac395b
657fa791f464205de52e930fa13a18a24baac980
21759 F20101130_AADDVR rocca_s_Page_024thm.jpg
e16be137fe7ad8bfbcb9b9e99ebd0019
3ed5009f471da28b0be0f01f1b6d278bea5e1f56
105026 F20101130_AADCTD rocca_s_Page_191.jpg
541fe14a7afdfa4fcf08f75c98fa3099
516d374fd4506090c8278b58dc07c0e161db2013
148459 F20101130_AADCSP rocca_s_Page_175.jpg
162f18fca008d0eae12ebd72944b9be8
8ef2542783b644542cf697d67f363b9c026b63c3
77506 F20101130_AADECB rocca_s_Page_073.QC.jpg
e199802005d5e10068be860ee40de9e1
c2cd6a645968e33c50ac5bc423245a0c3adff9d7
25952 F20101130_AADEBM rocca_s_Page_064thm.jpg
ca3f88a8512311dd192b8754c8a96545
b556d855440793237ac4f0023d9a68b123d2e7d7
23834 F20101130_AADEAY rocca_s_Page_054thm.jpg
5867ed6ecc17abd56d0483be982d1cfe
81e62eb497770fdce16268c31c18e9d451ef0751
24892 F20101130_AADDWG rocca_s_Page_063thm.jpg
ecf6d2bab6316f99a082b4c63dbe3247
1123fb33f9e1a0085222bab998da69734413549b
17492 F20101130_AADDVS rocca_s_Page_094thm.jpg
5b940321bed2add8df0cb9ee88ee0267
b93195f71b52f459baee0ce87233d74388299f11
181141 F20101130_AADCTE rocca_s_Page_192.jpg
073e79da91a938858d2b922a590010d3
76247b270935b3f303732ea1adaa3977f71b8089
167536 F20101130_AADCSQ rocca_s_Page_176.jpg
5a389184684b2cc1b53abb703a7b3ff3
22ba796dbb312c33f8a50b56ca1626b1538050c1
24542 F20101130_AADEBN rocca_s_Page_065thm.jpg
d83a721d4f311736fc3033ffaba05557
84dd09381d522cf921949e9eb42f2c9132021245
76018 F20101130_AADEAZ rocca_s_Page_054.QC.jpg
5a9c99d7a779fcb0caa91c29a50a8dd4
123f296ebc40b6c6eb5003dc69d34eb217f2720a
74780 F20101130_AADDWH rocca_s_Page_077.QC.jpg
092d60489c85486048fe1972be81d76b
df62d6fbf84c08a02db2a698db83126354a13bff
23514 F20101130_AADDVT rocca_s_Page_030thm.jpg
e5fecfedd49e7959180d4e19e6cfb911
3cc924a99f23aee089d30089ce6ba69efc7634cd
142366 F20101130_AADCTF rocca_s_Page_193.jpg
8671cbca4478a6c5075bfe3dcabf0709
5f08e48df512236641b723d18c7241b87607cbb6
101964 F20101130_AADCSR rocca_s_Page_177.jpg
35ffae757fa2da11956f29a16a96cc78
33ad6a0d5d087f334c5330780cb2215c70d2deb9
23815 F20101130_AADECC rocca_s_Page_075thm.jpg
c6f33edf958e50fda7ba0cf3bb6d7478
570251fb2f176c88d783d5d771789476e055b948
80667 F20101130_AADEBO rocca_s_Page_065.QC.jpg
2c2b52ca99a6273f2091b6198158132b
f106c56f0b53d65c43abad02e959037bbb282884
67587 F20101130_AADDWI rocca_s_Page_157.QC.jpg
7852e98732069e630f43ee1730d80149
acbff3b75f260d939db584d8a2eb5b06065de80d
81368 F20101130_AADDVU rocca_s_Page_020.QC.jpg
e9813dea50bd1778443f1e6bac7c6831
a11e859cd78125809041ebf9972a03456d6b79e9
29169 F20101130_AADCTG rocca_s_Page_001.jp2
2983e60a4c056e73735864514255510f
c0d241eb11797ed43b49ac6e755e7a7bba919cb4
236830 F20101130_AADCSS rocca_s_Page_178.jpg
604c7302a9be71a9e726dc1b3750e459
53409652cc7c4ff0a5246e04c15ba1dbeb710bca
71909 F20101130_AADECD rocca_s_Page_076.QC.jpg
fda1d9d6beca8098a84dfbe36e0a7c18
e5fab7789f7bad95f7904bc7e0b825a7c94f8659
24821 F20101130_AADEBP rocca_s_Page_066thm.jpg
661b648bd8974774250a9081038ece7c
318a890f4769cecbfa8443ae18d30f0cabf83951
23085 F20101130_AADDWJ rocca_s_Page_028thm.jpg
eacc0f148371fb4053302894966d61d7
7f9a46d81aea7827993404f868e7d78f08a72588
25247 F20101130_AADDVV rocca_s_Page_130thm.jpg
e42f3e104cfe2442ace8b945aa03f5fc
f310f632725845af6b2e7f46223a9ab9148ef8e0
5815 F20101130_AADCTH rocca_s_Page_002.jp2
a4cf28fee1d124d05f33d9a869d9e3a5
92a096af7f4c8ddb022fa9ff100332ed9ec0daec
256281 F20101130_AADCST rocca_s_Page_179.jpg
1540cbc2a00db62f1050c7b345617011
156fb039fe0ee1876c4bc60b546098388ac52f64
23412 F20101130_AADECE rocca_s_Page_077thm.jpg
dc54cf623df39c6cf2e7e7b4e71592d6
5f4a7553ddb86f53684574b9f0ad4db54fcb306d
80655 F20101130_AADEBQ rocca_s_Page_066.QC.jpg
8fb82171910fe1076ad90500440795cf
1c06792adff4e01ece5c5afa5827f1e63f3eabce
39978 F20101130_AADDWK rocca_s_Page_012.QC.jpg
2684025d738dec10fa9ae39c89ae37d4
203e40f02af2533595e98e43f57dbbd90ebcb9d5
5923 F20101130_AADCTI rocca_s_Page_003.jp2
b4c4cb453f988d2f6dd6af4ed1698453
2678bc88d6065597c340aa5f53472f6eb244bce1
78680 F20101130_AADECF rocca_s_Page_078.QC.jpg
ba0580176cad5521eabd498214598f65
a1e7e1e540a77d323169d61aa63d56072b394f35
25977 F20101130_AADEBR rocca_s_Page_067thm.jpg
4a64f7849dd8fdee86f3766a7085487a
7c66560c265d9c2338ab42fa1e3c99d9797b914c
72305 F20101130_AADDWL rocca_s_Page_165.QC.jpg
6ce595b15a43ddbb6d04ed2807540acd
141f7f3752b9b8cb0e82a2aec7bd1fb3d09af19d
79406 F20101130_AADDVW rocca_s_Page_038.QC.jpg
d2cb728c5e05d5fc9aff546049e204ea
7d2a84ee6238a465efca0f689dd5438a251717fc
87244 F20101130_AADCTJ rocca_s_Page_004.jp2
4ae10fc16123695205df16a2ee91a0f5
9b0f48274d90d325dd991739722e9e79a29e3171
248950 F20101130_AADCSU rocca_s_Page_180.jpg
a4cbad7776b2ee97cf5948e8e310b7aa
680003af00a4fb8ca01f5a7f3e696e67e4bd718f
82660 F20101130_AADECG rocca_s_Page_079.QC.jpg
1e64aba3d7cffbf6fe12f42ed9d8eda9
2f511a2db257aab6eb179161706ba04046ce246f
83335 F20101130_AADEBS rocca_s_Page_067.QC.jpg
d7bbb454a464e2eff0f64e2755708312
667853e281819c906a39196aa91ee476366acfc1
24732 F20101130_AADDXA rocca_s_Page_061thm.jpg
59259408c314e7f7f1996a6f4850b5a9
52de5c2617b74b90964cfaa81676e7e94f0725d6
24048 F20101130_AADDWM rocca_s_Page_182thm.jpg
187cbefe4e751028ded96cb4e9635342
045406f889c7457c30df11d6dd15e7bafec7cbd7
24477 F20101130_AADDVX rocca_s_Page_041thm.jpg
36fc91d57ae942329c1babb56a8b7413
803ff87da3c5e33fd99f4b2a95b9e180bc792efb
39274 F20101130_AADCTK rocca_s_Page_005.jp2
e69ef38e73ed6dc829869ee653a6db23
0d4239e161131cf155aaeacc2f8634e53ae573b4
269948 F20101130_AADCSV rocca_s_Page_181.jpg
3a9c70b5985c37b31b6e94e613f67c4f
093385b76869f840892fa5d835999246c43f7fe7
24145 F20101130_AADECH rocca_s_Page_080thm.jpg
9eb2d67e357b8c68be00dc33f7737954
f1eee51ed7f275f3f8af3a37438ec2b6fdd87e9f
22994 F20101130_AADEBT rocca_s_Page_068thm.jpg
7fb886540e96e8c0abc2238595ef23b4
d26342cbced0e281efceb61fc53b0d0d657fab53
81156 F20101130_AADDXB rocca_s_Page_182.QC.jpg
f72b5accec34ad4cfc79fa064d7074e8
14db5744a34a31f200a5f9d74e263efd65b46ef8
24027 F20101130_AADDWN rocca_s_Page_120thm.jpg
cc9247fd37d11c3d7379b14bc3ab9ff6
04576364b4523839473ee3d7e2220512a9508300
71179 F20101130_AADDVY rocca_s_Page_075.QC.jpg
bae1b30471d350def84cafce478dbcae
47c0b64a1899bbf50fad2764e95bc4958e88a773
1051981 F20101130_AADCTL rocca_s_Page_006.jp2
0861ad3b641ae7198762a2e3fedd126e
60ae0c5359b0349ca972636df700ac813eb42ca2
250624 F20101130_AADCSW rocca_s_Page_182.jpg
67324f0e0ef9f1ce31a5c3be5c0a2b41
2bfbdf763b4e9b70f0038fbece966e450600e781
79588 F20101130_AADECI rocca_s_Page_080.QC.jpg
a0f7194f4713334666e32021eaf652d1
b1f33307a9063dd78c19e977c1a101d1bbbb7adf
25172 F20101130_AADEBU rocca_s_Page_069thm.jpg
541bc7bb240cc1deca14938da7641ecb
ec64f7a63fc13147aa75dad137893f06e54e0d30
79166 F20101130_AADDXC rocca_s_Page_131.QC.jpg
095ff345f7f83d3ec9dcec7088b6a49f
34f0a4e6290fe7dda026f1d04597d46a5013110e
23799 F20101130_AADDWO rocca_s_Page_181thm.jpg
9de577c363a5aa7458f2bcb333ca546b
d47a17c81422689f9d11df5f98363a5bd02ee118
24230 F20101130_AADDVZ rocca_s_Page_058thm.jpg
fd256e4857666d524834a74f6d43e9fe
4753c582aeac64fb86f4caf27b0db41ec2a91945
1051970 F20101130_AADCTM rocca_s_Page_007.jp2
e5b576452eb196e594403ca441638e8c
9920ea05633b0b8b485cb9d9c4ff20b93783c907
281413 F20101130_AADCSX rocca_s_Page_184.jpg
7e9d8ba70c603ef54fa320e005bd933d
872605f8126f1e059ec14ec38492e59a50a1c138
91726 F20101130_AADCUA rocca_s_Page_021.jp2
b7d341b1d87efa2bd8acd9c4e0178134
b1f4d318c53be5071abe5d17a1831c2f8270f084
22455 F20101130_AADECJ rocca_s_Page_081thm.jpg
44a8ba0ba8c03246df8f21588681dfbb
6bd53c032d28a9b514b8b02fd4e06e50befa49bc
79157 F20101130_AADEBV rocca_s_Page_069.QC.jpg
3f2311b138f7059f42d3658fa1883c1e
0b7fc21897b754f29af3d74d359a1eaea930a106
23434 F20101130_AADDXD rocca_s_Page_117thm.jpg
aca99d741e8331df18e61bd120904207
f35b5a3633509d9df217ad76897434ac3bf76e2c
19495 F20101130_AADDWP rocca_s_Page_111thm.jpg
d53b63060ab1141b196f4ec5cfe9ff15
1f6ac79c38ed27541961552c53f4d83830f3f711
F20101130_AADCTN rocca_s_Page_008.jp2
b59692f427d643ab5d8ba83fcf05c934
912aff4ad5836b23dc1dbea0f1fa644e26ab09a6
259127 F20101130_AADCSY rocca_s_Page_185.jpg
58352655721dabd0b63d10b94328e153
3a5b455dfdd92d6ba35d0b7a354cf05b85575c9e
108277 F20101130_AADCUB rocca_s_Page_022.jp2
3508f06a5473c082814d0654704f5819
cc71845fb78794edf7290e8e666fdf335af9955d
72670 F20101130_AADECK rocca_s_Page_081.QC.jpg
1b26cae484f096fc90f1be1464970b6e
492a8cb8daecdc93665e4fa9033449c0946f7e02
24396 F20101130_AADEBW rocca_s_Page_070thm.jpg
42bebaf3d6856ff918cba2c63686f664
11697ebbeec281df679e681fee8d1502035e77be
78875 F20101130_AADDXE rocca_s_Page_130.QC.jpg
9d6ba50ecb3446c9ba28aae34cedc4bf
1fb82b3292914053387b72bd35dd923fc12c9c02
24069 F20101130_AADDWQ rocca_s_Page_185thm.jpg
8a052fda34af2fbeea67e4153197ec6d
d0af82ad19cb071cba0d0d0fa3d8703557abd4ca
456825 F20101130_AADCTO rocca_s_Page_009.jp2
290f23773f603b6736cb87e7583ef39f
e00ca752b23a408369a3be9b59ce625fb708ba7f
265941 F20101130_AADCSZ rocca_s_Page_186.jpg
5b4814d46c1fa1ab66d9cacd4abe73f5
4730381b100371ee0617606f6b64f2496d4e6f87
112617 F20101130_AADCUC rocca_s_Page_023.jp2
d469ca6755f384e7a19076bbea0fae3b
fae84b0f6ae96b55141e22d440bd21d84ef24906
19823 F20101130_AADEDA rocca_s_Page_091thm.jpg
3ff771f5ca762df7a35668cf1be6610d
d5054e474417b5ec98f94eb4383561b63283ee67
23493 F20101130_AADECL rocca_s_Page_082thm.jpg
48b09430017b970b568448f210326ea0
e6fefe57b108d5ac0c709ed0388b9bc34a518b2d
76240 F20101130_AADEBX rocca_s_Page_070.QC.jpg
d8fe1720f2f5d3520db4570cce09d16e
f6c25414288e008f31c29144b82fc4ca3f892d47
34332 F20101130_AADDXF rocca_s_Page_153thm.jpg
2e5dc365c6587f8409244553634fc447
a51c37424bccbba4b1e165c0e079fcb4e0a98d36
24957 F20101130_AADDWR rocca_s_Page_079thm.jpg
c046fee2f7e6a5f55b20354b40517ef0
ae6a0dda32dd3cf510e903ff69486b605e0f98e7
F20101130_AADCTP rocca_s_Page_010.jp2
75f57a381aa19f93bbddaca66ffc122c
aff4e50238cd9fbc551066f5b7a685deb8a5291b
106294 F20101130_AADCUD rocca_s_Page_024.jp2
c4cc50598619eeb9b98573a0e7e268b7
eb10eebb19eb8a3a6db1e49deaaff3c9de53b657
66661 F20101130_AADEDB rocca_s_Page_091.QC.jpg
ba89e79e376ab692d420305304432984
763c762e54d98a66f875dfd38362401e34a48ced
69596 F20101130_AADECM rocca_s_Page_082.QC.jpg
8ce9b6009a1f0871ee7c133fc52e5297
517009b0ddbf3d47a233cb421d60423c2b249e99
24519 F20101130_AADEBY rocca_s_Page_071.QC.jpg
49ec6e06d7b6972470795ccafc0b06f6
9f40139401ed9e17ae2d46f31fc9f2fa1e97ba7a
79505 F20101130_AADDXG rocca_s_Page_135.QC.jpg
0e47767d6a36c334ddbcec5d76cea617
7dbf4836981e17b5a3a5174de1aa199ff0f16710
69486 F20101130_AADDWS rocca_s_Page_107.QC.jpg
7ac9f6f0dbc38d67a6389942189ea1eb
82f179e1b55762c40b132a80fe8772a971fa6cc7
1051975 F20101130_AADCTQ rocca_s_Page_011.jp2
b27171ae2c76d19274e07ad71300d3f9
bcd6798e6b94d6095561647cd9d7a1c915d75cba
66147 F20101130_AADCUE rocca_s_Page_025.jp2
07834eb237f0924ffc27cf1229f48c4f
0a4d797b3de9877b36a1e000514207b1a75faf4e
18009 F20101130_AADEDC rocca_s_Page_092thm.jpg
b8b1192f800428d53283b78577c8ec56
adbe650f62f84d8b1820c62c8c242acc65fd9d9f
24183 F20101130_AADECN rocca_s_Page_083thm.jpg
b1c2161f58eee75da47ec43b1cc92cbc
0b69a3a58510326d6f4446b7e8adab41e2cbbd63
21508 F20101130_AADEBZ rocca_s_Page_072thm.jpg
fc8e5398cf7b63b5dcc36d544b91a43a
4306bb369c0234d04fed88267dc0c8d48db42dc2
25759 F20101130_AADDXH rocca_s_Page_074thm.jpg
c6f707359aea5009e64bc6013c832c14
fe72ca19e6f467b173adc82a4c5ffa11c94b7a0a
72094 F20101130_AADDWT rocca_s_Page_085.QC.jpg
dcf0ce164bfb9a6e3cc144eb9186b798
5d5a033bb2660e0d860036a20f4456c52d71fb23
284955 F20101130_AADCTR rocca_s_Page_012.jp2
7989c426e497053a8f85a857bd3c3f04
d391d23762b909bd126d1de41b0a2c347063915e
131643 F20101130_AADDAA rocca_s_Page_185.jp2
276436826131aef8eec73c1d2ce34505
0baf9b9fa38542664d77c9c05ddbb312db252b07
97607 F20101130_AADCUF rocca_s_Page_026.jp2
ba6ebb13c700987f0185cd4208912425
60d5461ddb3cb4efa482f826d64c1f7c12b3c7f0
73350 F20101130_AADECO rocca_s_Page_083.QC.jpg
8d1f01cfe44c8e0409b58def095a9694
5b4fc925154a12b85b3c7c279896d97cc8faf08a
70429 F20101130_AADDXI rocca_s_Page_015.QC.jpg
e8e7af147c311d6a16b484375728486b
645b5f4b8ee5d625696dc49d361854da40a4d5a6
75468 F20101130_AADDWU rocca_s_Page_017.QC.jpg
b6060c6a0c1569c2796761dbfa4c812b
7fce11d2285909e6b75798081934c7cd3ac4f163
86398 F20101130_AADCTS rocca_s_Page_013.jp2
081868c9df63f65aac47cb75be461a0d
ff1f2836c8d3c9db5e518795f899611d283aad6a
108078 F20101130_AADCUG rocca_s_Page_027.jp2
61d1e75acf5a7a8559411329e35c4e17
d6dbaafba14255b5358643b79a1847adabf9fed4
19938 F20101130_AADEDD rocca_s_Page_093thm.jpg
6f14320c7bfd3b65548fa88df6fb322d
cad1160c98dc2bbfdb4a2fa76b813c4dae6ab22c
24709 F20101130_AADECP rocca_s_Page_084thm.jpg
4971d3f4431f499172e5e3c6e8588d06
0c665d96097bc336884436302c935e275a85204d
67108 F20101130_AADDXJ rocca_s_Page_095.QC.jpg
c1d115f437a25459a18f917333c2a32e
0ef166110efef84844f5a8ebb9cdfb2e6d5848f6
24876 F20101130_AADDWV rocca_s_Page_133thm.jpg
98f0a6d32110d22ba5d5bc5084c30af0
2e4dfe404cb97a266676cc1f103224c8215bb72d
93080 F20101130_AADCTT rocca_s_Page_014.jp2
8e4f178a4a798aac50df17e56535b3b3
15aa5fdf973d418b3ae146c45154ee4967b9f716
135728 F20101130_AADDAB rocca_s_Page_186.jp2
628c4a45c565c52ba9d80bbad79601bd
935ac9466f35e39b46dab7af48dcf185c0f87da1
103304 F20101130_AADCUH rocca_s_Page_028.jp2
4762b622e94460ef529f03068d5c6826
51ad182e3b8d979f06eb30ddffec16bc8ad0c158
60649 F20101130_AADEDE rocca_s_Page_093.QC.jpg
9b7c47943758090dc516d8d7205bf5ba
267ebea795f7b6ee28748ddbf3b047dae0c9230b
79438 F20101130_AADECQ rocca_s_Page_084.QC.jpg
530f469ec623eaa4e1432850582787d3
0285e96fbbbd687d46ca7c69521f1f36494e9607
87286 F20101130_AADDXK rocca_s_Page_125.QC.jpg
437bda75d2d59d3105c9169016c84f3b
643b5663166e5c52f3cfbd3d0c68907909b243c4
81743 F20101130_AADDWW rocca_s_Page_049.QC.jpg
61f002d92689916f393459ca269c1e00
a4ba2a02b329b3705e46c74969684dbe018a5171
96288 F20101130_AADCTU rocca_s_Page_015.jp2
b4ac7c37e6f52623f09e05745b31bbc1
44acadcf7265d76476b6560d6c689a8bc8cdc18c
142817 F20101130_AADDAC rocca_s_Page_187.jp2
7d20849f264c473b0123c80d03ddce8c
bacf8090b9ca365f369826c8fb9180fc5cf94a5d
89118 F20101130_AADCUI rocca_s_Page_029.jp2
253e90f6d620811d1a2e1511b69ae1eb
94aedb1371a57ea44527105d0b1acfecb90774cb
53493 F20101130_AADEDF rocca_s_Page_094.QC.jpg
1de3f2147bfeb9091e8732e0c4b73126
0e4f7223bd197fd05a7fbd569fab857196968d77
21927 F20101130_AADECR rocca_s_Page_085thm.jpg
d53a9f24d8951664a815270360e55c5b
df64efde09ca69928bdba88759aed355cbf0229e
105418 F20101130_AADDXL rocca_s_Page_010.QC.jpg
53a24f9292b58acf11aef73743af164a
a5e8ad59a151118b270bd41217ba8655aa56b20c
140985 F20101130_AADDAD rocca_s_Page_188.jp2
ff9f0dc6b2aa855a68b969fb6cc309c8
da776eddd98a416ba28c0bee60c3f548a8e3a7f2
103661 F20101130_AADCUJ rocca_s_Page_030.jp2
cdbfe609ecba6c5432a92a7ec154d265
5f3ad9b1e72b24adac23650d51a75e57c42bfc0b
21235 F20101130_AADEDG rocca_s_Page_095thm.jpg
7448a4739df1dcf0498336508b638a00
c7e4b60b9fb981383e3ad9a06c129d3617e3a4ed
11198 F20101130_AADECS rocca_s_Page_086thm.jpg
fb5dc4dd8c133ae72c646f738aeefad5
eab76eb75cbda1ff7927db6c578a74ba4f769048
79937 F20101130_AADDYA rocca_s_Page_074.QC.jpg
37f2e5a3c31eeeb1c3ce2795df82ce30
4bf22a32819c01ac71c068e9b244981eb5434ae8
74049 F20101130_AADDXM rocca_s_Page_030.QC.jpg
353d563cbb6e8c82c914cfab2531de62
94872d12a51cd267f3b1b8dcd643ae452603e5b9
85408 F20101130_AADDWX rocca_s_Page_132.QC.jpg
d87108fb40a785c9770b8caf1a3a8cf0
98b4a5dfdb63b43566e785ffecb6196032ef444e
110073 F20101130_AADCTV rocca_s_Page_016.jp2
61a9b79043b39a7020e8f0f31f259306
f2fd1970f38f5ff3695f0ee5af7a9e26f0d6f66f
134732 F20101130_AADDAE rocca_s_Page_189.jp2
dea3c51ffeca75a3a36c190ff736f898
93fd7e09a0710644213c51d6257bb805bfb37dc8
46571 F20101130_AADCUK rocca_s_Page_031.jp2
e97c666698bf4e6430aab880fe52726d
ddd5186b3d450f7f87e59975359d59d7173f3adf
23265 F20101130_AADEDH rocca_s_Page_096thm.jpg
ac2efbf61a1040b9634556bfcd3e78f6
55071843faa3b9a1076fb534e077fef319f9bb07
31209 F20101130_AADECT rocca_s_Page_086.QC.jpg
725442d065d0e79e9b618d726bcae1ab
532b3e3f625204cbbf32898d3924530cd6ccea6e
82664 F20101130_AADDYB rocca_s_Page_047.QC.jpg
b4d7202d875ebc2f0d263fb670fb37b6
16eb84102a071c4f02d8e9f5bc0621cfcca67555
22607 F20101130_AADDXN rocca_s_Page_114thm.jpg
77c8422b65e4bd5cd374b1954f038cf3
ee4f19da810fa9759d1ffb3f47cc7f537900e5d2
75620 F20101130_AADDWY rocca_s_Page_060.QC.jpg
ab9ab0d5270a1f4a3ef0a9e9fbff4671
2a2effed04a8662d00c95527105a96737c93974f
104459 F20101130_AADCTW rocca_s_Page_017.jp2
46bc5575bd411d1c0daa81dad52be4c3
4fa5a8e557c937283f644c0e7d131f9e172f243a
138100 F20101130_AADDAF rocca_s_Page_190.jp2
53b171dec238acd8b852d35b7964ef16
9df3637b7a2dc7c83266bdad0b2e6a5f51ef853d
105290 F20101130_AADCUL rocca_s_Page_032.jp2
5305ae9430c1814c4678ed736ec12560
94d02bfe035aebec727d6d3bc5e1d82f4f01dedd
70826 F20101130_AADEDI rocca_s_Page_096.QC.jpg
bae96df37d0a9ec903559c5e86abf700
77e3f0a83ddcc9f5ba9e55546244cd1494fba174
22468 F20101130_AADECU rocca_s_Page_087thm.jpg
255eed23f290887c52d290e5b305fae8
d616e5e196ad8839b8d27bf64230ee55d82a3c03
61741 F20101130_AADDYC rocca_s_Page_103.QC.jpg
d758806354b2c831f77c4867cd931cbd
42f0c9dd41666282f02945caabe855b3c6e91022
80829 F20101130_AADDXO rocca_s_Page_127.QC.jpg
aa92620135da00ebff25c2ff80092dc6
9c3b85c3fe80de8aefeec02ffb572457732b9914
21277 F20101130_AADDWZ rocca_s_Page_116thm.jpg
cc08534dc642d7b826b8659c87106b0a
df6f16d15a8e7a6b6c5c72cc5af4f4a72d11fc57
106801 F20101130_AADCTX rocca_s_Page_018.jp2
4831e4321574e80bdd90ec87908d0f32
1185e3caa1dcbd8831becea5d75c237371561017
55111 F20101130_AADDAG rocca_s_Page_191.jp2
93321b251cdaa297734fb85be885cd01
91625d5dd45f722ca9af33495db94225c101bb08
106902 F20101130_AADCVA rocca_s_Page_048.jp2
9eabd99be5bd537354d460b89cc7fdaa
d015642f5e7cd07bf25e26e8712569085b1a51cb
111075 F20101130_AADCUM rocca_s_Page_033.jp2
9dcd78f5f439813bb1d4c2119207e1a8
c9e2194a996ef5a55bb78b743c1c8a98a075cb72
15081 F20101130_AADEDJ rocca_s_Page_097thm.jpg
848029dd3537d3b5ad679ce20114bc2e
90f48cca92711762cf4aa12e600f96134f9d9c09
67871 F20101130_AADECV rocca_s_Page_087.QC.jpg
ab8e14753098810e94edbf6e637a85bb
4fea1215651c22430d1d6ff28d250d951473b5e1
69235 F20101130_AADDYD rocca_s_Page_160.QC.jpg
2e2c32e5201fae512fedd23c2a5f0e9f
2aedf6e60130c1afc31b65e37fdde06e18f7f1cf
25461 F20101130_AADDXP rocca_s_Page_136thm.jpg
79bcd80e0c1043942fbffbd26991ae06
167cfdda01dd62a627fb9bc282e7aacdfc5c5d72
107047 F20101130_AADCTY rocca_s_Page_019.jp2
1c501f036f7b15d9ba5fed93d7820184
195f1f221ba2eae8983e8028499b27bfbc7061a2
93436 F20101130_AADDAH rocca_s_Page_192.jp2
ee4546a6e65240f4c6f3c469df835d12
477c1fe9b1636ade11ab7351be73ae6ad5fac982
117567 F20101130_AADCVB rocca_s_Page_049.jp2
290c0dd79b3400fdb8de67dcaeffd7c4
83c73e28423cd2038ed75e2d1cedd50dd1783896
110994 F20101130_AADCUN rocca_s_Page_034.jp2
d3d6abf1b0d5cf58edbfec615f5ca223
38f8cee5f8da5c7c9a1c230b0d6444902b0dff04
46695 F20101130_AADEDK rocca_s_Page_097.QC.jpg
8b9e875d06efcff69ed6fcf7c91965b6
66decab56afd0ce8a1a3810eacafd34e03cbbc05
23905 F20101130_AADECW rocca_s_Page_088thm.jpg
0c79e1f569524a18f5139975a0b67ee5
fdf7e879bf49471662e0a5ee5d669eaee1d1a9cc
24155 F20101130_AADDYE rocca_s_Page_049thm.jpg
73e23cd99b569df2e66210affa4fe5e6
38e02a76139a0100ec05468413afbad4e084ed04
24884 F20101130_AADDXQ rocca_s_Page_125thm.jpg
8c16db8b953038402ba667e7aa02b0da
4ded90f6ba584c480752d271d47a77d6fd37bf6d
112506 F20101130_AADCTZ rocca_s_Page_020.jp2
9e4fff6c1d41bc6c9cf276aec342f6a1
10b49ffee18c0d9e41f5e69433b7ac5cc6fe78b8
72989 F20101130_AADDAI rocca_s_Page_193.jp2
6a5fa1ea5a2bbb2e2ff71c45faa843b0
599859b5d33778c110267c8722d1ea70a058800e
108564 F20101130_AADCVC rocca_s_Page_050.jp2
713d18c5d6d8b020b8ca78647bf5bcfc
ffbe3fd223cd8b04d9553431b07c878dc7d0be1f
114242 F20101130_AADCUO rocca_s_Page_035.jp2
7889dfee17b418b41bfcb48fb1d9ad55
3ebd16ab4dfeeb6bf7d44a7d3c090a7b9200918e
45326 F20101130_AADEEA rocca_s_Page_106.QC.jpg
1e55e6cc859fa8ea5d224969c24a57bb
0efd8da55ebea6d486aeaed615cdd4170a1fd8b3
21524 F20101130_AADEDL rocca_s_Page_098thm.jpg
3b18d8ca626ab8a75efef519955d23e8
6b570bf4fb5885ed761961e677fb5b688854f444
F20101130_AADECX rocca_s_Page_089.QC.jpg
443dd816ed4751472dd8bf4edb5c6caf
ee3e4cfba13eed37d70ce5c27ccd428de9a2a42f
286589 F20101130_AADDYF UFE0010003_00001.xml
89fe2baf6466f43926a56f3265fafcf0
c439e356971783d3219b7dd9fb22111ceae37640
25019 F20101130_AADDXR rocca_s_Page_146thm.jpg
d35aff25c220d6921e75652502d3cca5
ad8eabf7c224222ccafc834bf23173136fde18f5
F20101130_AADDAJ rocca_s_Page_001.tif
569aacdfb5c499a15a41095a9bbc90b3
56f5539e53ef54db7826c763e9e0ef37d83d410b
109794 F20101130_AADCVD rocca_s_Page_051.jp2
c4fa371439b48cfa381143d39739db8b
7302e0379accd22b3bacc0ce91b5c98d2834537d
109691 F20101130_AADCUP rocca_s_Page_036.jp2
3438b66ec6837a0824439e1748fe5cb6
0f9f4b65469a02c3d4f33da58c37c56f11a85ae4
58497 F20101130_AADEEB rocca_s_Page_108.QC.jpg
d72d4bae1557568e0939c6872840220b
7ae72abcc81ffe3255782ec5f201477c948fc20f
73642 F20101130_AADEDM rocca_s_Page_098.QC.jpg
7d0b33077bb9e86b1ee4ed621a16e9c0
ba31c9f07f7678dd908a334b8952dbf7ce37ccd5
21856 F20101130_AADECY rocca_s_Page_090thm.jpg
76c076b36b7a97d81b931ec96a31f39d
48888109bef97fa6b57b4255303a63a84e6c11d4
23706 F20101130_AADDYG rocca_s_Page_001.QC.jpg
9a56314412eb9ebfee2591dc6404e1f0
2af1d937c0fd3d884e575079712a90cb72b10311
77176 F20101130_AADDXS rocca_s_Page_068.QC.jpg
69a0fe3f78364aedb51053381b0a6d84
75102b738ba8b95448202da1ebbb738961e361a6
F20101130_AADDAK rocca_s_Page_002.tif
38d18761de42f468238abfd908b7903a
cb2c1affb6481105c0df892c38ceb55f12cd7c05
110022 F20101130_AADCVE rocca_s_Page_052.jp2
d89081d5f0b69a59c636500b42fbc7e4
3d27f35472d2a022d5f0d57dea0774a74cefa741
110050 F20101130_AADCUQ rocca_s_Page_037.jp2
c0e82a38b658f1a1c54317b591f40b6f
2048f1a2933fbe3fb7a161dc650a793d4655f572
10756 F20101130_AADEEC rocca_s_Page_109thm.jpg
00edd2d4ecdde90fe055948b4e11ccd8
4cc8657424e583d425d3dea6df567ca9522504cf
16343 F20101130_AADEDN rocca_s_Page_099thm.jpg
dd041754e926645499add0d0ef7fa79e
554688aa1fbdfef3412927e579bcd6589211ebf2
70922 F20101130_AADECZ rocca_s_Page_090.QC.jpg
e2bc1f6eb24ea3c3abf4e96e51a0088e
cd2f9014a09ee2c01375c2cd26b2e33e76833ee2
3177 F20101130_AADDYH rocca_s_Page_002thm.jpg
be5058683b24d3ff8b726f5e1d2445e5
24b7d8537ca219e6ece5046ba7b8c61c24593587
75541 F20101130_AADDXT rocca_s_Page_011.QC.jpg
6f3ae39c65b8b185657c46bdb849d77c
ae8bd8c9d69468ed246a9c8080cc7b52fd1c5c19
F20101130_AADDAL rocca_s_Page_003.tif
5c639120afe61706e19964a14b5400c6
d005a3f8f5d2f6ed7b276b9fadc472341cd89d8f
103893 F20101130_AADCVF rocca_s_Page_053.jp2
dab45b93f6c50265a8fa792dd41df2b1
555d736b8ba1d11315a35c0a42a3d4d6df25b707
110899 F20101130_AADCUR rocca_s_Page_038.jp2
9faa3f69edb9ad590ac3c9bfadd72bdb
c53142ccc46988efc61865c0edac19944a753c29
F20101130_AADDBA rocca_s_Page_018.tif
072c7d75ee3a4961ecfdaecaf2eb011f
3664deef3384f918018fc07b071f38778c805999
31512 F20101130_AADEED rocca_s_Page_109.QC.jpg
724c542a96e6edab7e2b56202a53d98e
485ea0adbd604badda25c60d264c752b69ea25f0
46109 F20101130_AADEDO rocca_s_Page_099.QC.jpg
e805eb814e9e6a410362c1f0e31fa494
126bf89efaefcbafa743f64d6ee34939768a6160
2984 F20101130_AADDYI rocca_s_Page_003thm.jpg
34cf7908d9011d04669cdf070e9524ce
859bc71c962a0724e2459d5519302d87a1511729
25325 F20101130_AADDXU rocca_s_Page_141thm.jpg
4f65ef80fdf7bfd2156ece3b83195797
7cff0c87dec6c3619f3b17270bdb37d00b7185c5
F20101130_AADDAM rocca_s_Page_004.tif
f3f42315acedef769e46f1a85123ec17
48621773dad8df2299a48e2434ac12f5767eb6ce
111535 F20101130_AADCVG rocca_s_Page_054.jp2
b5322b3db428289e816dfdf017175689
479049e110acc5e930941aebeaab651bc0382e1e
111904 F20101130_AADCUS rocca_s_Page_039.jp2
703c29c0b1a40fcfa962144d5c9d7ba5
d14ff1e60adf5f3855b6f5e7b8318cd94ff4ee60
F20101130_AADDBB rocca_s_Page_019.tif
636884c3ad44b5123cae79232d100407
8630813a16937f1e6c9a0ecd8d564208b21b97cc
18700 F20101130_AADEDP rocca_s_Page_100thm.jpg
f7b7520abc464563506afa049225abb7
8eb12905f39f0114bf0a4c2d0b9ca3af77ec5c58
5333 F20101130_AADDYJ rocca_s_Page_003.QC.jpg
f1bcb2849cf4c88bb93b3ffd083516b9
c61ce76a165ca6c90423c47dcd608eaa077fc4e2
67486 F20101130_AADDXV rocca_s_Page_168.QC.jpg
fc4ff0576af8b105d96202e045175347
beaf413559ad0033e46ea876231d499ac1d847a7
F20101130_AADDAN rocca_s_Page_005.tif
ca43e7e75f44e49e29a795ebed9aaf3a
f15c9b3142bc9df57d99259d6594de39b3c70afa
103015 F20101130_AADCVH rocca_s_Page_055.jp2
be419753b4ba084fd3675be07756c77a
e4b3a9eb64f9548868fe07c4fe05b20502af18c9
109384 F20101130_AADCUT rocca_s_Page_040.jp2
2ad0dde8617923c40a3148da3c212cfc
295b1bf737b4d1dc8288a7e4ae8c863440637740
19902 F20101130_AADEEE rocca_s_Page_110thm.jpg
a7c6e06ceeabb3c1940eee000c01e31e
755f7a0201c026caefb30fa8d408d5f315234be1
59045 F20101130_AADEDQ rocca_s_Page_100.QC.jpg
e74cee16823beb230d01f38fe372f38e
1fdbc838269a06e30d42a7ffa5cbb2cd53874a3d
20789 F20101130_AADDYK rocca_s_Page_004thm.jpg
8872931e48bd63af71d66af1179685e3
ed5e735f6edd5d58817ee36a38a7e88cf60895a7
24745 F20101130_AADDXW rocca_s_Page_057thm.jpg
98b0e4ea14becb0fc96cfa8e314f762b
5412c7230c00d0bfc1a4574099b9f1da6f690428
F20101130_AADDAO rocca_s_Page_006.tif
dcf9358e52fc8cf3c7601ac82da6ae3c
942700a015bc96cf1f23a92e07043c0bfd471e43
110063 F20101130_AADCVI rocca_s_Page_056.jp2
d7157f1bf68debde135cd0305322573f
280886254799cbda5c2d6a48c865f1496b745340
108653 F20101130_AADCUU rocca_s_Page_041.jp2
38d812e7622eef56bf3d118f1c5a3168
4fdf07c3bf0a4712cd194fd79be1c1e679756846
F20101130_AADDBC rocca_s_Page_020.tif
e26efe5e75cd7580009e017ce720abf7
ba4b8071597c1ccfd601b35fa685bb3e70332420
61112 F20101130_AADEEF rocca_s_Page_110.QC.jpg
9cbdc68e817932f8bd941a9395f6df5a
567b6e3290b3d46dcd2b20132f32d637ff4d5d67
22161 F20101130_AADEDR rocca_s_Page_101thm.jpg
bb3f22c9f60e5b849b247f46f060c668
33b85bb3387b526da1491c406442ca94169cc903
64749 F20101130_AADDYL rocca_s_Page_004.QC.jpg
b4b46e1a1e9cef7fac4e888a6fbaf58a
8d45a937372c706e8500a6de35c3f005f7b43564
38984 F20101130_AADDXX rocca_s_Page_151thm.jpg
b0f4a6fa28f724e83829fa3b5d0fa6c8
15f9a8d94ac6c55a4a91bbeac8d4cccfa39d9577
F20101130_AADDAP rocca_s_Page_007.tif
e5936ff438f1f8144c53144cdd439c02
ddbfab9171b72b12a12b649802bc1c7ceb291234
110974 F20101130_AADCVJ rocca_s_Page_058.jp2
cc8c7450d68de8875f320f99235d05d3
e1139282cf799eddf0ffdd3335ff7749bb000262
105376 F20101130_AADCUV rocca_s_Page_042.jp2
4904d5cdba6af1f8a087fc3ea241d08a
2bcf611b2ace55e408c5008c6c8b405a7316c3cf
F20101130_AADDBD rocca_s_Page_021.tif
a098a7a6783fe9c57e7d1007eb45c25f
68b6bf616441c8f3adb6a33535ca87828352ee55
61906 F20101130_AADEEG rocca_s_Page_111.QC.jpg
21ecaf0acfe41394c342576a0024e65d
16ad454b7342c86cd02f74ff2e945f870716dec4
69837 F20101130_AADEDS rocca_s_Page_101.QC.jpg
7b512fd1d22ce50107b8d0bb92f4abc4
56c82a37ec030e7e741dcb0dd9ef899b1bb0a6ba
25158 F20101130_AADDZA rocca_s_Page_016thm.jpg
fe57beb5f10611db04ed94b0da48762c
675dbf9c31f73b0b62190fc1531e4b8fa2c0e906
10363 F20101130_AADDYM rocca_s_Page_005thm.jpg
ecdab77894a6927679a82e07dce69b79
3911c32981fc2fbaf4f75d70630580776a975e77
F20101130_AADDAQ rocca_s_Page_008.tif
fc65b484113924543ec45231c4c5a3fc
c7058f61d837b61c5cbd00d073308a940a4653b9
105593 F20101130_AADCVK rocca_s_Page_059.jp2
fc302e5c266c6fb73ca3724a35d16e15
bb41a067f391c0ede37803fbf8aea8fa13a466af
F20101130_AADDBE rocca_s_Page_022.tif
dc8a22c11c4304c1e90f38f7a25d206a
bbe63559f740aa707b08812e4bd67dd0cf76926f
22959 F20101130_AADEEH rocca_s_Page_112thm.jpg
ae2c3e78c83314f83c7d183885ed91b8
f8cc8c6a3169873cab11039c61119f3bce833aab
18611 F20101130_AADEDT rocca_s_Page_102thm.jpg
9c40b26f9d00af914deb7225a3ca78c5
b5048313b8b944809d4eb87a1557e7ea5766f07c
23504 F20101130_AADDZB rocca_s_Page_017thm.jpg
47685a195659fbd9641bb8e6f0126898
a35fb70ad8f7d9f6db9baa315f6dacd954514454
29479 F20101130_AADDYN rocca_s_Page_005.QC.jpg
488b293215f678eb7405d6561bc23bca
64388589557eddc47b133f880a1d09288192ecf9
47470 F20101130_AADDXY rocca_s_Page_154thm.jpg
315d966b619af7918129c8b8d8ad4886
6045ecc073931ddd7fcc43afbe867e34c8b72ac5
F20101130_AADDAR rocca_s_Page_009.tif
e63d1a117d65221286c47e150159c9e1
6cd215843447c8e800acc153ff09826a33db09c5
106316 F20101130_AADCVL rocca_s_Page_060.jp2
924d33a44feddd187b5c83e3f20f0b7a
ecc7280145ac533ebeb7d10d0622a38f60858097
107893 F20101130_AADCUW rocca_s_Page_043.jp2
b6df669e0f684e2f8c28e42217181f70
0db99c6e48214d423b625e664d9347fc5d3d4dcd
F20101130_AADDBF rocca_s_Page_023.tif
e7ca9208b97cce9b5d1a2483e0449915
a7f3edb4d79d0e75684897d17a68240bc9367f7c
74475 F20101130_AADEEI rocca_s_Page_112.QC.jpg
0c304446aba45b426a3bfc626c8d33bc
6dd06b31eb82794a88710d33c981f7ec1d19ae9a
60065 F20101130_AADEDU rocca_s_Page_102.QC.jpg
4ae11f25364a0346599fa91b28e34235
fd0499079fb06f7f32133b253f4f6b0216d058bf
23856 F20101130_AADDZC rocca_s_Page_018thm.jpg
4c8573d2a9696d3b260cc0456f10d656
510ec441fbd6eae699262584b927cbdbee331972
44522 F20101130_AADDYO rocca_s_Page_006thm.jpg
ef3e8a5c6e3cb88f230ebca868bf15bc
933ce084de81ef8e04f94cf87ac9aa46dda644b9
79648 F20101130_AADDXZ rocca_s_Page_145.QC.jpg
a6f2a19c885cebfa9ffc65ba2d94e72a
cd9370622c545ed469b1ec69ca9ad501344b1c23
100657 F20101130_AADCWA rocca_s_Page_075.jp2
aceff71d78ffd18cca87dc4e7b6d118c
0d2ebac4603e8ae16592ab84356e8a152272dd2b
F20101130_AADDAS rocca_s_Page_010.tif
ac7d622b031f09f718e0f411ed6c258f
5ba27d368e388e3caf251cef89482deef0a6ffa2
106254 F20101130_AADCVM rocca_s_Page_061.jp2
efb4a4e44ee988d05bd8dd7b66582c0c
2c7c5537ead0675105dd260da0be13f23f1c256c
105438 F20101130_AADCUX rocca_s_Page_044.jp2
8d560b7584f94234e89d07c18a7a6100
a04f7ba8432014f108364f5152f1567138cff55b
F20101130_AADDBG rocca_s_Page_024.tif
c07aac20eebfee841eead2ed4eddd00c
a4aaeb38dec458a13674fe54cd9d1e04704f1c97
76645 F20101130_AADEEJ rocca_s_Page_113.QC.jpg
6e4248292d600f7db166a8dfaf770ee0
59775bd138dd34f4043bbfb92b0117e36e981bb0
19609 F20101130_AADEDV rocca_s_Page_103thm.jpg
b1bbafec0f0c007c14872ffcbd69bf35
d260a7b77bb04741db3d81dd07f8b35f2d182172
74858 F20101130_AADDZD rocca_s_Page_018.QC.jpg
97e14fd0ca49d1a2abf61a7b1f5ae82d
eded14befc3fb7e3001dd54d8263d8eaab9f8843
94910 F20101130_AADDYP rocca_s_Page_006.QC.jpg
dd81e40eec7d6c425da7d0eca213c40b
1038626a37e250eda433a89ca072d36e8b5455e2
102390 F20101130_AADCWB rocca_s_Page_076.jp2
58e3850a025f47b29e9506e6f0296378
e57b7b5022dc03aef166c85a5c702eabef4d497c
F20101130_AADDAT rocca_s_Page_011.tif
1f545a2c8296cd9e8e863a901a68348d
a54763a13abd77ef0e5e361ddb7da09ba51f7a9b
106240 F20101130_AADCVN rocca_s_Page_062.jp2
10a49888951fed4ce9a67935a0db3631
b126b7cc83b468bfd10d664c7b7589f4f917bd49
108884 F20101130_AADCUY rocca_s_Page_045.jp2
c9f17d55a11eab040eb5ebcee48695fb
c2629214e0e643f0eeca6cf735c847032201fadc
F20101130_AADDBH rocca_s_Page_025.tif
7e4195c1f811b831319038fc61bda010
8a75d4fc5e5190f5ade76b9b7815da7c2075fd11
69712 F20101130_AADEEK rocca_s_Page_114.QC.jpg
5d4523f26506caa5a19e7342ef515aa8
85952c28a6cb15f0f042258ba1a1c375dd3d37ad
20670 F20101130_AADEDW rocca_s_Page_104thm.jpg
f4e25bf8979d2167d9b0a45a7bd7cac6
1250ee818a2aeae2fbaeb713d5218119d771c4fb
77743 F20101130_AADDZE rocca_s_Page_019.QC.jpg
59408f903c86d0fd2d83ab167806d812
3c763978cbee00a75fab8c07a3807c6dedff9d9e
51814 F20101130_AADDYQ rocca_s_Page_007thm.jpg
e7d840a85521757a88d6a16771f79968
d88b9dbf78db16a130301a32ba5719e632815b24
105212 F20101130_AADCWC rocca_s_Page_077.jp2
791a21c6e5bfc43c3d7aa20de7085df3
43dc8e97def1927fad698beacd270fac5340aebf
F20101130_AADDAU rocca_s_Page_012.tif
ef8151e59c4eeb18758deac900b8d32e
fbe6149dd0f4aaa23696786d63b6c33679fd662a
105349 F20101130_AADCVO rocca_s_Page_063.jp2
b7a28fd274d39ff95d344e89bc0d5b56
46ed0f343bd5cbeb2a1c24e49343091195594233
118622 F20101130_AADCUZ rocca_s_Page_047.jp2
c58dd703718b5b5c2705dc1997deed75
35ea560433e60c261483e865d21a62181c4e68c2
F20101130_AADDBI rocca_s_Page_026.tif
a86f278551bb6ce270c7ece668230ad5
f574082d13674d02ad519eda3087808848374663
19935 F20101130_AADEFA rocca_s_Page_124thm.jpg
9967b5755801a3c1b7b6b54a24dc1923
0052b18703e5e65f32e5ea465b82e25caf5fa08e
9477 F20101130_AADEEL rocca_s_Page_115thm.jpg
86dd634cc3f549eebd00f49914b256d8
bd03094a2a56b8824456f41f8d2d3857b116e77e
19077 F20101130_AADEDX rocca_s_Page_105thm.jpg
7ddc3012696063e31115fbbf816b2040
ddcd1297642ae2771176688367eceae3061c50a9
24577 F20101130_AADDZF rocca_s_Page_020thm.jpg
60e6e6895a1c388a8182b02c8ecbaa71
e02bec2ff50a6a25d54a8389576667b7302936fc
110629 F20101130_AADDYR rocca_s_Page_008.QC.jpg
8a1dc1c8db9249b71165e65c32a61659
b1644a382aa24af9358f2705c2031de178d7f003
109636 F20101130_AADCWD rocca_s_Page_078.jp2
76d6b9494f7db26fca0b2d7eb92a4e5b
c047c364e52b8de0bc452e3e85ea1252cd22da98
F20101130_AADDAV rocca_s_Page_013.tif
355116e5055983fdd46834961c63e162
45ea981f4ab5563d18eaa27369a68e8c539c0e59
111711 F20101130_AADCVP rocca_s_Page_064.jp2
441127202f5c97689716c7549de7d372
2ce76488c655f53950e3d29e0768c839845f7ff3
F20101130_AADDBJ rocca_s_Page_027.tif
2a56453dcd7de7fb68c2c8fd45ced3db
2f0e1c77d065f4153ba214419e92bed3ce76ab27
64409 F20101130_AADEFB rocca_s_Page_124.QC.jpg
245c03edcb83572d5f96b689d32d93a5
681301436a95312be3a6eb8eeca7a3dd029aef92
29062 F20101130_AADEEM rocca_s_Page_115.QC.jpg
de94a6f90b999b8c345365df59a8ae64
558a589d14c6b01718234ad43267eb59a789c867
57695 F20101130_AADEDY rocca_s_Page_105.QC.jpg
443a6f7a21a7462260453de58a48c77f
5cc047a5943127ba80f3a96fb632292b403f9ef8
20693 F20101130_AADDZG rocca_s_Page_021thm.jpg
a655a068ef30bd4d9353e92ac520cc71
0f1d3fcb09ed90389d3193e66879a8573e14b50c
48127 F20101130_AADDYS rocca_s_Page_009.QC.jpg
02bb306e86cf02b2d930c54b1837f703
99d72d99a1c495c490c1a791a743434625d014da
110925 F20101130_AADCWE rocca_s_Page_079.jp2
733e96e7c1b37c4d3ab834b922fc5d36
d67c5dc4d6239430eeabb5736af31ce12000354a
F20101130_AADDAW rocca_s_Page_014.tif
71330e1c75159b3eaabbfd4b284cbd1d
4f746c91dc2302a8fc405a5a9ed318cc67b1bcf1
109546 F20101130_AADCVQ rocca_s_Page_065.jp2
49a287e02c9666adb03eed997e51a685
6f9605e8c1c2fb44079b1ae74d179a6c186974e9
F20101130_AADDBK rocca_s_Page_028.tif
677befc69fa4bb98d79d15f8f341ea71
2baa4c0fcbae09be34c9ec8bb4886e9a5548b257
23029 F20101130_AADEFC rocca_s_Page_126thm.jpg
d17b096a052664671b83cc2a64f0e854
01d2dd683e638cb7a1802f851e403bf6abbe6b13
66568 F20101130_AADEEN rocca_s_Page_116.QC.jpg
b10fc47c02a5c8a3211739fa352d0737
219169e0e62c091a06194d9a132b1958078765f1
15078 F20101130_AADEDZ rocca_s_Page_106thm.jpg
ef502e39b6c10fc329e06ae3fa1a3a7a
972abaa6601a643502639c05cde7c9b139e51512
67577 F20101130_AADDZH rocca_s_Page_021.QC.jpg
2891b564f1eefbfddaa3501a599afd37
c21c06ae5a55482bee19423fc57eb014ed7bf4e4
48201 F20101130_AADDYT rocca_s_Page_010thm.jpg
5b43ba7db204f0b7d21e9eebbf42d1e5
883d37fe6f7f9de6fd56f485c3dcf73c480e03e9
107422 F20101130_AADCWF rocca_s_Page_080.jp2
96a14310a9b0a1155d886387234f730b
936bb2a1c86bb0d78c9610d8ee3dd60d4cc08713
F20101130_AADDAX rocca_s_Page_015.tif
4ddc94961c2f095aadfe9323efdd3af0
5450c68679ae38ef8a8bd24e2673a81919c1f7de
127271 F20101130_AADCVR rocca_s_Page_066.jp2
621ad8512d801a1a0c01310f3374a90e
de4242522dab895fa5366e7fed20d2045398c719
F20101130_AADDCA rocca_s_Page_044.tif
ed7ef5eb2d3a82f43a4d04f4f44755fc
c6cd0905395db8a3ed60f5f393619df843eb6c88
F20101130_AADDBL rocca_s_Page_029.tif
0a371fa969900b6d2ab5357d769d4deb
3feabfa3bdb8fca6faeddf23897f6428745f7881
77001 F20101130_AADEFD rocca_s_Page_126.QC.jpg
1de3709ce380a008c67298b9bb3c4312
9151dd79e96a4f0c80a7c69e48a95cf157957841
77938 F20101130_AADEEO rocca_s_Page_117.QC.jpg
aeeb185070931f54771f81e3040097dd
8bdf8ed17fcf8d1bc71526580a0548311b3dc68b
21161 F20101130_AADDZI rocca_s_Page_022thm.jpg
fdb969cfbc2e61dd4b54307fa55d3f6c
fb7b4a2e2692a33d448badda79afe027aea62b1b
40321 F20101130_AADDYU rocca_s_Page_011thm.jpg
493ebd8d320469651ae19f723da82296
94dc61ade6beb5f30a16904cac4af17729c5032c
102368 F20101130_AADCWG rocca_s_Page_081.jp2
0cb96e6a59bee6fe768e8b2f58507d1a
fe01c0de3f2ccc263bcd52c3f69601df7420f6c0
F20101130_AADDAY rocca_s_Page_016.tif
6793f2d4dc7a120013676545c489fc07
e588059554f4d8a59b1a549e0189eb5bfa620d7f
112994 F20101130_AADCVS rocca_s_Page_067.jp2
4af25ac7efbef1ad0822921623d27ea0
b4fe1701ceaa8bfd3c37465fad62a81935168e8c
F20101130_AADDCB rocca_s_Page_046.tif
da23d43196cce2402660d96fbaa98243
6ba1d5abff195bd9dcb186cc7de8d3c68f5e9f24
F20101130_AADDBM rocca_s_Page_030.tif
2b0d2d8702c0a2169048c675a550d572
42b9d2e36ddb53e75e3ad521f8059df48a31b9b1
24870 F20101130_AADEFE rocca_s_Page_127thm.jpg
6ce6c09c05ba81866e0e26372b8b94c0
33610b0a1985077d939d241eef05f04572d73b52
23853 F20101130_AADEEP rocca_s_Page_118thm.jpg
3f7ccf737e164b5048786e0748d27fad
5a3e6e77c297b1c25e1d49f0ab8fdc980e2b32e1
69528 F20101130_AADDZJ rocca_s_Page_022.QC.jpg
46ad56b5f850e8f873017e6c171f1d5f
b35b26fc3cfde431d7a33d9244c0a1885173cd0d
30770 F20101130_AADDYV rocca_s_Page_012thm.jpg
df35a9c62309b86ca8a0c4719080d7fe
d2a7debe8a58254c85e6d46ebf7d91c8289b1768
99714 F20101130_AADCWH rocca_s_Page_082.jp2
48f0195d0e80c29abd650e0d6087fb42
c418a68e9abc48a958a3a6f9ca58a9d973ee1957
F20101130_AADDAZ rocca_s_Page_017.tif
ff7a8ce6b9ef3dfc4d1aa05bf1c70ec0
fd50395c61d25ecd83485e910d8702bddb3093d9
108366 F20101130_AADCVT rocca_s_Page_068.jp2
afd6916cb3f91bc31bf5e3ddc1bd4fef
536addb7804a3ae8a4d405b38a4e765de4110444
F20101130_AADDCC rocca_s_Page_047.tif
06e2bf8281f04979a17bbb528d0cc6c4
f2090a149d25c062ddd61546382375c057d46e18
F20101130_AADDBN rocca_s_Page_031.tif
e9197984318bbb2a3d7ed0cce96b2dd8
a734d043f0f33eaa315d524dc77217b63cef261a
74684 F20101130_AADEEQ rocca_s_Page_118.QC.jpg
07274d804d7316f6d04737a074d2ff7a
674bf2ac1bd1add839f2ad7647cab9bc088ca28c
22102 F20101130_AADDZK rocca_s_Page_023thm.jpg
2967760ccee5b0511e5ee05ab9370ab3
4ba6ae97645fa91c67591342465526dc35c52832
19537 F20101130_AADDYW rocca_s_Page_013thm.jpg
0858d1717edcd9531125a8d0268b13f1
70c954827a09803c469795fe881e02a0aa63bad8
104398 F20101130_AADCWI rocca_s_Page_083.jp2
dd1be02fe1dc290edd6498b576b66e6a
083e8f590e7b62ad95228e6dd4608bcd07908a38
110529 F20101130_AADCVU rocca_s_Page_069.jp2
41fad6b6e9763a85961567fed586855f
9fda1b695076e88dbb8af5cdc7fab6a8b41284e1
F20101130_AADDBO rocca_s_Page_032.tif
d907fe85e4c84bf2933df4096484bdfc
00a18dfebbab643159b59ae40ace15c32cb255f6
24287 F20101130_AADEFF rocca_s_Page_128thm.jpg
b1a3e8258ff7e12850142dff29ed3877
22df6be62d9c7008d084268138b64d1f27388628
22470 F20101130_AADEER rocca_s_Page_119thm.jpg
486ded264a4cddb9084572926e5c883e
339a3992b555c09a5488e733c83e8cfc49fac49c
72122 F20101130_AADDZL rocca_s_Page_023.QC.jpg
08ae2bf225635581524f45dc2a59e2a5
51681262d1d9af2d02e66709f37ea2b31b1ea59a
58827 F20101130_AADDYX rocca_s_Page_013.QC.jpg
1e25b119bf7f0e190d7b019390e963d6
44dc42ab1a9dae7670138c83b9d8c441c7d2a95d
112824 F20101130_AADCWJ rocca_s_Page_084.jp2
5077271700abe97130a9e0bbd5f2a786
725b16d26bb03de44c9760e142e3b54c55964a84
108205 F20101130_AADCVV rocca_s_Page_070.jp2
759d21e6fef460aaec35aa10122752be
d8dbb184d5731b13b5dbb338e329a148f1f9c6e2
F20101130_AADDCD rocca_s_Page_048.tif
46c597cc69ed83825c41ca4d525fea91
3071d46a87e035e9c64fdef46288d673360df9b4
F20101130_AADDBP rocca_s_Page_033.tif
0a16ad1a54cd61cf6eb18438e58eaa28
ff29f7876e5bb110be4477d1ec66b51685a5fe11
25372 F20101130_AADEFG rocca_s_Page_129thm.jpg
ca30dbde0572ad04e0845dde93ced4bd
90939e22a621d380a1328718f5bd3b312fd9c446
69021 F20101130_AADEES rocca_s_Page_119.QC.jpg
9322bfaea400a8056f4ac2e1bbb3a8dc
2a7a9c3e26f6acf8b99e0d8471b356a0fddd4701
71275 F20101130_AADDZM rocca_s_Page_024.QC.jpg
3eea5b89457c84fe181452fed5f8dff9
db308ad1feb46e03a6022873473248b395a60173
20550 F20101130_AADDYY rocca_s_Page_014thm.jpg
15eb4a9f49ca54499f27e12c04468a81
606dac607becbe05cc4c660d236f51bf37ee27dc
97694 F20101130_AADCWK rocca_s_Page_085.jp2
627d2c136008a1dd00fa5bdcf44ff49b
2faa3f0fc3e735602dfcec51ef85020a0d603339
31843 F20101130_AADCVW rocca_s_Page_071.jp2
48f51d730a3185623362803d5b0467c5
26be52661a557e43048aaaae6eff2976b1657c9f
F20101130_AADDCE rocca_s_Page_049.tif
3998e6af533f2a8e2bd9ca6289b9b0e6
a8f0a61456983a235b3bb68dcf1c66fee50d8965
F20101130_AADDBQ rocca_s_Page_034.tif
6effe22c0ca44c9700ed586860586d7b
6ff3e63f4a6894c5b12b2f026d9089928b366216
80654 F20101130_AADEFH rocca_s_Page_129.QC.jpg
41e46ae9500ef45d423e206c591a0865
4fa2008f30862bb898c6cd7cc70907be80145eeb
75120 F20101130_AADEET rocca_s_Page_120.QC.jpg
9ac4efd982499e603c1299897c2f6de2
9b09c795c0fa3323f412c4c88ab859a845e64891
15287 F20101130_AADDZN rocca_s_Page_025thm.jpg
3f9188e54efb19d25e381aeca92ba968
eb26cd670aaea1c873fa86db33c340e2b959e787
44360 F20101130_AADCWL rocca_s_Page_086.jp2
5917073696df92c977b4bc959d9f754d
4a6aaaeb5303ac4db827c832b974c1ae0368d97b
F20101130_AADDCF rocca_s_Page_050.tif
fabcc34fa86d546e131f0bbd374d94df
6af18ebf17d3df810210341e707d9de2b17654aa
F20101130_AADDBR rocca_s_Page_035.tif
e5755c26203fc0f46eceaeaca4e6f19a
3d26024cbbdf20a588404801af57c7d397c97669
25213 F20101130_AADEFI rocca_s_Page_131thm.jpg
6da118c768e9f276a6e6c828ecfe9695
2551c66f9d06bac1975d8dc97b0768277fe91008
23106 F20101130_AADEEU rocca_s_Page_121thm.jpg
d6942909e097a1f01d37d52d3e868706
e8c3604ac953024987a9f4000bdc0303eed7dcd4
45971 F20101130_AADDZO rocca_s_Page_025.QC.jpg
083afb103a822945c9ed41ac4d9f4af9
8455a8997b3e2e84b0f1069dfdddfd6adf6c0816
21371 F20101130_AADDYZ rocca_s_Page_015thm.jpg
35aa7785b509de03c82ae3aa7eb81d67
457b0d7382367445da81b59a615db4d04c281a13
95796 F20101130_AADCWM rocca_s_Page_087.jp2
8918ed34f582a96b9de0cd4f80acfa03
ebb7baf6eb15b551579f0473b0b02d99aebc581e
92620 F20101130_AADCVX rocca_s_Page_072.jp2
82cae790471e186a9de0e6e155f210bb
36eda6c5c1b3b966031d4ee127c3b7698e19af10
F20101130_AADDCG rocca_s_Page_051.tif
ef41265e199e90516f182fe8e7658be1
05687de68a7bf74733d3b43918a976a7fac4b9f2
95905 F20101130_AADCXA rocca_s_Page_101.jp2
ab3cca70344e9b87f9c062848e81b531
e04826ca528449289afc46a43b570031f57cab8b
F20101130_AADDBS rocca_s_Page_036.tif
4169adc6557ff7c8cef4043c769d5793
db7ec3ab50ae3b89aeb7e5b8a0b53a8e54c11ce5
26001 F20101130_AADEFJ rocca_s_Page_132thm.jpg
5c3dae4db2b1641b353a55ea31eb14ab
94d87a5aa9919b16727e0ff00655f0a68405f225
72774 F20101130_AADEEV rocca_s_Page_121.QC.jpg
ce017a6704b2eb44445df38b2e617f7b
b639606a010c8a71932d476dc8c6eb1938feb76f
22009 F20101130_AADDZP rocca_s_Page_026thm.jpg
1a474d777b65f845920c16b7f7956f41
1f96d3b9d82828efcf622c51b3b3b2e5ebcb8487
103191 F20101130_AADCWN rocca_s_Page_088.jp2
111595edee8662c48da8d784bd122dbb
5f57e56187eee24ff9f3ac64051405624eefc59d
109245 F20101130_AADCVY rocca_s_Page_073.jp2
a402166a36e9a0b4868dd8bcc049224a
dc6fe1371b49b04251f3eecb201143329130cc4e
F20101130_AADDCH rocca_s_Page_052.tif
dc99a83a598ce996ac5c92c5aef25db9
3f873b4b150f5be422ca6038fd51426e22fe5250
90470 F20101130_AADCXB rocca_s_Page_103.jp2
25797d942a155f42e8059f4f74c39577
2da34022e466c740bd70e74b5b767eb5b55bc1db
F20101130_AADDBT rocca_s_Page_037.tif
6c44d79c924c9f99d06ace9a71aea9ef
1d03dc3fe01bbdec81968a48f42ab947fb388c06



PAGE 1

PREDICTING PRESERVICE AGRICULTU RE TEACHERS’ INTENTIONS TO TEACH UTILIZING PERSON INPUTS, CONTEXTUAL INFLUENCES, TEACHER EFFICACY, AND OUTCOME EXPECTATIONS By STEVEN JOHN ROCCA A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2005

PAGE 2

Copyright 2005 by Steven John Rocca

PAGE 3

This document is dedicated to my parents.

PAGE 4

iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The completion of my degree would have been an impossibility if it had not been for the assistance and support of many people. My greatest debt of gratitude is to my major professor, Dr. Shannon Washburn, for his tremendous dedication to my success and the countless hours spent guiding me through my program His influence has not only helped launch my career in academia, but more importantly has shown me that true success cannot be achieved wit hout a balance in one’s life. I would like to thank Dr. Edward Osborne, Dr. Jim Dyer, Dr. Tracy Irani, and Dr. Diane Yendol-Hoppey for serving on my doctoral committee. Their advice, input, and assistance have not only shaped this documen t, but have also shaped my ability to become a scholar. In addition to my comm ittee members, I would like to express my appreciation to all of th e faculty and staff of the Agricultural Education and Communication Department. I consider myself lucky to have had the opportunity to learn and work with such a quality group of people. I have to admit that this experience has been much more enjoyable than I ever thought possible for this I have to thank my fellow graduate students. During these past two years, my colleagues have been there to answer many questions, provide assistance, and most importantly to help me enjoy this ex perience. I am very thankful that I had the opportunity to work with such an excellent gr oup of people and I am grateful to have had their support and friendship.

PAGE 5

v All of this would not have been possibl e though without the suppor t and love of my parents. I would not have had the strength or ability to succeed if it had not been for them. Their support and belief in my ability have provided me with the work ethic, motivation, and persistence to be successful in my doctoral program as well as my career pursuits for this I will be forever grateful. I am also very thankful for the support of my family and friends. My sister and her family have encouraged me throughout this process and my friends back home have always been there to lend thei r support and help remind me why I have chosen this path.

PAGE 6

vi TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES...............................................................................................................x LIST OF FIGURES..........................................................................................................xii ABSTRACT.....................................................................................................................xi ii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 Statement of the Problem..............................................................................................6 Purpose of the Study.....................................................................................................7 Objectives..............................................................................................................8 Research Hypothesis.............................................................................................8 Definition of Terms......................................................................................................8 Limitations of the Study.............................................................................................10 Assumptions of the Study...........................................................................................10 Summary.....................................................................................................................11 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE............................................................................12 Self-Efficacy...............................................................................................................19 Self-Efficacy Research Relevant to Career Development...................................20 Self-Efficacy Research Relevant to Teaching.....................................................21 Outcome Expectations................................................................................................23 Outcome Expectations Research Re levant to Career Development....................24 Outcome Expectations Research Relevant to Teaching......................................25 Goals Mechanisms......................................................................................................29 Learning Experiences, Person Inputs and Contextual Influences.............................32 Influence of Learning Experiences......................................................................33 Influence of Person Inputs...................................................................................36 Gender and ethnicity....................................................................................36 Socioeconomic status...................................................................................40 Influences of Contextual Affordances.................................................................42 Environmental barriers.................................................................................44 Environmental supports................................................................................45

PAGE 7

vii Contextual influences relevant to Agricultural Education...........................46 Model Testing.............................................................................................................51 Model Comparison and Integration............................................................................54 Chapter Summary.......................................................................................................56 3 METHODS.................................................................................................................58 Research Design.........................................................................................................59 Population and Sample...............................................................................................63 Procedure....................................................................................................................63 Instrumentation...........................................................................................................65 Demographics Instrument (Person Inputs)..........................................................66 Preservice Agriculture Teacher Inte ntions and Aspirations Scale......................66 Teacher Efficacy Scale........................................................................................67 Preservice Agriculture Teach er Expectations Scale............................................68 Preservice Agriculture Teacher Career Barriers Scale........................................69 Preservice Agriculture T eacher Support Scale....................................................70 Analysis of Data.........................................................................................................70 Chapter Summary.......................................................................................................72 4 RESULTS...................................................................................................................73 Objective One.............................................................................................................77 Person Inputs – Age, Gender, and Ethnicity.......................................................77 Background Contextual Influences.....................................................................78 Grade point average.....................................................................................78 Involvement in 4-H programs......................................................................79 Involvement in the National FFA Organization...........................................79 Enrollment in Agricultural Education..........................................................80 Location of childhood/a dolescent residence................................................80 Occupational experience..............................................................................81 Teaching Intentions and Aspirations...................................................................82 Intended Length of Teaching Tenure..................................................................83 Career Interests Other Than Agricultural Education...........................................85 Teacher Efficacy..................................................................................................86 Teaching Expectations.........................................................................................87 Likelihood of Career Barriers..............................................................................88 Difficulty of Overcoming Career Barriers..........................................................90 Teacher Support Score........................................................................................91 Relationships Between Variables........................................................................93 Objective Two............................................................................................................98 Objective Three..........................................................................................................99 Summary...................................................................................................................100 5 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...........................102 Objectives.................................................................................................................102

PAGE 8

viii Research Hypotheses................................................................................................102 Methods....................................................................................................................103 Data Analysis............................................................................................................105 Summary of Findings...............................................................................................105 Objective One....................................................................................................105 Objective Two...................................................................................................110 Objective Three.................................................................................................110 Conclusions...............................................................................................................110 Objective One....................................................................................................110 Objective Two...................................................................................................111 Objective Three.................................................................................................112 Research Hypotheses.........................................................................................112 Discussion and Implications.....................................................................................112 Objective One....................................................................................................112 Objective Two...................................................................................................127 Objective Three.................................................................................................131 Research Hypotheses.........................................................................................133 Recommendations for Practitioners..........................................................................134 Recommendations for Research...............................................................................135 APPENDIX A INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL..............................................137 B PARTICIPATION REQUEST EMAIL...................................................................138 C PARTICIPATION REQUEST FOLLOW-UP EMAIL...........................................140 D INSTRUCTIONS FOR ADMINISTERING INSTRUMENT.................................142 E INFORMED CONSENT STATEMENT.................................................................143 F EMAIL REMINDER................................................................................................146 G FINAL EMAIL CONTACT.....................................................................................147 H THANK YOU EMAIL.............................................................................................148 I DEMOGRAPHIC INSTRUMENT..........................................................................149 J PRESERVICE AGRICULTURE TEACHER INTENTIONS AND ASPIRATIONS SCALE......................................................................................................................151 K TEACHERS' SENSE OF EFFICACY SCALE........................................................153 L PRESERVICE AGRICULTURE TEACHER EXPECTATIONS SCALE.............154 M PRESERVICE AGRICULTURE TEACHER CAREER BARRIERS SCALE.......156

PAGE 9

ix N PRESERVICE AGRICULTURE TEACHER SUPPORT SCALE.........................158 O PARTICIPANTS' CAREER, EDUCAT IONAL, AND PERSONAL INTERESTS OTHER THAN TEACHI NG AGRICULTURE......................................................160 LIST OF REFERENCES.................................................................................................164 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH...........................................................................................178

PAGE 10

x LIST OF TABLES Table page 4-1 Institution and Preservice Teacher Participation Summary.....................................75 4-2 Post-Hoc Instrument Reliability...............................................................................77 4-3 Age of Study Participants.........................................................................................78 4-4 Participants’ Cumulative a nd Major Grade Point Averages....................................79 4-5 Participants’ Years of Involvement in 4-H..............................................................79 4-6 Participants’ Years of Involvement in FFA.............................................................80 4-7 Participants’ Years of Enrollm ent in Agricultural Education..................................80 4-8 Participants’ Agricultural and N on-agricultural Occupational Experience.............82 4-9 Participants’ Teaching Intentions and Aspirations Summated Score......................83 4-10 Summary of Participants’ Responses on Individual Items of the Teaching Intentions and Aspirations Scale..............................................................................84 4-11 Participants’ Intended Length of Teaching Tenure..................................................85 4-12 Participants’ Career, Educational, and Personal Interests Other than Teaching Agriculture...............................................................................................................86 4-13 Participants’ Teacher Efficacy Summated Scores....................................................87 4-14 Summary of Participants’ Responses on I ndividual Items of the Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale...........................................................................................................87 4-15 Participants’ Teaching E xpectations Summated Scores..........................................88 4-16 Summary of Participants’ Responses on Individual Items of the Teaching Expectations Scale....................................................................................................89 4-17 Participants’ Likelihood of Experi encing Career Barrier s Summated Scores.........89

PAGE 11

xi 4-18 Summary of Participants Responses on Individual Items of the Likelihood of Experiencing Career Barriers Scale.........................................................................90 4-19 Participants Difficulty of Overco ming Career Barriers Summated Scores............91 4-20 Summary of Participants Responses on Individual Items of the Difficulty of Overcoming Career Barriers Scale...........................................................................91 4-21 Participants Mean Teacher Support Scores............................................................92 4-22 Summary of Participants Responses on Individual Items of the Teacher Support Scale.........................................................................................................................9 3 4-23 Correlations Between Variables...............................................................................95 4-24 Point Biserial Correlations Between Variables........................................................97 4-25 Multicollinearity Analysis of Coefficient of Determination....................................98 4-26 Stepwise Multiple Regression Anal ysis of Teaching Intentions Scores..................99 4-27 Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis of Intended Teaching Tenure.................100

PAGE 12

xii LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2-1 Model of triadic reciprocality...................................................................................15 2-2 Model of person, contextual, and experien tial factors affecting career-related choice behavior....................................................................................................................17

PAGE 13

xiii Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy PREDICTING PRESERVICE AGRICULTU RE TEACHERS’ INTENTIONS TO TEACH UTILIZING PERSON INPUTS, CONTEXTUAL INFLUENCES, TEACHER EFFICACY, AND OUTCOME EXPECTATIONS By Steven John Rocca May 2005 Chair: Shannon G. Washburn Major Department: Agricultur al Education and Communication The purpose of the study was to describe the influence and predictive nature of person inputs, contextual influences, se lf-efficacy, and outcome expectations on preservice agricultural teachers’ intentions to teach, and intended length of teaching tenure. The dependent variables were preser vice teachers’ intentions to teach, and the number of years they expected to remain in the professi on. The independent variables consisted of person inputs, contextual influences, self-efficacy, and outcome expectations. A causal-comparative design wa s used to accomplish the purpose of the study. A purposive sample of 262 preservi ce agriculture teachers representing 42 different institutions was selected. This sample represented all preservice agriculture teachers completing their final field experi ence during the fall of 2004. Participants completed a questionnaire, which measured th eir teaching intentions, teacher efficacy, teaching expectations, career barriers, career support, and demographics.

PAGE 14

xiv Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and stepwise multiple regression was used to construct prediction models. Results showed that participants were predominately Causasian, from rural areas, a nd approximately half were female. Most participants had been actively involved in 4-H, FFA, and enrolled in agricultural education. Nearly all part icipants had grade point av erages greater than 2.5 and possessed some type of agricultural occupa tional experience. The findings provided partial support for the posited relationships of the Social Cognitive Career Theory, which served as the theoretical frame for this study. Analyses showed that preservice agriculture teachers who had greater teaching intentions reported higher teacher efficacy, more positive outcome expectations and s upport systems, and fewer perceived career barriers. Additionally, participants who per ceived longer teaching tenures reported higher teacher efficacy, more positive outcome e xpectations and support systems, fewer perceived career barriers, and stronger agricu ltural backgrounds. Results of stepwise regression analyses produced two prediction mo dels. Perceptions of teacher efficacy and teaching expectations were significant predic tors of intentions to teach agriculture accounting for 44% of the variance. Gender, ye ars in agricultural education, and teaching expectations were significant predictors of intended length of teaching tenure accounting for 24% of the variance. Based on these fi ndings, recommendations for practitioners and researchers were presented.

PAGE 15

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The agricultural education community e nvisions “a world where all people value and understand the vital role of agriculture, food, fiber, and natural resource systems” (National Council for Agricultural Education, 1999, p. 3). Ultimately, agricultural education has sounded the call to make all students agricultura lly literate. In order to reach this vision for the future, the strategic plan for agricultural education called for an abundant supply of highly motivated, well-educ ated teachers in all academic disciplines from pre-kindergarten through adult levels prov iding some type of agricultural education (National Council for Agricu ltural Education, 1999). Although this is a valiant plan, it faces a difficult challenge. Ag ricultural education has suffered from a shortage of qualified can didates to accept teaching positions for at least the last 37 years (Camp, Broyles, & Sk elton, 2002). In 2001, Camp et al. (2002) reported that nationwide 67 agricultura l teaching positions went unfilled and 35 agricultural programs were closed due to the lack of a qualified teacher candidate. Similarly, in 1995 and 1998, respectively, 41 an d 55 departments did not operate after failing to hire a qualified agriculture teacher. Agricultural education is not alone in its struggle for an ample supply of qualified teachers. The entire educational system of the United States is faced with hiring millions of new teachers. The National Center for E ducational Statistics (NCES) reported that during the period of 1998 to 2008, an estimated 1.7 to 2.7 million new teachers would need to be hired to fulfill the demand crea ted by historically hi gh student enrollment,

PAGE 16

2 teacher retirement, and teacher attrition (Hussar, 1998). NCES projections show that this trend will continue through the next decad e. By 2013, the NCES estimates that the national demand for teachers will be 182,000 greater than in 2004 (Gerald & Hussar, 2003). The difficulty of meeting the 2013 demand for teachers will be compounded by the retirement of approximately one milli on “baby boomer” teachers nationwide over the next ten years (Nebraska State Education A ssociation, n.d.). Even conservative estimates call for an increase in teaching positions of two percent per year over the next decade (Wayne, 2000). Based on the 2001 study condu cted by the American Association for Employment in Education, shortages of qualif ied teachers are already present in subject areas such as language, special education, mat h, science, computer science, and English as a Second Language. Shortages also exis t in high-poverty commun ities and in certain regions of the country where enrollment gr owth is large (American Association for Employment in Education, 2001). Compounding the need for additional teachers, onefourth of all beginning teacher s leave the profession by their fifth year. In high poverty areas, teacher attrition rates climb as hi gh as 50% (Bandiera de Mello & Broughman, 1996; Whitener, Gruber, Lynch, Tingos, & Fontelier, 1997). Unlike the decisions that are often ma de regarding elective programs, school administrators cannot decide to close academ ic programs due to the lack of qualified teachers. As a result, schools are forced to lower standards to fill teaching positions, inevitably increasing the number of under-qualified teachers and lower school performance (Ingersoll, 2001). Although none argue the existence of a problem, there are several schools of thought regarding a solution to the teacher sh ortage. Many believe the shortage is a

PAGE 17

3 problem of insufficient supply, while others see it as a teacher retention issue. Ingersoll (2001) suggested that teacher shortages are primarily due to the “revolving door” that exists in many schools, in which large num bers of teachers leave the profession for reasons other than retirement. Empirical evid ence supports such a belief as studies have shown factors such as job sa tisfaction can influence teache r attrition, absenteeism, and burnout (Cano & Miller, 1992; Davis & Newstr om, 1989; Lawler, 1977; Porter & Steers, 1973). Ingersoll (2001) stated that popular educational in itiatives, such as teacher recruitment programs, would not solve teacher shortage problems without addressing the organizational sources of low teacher retention. Teacher recruitment programs are the produc t of another school of thought held by those who believe the shortage is simply a matte r of an insufficient s upply. This includes state and federal agencies that have funde d numerous initiatives to help recruit new teachers, including programs such as Teacher Corps, Teach for America (Cruickshank et al., 1996), and Troops-to-Teachers (Defense Ac tivity for Non-traditional Educational Support, n.d.). Most states have resorted to alternative means of teacher certification in hopes of recruiting more teachers into the field. In 2005 47 states and the District of Columbia reported having some type of a lternative certification process for certifying elementary and secondary teachers. As a re sult, a total of 122 routes other than the traditional approved college teacher education program exist for certifying teachers in the United States (National Center for Educa tion Information, 2005). In spite of these recruitment initiatives and alternative certific ation programs, the teac her shortage has not been eliminated.

PAGE 18

4 Research in agricultural e ducation has proposed yet another possible solution. In 1979, Parmley, Bowen, and Warmbrod examined da ta from previous national supply and demand studies and concluded that the teacher shortage in agricultural education was not a result of a shortfall in the number of gra duates from teacher preparation programs, but rather too few of those graduates choosing to enter the teaching profession. Brown (1995) supported this conclusion, finding th at approximately half of agricultural education graduates had elected not to pur sue teaching positions. Brown (1995) found that although there were ampl e numbers of graduates, the problem lay in insufficient recruitment of those qualified graduates into the profession. In their national supply and demand study, Camp et al. (2002) reported that the percentage of newly qualified agricultural educati on graduates entering the teachi ng profession from 1994 to 2001 ranged from 48.4 to 63.8%. Conversely, a 2004 report issued by the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Educa tion (AACTE) stated that highly ranked colleges of education reported 90% or greate r placement rates in educational jobs for 2002 graduates who elected to teach. Camp et al. (2002) provided additional pertinent informa tion in the percentage of newly qualified agriculture teachers who were rated by their teacher educators as those who “probably wanted to teach” (p. 11). Of this group, Camp et al. (2002) found that 72.5 to 77.9% were placed in teaching positions between 1994 and 2001. With these numbers being higher than those of qualif ied teacher candidates finding placement (48.4 to 63.8%), it raises the question of why there is such a disparity between the percentage of those who wanted to teach and thos e who actually found a teaching position.

PAGE 19

5 Hillison, Camp, and Burke (1987) reported that some graduates naturally decide to seek employment outside of teaching. They concluded that the flexibility of the agricultural education major both permits and prepares graduates to pursue a broad range of careers in the agricultural industry. Ho wever, no matter what their major is, some graduates may opt to not enter the workforce at all. According to the United States Department of Labor (2001), only 84.4% of 20 to 24 year olds who received bachelor’s degrees or higher were members of the work force. These questions and disparities have receiv ed little attention in the agricultural education literature. Related research ha s primarily focused on follow-up studies of recent graduates. Results of such studies co mparing agricultural education graduates who taught with those who chose not to teach have been inconclusive. Graduates who entered teaching were found to be distinguishable from those who chose not to do so by academic achievement (Baker & Hedges, 1991; McCoy & Mortensen, 1983). However, Muller and Miller (1993) showed agricultural e ducation graduates entering the teaching profession were not distinguishable academical ly from their peers who chose to seek employment in other professions. Although these studies provide d valuable information, much is still unknown about this phenomenon. Additional research is warranted to better understand the career decision-making process of agricultural ed ucation students. Re lated research and theories from other disciplines may provide te sted methods to guide such inquires. One such theory served as the basis for this study. The Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT) posited by Lent, Brown, and Hackett (1994) was used as the theoretical basis for this study. SCCT was c hosen as the guiding

PAGE 20

6 framework for several reasons. First, SCCT is a relatively recent addition to the career development literature and it builds upon a larg e body of previous research and integrates other tested theories to help explain career and educational choices of adolescents and young adults (Lent et al., 1994). Second, the central tenets of SCCT have been well defined and articulated in the literature, and most importantly have been shown to have an influence on the career and educational choi ces of college students. Third, the central constructs of SCCT are task and environment specific, and can be adapted to the specific characteristics of different environments and educational tasks. Therefore, SCCT can be used to describe the specific social and cognitive mechanis ms that are important in the career decision-making process of preservice agriculture teachers. Last, what might possibly be the most valuable a ttribute of this theory is that the central constructs of SCCT are amenable to change and ultim ately have promise for the design of interventions (Rasheed, 2001). If, for exampl e, preservice teachers who decide not to pursue teaching positions are found to be lack ing confidence or self-efficacy in their teaching ability, then interventions can be designed to help boost preservice students’ confidence and perceptions of their ability to teach. Su ch interventions could provide a means of increasing the percentage of agricu ltural education gradua tes pursuing teaching positions, and ultimately contribute to the elimin ation of the present teacher shortage in agricultural education. Statement of the Problem To fulfill the goals set forth in the agricultural education strategic plan, the profession must have an ample supply of wellprepared, qualified teachers. However, the present situation in agricultura l education is one of teacher shortages and of hiring underqualified instructors. Although this dilemma weighs heavily on the minds of many in the

PAGE 21

7 profession, little atten tion has been given to understandi ng the factors contributing to the shortage. Whereas researcher s in the profession have pr oposed explanations for the teacher shortfall, these explanations have spurred few investigations. With further research, a better understanding of this problem is possible. This study was conducted to examine w hy newly qualified preservice teachers decide not to enter the teaching field, a phenom enon that is believed to contribute to the shortage of agriculture teachers. By i nvestigating the career decision process of preservice agriculture teachers within the constr ucts of the SCCT, efforts can be made to assist in providing a solution to this problem. Therefore, the following questions were addressed by this study: “What factors contri bute to the career decision-making process of preservice agriculture teacher s?” and “Which factor, if any, is predictive of preservice teachers’ intentions to enter the teaching field?” Purpose of the Study The purpose of the study was to describe the influence and predictive nature of person inputs, contextual influences, se lf-efficacy, and outcome expectations on preservice agricultural teachers’ intentions to teaching, and on their intended length of teaching tenure. The dependent variables for this study were agricultural preservice teachers’ intentions to pursue a teaching posit ion, and the number of years they expected to remain in the profession. The independe nt variables consisted of person inputs, contextual influences, perceived se lf-efficacy, and outcome expectations.

PAGE 22

8 Objectives The following three objectives guided this study: 1. Describe the person inputs (demographics), contextual influences, self-efficacy, and outcome expectations of preservice agricu lture teachers in selected collegiate agriculture teacher preparation programs. 2. Describe the variance in preservice agri culture teachers’ intentions to teach attributed to person inputs (demographics), contextual influenc es, self-efficacy, and outcome expectations. 3. Describe the variance in perservice agricu lture teachers’ intende d length of teaching tenure attributed to person inputs (demographics), cont extual influences, selfefficacy, and outcome expectations. Research Hypothesis Based on the reviewed litera ture and research, the fo llowing research hypotheses were developed. 1. Preservice agriculture teachers who have greater intentions to teach agriculture report perceptions of higher self-efficacy, more positive outcome expectations, more positive support systems, fewer percei ved career barriers, stronger agricultural backgrounds, and higher academic achievement. 2. Preservice agriculture teachers who percei ve longer agriculture teaching tenures report perceptions of higher self-efficacy, more positive outcome expectations, more positive support systems, fewer perc eived career barriers, and stronger agricultural backgrounds, and hi gher academic achievement. Definition of Terms A number of important terms appear throughout this study. To ensure these terms are understandable and consider ed in the proper context, the following operational definitions were constructed. 1. Agricultural education – the scientific study of principles and methods of teaching and learning as they relate to ag riculture (Barrick, 1989; Williams, 1991) 2. Career barriers – “events or conditions, e ither within the pers on or in his or her environment, that make career progr ess difficult” (Swanson & Woitke, 1997, p. 446)

PAGE 23

9 3. Career decision-making efficacy – confidence in one’s ability to make careerrelated decisions (Hackett, 1995) 4. Career goal mechanisms – operationalized as career plans, as pirations, decisions and expressed choices (Lent et al., 1994) 5. FFA – National FFA Organization, formerly known as the Future Farmers of America. A national youth leadership organization dedi cated to “making a positive difference in the lives of young people by developing their potential for premier leadership, personal growth and career success through agricu ltural education” (National FFA Organization, n.d., 1). 6. Goal – “the determination to engage in a pa rticular activity or to effect a particular future outcome” (Bandura, 1986, p. 468) 7. Instructional efficacy – see teacher efficacy 8. Outcome expectations – personal belief s about the probable response outcomes or consequences of performing an activity (Lent et al., 1994). 9. Preservice teacher – a prospective teacher enrolled in teacher preparation courses, who has not yet received teaching certific ation or licensure (Knobloch, 2002). 10. Self-efficacy – “beliefs in one’s capabiliti es to organize and execute the course of action required to produce given a ttainments” (Bandura, 1997, p. 3) 11. Student teacher – a preservice teacher pl aced in a public school for a clinical experience over an extended period of time under the supervision of a cooperating teacher and a university supervisor (Knobloch, 2002) 12. Supports or support systems – “environmen tal variables that can facilitate the formation and pursuits of individuals’ ca reer choices” (Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 2000, p. 42) 13. Teacher efficacy – self-perceived belief in one’s capabilities to bring about desired outcomes, even with students who are unm otivated or present discipline problems (Bandura, 1977) 14. Teacher preparation – comprehensive unive rsity programs in which students receive instruction on technical, professional, and pedagogical subjects and participate in various clinical experiences

PAGE 24

10 Limitations of the Study Like any other scholarly work, the results conclusions, and implications of this study have limitations. These limitations are primarily determined by the research design utilized to answer the research question. The following are limitations of this study: 1. This study utilized a causalcomparative research design. Therefore, determining a true cause-and-effect relationship is impossible (Ary, Jacobs, & Razavieh, 2002). 2. The sample of preservice teachers used in this study was not randomly selected. Therefore, caution is warranted when a ttempting to generalize these findings beyond this specific populati on at the approximate time this study was conducted. 3. The instrumentation used in this study wa s developed and/or m odified for this study from existing assessments. However, these instruments have not been used in this context prior to the pilot te st conducted for this study. 4. Data were collected from preservice ag riculture teachers with the assistance of teacher educators at the participating in stitutions. This situation could have influenced students’ responses on the questionnaire. 5. Participants in the study reported their intention to teach at the time of data collection. This assessment may not refl ect their actual decision to pursue a teaching position. Assumptions of the Study Assumptions have been made prior to a nd during this study. The assumptions of this study are listed below. 1. A self-assessment instrument can accurately measure person inputs, contextual influences, self-efficacy, outcome expect ations, and teaching intentions of preservice agriculture teachers. 2. Participants in this study honestly and accurately completed the instrument without outside influences. 3. Preservice agriculture teachers completing their teaching internship experience in the fall semester or quarter are similar to those completing in the spring semester or quarter.

PAGE 25

11 Summary Agricultural education is f aced with an ongoing shortage of qualified candidates to fill teaching positions. Alt hough teacher preparation programs produce an adequate number of graduates each year, too few of th ese candidates decide to enter the teaching profession. Little is known about why agri cultural educat ion graduates choose not to teach; therefore, further research is ne eded regarding this phenomenon. A better understanding of this problem could provi de an opportunity to design and test interventions that may increas e the proportion of agricultur al education graduates who enter the teaching profession. This study ex amined the factors that contribute to preservice agriculture teachers’ intentions to enter the profession by describing the influence and predictive nature of person input s, contextual influences, self-efficacy, and outcome expectations. The chapter concluded by presenting the three guiding objectives of the study, the research hypotheses, providing operational definitions of key terms, describing the limitations, and outli ning the assumptions of the study.

PAGE 26

12 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Chapter 1 provided an introduction and basi s for this study. The current teacher shortage in agricultural education was disc ussed and a need for further research was established. The purpose of th is research study was presented as well as the research questions and objectives. The chapter conc luded by defining key terms, stating limitations, and outlining the assumptions of the study. A review of the career ch oice related literature in ag ricultural edu cation yielded very limited results. For the most part, su ch literature examined agricultural education graduates’ career choices relative to their academic ability, and their perceived professional and technical competence. McCoy and Mortensen (1983) compared th e academic performance of three groups of agricultural education gra duates. The groups consisted of (1) those who entered and remained in teaching ( n = 53), (2) those who began teachi ng and quit after one or more years ( n = 40), and (3) those who chose a vocati on other than teaching after graduation ( n = 60). After examining the cumulative grade point averages and student teaching grades of each group, it was concluded that student s who remained in the teaching profession had both higher cumulative grade point aver ages and grades in student teaching than those who left teaching or never entered th e profession. These findings were supported by a later study conducted by Baker and Hedge s (1991) of 160 agri cultural education graduates at The Ohio State University. These researchers found that graduates who entered the teaching profession could be disti nguished from those deciding not to teach

PAGE 27

13 based on their cumulative grade point aver age, grades in student teaching and professional preparation course work, and certification status. Likewise in 1993, Muller and Miller examined whether more academically able agricultural education graduates were entering and rema ining in the teaching profession or opting for other career options. Their follow-up of 294 Iowa State graduates found that those graduates who chose to teach were just as academically able as those who accepted positions in other fields. The most comprehensive study found in the agricultural education literature was the graduate follow-up study conducted by Cole (1984) at Oregon State University. The study’s sample consisted of all agricultural education graduates w ho were certified to teach over a twelve-year pe riod between 1971 and 1982. Of the 151 respondents, 40% reported still being agriculture teachers, 35% had started teaching and quit during this time, and 25% of the graduates had never taught agriculture. Cole c oncluded that teacher educators and teacher preparation programs can have the greatest impact on improving agriculture teacher placement and reten tion by ensuring quality student teaching experiences, quality professional and techni cal preparation, and by reducing specific concerns pertaining to negative outcomes associated with the agricultural teaching profession. Graduates mentioned concerns such as, spousal support, low salary, long hours, and time for hobbies a nd recreation (Cole, 1984). McGhee and Cheek (1990) found more favorab le results in their follow-up of 189 agricultural education graduates between 1975 and 1985 at the University of Florida. They reported that over 60% of graduates entered and remained in the agricultural teaching profession, while 12% began teachi ng and left the profession. Yet, the

PAGE 28

14 percentage of graduates that indicated never teaching agriculture was similar to that of the 1984 Cole study at 28%. In 1994, a theory emerged that may provide a means for further study of the processes and challenges that agricultural education graduates face when making the decision to enter the teaching profession. The Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT) as posited by Lent et al. (1994) outlined a pr ocess whereby people form academic and occupational interests, make academic a nd career choices, and achieve in their educational and vocational pursu its. This theory may be im portant to understanding the factors that most significantly influence the career choi ce decisions of agricultural education graduates because of its empha sis on the reciprocal interaction of environmental factors, personal fact ors, and an individual’s behavior. Proposed by Lent and colleagues (1994), S CCT represents an effort to understand the processes through which peopl e develop interests, make choices, and achieve varying levels of success in academic and occupatio nal pursuits. SCCT stems primarily from Bandura’s (1986) general Social Cognitive Theory (SCT). Bandura (1997) viewed individuals as dynamic self-systems capable of exercising self -regulation of their behavior, not as mere simple reactive beings Bandura’s (1986) conc eption of “reciprocal determinism” explains how three important fact ors interact and influence one another. In doing so, these factors determin e an individual’s behavior pattern. These three factors consist of personal attributes (cognitive a nd affective states and biological events), external environmental factors, and overt behavior (Bandura, 1986) This interaction, termed “triadic reciprocality,” is depicted in Figure 2-1.

PAGE 29

15 Figure 2-1. Model of triadic reciprocality (Bandura, 1997) The reciprocal interaction of the determinants of hu man functioning in social cognitive theory provides for the possibility of treatment efforts to be directed at personal, environmental, or be havioral factors (Pajares, 2002). In education for example, teachers are faced with the ch allenge of improving student learning and increasing test scores. Using the social cognitive theory as a framework, a teacher can correct a student’s negative self-beliefs and habits of thinking (per sonal factors), improve selfregulatory practices (behavior), and also modify the school and classroom structures (environmental factors) that may hinder student success (Pajares, 2002). Social cognitive theory is grounded in a view of human agency. As agents, individuals are proactively e ngaged in their development and can make things happen by their own actions (Bandura, 1986). Thus, i ndividuals are seen as both products and producers of their own environment and of their social systems (Pajares, 2002). Bandura’s social cognitive theory is a clear contrast to be haviorist theories of human functioning that place a greater emphasis on envi ronmental factors in the development of human behavior and learning (P ajares, 2002). For Bandura (1986), “a theory that denies that thoughts can regulate acti ons does not lend itself readily to the explanation of complex human behavior” (p.16). Behavior Environmental Factors Personal Factors

PAGE 30

16 Lent et al. (1994) drew from Bandura’s gene ral SCT (1986) to adapt, elaborate, and extend the aspects that seem most relevant to the career development process. The result, the Social Cognitive Career Theory, provide s a framework for understanding the three intricately linked aspects of career devel opment: (1) forming and elaborating career interests, (2) selecting academic and caree r choice options, and (3) performance and persistence in educational and vocational pursu its (Lent et al., 1994). This framework is conceptualized as being relevant to both academ ic and career behavior. Lent et al. (1994) saw academic development as “dovetailing” with career development. Models of academic choice and career development often contain similar important causal mechanisms. Additionally, interests and skil ls developed during an individual’s school years later translate in to career selections (Lent el al., 1994). SCCT appears to be an ideal theory fo r explaining the development of career interests and decisions of agricultural edu cation graduates because it focuses on specific mechanisms that shape interests and choices related to entry into the profession. Figure 2-2 depicts the model hypothesized by Lent et al. (1994) to explai n the development of career and academic interests over time, par ticipation in career and academic activities, and the acquisition of career related skills. In the model, Lent et al (1994) assert that throughout childhood and adolescen ce, people are exposed to a wide array of activities that have potential career relevance. A dditionally, they are exposed vicariously to various tasks related to potenti al occupations. During this pe riod of life, individuals are differentially reinforced for pursuing certain activities and for their performance.

PAGE 31

17 Figure 2-2. Model of person, contextual, and experiential factors affecti ng career-related choice beha vior (Lent et al., 1994, p. 93). Copyright 1993 by R.W. Lent, S. D. Brown, a nd G. Hackett. Reprinted by permission. Person Inputs Predispositions Gender Race/ethnicity Disability/Health Background Contextual Affordances Learning Experiences SelfEfficacy Outcomes Expectations Interest Choice Goals Choice Actions Performance Domains and Attainments Contextual Influences Proximal to Choice Behavior moderates moderates

PAGE 32

18 With continued engagement in activities, modeling, and given feedback from others, children and adolescents begi n to refine their skills, form their own performance standards and perceptions of their level of efficacy, and de velop expectations about the outcomes of their performance (Lent et al., 1994). The SCCT framework presents three social cognitive mechanisms as the most relevant to career development: (1) self-effi cacy, (2) outcome expectations, and (3) goals (Lent et al., 1994). These thre e factors are the central core of the SCCT model through which individuals develop, pursue, and modify their career in terests. The Lent et al. (1994) model hypothesizes that both self-effi cacy beliefs and outcome expectancies predict career inte rests. This is based on Bandura’s ( 1986) assertion that interests arising from activities are more likely to persist over time when the person feels he or she is effective and successful in completing those activities. Likewise, when an individual believes the outcome of an activity will not be positive, he or she will tend to lose interest in that activity (Sharf, 1996). These interest s, together with a person’s perceptions of efficacy and outcome expectancies lead to goal formulation. The goals an individual sets affect their actions, or in th is case, career decisions (Sharf, 1996). The development of interests in a career would then lead an individual to pursue that chosen career (Lent et al., 1994; Smith & Fouad, 1999). In 2000, Lent a nd colleagues further contributed to the model by providing a better unders tanding of the impact contex tual influences, such as support systems and barriers had on career de velopment. The following sections will provide a more detailed explanation of the theo ry and a review of the scholarly literature related to the constructs within SCCT model.

PAGE 33

19 Self-Efficacy Bandura (1997) defined self-efficacy as “b eliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments” (p. 3). Selfefficacy is believed to be at the very core of social cognitive theory (Pajares, 2002). Pajares (2002) asserted th at “self-efficacy beliefs pr ovide the foundation for human motivation, well-being, and personal accomplishmen t” ( 14). Without a belief in one’s ability to produce a desired outcome, there is little incentive to pursue or persevere when faced with difficulties (Pajares, 2002). Bandur a (1997) contended that “people’s level of motivation, affective states, and actions are based more on what they believe than on what is objectively true” (p. 2). An individual’ s perception of his or her ability is often a better predictor of their capabilities than wh at he or she can actually accomplish, since self-efficacy beliefs help determine what a individual does with the knowledge and skills that he or she possesses (Pajares, 2002). People’s behaviors are sometimes incongruent with their actual capabilities. According to Pajares, a person’s beliefs and reality are seldom matched perfectly. Consequentl y, perceived beliefs about a person’s accomplishments are generally better predictors than their previous performance, knowledge, and attainments (Pajares, 2002). An individual’s efficacy beliefs can influence and enhance their accomplishments and well being in numerous ways. A person’s be liefs also influence the choices he or she makes and the courses of action a person pur sues (Pajares, 2002). The choices made during formative periods, such as childhood and adolescence shape the course of a person’s life (Bandura, 1997). Choices are ma de to pursue certain occupations and stay clear of others based on a pers on’s perception of his or her capabilities and conceptions of those occupations (Bandura, 1997).

PAGE 34

20 Self-efficacy beliefs are domain specific, meaning they are tied to specific performances and tasks. An individual may feel efficacious in his or her abilities and knowledge about one topic but non-efficacious about another (Pajares, 1996). For example, an agriculture instructor may feel efficacious about teaching within his or her discipline, but if assigned to teach a math ematics course he or she may have a low perceived level of efficacy. Although bot h assignments call for similar skills, the differing subject matter (domain) may cause the person to feel differently about his or her ability to teach the course effectively. Self-Efficacy Research Relevant to Career Development A large body of research exists showing that self-efficacy plays a key role in career development (Bandura, 1997). Most of th e research testing the SCCT has been supportive, however these studies have examin ed the relationships between self-efficacy, outcome expectations, interests, and goals primarily within the domains of math and science. Little is known a bout the support of the SCCT m odel in other subject areas (Smith & Fouad, 1999). In 1981, Betz and Hackett extended Bandura’ s (1977) self-efficacy construct into career development theory. Betz and Hacket t’s (1981) research pr ovided a conceptual framework for understanding the career deve lopment of women. In their study of 235 undergraduate men and women, Betz and Hacke tt found that the level of self-efficacy of women was relative to the traditional nature a nd range of careers they considered viable. Hackett (1985) later extended this study a nd made the argument that self-efficacy expectations were more important than a st udent’s actual ability in their decision of a math or science related major. Numerous ot her studies have conti nued to extend this line of research and consistently link efficacy pe rceptions to decision-making processes that

PAGE 35

21 are important to the choice of a math or sc ience related major (Fassinger, 1990; Lapan & Jingeleski, 1992; Lapan, Shaughnessy, & Boggs, 1996; Lent et al., 1994; Lent & Hackett, 1987; Lent, Lopez, & Bieschke, 1991, 1993; O’Br ien & Fassinger, 1993). In general, research has shown a wider range of career optio ns and a greater intere st in those options was exhibited by those persons with a higher perceived efficacy to fulfill educational requirements and job functions (e.g., Betz & Hackett, 1981; Lent, Brown, & Larkin, 1986; Matsui, Ikeda, & Ohnishi, 1989). In addition to the research conducted in the math and science domains, many other studies have linked self-efficacy with numerous career-related variables, such as career exploration (Betz & Voyten, 1997; Rash eed, 2001), career choice making indecision (Taylor & Betz, 1983; Taylor & Pompa, 1990) career salience (Mat zeder & Krieshok, 1995), specific occupational tasks (Rooney & Osipow, 1992); vocationa l interests based on inventory instruments (Betz, Harmon, & Borgen, 1996; Lent, Brown, & Larkin, 1989; Matsui & Tsukamoto, 1991) and academic pe rformance (Betz & Luzzo, 1996; Hackett & Betz, 1989; Multon, Brown, & Lent, 1991). Self-Efficacy Research Relevant to Teaching The challenge of creating a learning environm ent that is conducive to the effective development of the cognitive competencies of students is heavily influenced by an educator’s perceived efficacy. A teacher’s efficacy beliefs aff ect their view of the entire education process and impact their instruc tional activities (Bandura, 1997). Teacher efficacy is a self-perceived belief in one’s capabilities to bring about desired outcomes, even with students who are unmotivated or present discipline problems (Bandura, 1977). Teacher efficacy has been found to influence teacher behavior, such as effort, innovation, planning and organization, persistence, resilience, enthusiasm, willingness to work with

PAGE 36

22 difficult students, and commitment to teac hing and career longev ity (Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy, & Hoy, 1998). Teacher efficacy has implications on a teacher’s management of the learning environment as well. Teachers who are high ly efficacious tend to rely on persuasory means rather than authoritarian classroom c ontrol; in turn they support the development of students’ intrinsic interest and promot e academic self-directedness (Bandura, 1997). Miller, Kahler, and Rheault (1989) found motivated and confident teachers were more effective. Students achieved more, e xhibited greater motivation, and had a higher level of perceived self-efficacy when their teacher possessed a higher level of perceived teacher efficacy (Guskey & Passaro, 1994). Teacher efficacy has also been examined and found to affect teachers’ level of professional commitment and teacher attrit ion. Links have been found between low levels of teacher efficacy and increased st ress, lack of coping abilities, and burnout (Bandura, 1997; Chwalisz, Altmaier & Russell 1992). As a means of coping with stress, teachers may avoid engagement in certain instructional activities (Bandura, 1997). Ultimately, teachers who have a low sense of instructional efficacy show a weak commitment to the teaching profession (Eva ns & Tribble, 1986), they spend less time teaching the subject areas in which they f eel less efficacious (E nochs & Riggs, 1990), and also dedicate less total time to academic matte rs (Gibson & Dembo, 1984). In a study of 170 elementary teachers, Cola darci (1992) found the best predictor of a teacher’s commitment to the profession was their sens e of instructional efficacy. These findings were supportive of earlier work by Glickman and Tamashiro (1982) who compared selfefficacy of first year ( n = 50) and fifth year teachers ( n = 49), as well as teachers who had

PAGE 37

23 left the profession ( n = 30). They concluded that teacher s who have low levels of selfefficacy are the most likely to drop out of the profession. In summary, self-efficacy is a dynamic set of self-beliefs that are specific to a domain and that continually interact in a complex manner with other personal, behavioral, and contextual factors (Lent et al., 1994). In the teaching profession, teacher efficacy has continually been found to have a positive relationship with a teacher’s performance, commitment to the profession, and ultimately student achievement. Numerous studies incorporating self-efficacy have significantly contributed to our understanding of the career development pro cess. However, the recent introduction of the SCCT has caused researchers to examine the interaction between efficacy beliefs and the other contextual and individual variab les that influence the career development process (Rasheed, 2001). The SCCT pr ovides a means to better understand the importance of efficacy beliefs and demonstrates the impact these beliefs have on outcome expectations, career intere sts, goal formation, actions, and accomplishments. Outcome Expectations Outcome expectations are personal beliefs about probable respons e outcomes. That is, where self-efficacy beliefs are concerned wi th one’s perceived ab ilities to complete tasks or activities (i.e., “Can I do this?”), outcome expectations involve the perceived consequences of actually performing the activity [i.e., “If I do this, what will happen?”] (Lent et al., 1994, p. 83). In his social cognitive th eory, Bandura (1986) suggested that people act not only on their beliefs about what they are capable of doing but also on their be liefs about the likely effects of their actions. Although both self-effi cacy and outcome expect ations are seen as influencing career related beha vior, Bandura (1986) has argued that these two factors are

PAGE 38

24 often differentially potent, w ith self-efficacy being the most influential in determining behavior (Lent et al., 1994). In situations where the quality of performance guarantees a desirable outcome, self-efficacy is seen as the most influential causal factor. However, when outcomes are not completely tied to quality of performance, the outcome expectations may exert an i ndependent contribution to motivation and behavior (Bandura, 1989; Lent et al., 1994). Outcome Expectations Research Relevant to Career Development Unlike self-efficacy, few studies have been conducted focused on outcome expectations and career related behavior (Diegelman & Subich, 2001). The reported research has provided significant findings supporting Lent and colleagues’ (1994) hypothesized relationship of outco me expectations to formation of interests, intentions, and setting of goals (Diegelman & Subich, 2001) However, SCCT is not the only theory to place heavy emphasis on the relationship between expected outcomes and actions. Vroom’s (1964) model presented choice beha vior as being highly dependent upon an individual’s perception of the probability th at certain actions will produce particular outcomes and of the value placed on those outcomes. Irwin’s (1971) theory of intentional behavior and motiv ation is based on act-outcome expectancies. According to these and other theorists, an i ndividual’s level of performan ce is a function of his or her expectancy that behaving in a certain wa y will lead to a desired outcome (Atkinson, 1964; Feather, 1982; Vroom, 1964). Among a sample of 350 undergraduate college students, Betz and Voyten (1997) found that career decision-making efficacy and outcome expectations were good predictors of academic and career indecisi on, and intentions to engage in career exploration. In their study of 380 middle school students, Fouad and Smith (1996) found

PAGE 39

25 results supporting the SCCT model. Their an alysis showed a strong association existed between self-efficacy and outcome expectati ons. Additionally, outcome expectations were found to be strongly associated with career exploration intentions. Swanson and Woitke (1997) looked specifi cally at the effect of negatively perceived outcomes and barriers on women’ s career choices. These researchers concluded that although an indi vidual may have a high level of self-efficacy and interest in a career, he or she might end their pursuit of that career path if he or she perceived substantial barriers and negative outcomes. In 2001, Diegelman and Subich conducted an experiment with 85 college students that examined the function of self-efficacy a nd outcome expectations as posited in SCCT by Lent et al. (1994). By manipulating percep tions of outcome expectations for a given major, the researchers found th at increased outcome expectat ions significantly predicted increased intentions to pursue that majo r. The results of this study supported SCCT, demonstrating the hypothesized relationship of outcome expectations to interest, intentions, and self-efficacy (Diegelman & Subich, 2001). Outcome Expectations Research Relevant to Teaching The educational literature is nearly void of research that examines outcome expectations within the teaching professi on. However, one such study found in the literature provided a very thorough statistical test of the SCCT in a minority teacher recruitment program. Schaffner and Jepsen (1999) surveyed 243 African American, Hispanic American, and Native American sec ondary students participating in the first year of a minority teacher recruitment pr ogram. The researchers’ findings provided mixed support for the SCCT model. Outcom e expectations and interests were both found to have a direct effect on choice behavior ; however the negative relationship found in the

PAGE 40

26 study contradicted the positive relationshi p hypothesized by the SCCT (Schaffner & Jepsen, 1999). In order to fully explore the importance of outcome expectations of teachers, this literature review was extended to include research that exam ined reasons why preservice teachers choose to teach. Webster’s New Re ference Library (1984) defines a reason as a “basis or motive for an action, decision, or c onviction” (p. 349). Outcome expectations are defined by Lent et al. ( 1994) as “personal beliefs about probable response outcomes” (p. 83). Presumably, a person’s reasons fo r entering the teaching profession would be similar and consistent with his or her be liefs about the probable outcomes that would result from that decision. For example, a preservice teacher’s reas ons for not entering the teaching profession may be based on his or her belief that agriculture teachers are poorly paid and have little time off. Similarly, he or she may perceive the probable outcome of the decision to teach as receiving a low sala ry and little time for recreation and family. A consistent set of reasons for wanting to teach can be found in the literature (Snyder, Doerr, & Pastor, 1995). In a study of 248 preservice students at the University of New Hampshire, Andrew (1983) found that the most important factor for students to pursue a career in teaching was their motiva tion for social service. Students felt the enjoyment of working with children and their love for the subject were the next most important factors contributing to their d ecision (Andrew, 1983). Bontempo and Digman (1985) found very similar reasons for choosi ng to teach when surveying 356 education undergraduates at West Virginia University. Book, Freeman, and Brousseau (1985) examin ed the differences between education ( n = 258) and non-education ( n = 146) majors’ reasons for pursuing their chosen fields of

PAGE 41

27 study. They cite the followi ng are the most common reasons education majors choose to teach: (1) desire to help others gain a sens e of personal achievement, (2) love to work with children, (3) opportunity to help ot hers gain knowledge a nd an understanding of content they believe to be important, (4) can make better use of their abilities in the teaching field, (5) provides opportunity to appl y what they learned in their major course work, and (6) to help others less fortunate than. Joseph and Green’s (1986) study of 234 preser vice teachers also found that students chose teaching because of their desire to work with people and to be of service. They also added other important reasons, such as their desire to continue in the academic setting, favorable working hours and vacation a llowances, and feeling of security that teaching provides as something to fall back on. Likewise, Kemper and Mangieri (1985) found that job security was an important factor in a student’s decision to teach. They also provided further support of the factors alre ady mentioned, as did Zimpher (1989), Serow (1994), and King (1993), who found similar reasons reported by African American students. In their study of agriculture teacher c oncerns, Burke and Hillison (1991) reported several rewarding outcomes experienced by a sample of 76 agriculture teachers in Virginia. These actual outcomes may pr ovide further understanding of the possible outcome expectations percei ved by preservice teachers. The most rewarding outcome reported by teachers in this study was their bei ng a part of the growth and development of students, closely followed by the satisfac tion felt from students’ achievement in leadership and FFA events. Teachers also re ported other rewarding experiences, such as, teaching and interacting with students, prof essional development, developing quality

PAGE 42

28 agricultural education programs and receiving recogniti on for their teaching (Burke & Hillison, 1991). The researchers provided ne gative outcomes reported by the agriculture teachers in this study as well. Teachers’ most frustrating experiences were: students’ lack of interest, poor administrative support, diffi culties with student management and lack of student guidance support, large time demands inadequate facilities and supplies, excessive paperwork, and poor pr ogram and student quality. In an earlier study, Coughlin, Lawrence, Gartin, and Templeton (1988) identified agriculture teachers spouses’ perceived bene fits of a career teach ing agriculture. A survey was administered to 96 spouses of agri culture teachers in West Virginia. Spouses appreciated the job security, benefits, exte nded contracts, and additional pay. They enjoyed seeing the excitement, dedication, sa tisfaction, and pride that their spouse felt from their experiences teaching students (Coughlin et al., 1988). The negative outcomes of their spouses’ teaching positions were the tremendous number of extra hours they worked, great deal of time spent away fr om home and family, stress and fatigue on family, too little pay, lack of appreciati on from administration, and a feeling that agriculture was viewed as less important than other school programs. In summary, outcome expectations are a pe rson’s beliefs in the probable outcomes of his or her actions and are another important component of the SCCT. Little research has been conducted investigati ng the influence of outcome e xpectations on one’s career decisions. Further research is warranted, especially in the field of education, so that a better understanding of how outcome expectations interact with self-efficacy, interests, and goal mechanisms can be achieved.

PAGE 43

29 Goals Mechanisms According to social cognitive theory, goals pl ay an important role in self-regulation of behavior (Lent et al., 1994). SCT presents the view that humans are seen as more than simple responders to deterministic forces. Through the process of setting goals, people organize and guide their own behavior in or der to increase the lik elihood that desirable outcomes can be attained (Lent et al., 1994). Bandura (1986) defined a goal as “the determination to engage in a particular activity or to effect a part icular future outcome” (p. 468) Goals function principally through an individual’s ability to symbolically represent desired future outcomes and to react to his or her own beha vior in a self-evaluative ma nner based on the individual’s own internal standards for performance (Lent et al., 1994). The self-motivating qualities of goals are achieved by linking self-satisfacti on to goal fulfillment and by enacting those behaviors that are consistent with a person’s internally set standards (Lent et al., 1994). However, setting a goal does not automatically activate the self-influence mechanisms that govern an individual’s be havior. Certain goal propert ies exist that affect an individual’s performance towards achieving that goal (Bandura, 1986). Bandura (1986) mentioned three factors that have the greates t affect on the motivating nature of goals: specificity, challenge, and proximity. Goal specificity contributes to the degr ee to which a goal creates incentives and guides one’s actions (Bandura, 1986). The speci ficity of a goal serves as a source of motivation, and goals also foster positive atti tudes towards activitie s associated with goals (Bryan & Locke, 1967). The challenge of attaining a goal is depende nt upon the level at which it is set. When self-satisfaction is dependent upon atta inment of challenging goals, an individual

PAGE 44

30 will exert more effort than if they perceive the goal to be easy to achieve (Bandura, 1986). If goals are set unrealistically high, most efforts to achieve are disappointing. After repeated efforts produce failure, self-e fficacy perceptions are weakened and the motivation to perform an activity is greatly reduced (Bandura, 1986). The effectiveness of goal mechanisms in regulating behavior depends greatly on how far into the future the attainment of th e goal is projected (Ba ndura, 1986). Goals that are perceived to be too distan t in the future do not provide effective incentives and guides for one’s present behavior. The setting of subgoals (incremental goals) has been found to reduce the risk of self-demoralization that re sults from an individua l comparing his or her current performance to lofty future performance goals (Bandura, 1986). In the career development literature career goal mechanisms are commonly operationalized as plans, aspirations, decisions and expressed choices. The differences between these goal terms are related to their degree of specificity and proximity to actual choice implementation (Lent et al, 1994). As in the case of outcome expectations, the career developmen t research provides very few studies examining variables related to goal mechanisms. In the agricultural education field, one such study was found. Bajema, Miller, and Williams (2002) compared the career aspirations of 883 urba n and rural high school seniors in 17 schools in Iowa. They found no differences between the two groups in their diversity of educational and occupational aspirations. Th e researchers also reported a high level of congruence existed between students’ occupa tional aspirations and their educational goals, demonstrating that many students were pursuing their chosen career paths.

PAGE 45

31 Students viewed the school environment as being supportive of their aspirations, and barriers to their goals were perceived to be minimal (B ajema, Miller & Williams, 2002). Perrone, Sedlack, and Alexander (2001) exam ined barriers to a nd facilitators of career goals among college students within th e context of the SCCT. The researchers surveyed 2,743 college freshman measuring ge nder and ethnicity differences related to factors influencing career goals, perceptions of barriers to attaining goals, and academic resilience. Their findings reported gender and ethnicity differences exist in perceptions of barriers to career goals. Perceptions of facilitators of career goals differed by ethnicity as well. These findings were consistent w ith those of McWhirter (1997a) who examined differences of perceived barriers between ethnicity and gender in 1,139 high school juniors and seniors. McWhirte r demonstrated that female participants anticipated more barriers to career goals than did males, a nd that Mexican Americans anticipated more barriers than European American participants. Nauta, Epperson, and Kahn (1998) inve stigated 546 undergraduate women’s aspirations toward leadership and advanced positions within their chosen occupation. The researchers stated, “social-cognitive theory suggests that higher level career aspirations can be predicted by ability via self-efficacy” (p. 484) These higher-level aspirations may be influenced by role models as well. Role models affect aspirations by increasing self-efficacy and by vicariously de monstrating how they perform multiple life roles (Nauta, Epperson, & Kahn, 1998). The stu dy found that self-efficacy mediated the relationship between ability and women’s aspi ration to advance in their chosen career fields. These researchers also concluded that self-efficacy was an important predictor of

PAGE 46

32 higher-level career aspirations a nd they suggested that interv entions could be designed to increase students’ self-efficacy (Nauta, Epperson, & Kahn, 1998). In summary, career goals and aspirations ha ve been given limite d attention in the career development literature. However, st udies have shown that goal formation and attainment is influenced by self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and environmental factors. Goals play an important role in SCCT, as they provide much of the motivation and guidance in the career choice process. Given the essential nature of goals and aspirations in the choice process and the lack of related resear ch in agricultural education, a deeper examination of the influence of car eer-related goals on an individual’s decision to teach agriculture educ ation is warranted. Learning Experiences, Person Input s, and Contextual Influences In an effort to further elaborate on the role of the three sociocognitive mechanisms of self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and goa l mechanisms, Lent et al. (1994) presented a more comprehensive account of the caree r development process by addressing another set of important model components. Person inputs, such as inhe rited affective and physical attributes, contextual features of the environment (s ocial, physical, and cultural) that may support or limit development, and career-relevant learning experiences may influence career interests and choice behavi or (Lent et al., 1994). While the model acknowledges the interdependent relations among these compone nts, Lent et al. (1994) envisioned three causal path ways through which person, cont extual, and experiential factors may influence career interests and choices. These factors may serve as (a) precursors of sociocognitive vari ables, (b) moderators of interest-goal and goal-action relationships, and (c) direct facilitato rs or deterrents of goal activity.

PAGE 47

33 Influence of Learning Experiences According to social learning theorists, su ch as Krumboltz, and Lent and colleagues, learning experiences play a very crucial role in the career-decision process (Sharf, 1996). Krumboltz’s social learning theory postulated that career decision is heavily influenced by genetic endowment, environmental conditio ns, task-approach skills, and learning experiences (Sharf, 1996). Krumboltz (1994) presented the following: People acquire their preference for various activities through a multitude of learning experiences. They make sense of their ac tivities because of ideas they have been taught. They acquire beliefs about themselv es and the nature of their world through direct and indirect educational experiences They then take action on the basis of their beliefs using skills that they have developed over time. (p. 17) In the SCCT model, Lent and colleagues (1994) posited that e xperience contributes directly to an individual’s sense of effi cacy and outcome expectations. Bandura (1997) posited that four types of l earning experiences influence th e development of one’s selfefficacy and outcome beliefs. These include vicarious learning, personal performance accomplishments, social persuasion, and physiol ogical and affective st ates and reactions. Performance accomplishments, or what Bandur a (1997, p. 80) refers to as “mastery experiences,” are the most influential source of self-efficacy. This is due to the authentic evidence such experiences provide, and in doi ng so, build upon an individual’s sense of efficacy. Successful experiences are known to raise an individual’s sense of efficacy, while failure tends to cause a decrease in self-effacacy (Bandura, 1997; Lent & Brown, 1996). The actual effect of mastery experi ences (performance accomplishments) on selfefficacy depends on several factors, such as the variety of conditions under which the task was performed and the consequences of the task performance (Lent et al., 1994). For example, a preservice teacher may feel ve ry confident in teaching a lesson to his or

PAGE 48

34 her peers, but may have a low sense of efficacy when faced with an actual class of high school students. The impact of a mastery experience will also depend on the perceived difficulty of the task (Bandura, 1997). Success in a task that is perceived to be easy may not have any affect on an individual’s efficacy beliefs. However, successfu lly completing a task that is perceived as being difficult conve ys new information for raisi ng an individual’s beliefs in his or her capabilities (Bandura, 1997). Vicarious learning is also believed to have an effect on one’s self-efficacy, especially if a person has had little dir ect experience to estimate his or her own competence at that task (Lent et al., 1994). Observing others succeed or fail at a task (modeling) serves as another effective tool for promoting an i ndividual’s sense of efficacy (Bandura, 1997). In the absence of direct experience with a task, people must appraise their capabilities in relation to the a ttainment of others. For example, a student may enter a required academic course hesitantly and with a low sense of efficacy based on his or her observation of classmates’ str uggles and failures in that course. Through social comparative inferences, the student judge s his or her classmates’ attainments to be similar to his or her own capabilities. Th is phenomenon can persuade individuals that they have the capabilities to raise their perf ormance, or inversely, lower their sense of efficacy by observing those with simila r competence fail (Bandura, 1997). Social persuasion can further strengthen a pe rson’s beliefs that he or she has the capabilities to achieve desired outcomes. People who are persuaded verbally (feedback) that they can achieve desired tasks are mo re likely to put forth greater effort. Additionally, they sustain that effort longer when faced with difficult tasks, than those

PAGE 49

35 who doubt their abilities and dw ell on their personal deficiencies (Bandura, 1997). Put another way, evaluative feedback highli ghting personal capabilities and improvement enhances perceived efficacy. Luzzo and Taylor (1993-1994) found that college freshman who received encouragement from a career counselor dem onstrated higher levels of career decision making self-efficacy than their counterparts w ho received no such encouragement. These results are supported by additional studies s howing the effect of verbal persuasion on self-efficacy (Luzzo, Funk, & Strang, 1996; Schunk, 1989). In judging his or her own capabilities, a pe rson’s physiological and emotional states when performing a task may also have an impact on self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997). People often read physiological states, such as stress or fatigue, as a sign of vulnerability or weakness. For example, a person feeling anxiety, fa tigue, or depression while performing a task may suffer a lowered sense of efficacy, while feel ings of composure, stamina, or exhilaration may increase percep tions of competence and self-efficacy (Lent et al., 1994). Although not substantiated in the literatu re, Lent et al. ( 1994) proposed that performance accomplishments, vicarious learning, social persuasion, and physiological and affective states also influenced ou tcome expectations. They opined that: People likely anticipate future response -contingent outcomes by (a) recalling the extrinsic and intrinsi c (e.g., self-evaluative) outcomes that attended for their own relevant past actions (e.g., studying produ ced good grades and self-approval); (b) observing the consequences experienced by similar ot hers (modeling), and (c) attending to third-person accounts of reinforcement contingencies. (p. 103) In summary, four types of learning expe riences influence self-efficacy and outcome expectations. Performance accomplishments ar e considered to be the most influential learning experience (Bandura, 1997). Vicarious learning also influences self-efficacy

PAGE 50

36 through observations of similar others’ succe sses and failures. Through studies using encouragement and discouragement, social persuasion has been found to impact efficacy beliefs (Luzzo & Taylor, 1993-1994). Physiologi cal and affective states, such as levels of composure or stress, also affect the way a person perceives his or her capabilities (Lent et al., 1994). The following sections elabor ate on person and cont extual factors that affect an individual’s learning experiences a nd in turn his or her perceptions of selfefficacy and outcome expectations. Influence of Person Inputs A vast array of career-relevant person i nputs can have an impact on the career choice process (Lent et al., 1994). These pe rsonal characteristics have been found to have direct effects on self-efficacy and out come expectations (Fouad & Smith, 1996) and indirect effects through their influence on learning experiences (Lopez, Lent, Brown, & Gore, 1997). These inputs include, but are not limited to, genetic predispositions, gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status (SES), and disa bility or health status (Lent et al., 1994). Social cognitive career theorists view person variables such as gende r, ethnicity, and SES as being linked to the learning experiences th at shape an individual’s beliefs of selfefficacy and outcome expectations. Gender and cultural factors may further influence career development by their effect on people’s view of, and attempts to, implement their goals expectations (Lent, Hackett, & Brown, 1996). Gender and ethnicity Gender and ethnicity have been found to relate to self-efficacy, outcome expectations, interests, and career choice in a number of ways. Gender differences in self-efficacy and career-related choice have been reported in diverse samples of university, community college, and trade schoo l students (Betz & Hackett, 1981; Church,

PAGE 51

37 Teresa, Rosebrook, & Szendre, 1992; Cl ement, 1987; Matsui & Tsukamoto, 1991; Rooney & Osipow, 1992; Wheeler, 1983). According to SCCT, gender and race differences arise primarily through differe ntial access to opport unities, supports, and socialization processes (Lent et al., 1994). Differences in gender and race influence career development and career choices by medi ating a person’s learning experiences. The consequences of these learning experiences give rise to one’s self-efficacy and outcome expectations (Lent et al. 1994). Additionally, gender and cu ltural factors have been found to be linked to opportunity structures, which impact the academic and career goals an individual considers (Lent et al., 1994). Barriers such as gender ster eotyping may strongly influence a person’s career choice beha vior whether or not the pers on perceives it. Since SCCT assumes individuals are active agents in the career choice process, the effect of stereotyping often depends on the individua l’s perception and response (Lent et al., 1994). Betz and Hackett (1981) provided a demonstration of the effects that gender stereotyping can have on women consid ering nontraditional occupations. Although women in the study exhibited equal levels of mathematical abili ty, the effects of stereotyping may have led them to feel le ss efficacious in pursui ng careers related to math and science. Betz and Hackett (1981) concluded that family, the educational system, the mass media, and the culture at large shaped women’s beliefs about their capabilities and their career aspirations. Since this landmark study, other researchers have found similar results further demonstrat ing the impact of stereotyping on women’s career aspirations (H ackett, 1995; Lucas, 1997). In mo re recent studies, evidence suggested that occupational ge nder stereotyping might be we akening. In their study of

PAGE 52

38 108 college bound high school students, Post-Ka mmer and Smith (1985) revealed that a smaller disparity existed between male and female students’ efficacy to pursue varied careers (Bandura, 1997). Similarly, when Le nt, Brown, and Larkin (1984) examined self-efficacy in 42 high ability men and women with similar past performance, they found that differences in achievement and persistenc e were more attributable to self-efficacy differences rather than gender. Gender stereotyping not only has a potentia l effect on an individual’s view of opportunities, but on that individual’s parents as well. Parents’ beliefs about their children’s capabilities and their achievement expectations can differ according to their child’s gender (Bandura, 1997). In a longitudinal study by Eccl es (1989), results showed that parents’ beliefs were consistent with cult ural stereotypes that girls were less capable in mathematics than boys, even when their grades were equivalent. Parents’ genderlinked beliefs have given rise to children’s differing patterns of se lf-appriasal (Bandura, 1997). Phillips and Zimmerman (1990) found striking developmental gender differences existed between children’s ability and their perceived capabilities. Their results showed boys tended to have an inflated sense of co mpetence, whereas girls were more likely to disparage their capabilities Fouad and Smith (1996) also found differences between middle school students’ career expe ctations that were inconsiste nt with their actual math and science capabilities. A lthough female students reported ha ving stronger interests in math and science occupations, their male c ounterparts had higher outcome expectations for math and science occupations. These studies provide eviden ce of the differences that exist between males and females in terms of their self-efficacy and out come expectations. Additional research on

PAGE 53

39 these differences, specifically perceptions of barriers and supports are provided in subsequent sections. Unlike the extensive literature that exists on gender differences related to selfefficacy, little research has been done exam ining ethnicity (Bandura, 1997). Some studies have found differences in students’ perceptions of career and academic selfeffiacy and outcome expectations between et hnic groups (Lauver & Jones, 1991; Noble, Hackett, & Chen, 1992). Bandura (1997) believed ethnicity could exer t its’ effect on an individual’s psychosocial func tioning in several ways. Through a culture’s customs and social practices, values and st andards are molded. Social networks are formed that help shape and regulate major aspects of one’s life. This socialization process helps to promote a sense of collective identity (Bandura, 1997). A person’s cultural background may influence the experiences that shape his or her efficacy beliefs, however selfefficacy relates more directly than ethnicity to an individual’s career and academic attitudes and choices. For instance, Noble et al. (1992) found that students with high academic self-efficacy were more likely to as pire to higher levels of education and consider advanced occupational traini ng regardless of their ethnicity. Bores-Rangel, Church, Szendre, and R eeves (1990) found in their study of 35 migrant Hispanic students that stronger academ ic efficacy related to higher educational aspirations and academic achievement. The researchers found that highly efficacious students considered a wider range of occupa tions regardless of th e required level of education. Students also exhibi ted stronger interest in thes e occupations than did those who lack confidence in their capabi lities (Bores-Rangel et al., 1990).

PAGE 54

40 Comparative studies of ethnic minorities have further shown the generalizability of efficacy effects (Bandura, 1997). Findings from studies of career self-efficacy with Caucasian Americans appear to be generali zable across ethnic minor ity groups within the United States (Bores-Rangel et al., 1990; Church et al., 1992; Ro tberg, Brown, & Ware, 1987), as well as other Western and non-West ern countries (Clement, 1987; Matsui, Matsui, & Ohnish, 1990; Matsui & Ongl atco, 1991; Matsui & Tsukamoto, 1991; Wheeler, 1983). Bandura (1997) provided a thorough explanatio n of the role of ethnicity in SCCT: The combined influence of low academic expectations and downgrading of scientific aspirations in the students’ sc hooling, deficient academic preparation, lack of occupational role models and support systems for pursuits in scientific and technological fields, and so cial barriers in opportunity structures will constrain perceived occupation efficacy in various minorities and nonminorities alike (p. 438). Socioeconomic status Socioeconomic status (SES) is another importa nt factor that is largely void in the career literature (Rasheed, 2001). However, the research that has been conducted, demonstrates that SES can have an influe nce on an individual’s choice of academic endeavors and the amount of education he or she expects to achieve (Hanson, 1994; McWhirter, Hackett, & Bandalos, 1998; Trus ty, 1998; Trusty, Ng, & Plata, 2000; Trusty, Robinson, Plata, & Ng, 2000). Bandura (1997) posited that the effect of SES on an individual’s career-related selfefficacy is indirect. By affecting parental and family efficacy beliefs, SES indirectly influences the support structure for children’ s educational development and aspirations. Parents’ and family’s sense of efficacy and aspirations raise their children’s educational aspirations and in doing so, raise the child ’s own academic, social, and self-regulatory

PAGE 55

41 self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997). Children from various socioeconomic backgrounds differ very little in terms of their occupational aspirations, however, di fferences have been found to exist based on their perceptions of personal control. Children with highperceived efficacy are more likely to take preparatory steps toward achieving their educational goals, while those who feel they have little pe rsonal control over their occupational future tend to believe that work ing hard is not worth the effort (Bandura, 1997). Although believed to be an indirect influence, SES has been shown to have predictive power in determining college majo r. Trusty, Robinson et al. (2000) sampled 7,645 adolescents examining their post-secondary educational aspirations. Their findings revealed that SES was a fairly strong predicto r of the type of college major considered by male and female students. In another rela ted study, gender, SES, and ethnicity were found to have a three-way inter active relationship. Ethnicity had the strongest effect on males’ choice of major and the weakest eff ect for females with high SES (Trusty, Ng et al., 2000). The results of these studies demonstrated that SES can interact with person inputs such as gender and ethnicity, thus influenc ing career choice. Ba ndura (1997) believed this influence is one of an indirect natu re, stemming from parental and environmental influences. However, given that the major ity of students from rural areas are from middle to lower SES backgrounds (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000, as cited in Rasheed, 2001) it may be important to examine how SES, ethni city, and gender may in teract with the key sociocognitive mechanisms and contextual fa ctors considered in SCCT to influence career development and choices.

PAGE 56

42 Influences of Contextual Affordances In addition to person inputs, environmental influences also have been found to affect learning experiences and to have an in direct influence on self-efficacy and outcome expectations. Lent et al. (1994) posited that contextual factors have an impact on learning experiences. These factors affect socio-cognitive mechanisms that drive a person’s interests and career choices and comp rise the opportunity structure in which an individual forms and implements their career plans. Additionally, certain environmental factors may also have a direct effect on choice formation and implementation. In order to conceptualize these enviro nmental influences, Lent and colleagues (1994) have adapted the constructs of percei ved “structure of oppor tunity” (Astin, 1984) and “contextual affordance” (Vondracek, Le rner, & Schulenberg, 1986). Vondracek et al. (1986) stated, “The concept of affordance centers on the id ea that environments offer, provide, and/or furnish something to the orga nism as long as the organism can perceive ‘it’ as such” (p. 38). In SCCT, Lent et al. (1994) incorporated the constructs of contextual affordances and structure of opportunity to show how the differential emphasis of perceived and actual aspects of the environment can influence an individual’s academic and career behavior. According to Lent et al. (1994), certain behavioral patterns, such as gender role st ereotyping, may have an effect on one’s goals and implementation of those goals, regardle ss of whether those patterns are actively perceived by the individual. The actual eff ect of a contextual factor was found to depend on the individual’s appraisal and response to the particular factor (Vondracek et al., 1986). This emphasis on personal perceptions is consistent with the importance SCT places on cognitive appraisals th at are believed to guide behavior (Lent et al., 1994).

PAGE 57

43 For conceptual convenience, Lent et al. ( 1994) divided contextual affordances into two subgroups. They based this division on th e proximity of influe nce to career choice points: (1) more distal, background influences and (2) proximal influences. Background influences are those that influence the le arning experiences through which self-efficacy and outcome expectations are developed, such as exposure to tasks or role models, the nature of support or discouragement one receives for engaging in activities, and cultural and gender socialization. Proximal influences are those that operate during the critical choice junctures. These included support sy stems, such as personal network contacts, and structural barriers, like discriminatory hiring practices (Lent et al., 1994). In the SCCT, Lent et al. (1994) pos ited that proximal contextual factors may moderate the relations of interest to choi ce goals and goals to actions. According to the model, if a person perceives environmental barriers will impe de his or her efforts, they are less likely to translate his or her career-related interests into goals a nd goals into actions (Lent et al., 2000). Conversely, an indivi dual’s perception of ample support and few barriers is predicted to facilitate the process of transf orming his or her interests into goals and ultimately, goals into actions. Within these two sets of influences some elements tend to overlap. Although their influence may vary over time, contextual influe nces such as family and social inputs may play key roles throughout an individual’s academic and career progression (Lent et al., 1994). Given the importance of contextual in fluences in shaping and moderating career choices, the following sections will describe in greater detail, career-related barriers, support systems, and specific contextual f actors related to agricultural education.

PAGE 58

44 Environmental barriers In recent years, career barriers have b een introduced in the literature primarily focusing on women’s career development (Swa nson, Daniels, & Tokar, 1996; Swanson & Woitke, 1997). Researchers believed st udying barriers for wo men might provide a means of explaining the restriction of woman’ s career aspirations and the gaps between their abilities and achievement (Betz & Fitzge rald, 1987). Subsequent ly, the construct of career barriers has since been expanded to include the study of racial-ethnic minority groups and men’s career devel opment (Lent et al., 1994). Swanson and Woitke (1997) defined career barr iers as “events or conditions, either within the person or his [her] environment, th at make career progress difficult” (p. 446). Lent et al. (1994) incorporated contextual influences into th e SCCT model. However, not until recently (Lent et al., 2000) did they expand on the role and specific location of barriers and supports with the model. In 1997, Swanson and Woitke suggested that barriers moderated relationships between sociocognitive variables and that the nature of a particular barrier would determ ine its role and location in th e SCCT model. Lent et al. (2000) concurred and expanded on the model by conceptualizing career barriers as either background contextual factors th at may influence self-efficacy and outcome expectations through learning experiences and also as mode rators of the interest-to-goal and goal-toaction process. However, empirical tests of this relationship suggest ed that barriers and supports are linked to choice goa ls and actions indirectly, through self-efficacy (Lent et al., 2001; Lent et al., 2003). Based on the lim ited number of studies related to contextual influences, Lent et al. (2003) recommended th at further research be conducted studying: (a) the SCCT contextual hypothe ses, (b) relations of suppor t and barrier precepts to

PAGE 59

45 choice behavior within differe nt cultural contexts, and (c) the dimensionality of contextual influences. Environmental supports In addition to barriers, supports or support systems are also conceived within SCCT as environmental variables that exert an influence on formation and implementation of career pursuits (Lent et al., 2000). Research pe rtaining to contextual support mechanisms has been rare, largely due to the interest in exploring barriers to women’s career development (Lent et al. 2000). Lent et al. (2000) suggested this barrier-focused view might have constricted research on contextu al effects. Lent et al. (2000) further purported that to thoroughly study contextual roadblocks, it is essential to also study the environmental factors that can facilitate ca reer choice and development. Only a few studies in the career development literature have examined the impact of contextual support systems, such as parental, peer, and teacher support. In a study of 1,863 high school students, Fa rmer (1985) found that parental support was a significant predictor of th e career aspirations of ninth gr aders, while twelfth graders were more influenced by teacher support. Wall, Covell, and MacIntyre (1999) found that high school males’ and females’ perceive d peer, family, and teacher support was predictive of students’ perceptions of opport unity. In their investigation of 126 tenth through twelfth graders, Lapan, Hinkelma n, Adams, and Turner (1999) found that students’ perceptions of parental support we re significant predictors of differences in self-efficacy, perceived value, and vocational interests across four out of six groups representing each of the types established by Holland (1966). Even in undergraduate college students, parental encouragement has been found to have a significant effect on

PAGE 60

46 learning experiences, self-efficacy, and outco me expectations (Ferry, Fouad, & Smith, 2000). Additionally, Paa and McWh irter (2000) found in thei r study of 464 high school students that differences between genders existe d with regard to their perceived influence of career expectations. Fema le students reported more positive influence from their female parent, peers, and teachers, whereas, males perceived positive influence from their father, as well as their mother, peers, and teachers. The influence of peers is also demonstrated in Novi and Meinster’s ( 2000) study of 500 adol escent girls. High cohesion peer groups were found to exert a greater influence upon girls’ academic achievement efforts than lower cohesion peer groups. Contextual influences relevan t to Agricultural Education In order to more fully understand the impact of background and proximal contextual influences upon a preservice t eacher’s decision to enter the agriculture teaching profession an expanded search of th e literature was conducted. A number of contextual factors were identifie d as possible supports and/or barriers to one’s decision to teach agriculture. Gender Discrimination The teaching profession is commonly considered a traditional occupation for women. However, agricultural education differs in that it is viewed as a male dominated field (Foster, 2001). In his 1987 national study, Knight found that only 5.1% of agriculture teacher s were women. While the United States Department of Labor (DOL) Women’s Bureau (2000) reported that women made up 38% of the nation’s labor force in 1970 and 42% in 1980. This total is expected to reach 48% by the year 2008. In recent years, the per centage of males and females in secondary agricultural education ha s shifted in a more equitable di rection. In a 1998 nationwide

PAGE 61

47 survey, Camp (2000) reported that the percen tage of female teachers had risen to 15.8% and more recently the survey showed that the number had reached 22% (Camp et al., 2002). The Camp et al. (2002) study also noted that 43% of the newly qualified teachers of agriculture were female, which is much more in line with the Department of Labor estimate. As the number of women in the field increased, researchers began to examine the potential barriers faced by women enteri ng the profession. In a study of 369 male agriculture teachers in Ohio, Cano (1990) found perceptions of sexual discrimination were evident and brought upon by ma le agriculture teach ers. Data indicated that female teachers perceived instances of sexual hara ssment by students and parents. Female teachers also expressed concerns of gender bi as in nominations for leadership positions within their professional organization. A study by Foster, Pikkert, and Husman (1991) found gender bias to be a definite deterre nt to women considering the agricultural education profession. In 2001, Foster surveyed 579 female agriculture teachers from across the nation. The results of the study showed that 61.7% of respondents reported experiencing barriers or challenges as a teacher due to their gende r. When asked what they felt was the greatest barrier faced by fema le agricultural education teachers, the most common response was “acceptance by peers and other ma les in industry” (p. 392). Other areas that produced significant responses were: “b alancing family and career, acceptance by administrators, acceptance by communit y, and gender-related issues” (p. 392). Teacher Preparation Little research investigating the contextual influences associated with teacher preparation programs ex ists in the current body of literature. For

PAGE 62

48 the most part, the teaching internship experien ce has received the most attention. This focus on field experience may be due to the commonly held belief that this component is the “most important phase of teacher education” (Cruickshank & Armaline, 1986, p. 35). The student teaching experience has been f ound to have a positive impact on preservice teachers’ perceived self-efficacy (Fortman & Pontius, 2000; Knobloch & Whittington, 2002). Braswell and Cobia (2000) found that ther e was a significant increase in the instructional self-efficacy of preservice teachers followi ng their internship period. Subjects’ sense of performance accomplishm ent was also a significant predictor of changes in self-efficacy. Fortman and Pontiu s (2000) found similar re sults in their study of 100 preservice teachers in a variety of student teachi ng settings. Self-efficacy was assessed using a pretest/post test method. Data analysis showed that the group of preservice teachers made significant gains in efficacy as a result of their student internship experience. In 2002, Knobloch and Whittington analyzed the percent of variance in teacher efficacy of 106 student and novice agriculture teac hers in Ohio. Using selected variables related to collective efficacy, teacher prep aration quality, and student internship experiences, they explained 17% of the variance in teaching efficacy. Teachers’ perceptions of their student internship experience accounted for 2.8% unique variance. Cole (1984) provided a diffe rent perspective, sugges ting that the quality of technical agriculture preparation may contribut e to an agricultural education graduates’ decision to enter teaching. Cole stated, “technical knowledge and hands-on skills are important criterion to vocational agriculture [t eacher] placement and retention” (p. 11).

PAGE 63

49 He also added that teachers stay in the pr ofession because of “acquisition of technical skills, (from whatever source), professional preparation, and they enjoy the work and student relationships” (p. 8). Academic Achievement Although no literature exists linking academic efficacy to one’s choice to teach agriculture, resear chers have investigated the influence of academic ability on graduates’ decision to en ter the teaching profe ssion. Much of the research in this area stemmed from a 1981 study by Schlechty and Vance of all newly certified teachers in North Carolina between 1973 and 1980. These researchers concluded that graduates with high academic ability were more likely to not enter teaching than their lower performing colleagues. Subsequent studies in agricu ltural education contradicted the findings of Schlechty and Vance (1981). Muller and Miller ( 1993) examined 294 agricultural education graduates who were certified between 1980 a nd 1989 at Iowa State University. Their findings suggested that academic ability and adequacy of the teacher education program provided no significant means of differentia ting between graduates who enter teaching and those who do not. In McCoy and Mortensen’s (1983) study of Pennsylvania agricultural education graduation, results suggested that students who entered and remained in the teaching profession actually achieved higher cumulative grade point averages and higher grades on their student teaching experience than t hose who chose not teach or had left the profession. Similarly, in 1991 Baker and Hodges found that agricultural education graduates ( n = 160) who entered teaching could be distinguished from those who opted not to teach when compared by cumulative grade point average, grades in student

PAGE 64

50 teaching and professional education courses, and certification status. In a multiple regression analysis, these variab les were found to explain 16% of the variance in graduate career choice, with grades in student teaching and certification status being the most powerful discriminating variables. Agricultural and FFA Background Although no studies have been conducted examining the influence of contextual f actors such as background and experience in agriculture and FFA, these fact ors may have an impact on career decisions by moderating self-efficacy, and interest-goal and goal-action processes. As previously mentioned, Cole’s (1984) study compared 151 ag ricultural education graduates from Oregon State University who ne ver taught, those who taught and quit, and those who were still teaching. Cole examin ed graduates’ experience with secondary agricultural education an d work experience in the agricu ltural industry. Data analysis showed that a number of notable differences existed in these groups, especially between those who never taught and those still teachi ng. When examining membership in FFA (4 years), 80% of graduates who are still teaching reported be ing FFA members, compared to only 55% of those who never taught, and 74% of those who taught and quit. Another difference was found in Supervised Occ upational Experience Program (SOEP) participation. Only 32% of graduates who chos e not to teach had an SOEP for four years, while 72% of those still teaching had SOEPs. When these two groups were compared on the degree of activity in FFA and SOEPs, th e results again showed that those still teaching were nearly 20% more active than th ose who never taught. Cole also looked at the number of years of agricultural work experience graduates possessed and found a difference of only one year, however, about 11 % more of those still teaching reported

PAGE 65

51 that this work experience was of excellent quality (37% still teaching vs. 26% never taught). The study also found virtually no diffe rence when looking at the percentage of graduates from rural high schools. In 1987, Hillison, Camp, and Burke compar ed 1980 and 1985 agricultural education graduates at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. When they examined the influence of factors on gra duates’ decisions to become agricultural education majors, they found that 1985 and 1980 graduates rated th eir farm backgrounds as the second and fifth most influential, respec tively. Graduates reported that their own agriculture teachers were influential in the proce ss of choosing agricultural education as a major. Another important finding from this study was that the most influential fact or for both groups of graduates was that the agricultural education major provided an oppor tunity to get into other agricultural jobs, besides teaching agricu lture. Graduates found this flexibility to be the most influential aspect of the major. Although a study by Edwards and Briers ( 2001) focused on longevity in teaching rather than on the decision to teach, they found that moderate relationships existed between expected years of teaching and agri cultural work experience, and between FFA involvement and teachers’ perceived level of competence. These researchers concluded that teachers with more years of agricu ltural work experience and FFA involvement expected to teach longer and were more confident in their abilities to do so. Model Testing The studies discussed in previous sections have primarily focused on specific SCCT constructs, however a number of research ers have chosen to examine the tenets of the SCCT as posited by Lent et al. (1994). In their monograph, Lent et al. posed a series of predictions in the form of twelve propositions and related hypotheses. These

PAGE 66

52 propositions have provided a structure in whic h researchers have tested the SCCT model within different contexts. The following ar e the twelve prediction propositions posited by Lent et al. (1994) in their SCCT model: Proposition 1. An individual’s occupational or academic interests at any point in time are reflective of his or her concu rrent self-efficacy beliefs and outcome expectations. Proposition 2. An individual’s occupational in terests also are influenced by his or her occupationally relevant abilities, but this relation is medi ated by one’s selfefficacy beliefs. Proposition 3. Self-efficacy beliefs affect choice goals and actions both directly and indirectly. Proposition 4. Outcome expectations affect choice goals and actions both directly and indirectly. Proposition 5. People will aspire to en ter (i.e., develop choice goals for) occupations or academic fields that are cons istent with their primary interest areas. Proposition 6. People will attempt to enter occupations or academic fields that are consistent with their choice goals, provided that they are committed to their goal, and their goal is stated in clear term s, proximal to the point of actual entry. Proposition 7. Interests affect entry beha viors (actions) indir ectly through their influence on choice goals. Proposition 8. Self-efficacy beliefs infl uence career/academic performance both directly and indirectly through their effect on performance goals. Outcome expectations influence performance only i ndirectly through their effect on goals. Proposition 9. Ability (or ap titude) will affect career /academic performance both directly and indirectly through its ’ influence on self-efficacy beliefs. Proposition 10. Self-efficacy beliefs deri ve from performance accomplishments, vicarious learning, social persuasion, and physiological reactions (e.g., emotional arousal) in relation to particular educati onal and occupationally relevant activities. Proposition 11. As with self-efficacy belie fs, outcome expectations are generated through direct and vicarious experiences with educa tional and occupationally relevant activities. Proposition 12. Outcome expectations are al so partially determined by self-efficacy beliefs, particularly when outcomes (e.g., succ esses, failures) are closely tied to the quality or level of one’s performance.

PAGE 67

53 Proposition 1 has received the most attenti on in the literature. In this proposition, Lent et al. (1994) proposed that at any give n time, an individual’s career or academic interests are reflected by his or her self-efficacy beliefs and outcome expectations. Fouad and Smith were the first to formally test this proposition in 1996. Using an ethnically diverse sample of 380 middle school students, Fouad and Smith (1996) investigated whether students’ vocational interests were reflective of their self-efficacy beliefs and outcome expectations. The study also included inquiries into propositions 3 and 4, which hypothesize that self-efficacy beli efs and outcome expectations affect choice, goals, and actions. Results of the structural equati on modeling analysis supported the propositions of Lent et al. (1994). Self-efficacy beliefs were shown to have a direct influence on students’ interests and an i ndirect influence on interests through outcome expectancies. The model also revealed outcome expectati ons were a determinant of interests and intentions, and interests we re shown to be determinan ts of career intentions. Schaffner and Jepsen (1999) conducted thei r own test of the SCCT model within the context of a minority teacher recruitmen t program. In this study, the researchers focused again on Lent et al.’ s (1994) propositions 1, 3, and 4. This study also examined proposition 5, which hypothesizes that people as pire to enter career fields that are consistent with their interest areas. The sample consisted of 243 at-risk, minority high school students from various cities. In this case, data analysis yielded mixed support for propositions of the SCCT mode l. In support of proposition 1, self-efficacy was found to be strongly linked to interests. However, contrary to proposition 1, the independent effect of outcome expectancies on interests was not observed. Additionally, the influence of teacher self-efficacy on teaching goals wa s found to be only an indirect influence

PAGE 68

54 rather than the direct influence predic ted in SCCT proposition 3. Examining the influence of outcome expectations, researchers found that there was indeed a direct effect on choice actions, however the re lationship was reported to be negative, rather than the positive nature predicted by SCCT. Lastly, results from the study also showed that interests directly influenced choice acti ons supporting proposition 5 and earlier findings by Lent et al. (1994). In 2001, Smith tested propositions 1, 3, and 12 in an investigation of 289 undergraduates completing computer related co ursework. Smith used path analysis to examine the relationship among career self-effi cacy, outcome expecta tions, career choice goals, vocational interests, a nd career barriers. Findings were supportive of propositions 1 and 3; career self-efficacy had a significan t relationship with vocational interest and career choice goals. Smith did not produce supportive findings rela ted to proposition 12, in which no significant relationship betw een career self-efficacy and outcome expectations existed. Model Comparison and Integration Only recently has Bandura’s (1977) general so cial learning theory been applied to career and academic behavior (Lent et al., 1994 ). In doing so, two distinct branches of social cognitive theories have emerged. Thes e theories include the social learning theory of career selection posited by Krumboltz, Mitchell, and Jones (1976) and Betz and Hackett’s (1981) self-efficacy theory. The SCCT integrates important aspects of both of these theories, yet it remains distinctly different from each (Lent et al., 1994). Similar to the Krumboltz et al. (1976) social learning theory, the SCCT acknowledges the impact of factors such as genetic endowment, special abilities, and environmental conditions on career choice beha vior (Lent et al., 1994). These theorists

PAGE 69

55 also held similar views re garding the importance of l earning experiences, and the influence of person inputs, and contextual factors in guiding an individual’s career development. Where these theories differ is in what they attempt to explain. Krumboltz et al. (1976) primarily focused on choice be havior, whereas the SCCT examined the entire developmental process, choice behavi or, and performance atta inment (Lent et al., 1994). Additionally, the two theories diffe r in the emphasis placed on self-efficacy mechanisms. Social cognitive career theorist s contend self-efficacy is a major mediator of career choice and development, however it is Krumboltz’s position that self-efficacy plays a minor role in choice be havior (Lent et al., 1994). The SCCT doesn’t contrast the self-efficacy theory posited by Betz and Hackett (1981), but rather builds upon it. These two th eories share views of the importance of self-efficacy and the moderating effect of perceived barriers. However, Lent and colleagues (1994) have broadene d their view of choice behavi or to include the influence of outcome expectations, in terests, and performance. The SCCT also has the potential to comp lement other popular theorists views of career development. Holland’s Theory of Types (1966) viewed career choice and career adjustment as an extension of a person’s personality (Sharf, 1996, p. 90). His theory hypothesized that people tend to gravitate towa rd careers that are compatible with their interests (Lent et al., 1994). Social Cognitiv e Career Theory shares a related view of career interests. However, it builds upon it by suggesting the relationship between interests and choice behavior is mediated by goals, and environmental features moderate the relation of those goals to actions (Lent et al., 1994). For instan ce, an individual may have an interest in a compatible career, yet he or she may be less likely to take action on

PAGE 70

56 that interest due to an absen ce of support from a parent or other significant person in his or her life. The SCCT also exhibits a degree of commonality with Super’s (1990) career development theory. Like Lent et al., Super believed learning experiences were essential in the development of personality variables rela ted to career development, such as career interests. Lent et al. (1994) emphasized sp ecific learning processes and mechanisms not contained in Super’s theory. Social Cognitive Career Theory could serve as an adjunct to Super’s more general appro ach (Lent et al., 1994). Chapter Summary This chapter attempted to provide a review of the pertinent literature related to the research problem of this study. A theo retical framework was presented based on Bandura’s (1977) Social Learning Theory. The conceptual basis of the study was developed around the model of Social Cognitive Career Theory posited by Lent et al. (1994). A description of the core socioc ognitive components, self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and choice goals were provided. The influence of othe r factors, such as person inputs and contextual in fluences were also explained. Research relevant to the sociocognitive components of SCCT was summarized. This research provided support for the majo r tenets of SCCT theory, however a few studies have found results contrary to so me of the propositions posited by Lent and colleagues (1994). These studies do provide evidence that SCCT has demonstrated its utility for explaining development of specific ca reer relevant interests of adolescents and young adults. The reviewed studies suggest that sociocognitive mechanisms such as selfefficacy, outcome expectations, and goal mech anisms are major components of the career development and decision-making process. These mechanisms have been shown to

PAGE 71

57 interact with learning experiences and pers on inputs to influence career behaviors and interests. Although this research prov ides a basis for understanding the career development process for a number of age groups and within various contexts, no such research has been conducted in agricultural education. Given the domain specificity of the career development process and lack of research related to career decision in agricultural education, the n eed for additional research in this area is obvious.

PAGE 72

58 CHAPTER 3 METHODS Chapter 1 provided an introduction and basi s for this study. The current teacher shortage in agricultural education was disc ussed and a need for further research was established. The purpose of th is research study was presented as well as the research question and objectives. The chapter concluded by defining key terms, outlining assumptions and stating limitations of the study. In Chapter 2, the theoretical and conceptual framework for this study was outlined. A review of the relevant literature provi ded a thorough background on the SCCT and its core components: self-efficacy, outcome exp ectations, and goals, as well as other variables related to this study. The literature review yielde d a limited amount of research pertaining to the career decision-making proces s of preservice agriculture teachers, thus establishing a need for additional research. This chapter outlines the research methodology used in conducting this study. The research design, study procedures, populati on and sample, instrumentation, data collection, and analys is are addressed. The purpose of the study was to describe the influence and predictive nature of person inputs, contextual influences, se lf-efficacy, and outcome expectations on preservice agricultural teachers’ intenti ons to pursue a teaching position and their intended length of teaching tenure. The dependent variables for this study were preservice agriculture teachers’ intentions to pursue a teaching position, and the number of years they expected to remain in the pr ofession. The independe nt variables consisted

PAGE 73

59 of person inputs, contextual influences perceived self-efficacy, and outcome expectations. Research Design This study utilized a causalcomparative design (Gall, Bo rg, & Gall, 1996). Causalcomparative research is a type of quantit ative research that attempts to discover possible cause-and-effect relationships between variab les. This is done by comparing individuals with certain behavior patterns or personal ch aracteristics with those that are lacking or exhibit these patterns or characteristics to a lesser degree (Gall et al., 1996). This method is commonly referred to as ex post facto research because the relationships or possible causes of a given phenomenon are studied after they have exerted their effect on another variable (Gall et al., 1996). In the case of this study, th e independent variables have already affected the decision-making process of the preservice teachers. Therefore, experimental manipulation and control would be impossible. It was, however, possible to investigate potential relationships between the existing independent variables and the dependent variables of the study. Causal-comparative and experimental res earch designs share some similarities. Both research methods can be utilized to test hypotheses rega rding the relationship between independent and dependent variables. Causal-comparative research can yield the same kind of information that an experime ntal design can provide (Ary et al., 2002). However, causal-comparative methods provide researchers with less convincing evidence of causal relationships between variables than do experimental methods. This is primarily due to the researcher’s inability to control the independent variables by manipulation and lack of randomization. Due to this lack of control, an inference about the causal relationships between variables is hazardous in a ca usal-comparative study

PAGE 74

60 (Ary et al., 2002). A researcher may mistak enly attribute causation based on an observed relationship between variables. Th is error is referred to as “ post hoc fallacy” (Ary et al., 2002, p. 337). According to Ary et al. (2002), if a researcher wishes to conclude that a variable (X) is the cause of an effect on another variable (Y), three types of evidence are necessary: (1) a statistical relationship betw een variables X and Y must be established, (2) variable X must precede Y in time, and (3 ) it must be determined that other factors did not cause Y. By testing and determini ng that no other factors caused Y, researchers can exclude the possibility of a spurious relationship. Ary et al. (2002) defines a spurious relationship as “one in which the two variables really have no effect on each other but are related because some other variable influences both” (p. 337). In order to draw correct conclusions from a study, Campbell and Stanley (1966) state that internal validity is a basic requirement. Given the similarities between experimental and causal-comparative research th ey also share some of the same threats to internal validity and external validity. Ary et al. (2002) defi ned internal validity as “the extent to which the changes observed in a de pendent variable are, in fact, caused by the independent variable in a pa rticular experimental situ ation rather than by some extraneous factors” (p. 281). Campbell and Stanley (1966) id entified eight extraneous va riables that frequently pose a threat to the inte rnal validity of a research desi gn. These threats include: history, maturation, testing, instrumentation, statis tical regression, differential selection, mortality, and the interaction of these threat s. Given the design and survey procedure used in this study, the most serious threat to internal validi ty comes from the measurement instrumentation. Threats due to history, maturation, testing, and mortality

PAGE 75

61 were controlled for through the selection of a sample that represented the entire accessible population. Concerns pertaining to statistical regre ssion and differential selection were also addressed by the sample selection. By including all fall teaching interns across the nation in the sample, it ensu red that participants were selected based on a naturally occurring characteristic rather than a characteristic determined by the researcher. The threat of an instrument to the intern al validity of a study is the result of the unreliability of the instrument (Ary et al. 2002). This threat can be further broken down into four areas of concern when utilizi ng a questionnaire for data collection. These instrumentation threats include: face validit y, content validity, construct validity, and criterion-related validity (Ary et al. 2002). Face validity is simply a matter of whether the instrument appears valid for its intended purpose (Ary et al., 2002). In this study, a panel of expert s consisting of five university faculty specializing in teacher education (four) and communications (one) reviewed the instrumentation ensuring its face validity. After a thorough review, suggestions were proposed and modifications ma de to the instrument establishing its face validity. Content validity is the degree to which th e scores yielded from an instrument represent the conten t that the instrument was supposed to measure (Gall et al., 1996). Threats to content validity were eliminat ed by the expert pane l’s review of the instrument’s content and also by analyzing th e results of a pilot te st conducted prior to the actual study. The pilot instrument wa s administered to 36 preservice teachers enrolled in agriculture teaching methods cour ses at three different institutions. This

PAGE 76

62 sample of students was determined to be si milar to the study’s ta rget population by the panel of experts. Construct validity is the extent to which an instrument assesses a construct that it purports to measure (Gall et al., 1996). Esta blishing construct validity is difficult given the abstract nature of a construct. Construc ts are defined as “abstr actions that cannot be observed directly” (Ary et al ., 2002, p. 32). Examples of common constructs measured in educational research are motivation, anxiety, satisfaction, efficacy, and self-concept. The instrument used in this study proposed to measure five constructs. To ensure that the instrument provided an accurate representati on of the desired constructs, the researcher utilized the panel of experts, reviewed the literature that provided empirical evidence supporting construct validity, and conducted post hoc analysis of the internal consistency of the pilot-tested instrument. Further expl anation regarding the c onstruct validity and reliability of the instrument will be discussed later in this chapter. The final threat to internal validity a ddressed in the study was criterion-related validity. Criterion-related validity was dete rmined by answering the question of whether the instrument was the correct way to asse ss the construct it was designed to measure (Ary et al., 2002). To ensure this was the case, the panel of experts was again consulted and a thorough review of the literature was conducted which provided empirical evidence of the criterion-related valid ity of the instrument. The causal-comparative design of this study also posed external validity concerns that had to be addressed. External va lidity refers to the generalizability or representativeness of th e study’s findings (Ary et al., 2002 ). Questions pertaining to the

PAGE 77

63 population and ecological external validity of this study have been considered and are addressed in the next sec tion pertaining to the study’s population and sample. Population and Sample The population of this study consisted of all preservice agriculture teachers completing their teaching internship experien ce in all agriculture teacher preparation programs throughout the nation during the 2004-2005 academic year. A purposive sample of 262 student teachers was selected from 42 institutions. This constituted all students completing their intern ship experience during the Fall 2004 academic term. This sampling method, also referred to as c onvenience sampling, was deemed to be appropriate when “sample elements judged to be typical, or repres entative, are chosen from the population” (Ary et al., 2002, p. 169) Gall et al. (1996) stated that data collected from a convenience sample could be analyzed using inferential statistics provided that the sample is carefully concep tualized to represent the target population. Therefore, attempts to generalize the fi ndings of this study will be contingent upon researchers efforts to find evidence the popul ation of interest is similar to those preservice agriculture teachers included in the sample selected for this study. Chapter 4 provides a description of the respondents, allowi ng researchers to compare this sample to the population. Procedure Prior to collecting the primary data for this study, a pilot test was conducted. The pilot test was necessary to establish the validity and reliabilit y of the measurement instrument used in the study. With the exception of the teacher efficacy scale (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001), all other measurement scales were developed and modified by the researcher for this study. However, most of the scales

PAGE 78

64 used in this study were based on similar scal es found in the career development literature and previously determined to be valid and reliable. Prior to beginning the pilot study the researcher submitted the study’s protocol for review and received approval from the Univer sity of Florida Institutional Review Board (see Appendix A). The pilot study was conduc ted in October of the Fall 2004 semester. The pilot instrument was administered to 36 preservice teachers in agricultural teaching methods courses at three institutions repres enting each of the geographic regions of the American Association for Agricultural Edu cation. The institutions included California State University, Fresno of the Western Re gion, University of Missouri of the North Central Region, and the University of Florid a representing the Southern Region. This convenience sample consisted of 22 female ( 61%) and 14 male students in the final year of their agriculture teacher pr eparation program. The participants had a mean age of 23 years. The ethnicity of the group was 94% Caucasian and the remainder were Hispanic/Non-Caucasian. Results of the pi lot test and further explanation of each measurement scale is provided later in this chapter. The procedures for conducting the main study began early in the Fall 2004 semester. By utilizing the 2004 membership directory of the Amer ican Association of Agricultural Educators (AAAE) a list of 89 teacher preparatio n institutions was generated. In mid October, an email message was sent to the Depart ment Chair or lead teacher educator at each inst itution explaining the purpose of this study and soliciting their participation (see Appendix B). After 10 days, those institutions not replying to the email were sent a follow-up request (see A ppendix C). If an email response was not received after one week, the researcher then attempted to make contact via the telephone.

PAGE 79

65 Eligibility for this study required that the institution had stude nts completing their teaching internship experience during the fall semester, and a faculty member must administer the instrument at, or as near as possible to the conclusion of the semester. An institution’s willingness to participate was de monstrated by their response to the email or expressed in the telephone c onversation and also by providing the researcher with the number of teacher interns under their superv ision. The instruments were mailed to teacher educators during the first week of N ovember with instructions and administered during regular meetings or seminars with st udent teachers. The packet of information sent to teacher educators included specific directions for administering the instrument (see Appendix D) and informed consent forms (see Appendix E). A follow-up email was sent one week after the instruments were ma iled to confirm teacher educators received the materials and as a reminder to administer th e instrument prior to or at the end of the academic term. Completed instruments were re turned to the researcher in the provided return envelope. Institutions not returning completed questionnaires by the first of December were sent an email reminder (see Appendix F). The final email contact was made during the first week of January, request ing an expeditious return of the completed questionnaires or confirmation of the institution’s decision to not participant in the study (see Appendix G). Following the return of each institution’s study materials an email was sent to the institution’s contact person confirming the receipt of the materials and thanking them for their assistance (see Appendix H). Instrumentation To accurately assess the independent a nd dependent variables in this study, numerous measurements were needed. Wh en possible, existing instruments with established validity and reliability were used in their entirety or after modification

PAGE 80

66 appropriate for the specific population of this study. In the following sections, each instrument is presented in further detail wi th its established reliability and validity. Demographics Instrument (Person Inputs) A researcher-developed instrument was us ed to collect demographical data (see Appendix I). In the context of the Social C ognitive Career Theory, demographical data is referred to as “person inputs.” An expert pa nel of five faculty from the Department of Agricultural Education a nd Communication and the De partment of Teaching and Learning at the University of Florida review ed the 10-item instrument and established face and content validity. Items were dete rmined to have “an accurate, ready-made answer” and did not demand considerable time or thought, nor did they create considerable variation, th erefore the instrument posed little threat to relia bility (Dillman, 2000, p. 35). Preservice Agriculture Teacher In tentions and Aspirations Scale This instrument was developed by the re searcher based on th e Career Aspiration Scale (O’Brien, Gray, Tourajdi, & Eigenbr ode, 1996). The Career Aspiration Scale (CAS) used ten 5-point Likert-t ype items to assess the degree to which individuals aspire to advancement and leadership positions with in their careers. The CAS includes four reverse scored items and all items were summated to calculate an individual’s total score. O’Brien et al. (1996) reported the CAS had an estimated alpha coefficient of .73 for a sample of 107 high school females. The researcher-developed instrument consisting of 18 items was developed by selecting relevant items from the CAS and also by using CAS items as a basis to create new items that better reflect the career aspira tions of preservice agriculture teachers (see Appendix L). In post-hoc analys is of the pilot study data ( n = 34) the Preservice

PAGE 81

67 Agriculture Teacher Intentions and Aspira tions Scale was found to have an alpha estimate of .86. For the purposes of describing preservi ce agriculture teachers’ scores on the Intentions and Aspirations scal e, summated scores were categor ized as low, moderate, or high. The range of scores were divided into thirds, which equated to summated scores of 66 or greater being considered high, scores between 43 and 65 were categorized as moderate, and those of 42 or less were consider ed low intentions and aspirations to teach agriculture. Teacher Efficacy Scale To measure perceptions of self-efficacy re lated to teaching, the researcher utilized the Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES) [See Appendix K] developed by Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001). Through factor analysis, these researchers found this scale measured teachers perceived confidence on three identifiable subconstructs, which included student engage ment, using instructional strategies, and classroom management. This 12-item scale uses a 9-point Likert-type response format ranging from “Nothing” (1 point) to “A Great Deal” (9 points). Individual scores for the construct were calculated by a summation of the 12 items. Higher scores on the scale indicated greater perceived confid ence in one’s teaching ability. Through a series of three developmental st udies, which included 624 preservice and inservice teachers, Tschannen-Moran and Wool folk Hoy (2001) established the internal consistency of the scale. Over the three st udies, the TSES had a reported estimated alpha of .90. Further evidence of internal consis tency was provided by the post-hoc reliability analysis of the pilot test, which yielded an estimated alpha of .86 ( n = 35).

PAGE 82

68 In order to describe participants’ level of teacher efficacy the researcher categorized teacher efficacy scores as high, moderate, or low. These categories were determined by dividing the possible range of sc ores on the TSES in thirds. This meant that summated scores of 76 or greater were considered to be high efficacy scores, 75 to 45 were moderate, and scores of 44 or less were categorized as low. Preservice Agriculture Teacher Expectations Scale The Vocational Outcome Expectations (VOE) [McWhirter, Rasheed, & Crothers, 2000] scale served as an example for the deve lopment of the teacher expectation scales used in this study. The VOE is a sixitem scale that a ssesses career outcome expectations. For a sample of 166 high sc hool sophomores the Cronbach’s alpha for the VOE was .83. Based on the VOE, the researcher devel oped a 14-item scale (See Appendix L) incorporating the outcome expect ations mentioned in the agricu ltural education literature (i.e. Burke & Hillison, 1991; Cough lin et al., 1988). Results of the pilot test yielded an alpha coefficient of .68 ( n = 35). The nature of this alpha coefficient was such that further investigation of the reliability of this scale was warranted, which lead the researcher to conduct post-hoc analysis of th e final study data. These findings will be presented in Chapter 4. Preservice agriculture teacher expectations were described in this study as high, moderate, and low. The range of possible su mmated scores were divided evenly into the three categories, so that expect ations scores of 52 or grea ter were considered high, 51 to 34 were moderate, and scores of 33 or less were considered to be low expectations scores.

PAGE 83

69 Preservice Agriculture Teacher Career Barriers Scale The career barriers scal e utilized in this study was developed by the researcher based on the Perceptions of Educational Barr iers (POE) scale developed by McWhirter (1997b). The POE is an 84-item assessment designed to measure three dimensions of barriers to the pursuit of pos t-secondary education. The re searcher developed a 14-item scale utilizing two of the dimensions ou tlined by McWhirter (1997b), which include the likelihood of encountering barri ers and the difficulty of ove rcoming barriers. In 2000, McWhirter et al. found estimated alpha coe fficients for the likelihood and difficulty subscales of .95 and .91, respectively. The Preservice Agriculture Teachers Car eer Barriers Scale developed by the researcher consisted of 14 double-scaled it ems (see Appendix M). Participants were asked to indicate how likely they were to en counter each barrier in their decision-making process and also, if they did experience su ch a barrier how difficult would each be to overcome. Both scales consisted of 5-point Likert-type items w ith the likelihood scale ranging from “Not at all Likely” (1 point) to “Definitely Likely” (5 points) and the difficulty scale ranging from “Not all all Diffi cult” (1 point) to “Could not Overcome” (5 points). Results of the post hoc reli ability analysis of the pilot test ( n = 35) provided an alpha coefficient of .75 for the Likelihood scale and .86 for the Difficulty scale. In describing the findings of this study, car eer barriers scores were categorized as high, moderate, or low. As with the precedi ng instruments, the range of possible scores was divided into thirds by the researcher. Summated scores of 49 or greater were considered high, 48 to 34 were moderate, and sc ores of 33 or less were considered to be low.

PAGE 84

70 Preservice Agriculture Teacher Support Scale A researcher-developed instrument wa s used to measure the amount of support perceived by preservice agriculture teachers pe rtaining to their deci sion to enter teaching or not (see Appendix N). The development of th is instrument was inspired by five scales used by Rasheed (2001) to measure students’ perceptions of the degree to which they experienced support from parents, siblings, fr iends, and teachers with respect to their educational and occupational activities, ideas and plans. Given the broad scope and excessive length of these five scales (118 it ems), the researcher cr eated a 14-item scale that focused specifically on preservice agri culture teachers’ decisions to enter the profession. The instrument included items related to the amount of perceived support from parents, siblings, friends, and school st aff and teachers. The researcher used a 5point Likert-type scale and also included a re sponse choice for part icipants to indicate those persons who were not appli cable in their case. The results of the pilot test yielded a Cronbach’s alpha of .74 ( n = 7) for the support scale. Due to the small number of eligible cases caused by the occurrence of persons deemed to be non-applicable by the participants, additional data and further analys is seemed appropriate to provide stronger evidence of the reliability of this scale. T hus, post-hoc reliability analysis of the final study data was performed to pr ovide additional evidence of th e internal consistency of the support scale. The findings of this an alysis will be provided in Chapter 4. Analysis of Data Data analysis was conducted using SPSS version 12.0 for WindowsTM. The first objective of the study was accomplished using de scriptive statistics, specifically means and frequencies. In doing so, summated sc ales of Likert-type items were treated as interval data as outlined by Clason and Do rmody (1994). The use of Likert scaling

PAGE 85

71 presumes the existence of a latent or underl ying continuous variable. The value of this variable characterizes the respondents’ attitudes and opinions. Clason and Dormody (1994) stated, “If it were possible to meas ure the latent variable directly, the measurement scale would be, at best, an interv al scale” (p. 31). Gi ven the nature of the attitudinal construct scales included in this study and the establishe d research base for these constructs, the research er concluded that the treatm ent of summated scores as interval data was appropriate. In order to determine that no multicollineari ty effects existed in the models, each independent variable was regr essed on the other independent variables. According to Agresti and Finlay (1997), in this type of analysis resear chers should be concerned about possible multicollinearity effects when the value of the coefficient of multiple determination ( R2) is close to 1. This would suggest that the variab le might not be needed in the model, once th e others are included. In order to accomplish objectives two and three, multiple regression models were utilized. The coefficient of multiple determination ( R2) was used to explain the variance in the dependent variables based on the independ ent variables. In both cases, a stepwise elimination process was used for building the model. This procedure begins by placing all independent variables in the model and de letes one variable from the model at each step. As each variable is dropped from the model the procedure also drops any variables that no longer make significant partial contri butions until all the remaining variables are found to be significant predictors of the dependent variable (Norusis, 2004).

PAGE 86

72 Chapter Summary This chapter addressed the methods utilized to achieve the objectives and to test the hypotheses identified in Chapter 1. In doi ng so, the research design, population and sample, procedure, instrumentation, and data analysis were discussed. The design of this study was identified as cau sal-comparative. The attributes of this research design were presented and the th reats to validity were addressed. The independent variables in this study were pe rson inputs, contextual influences, selfefficacy, and outcome expectations. The depe ndent variables were preservice agriculture teachers’ intentions to pursue a teaching pos ition, and the number of years they intended to remain in the profession.

PAGE 87

73 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Chapter 1 provided an introduction and basi s for this study. The current teacher shortage in agricultural education was disc ussed and a need for further research was established. The purpose of th is research study was presented as well as the research question and objectives. The chapter concluded by defining key terms, outlining assumptions, and stating limitations of the study. In Chapter 2, the theoretical and conceptual framework for this study was outlined. A review of the relevant literature provi ded a thorough background on the SCCT and its core components: self-efficacy, outcome exp ectations, and goals, as well as other variables related to this study. The literature review yielde d a limited amount of research pertaining to the career decisi on-making process of preservice agricultural teachers, thus establishing a need for additional research. Chapter 3 outlined the research methodology used in conducting this study. The research design, study procedures, populati on and sample, instrumentation, data collection, and analysis were addressed. The design of this study was identified as causal-comparative. The purpose of the study was to describe the influence and predictive nature of person inputs, contextual influences, self-efficacy, and outcome expectations on preservice agriculture teacher s’ intentions to pursue a teaching position and perception of their teaching longevity. The dependent variables for this study were preservice agriculture teachers’ intentions to pursue a teaching position, and the number of years they expected to remain in the pr ofession. The independe nt variables consisted

PAGE 88

74 of person inputs, contextual influences perceived self-efficacy, and outcome expectations. This chapter presents the findings of this study. The results address the objectives of this study in determining the predictive na ture of person inputs, contextual influences, self-efficacy, and outcome expectations on pres ervice agriculture teachers’ intentions to pursue a teaching position and their in tended length of teaching tenure. The population of this study consisted of all preservice agriculture teachers completing their teaching internship expe rience during the 2004-2005 academic year at all of the agriculture teac her preparation programs thr oughout the nation. A purposive sample of 262 preservice teachers was selected from 42 institutions. This constituted all students completing their inte rnship experience during the Fall 2004 academic term. After following the data collection proce dures outlined in Chapter 3, usable responses were received from 215 preservice ag riculture teachers from 34 institutions, representing 25 states (see Table 4-1). Based on the aforementioned sample size, a response rate of 82.1% ( n = 215) was achieved, with 81% of the institutions contributing responses. In cases where a respondent failed to re spond to a single item within a construct scale, the missing item was replaced by the m ean of the participant’s responses on the other items within the scale (DeVaus, 1990). In cases where the participant did not respond to an entire scale or failed to res pond to a demographic question, the variable was coded as missing and excluded from analyses involving the variable. Prior to data analysis, post-hoc reliability analyses were conducted for each of the instrument scales developed or modified by the researcher. A post-hoc reliability

PAGE 89

75 analysis was also performed on the Teacher s Sense of Efficacy Scale since no such analysis was found in the literature pertaining to this population. All of the scales within the instrument measured participant responses using Likert-type items, therefore tests for internal consistency were perf ormed using Cronbach’s alpha. Table 4-1 Institution and Preservice Teacher Participation Summary Institution Preservice Teachersa Participants % Auburn University 1 0 0.0 University of Arkansas 2 2 100.0 Arkansas State University 3 3 100.0 Southern Arkansas University 4 3 75.0 California Polytechnic State University, Pomona 1 0 0.0 California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo 13 12 92.3 California State University, Chico 1 1 100.0 California State University, Fresno 1 1 100.0 Colorado State University 2 1 50.0 University of Delaware 1 0 0.0 Fort Valley State University 2 2 100.0 Southern Illinois University 4 2 50.0 Western Illinois University 2 2 100.0 Iowa State University 3 1 33.3 Kansas State University 2 2 100.0 Western Kentucky University 5 4 80.0 College of the Ozarks 2 2 100.0 Montana State University 2 2 100.0 University of Nebraska 5 1 20.0 New Mexico State University 10 9 90.0 Cornell University 8 3 37.5 North Carolina A & T State University 1 1 100.0 North Dakota State University 1 1 100.0 The Ohio State University 36 34 94.4 Oklahoma State University 11 11 100.0 Panhandle State University 4 0 0.0

PAGE 90

76 Table 4-1 Continued Institution Preservice Teachersa Participants % Clemson University 1 1 100.0 South Dakota State University 11 10 90.9 University of Tennessee at Martin 2 2 100.0 Middle Tennessee State University 3 3 100.0 Texas A & M University 33 33 100.0 Prairie View A & M University 1 0 0.0 Sam Houston State University 10 9 90.0 Stephen F. Austin State University 3 0 0.0 Tarleton State University 17 16 94.1 Texas Tech University 17 17 100.0 Utah State University 13 12 92.3 Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University 1 1 100.0 Washington State University 2 0 0.0 West Virginia University 5 5 100.0 University of Wisconsin Platteville 4 0 0.0 University of Wisconsin River Falls 12 5 41.7 Total 262 215 82.1 Note: aPreservice Teachers indicates total num ber of students completing teaching internship experiences during fall 2004 semest er as reported by the university contact. As shown in Table 4-2, the reliability estimat es for the construct scales ranged from .84 to .92. All of the reliabili ty coefficients increased from the estimates established previously by analysis of the pilot data. A notable increase was observed in the Teaching Expectations Scale. The pilot test analysis of this scale yielded a Cronbach’s alpha of .68, whereas post hoc data analysis from the study produced a Cronbach’s alpha of .84. Due to the small number of usable instrument s in the pilot test, questions also remained about the reliability of the Teaching Support Scale. The post hoc reliability analysis provided further evidence of the reliability of this scale with a coefficient estimate of .91 ( n = 53). The Teacher Support Scale included a response item of “Not Applicable”,

PAGE 91

77 which, for purposes of analysis was coded as missing data. The existence of any missing data resulted in the software package dr opping all of an individual’s data from the reliability analysis, therefore only those part icipants who responded to every item were included in the analysis. For the purpose and objectives outlined in this study, the results reported in Table 4-2 suggest th at all of these instrument scales are sufficiently reliable (Borg et al., 1996). Table 4-2 Post-Hoc Instrument Reliability Instrument n Reliability Teaching Intentions and Aspirations Scale 215 .88 Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale 215 .92 Teaching Expectations Scale 213 .84 Likelihood of Career Barriers Scale 207 .86 Difficulty of Overcoming Career Barriers Scale 207 .90 Teaching Support Scale 53 .91 Note. All reliability coefficients were estimated using Cronbach’s alpha. Objective One Describe the person inputs (demographics), contextual influences, self-efficacy, and outcome expectations of preservice agricul ture teachers in selected collegiate agriculture teacher preparation programs. Person Inputs Age, Gender, and Ethnicity Of the 215 participants in the study, 52.1% were female ( n = 112). The ages of the participants ranged from 21 to 57 years (s ee Table 4-3). The average age of the participants was 24.06 years ( SD = 4.85, n = 215). The ethnicity of the participants was 93.4% Caucasian ( n = 198), 2.4% Hispanic/Latino ( n = 5), 1.9% Native American/Alaskan ( n = 4), 1.4% African American ( n = 3), and 0.9% Asian ( n = 2).

PAGE 92

78 Table 4-3 Age of Study Participants Years f % 21 – 23 144 66.9 24 – 26 44 20.5 27 – 30 12 5.5 31 – 33 6 2.8 34 – 36 3 1.4 37 – 40 2 1.0 41 – 43 0 0.0 44 – 46 1 0.5 48 – 50 1 0.5 51 + 2 1.0 Background Contextual Influences Background influences include those vari ables related to th e experience of preservice agriculture teachers that may have an impact on the career decision-making process. These variables include: grade point average, involve ment in 4-H and the National FFA Organization, location of childhoo d/adolescent residence, and occupational experience. Grade point average Participants reported their cumulative and major grade point averages by selecting which range of values represen ted their grade point average. Over 64% of the preservice agriculture teachers ( n = 212) included in this stu dy reported cumulative grade point averages above 3.0; furthermore, 25% of the participants reported cumulative grade point averages above 3.5 (see Table 4-4). Less than 1% of the participants reported cumulative grade point averages belo w 2.5 and none less than 2.0. Of the 214 respondents, 84.1% indicated that their major grade point average was greater than 3.0, with nearly 46% reporting major grade po int averages above 3.5 (see

PAGE 93

79 Table 4-4). Approximately 16% of the particip ants indicated major grade point averages of 3.0 or less. No respondents reported major grade point averages below 2.0. Table 4-4 Participants’ Cumulative and Major Grade Point Averages Cumulative GPA Major GPA Grade Point Average f % f % 2.1 – 2.5 1 0.5 1 0.5 2.6 – 3.0 74 34.5 33 15.4 3.1 – 3.5 84 39.5 82 38.3 3.6 – 4.0 53 25.0 98 45.8 Involvement in 4-H programs Participants were asked to respond to two items related to their level of involvement in 4-H programs. In the first item, particip ants reported the number of years they had been involved in 4-H. Participants’ responses ranged from 0 to 18 years with a mean of 5.19 years ( SD = 4.82) [see Table 4-5]. The second item asked that participants to report their level of involvement in 4-H. Of the 212 respondents, 38.0 % ( n = 81) indicated they were “Very Involved”, 29.6% ( n = 63) reported being “Moder ately Involved”, and the remaining 32.4% (n = 69) were “Not at all Involved”. Table 4-5 Participants’ Years of Involvement in 4-H Years f % 0 66 31.1 1 – 5 52 24.5 6 – 10 60 28.2 11 – 15 31 14.6 16 + 3 1.5 Involvement in the National FFA Organization The participants also reported the number of years and level of involvement in the National FFA Organization. The 213 respondent s indicated 0 to 10 years of involvement

PAGE 94

80 in FFA, and an average of 4.04 years ( SD = 2.40) [see Table 4-6]. Over 67% of the 214 respondents reported being “Very Involved” in FFA ( n = 144), while 15.9% ( n = 34) believed they were “Moderately Involved”, and 16.8% ( n = 36) were “Not Involved at All”. Table 4-6 Participants’ Years of Involvement in FFA Years f % 0 31 14.6 1 – 2 15 7.0 3 – 4 92 43.2 5 – 6 45 21.1 7 – 8 21 9.9 9 + 9 4.2 Enrollment in Agricultural Education The participants reported the total number of years in which they were enrolled in middle and high school agriculture classes. Th e 214 respondents indica ted a range of 0 to 7 years of enrollment in agricultural educat ion (see Table 4-7). The mean number of years participants were enrolled was 3.29 ( SD = 1.73). Table 4-7 Participants’ Years of Enrollment in Agricultural Education Years f % 0 33 15.4 1 – 2 19 8.8 3 – 4 133 62.1 5 – 6 28 13.0 7 1 0.5 Location of childhood/adolescent residence Participants were asked to indicate the location that best described their childhood and adolescent residence. Of the responde nts (n = 214), over 86% reported living in a rural setting, with 56.5% ( n = 121) of the participants liv ing on a rural farm and 29.9% ( n

PAGE 95

81 = 64) living in a rural area but did not cons ider their residence a farm. Most of the remaining participants (10.7%, n = 23) reported their residen ce to be in a suburban area, while only 2.9% ( n = 6) grew up in an urban setting. Occupational experience Participants were asked to specify the nu mber of years of oc cupational experience they possessed in four categories: full-time ag ricultural experience, part-time agricultural experience, full-time non-agricultural experience, and part-time non-agricultural experience. The respondents ( n = 208) indicated a range of 0 to 32 years of full-time agricultural occupational experience (see Tabl e 4-8), with an average of 3.42 years ( SD = 5.52). Respondents ( n = 208) reported 0 to 24 years of part-time agricultural occupational experience and a mean of 3.78 years ( SD = 4.35). When asked the number of years of non-agricultural work experience, the 208 respondents in dicated 0 to 25 years of full-time experience with an average of 1.53 years ( SD = 3.29), and 0 to 12 years of part-time experience and an average of 2.0 years ( SD = 2.49). Analyses were also conducted to determine the proportion of pa rticipants who possessed no occupational experience in the combined categories of agri cultural and non-agricultural experience. Of the 209 respondents 8.6% (n = 18) reporte d no agricultural occ upational experience, while 24.9% of respondents (n = 52) had no non-agricultural e xperience. Every participant reported either ag ricultural or non-agricultural experience and in some cases participants indicated having both.

PAGE 96

82 Table 4-8 Participants’ Agricultural and Non-agricultural Occ upational Experience Agricultural Non-agricultural Full-time Part-time Full-time Part-time Years f % f % f % f % None 106 51.0 62 29.8 133 63.9 94 45.2 1 – 3 37 17.8 57 27.4 43 20.7 61 29.3 4 – 6 25 12.0 47 22.6 23 11.0 42 20.2 7 – 9 12 5.8 20 9.6 4 2.0 6 2.9 10 – 12 10 4.8 15 7.3 2 1.0 5 2.4 13 – 15 5 2.4 1 0.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 16 – 18 8 3.9 3 1.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 19 – 21 4 1.9 0 0.0 1 0.5 0 0.0 22 – 24 0 0.0 3 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.0 25 + 1 0.5 0 0.0 1 0.5 0 0.0 Teaching Intentions and Aspirations Teaching intentions scores were determin ed by summing the values of the 18 items included in the construct scale. Summated scores were calculated for all 215 participants. The minimum possible score for the construct was 18 and the maximum was 90. Participants’ scores were found to be between 36 and 85, which resulted in a range of 49 (see Table 4-9). The summated mean score was 65.71 ( SD = 10.59), which based on the instrument scale and the criteria established in Chapter 3, the mean would be considered to be high (high = 66 or gr eater). The individual item means ranged from 2.79 to 4.39 (see Table 4-10) and the median ranged from 2 to 5. The means of the six negatively worded items ranged from 1.86 to 3.95 and medians were found from 2 to 4. These items were reverse coded in calculating each i ndividual’s summated intentions score. To collect additional evidence of preservice teachers’ intentions to teach and to verify the accuracy of the Teaching Intentions Score, participants were asked to respond to this question, “Do you plan to teach agricu lture?” This item as ked participants to

PAGE 97

83 respond by selecting either “yes” or “no”. Of the 211 respondents, 80.1% ( n = 169) indicated that they plan to teach agriculture Those participants who planned to teach were found to have teaching intention scores ranging from 49 to 85 with a mean of 69.31 ( SD = 7.89). Those who indicated they did not plan to teach had teaching intentions scores ranging from 36 to 66 with a mean score of 51.62 ( SD = 8.15). The point biserial correlation between these variables was r = .67 (refer to Table 4-14 presented later in this chapter). Table 4-9 Participants’ Teaching Inten tions and Aspirations Summated Score Summated Score f % 36 – 44 8 3.7 45 – 53 21 9.8 54 – 62 47 21.9 63 – 71 67 31.2 72 – 80 59 27.4 81 + 13 6.0 Intended Length of Teaching Tenure Participants were asked to estimate the numbe r of years they intend to teach, if they were to enter the agriculture te aching field. The participants ( n = 190) reported intended tenures from 0 to 40 years (see Table 411). The mean of the respondents was 20.87 years (SD = 11.07).

PAGE 98

84 Table 4-10 Summary of Partic ipants’ Responses on Individu al Items of the Teaching Intentions and Aspirations Scale Item M Mdn SD I plan on playing an important role in the accomplishments of my students. 4.40 5 .78 I plan to stay informed and beco me involved in issues pertaining to my profession. 4.39 4 .70 I would likely take an agriculture teaching position if it were offered to me. 4.20 4 1.03 I see myself having an active ro le in the development of a successful agriculture program at my school. 4.20 4 .95 I would like to have responsib ility for FFA, SAE, and other agricultural program activities. 4.16 4 1.07 When I’m established in my career I would like to help prepare and mentor new professionals in my field. 4.13 4 .90 I plan to pursue an agriculture teaching position. 4.03 4 1.13 I plan on developing into an e xpert in my career field. 3.98 4 .90 I truly want to teach agriculture. 3.97 4 1.15 I would take a job other than teaching agriculture if the right opportunity were offered to me. 3.95a 4 1.04 I’m going to look for jobs in fields other than agricultural education. 3.35a 3 1.18 I hope to minimize the amount of time I spend working after business hours and on weekends. 3.01a 3 1.09 I do not want to work in any other field besides agricultural education. 2.79 3 1.07 I would prefer to work in a car eer field other than agricultural education. 2.55a 3 1.17 I would not consider another prof ession besides teaching even if a good opportunity were presented to me. 2.28 2 1.05 I would be satisfied just teach ing my classes and doing nothing more. 2.20a 2 1.12 I would not plan on devoting ti me to further professional development beyond the requirements of my job. 1.90a 2 .89 I’m certain that I will not teach agriculture. 1.86a 2 1.09 Note. Rating Scale: 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree. aActual mean score reported here, coding was reversed when computing summated scores.

PAGE 99

85 Table 4-11 Participants’ Inte nded Length of Teaching Tenure Years f % None 5 2.6 1 – 5 25 13.3 6 – 10 23 12.1 11 – 15 16 8.4 16 – 20 27 14.2 21 – 25 16 8.4 26 – 30 58 30.5 31 – 35 12 6.3 36 + 8 4.2 Career Interests Other Than Agricultural Education Participants were asked to specify other ca reer, educational, or personal plans they may pursue if they were to decide not to t each agriculture. Responses to this open-ended item were categorized and frequencies are re ported in Table 4-12. Participants were allowed to provide multiple responses. In al l, 819 different responses were observed (see Appendix N). Responses were sorted into 20 categories by the resear cher. Participants reported 56 responses expressing an interest in other teaching opportunities or subjects. Other career and life interests frequently me ntioned, in descending order, were extension and youth development, agricultural a nd non-agricultural business, production agriculture, public relations and marketing, banking and lending, family/homemaker, and animal science and health industry.

PAGE 100

86 Table 4-12 Participants’ Career, Educational, and Personal Interests Other than Teaching Agriculture Category f Other teaching positions or subjects 56 Extension and youth development 35 Agricultural business 33 Business non-agricultural 32 Production agriculture 29 Public relations and marketing – non-agricultural 17 Banking and lending 13 Family/Homemaker 12 Animal science and health industry 11 Government service and agencies 9 Advanced education 8 Other agricultural jobs 8 Natural Resource conservation 6 Communications includ ing agriculture 6 Horticulture and landscaping 6 School administration and counseling 5 Armed services and law enforcement 4 Medical and dental fields 4 Real Estate 4 Agricultural literacy 3 Note. Complete list of participants’ responses provided in Appendix N. Teacher Efficacy Teacher efficacy scores were calculated by summing the participants’ responses on the TSES instrument. The TSES instrument consisted of 12 9-point Likert-type items. The lowest possible summated score for this instrument was 12 and the highest possible was 108. Participants’ scores ( n =215) ranged from 51 to 108, which resulted in a range of 57 (see Table 4-13). The mean teacher efficacy score was 88.91 (SD = 10.44). This mean would be described as high, given that high levels of teacher efficacy were categorized as summated scores of 76 or greater. The means of the individual items

PAGE 101

87 ranged from 7.02 to 7.68 (see Table 4-14). The median scores of the individual items were found to be either 7 or 8. Table 4-13 Participants’ Teach er Efficacy Summated Scores Summated Score f % 51 – 60 4 1.9 61 – 70 5 2.3 71 – 80 30 14.0 81 – 90 77 35.8 91 – 100 72 33.5 101108 27 12.6 Table 4-14 Summary of Participants’ Respons es on Individual Items of the Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale Item M Mdn SD How well can you establish a classroom management system? 7.68 8 1.06 How much can you do to get students to follow classroom rules? 7.62 8 1.13 How much can you do to control disruptive behavior in the classroom? 7.61 8 1.13 To what extent can you provide an alternative explanation or example when students are confused? 7.60 8 1.14 How much can you use a variety of assessment strategies? 7.53 8 1.21 To what extent can you craft good questions for you students? 7.50 7 1.31 How much can you do to get studen ts to believe they can do well in school work? 7.42 7 1.16 How well can you implement alterna tive teaching strategies in you r classroom? 7.42 7 1.22 How much can you do to calm a student who is disruptive or noisy? 7.29 7 1.27 How much can you do to help students value learning? 7.16 7 1.25 How much can you do to motivate st udents who show low interest in school work? 7.05 7 1.34 How much can you assist families in helping their children do well in school? 7.02 7 1.36 Note. Rating Scale: 1 = Noth ing to 9 = A Great Deal. Teaching Expectations Teaching expectations scores for the 213 participants were determined by summing the values of the 14 items that composed the construct. Expectations scores between 14

PAGE 102

88 and 70 were possible. Participants’ scores were found between 20 and 68, which resulted in a range of 48 (see Table 4-15). The mean score was 54.90 ( SD = 7.42), which would be considered high given the criteria esta blished in this study. The means of the individual items ranged from 3.00 to 4.54 (see Table 4-16) and the medians ranged from 3 to 5. The means of the three negatively worded items ranged from 2.43 to 2.90, and the respective medians were 2 to 3. These items were reverse coded in calculating an individual summated intentions score. Table 4-15 Participants’ Teaching Expectations Summated Scores Summated Score f % 20 – 29 4 1.9 30 – 39 1 0.5 40 – 49 29 13.6 50 – 59 120 56.3 60 + 59 27.7 Likelihood of Career Barriers The likelihood of career barriers score wa s calculated by summing the values of the 16 items included on the construct. The possi ble range of summated scores was 16 to 80. Analysis of the data found participant scores between 16 and 66 (see Table 4-17), resulting in a range of 50. The mean score of the 207 respondents was 30.80 ( SD = 9.98). The mean score represents a low likelihood of career barriers, since sc ores of 33 or less were considered to be low. Means for the individual scale items were found to be between 1.38 and 2.76 (see Table 4-18). The me dian scores for these items ranged from 1 to 3.

PAGE 103

89 Table 4-16 Summary of Participants’ Respons es on Individual Items of the Teaching Expectations Scale Item M Mdn SD …I would help students develop an appreciation of agriculture. 4.54 5 .73 …I could be successful. 4.52 5 .72 …I would enjoy working with students and seeing their accomplishments. 4.51 5 .74 …teaching would allow me to use my knowledge and abilities. 4.45 5 .78 …I would have a bright future. 4.42 5 .79 …I would be happy working in the profession. 4.23 4 .97 …the community would support my agriculture program and students. 4.09 4 .83 …I would like the working hours and vacation time the job provides. 3.92 4 1.03 …I would appreciate the job s ecurity provided by teaching agriculture. 3.72 4 .97 …I would be provided with ade quate funding and administrative support. 3.53 3 .89 …I would receive a more than adequate salary and benefits. 3.00 3 1.07 …I would not have enough time for hobbies and recreation activities. 2.90a 3 1.07 …administrators and other teacher s would view my program as less important than other school programs. 2.66a 3 1.15 …my job would create problems in my relationship and marriage.2.43a 2 1.06 Note. “As an agriculture teacher…” precedes eac h statement. Rating Scale: 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree. a Actual mean score reported, coding was reversed when computing summated scores. Table 4-17 Participants’ Li kelihood of Experiencing Care er Barriers Summated Scores Summated Score f % 16 23 56 27.0 24 – 31 64 30.9 32 – 39 50 24.2 40 47 21 10.1 48 – 55 13 6.4 56 + 3 1.5

PAGE 104

90 Table 4-18 Summary of Particip ants’ Responses on Individual Items of the Likelihood of Experiencing Career Barriers Scale Item M Mdn SD No job opportunities in the area I want to live 2.76 3 1.32 Family responsibilities 2.59 2 1.31 Being married or in a long term relationship 2.50 2 1.48 Not willing to move away 2.48 2 1.39 Not being prepared enough 2.14 2 1.03 Not enough confidence in my teaching ability 1.97 2 .98 Pressure from spouse or boyfriend / girlfriend 1.92 2 1.06 Gender discrimination 1.91 1 1.18 Not ready to leave school yet 1.71 1 1.10 Lack of motivation 1.71 1 .92 Others don’t think I can do the job 1.65 1 .95 None of my friends are agriculture teachers 1.60 1 1.10 Teachers don’t support my career plans 1.58 1 .91 Friends don’t support my career plans 1.44 1 .76 Racial / ethnic discrimination 1.42 1 .84 Parents don’t support my career plan 1.38 1 .81 Note. Rating Scale: 1 = Not at all Likely to 5 = Definitely Likely. Difficulty of Overcoming Career Barriers The difficulty of overcoming career barri ers score was calculated by summing the values of the 16 items. The difficulty score al so had a possible range of scores of 16 to 80. Participants’ scores were found to be between 16 and 58 (see Table 4-19), which resulted in a range of 42. The mean of the respondents’ (n = 208) summated scores was 32.23 ( SD = 10.49). This mean score indicated a low difficulty of overcoming career barriers using the aforementioned criteria for th e career barrier scale. The means of the individual scale items ranged from 1.44 to 2.64 (see Table 4-20). The median scores for these items ranged from 1 to 3.

PAGE 105

91 Table 4-19 Participants’ Difficulty of Over coming Career Barriers Summated Scores Summated Score f % 16 – 23 46 22.1 24 – 31 63 30.3 32 – 39 45 21.6 40 – 47 31 14.9 48 – 55 21 10.1 56 + 2 1.0 Table 4-20 Summary of Particip ants’ Responses on Individual Items of the Difficulty of Overcoming Career Barriers Scale Item M Mdn SD No job opportunities in the area I want to live 2.64 3 1.15 Family responsibilities 2.51 3 1.11 Being married or in a long term relationship 2.35 2 1.23 Not willing to move away 2.48 3 1.28 Pressure from spouse or boyfriend / girlfriend 2.19 2 1.13 Not being prepared enough 2.14 2 .90 Gender discrimination 2.02 2 1.07 Lack of motivation 1.99 2 1.03 Not enough confidence in my teaching ability 1.86 2 .85 Others don’t think I can do the job 1.85 2 .98 Teachers don’t support my career plans 1.83 2 .98 Parents don’t support my career plan 1.82 1 1.10 Racial / ethnic discrimination 1.77 1 1.02 Not ready to leave school yet 1.72 1 .95 Friends don’t support my career plans 1.61 1 .86 None of my friends are agriculture teachers 1.44 1 .76 Note. Rating Scale: 1 = Not at all Difficult to 5 = Could Not Overcome. Teacher Support Score The teacher support score was calculated by computing the mean value of the participants’ responses to the teacher suppor t scale. Due to th e “Not Applicable” response item included in this scale, summate d scores were not reflective of the true

PAGE 106

92 nature of support experienced by the partic ipants. For instance, an individual who indicated discouragement on all instrument ite ms would have the same support score as an individual who indicated encouragement on eight items with the remaining eight being non-applicable. To achieve a score that refl ected an individual’s perceived level of support, means were calculated using only the items that the indivi dual indicated were relevant in his or her case. The results of the analysis found the participants’ mean support scores to be from 2.60 to 5.00 (see Table 4-21), and the range was 2.40. The possible mean scores were between 1.00 and 5.00. The grand mean support score for the 214 respondents was 4.26 (SD = .54). The m eans of the individual scale items ranged from 3.54 to 4.54 (see Table 4-22). The median scores for these items were 4 and 5. Table 4-21 Participants’ Mean Teacher Support Scores Mean Score f % 2.6 – 3.0 5 2.3 3.1 – 3.5 21 9.8 3.6 – 4.0 47 22.0 4.1 – 4.5 67 31.3 4.5 – 5.0 74 34.6

PAGE 107

93 Table 4-22 Summary of Partic ipants’ Responses on Individu al Items of the Teacher Support Scale Item n M Mdn SD Your university teacher educator(s) 202 4.54 5 .70 Your cooperating / mentor teacher(s) 203 4.49 5 .78 Mother 201 4.44 5 .83 Your high school agriculture teacher(s) 169 4.42 5 .87 University advisor / guid ance counselor(s) 191 4.38 5 .83 Other high school agriculture teacher(s) 178 4.37 5 .86 Father 193 4.36 5 .84 Sister(s) 132 4.23 4 .88 Other relative(s) 191 4.22 4 .86 Best friend(s) 198 4.20 4 .85 Other university faculty 200 4.13 4 .84 Other friend(s) 197 4.08 4 .85 Brother(s) 144 4.05 4 .96 High school guidance counselor(s) 143 3.54 4 1.24 Note. Rating Scale: 1 = St rongly Discouraging to 5 = St rongly Encouraging. Notapplicable responses were coded as mi ssing data when computing mean scores. Relationships Between Variables In an effort to further describe the vari ables in this study, analyses were conducted to identify correlations that may exist between variables. Additional analyses were conducted to test for the existence of multicollin earity between the independent variables. The magnitudes of the correlations have been discussed using the guidelines proposed by Miller (1994). Correlation coefficients be tween .01 and .09 are considered negligible, correlations between .10 and .29 are low rela tionships, correlations between .30 and .49 are moderate relationships, correlations betw een .50 and .69 are substantial relationships, correlations between .70 and .99 are very high, and a perfect correla tion is 1.0. Pearson Product Moment correlations were used fo r continuous data and point biserial correlations were used fo r dichotomous variables.

PAGE 108

94 As reflected in Table 4-23, a high corr elation was found between the number of years participants were enrolled in agricultu ral education and the years involved in FFA ( r = .71). Substantial associations were disc overed between teaching intentions score and teaching expectations score ( r = .65), likelihood of career barr iers score and difficulty of overcoming career barriers score ( r = .62), full-time non-agricultural occupational experience and age ( r = .61), full-time agricultural occ upational experience and age ( r = .58), teaching expectations sc ore and support mean score ( r = .53), and teaching intentions score and participants intended length of tenure ( r = .50). Moderate correlations were found to exist between teaching expectations score and intended length of tenure ( r = .43), teaching expectations sc ore and teacher efficacy score ( r = .43), teaching intentions scor e and teacher efficacy score ( r = .42), full-time agricultural occupational experience and full-time non-agricultural occupational experience ( r = .36), age and years in FFA ( r = -.34), teaching support mean score and likelihood of career barriers ( r = -.33), teacher expecta tions score and likelihood of barriers score ( r = -.33), age and years in 4-H ( r = -.32), and teacher efficacy score with support mean score ( r = .31). As seen in Table 4-23, numerous low correlations were also found between variables.

PAGE 109

95 Table 4-23 Correlations Between Variables Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1. Teaching Intentions Score -2. Intended Length of Tenure .499* -3. Teacher Efficacy Score .421* .230* -4. Teacher Expectations Score .651* .432* .432* -5. Likelihood of Barriers -.264* -.169* -.165* -.327* -6. Difficulty of Barriers -.108 -.056 -.159* -.209* .624* -7. Mean Support Score .343 .232* .314* .525* -.332* -.272* -8. Age .119 .011 .043 .061 -.158* -.197* .081 -9. Ag. Experience – FT .131 .069 .028 .136 -.149* -.137 .129 .583* -10. Ag. Experience – PT .068 .060 -.052 .069 -.041 -.044 -.003 .039 .050 -11. Non-Ag. Experience – FT .131 .034 .025 .099 -.034 -.035 -.159* .612* .363* .050 12. Non-Ag. Experience PT -.028 -.029 .027 -.080 .034 .020 .049 -.157* -.264* .157* 13. Years in 4-H -.048 -.001 -.104 -.046 .039 -.020 .004 -.189* -.080 .130 14. Years in FFA .099 .165* -.052 .118 -.038 -.014 .286* -.323* -.138* .161* 15. Years in Ag. Education .111 .163* -.041 .100 -.027 -.034 .288* -.338* -.077 .135 16. Cumulative GPA .075 -.105 -.089 .021 .066 .040 -.051 .000 .009 -.004 Note. p <.05. FT = full-time occupational experience PT = part-time occupational experience

PAGE 110

96 Table 4-23 Continued Variable 11 12 13 14 15 16 1. Teaching Intentions Score 2. Intended Length of Tenure 3. Teacher Efficacy Score 4. Teacher Expectations Score 5. Likelihood of Barriers 6. Difficulty of Barriers 7. Mean Support Score 8. Age 9. Ag. Experience – FT 10. Ag. Experience – PT 11. Non-Ag. Experience – FT -12. Non-Ag. Experience PT -.081 -13. Years in 4-H -.172* .087 -14. Years in FFA -.197* -.021 .282* -15. Years in Ag. Education -.186* -.078 .136* .711* -16. Cumulative GPA -.047 .104 .023 .042 .013 -Note. p <.05. FT = full-time occupational experience, PT = part-time occupational experience Dichotomous variables were also examined for relationships with other variables. For data analysis purposes, each dichotomous category was coded numerically. For gender, males were coded higher than females. As such, a positive correlation indicated the variable increased if the participant was ma le. For the plan to teach variable, a “yes” response was coded higher than a “no” response. As such, a positive correlation indicated that the variable increased if the participant planned to teach agriculture. As seen in Table 4-24, a substantial co rrelation was discovered between plan to teach and teaching intentions score ( r = .67). Moderate associations were found between plan to teach and two variables: teaching expectations score ( r = .49) and intended length of tenure ( r = .42). Planning to teach was also found to have a low correlation with

PAGE 111

97 teacher efficacy score ( r = .26), support mean score ( r = .21), likelihood of career barriers ( r = -.16), and full-time agricultural experience ( r = .14). Gender was found to have low associations with four other variables. Low correlations were discovered w ith intended length of tenure ( r = .25), full-time agricultural experience ( r = .22), part-time non-agricultural experience ( r = -.22), and age ( r = .15). Table 4-24 Point Biserial Correlations Between Variables Variable Gender (F/M)a Plan to Teach (Y/N)b 1. Teaching Intentions Score .080 .666* 2. Intended Length of Tenure .253* .419* 3. Teacher Efficacy Score .051 .258* 4. Teacher Expectations Score .111 .492* 5. Likelihood of Barriers -.136 -.159* 6. Difficulty of Barriers -.057 -.007 7. Mean Support Score .097 .207* 8. Age .150* .083 9. Ag. Experience – FT .220* .139* 10. Ag. Experience – PT .095 .020 11. Non-Ag. Experience – FT .042 .102 12. Non-Ag. Experience PT -.215* -.123 13. Years in 4-H -.103 -.092 14. Years in FFA .074 .038 15. Years in Ag. Education .081 .059 16. Cumulative GPA -.105 .017 Note. p <.05. aMales coded higher; bPlan to Teach = Yes coded higher Prior to conducting regression analyses called for by objectives two and three of this study, variables were examined for potential problems associated with multicollinearity. According to Agresti and Finlay (1997), multicollinearity can be detected by regressing each independen t variable on the other predictors. Multicollinearity becomes problematic when the resulting coefficient of determination

PAGE 112

98 ( R2) is close to 1.0. The five independent variable scores were entered into multiple regression models, with each variable being tr eated once as the dependent variable. The resulting regression analyses found adjusted R2 coefficients between .185 and .421 (see Table 4-25). Based on these low coefficien ts and the recommendations of Agresti and Finlay (1997), the researcher concluded that multicollinearity did not pose a significant risk to the validity of the regression analys es conducted in the forthcoming objectives. Table 4-25 Multicollinearity Analysis of Coefficient of Determination Variablea R2 Adj. R2 Teaching Efficacy Score .201 .185 Teaching Expectation Score .386 .373 Likelihood of Barriers Score .433 .421 Difficulty of Barriers Score .390 .377 Support Mean Score .335 .322 Note. aEach variable was treated as the depe ndent variable regressed on the other variables. R2 coefficients close to 1 indicate multicollinearity. Objective Two Describe the variance in preservice agric ulture teachers’ intentions to teach attributed to person inputs (demographics), contextual influences, self-efficacy, and outcome expectations. Stepwise regression was used to select the best model fo r predicting teaching intentions score using person inputs, su ch as gender and ethnicity; background influences, such as cumulative grade point average, agricultural occupational experience, non-agricultural occupational experience, years involved in 4-H, years involved in FFA, and years in agricultural education; teacher efficacy score; teaching expectations score; likelihood of career barriers score; difficulty of overcoming career barriers score; and mean support score. For purposes of analys is, categorical variable s were dummy coded. In regards to gender, males were coded one and females coded zero.

PAGE 113

99 Two variables, teaching expectations score and teacher efficacy score, yielded the best model in predicting teaching intentions. The regression analysis revealed that a linear combination of teaching expectati ons scores and teacher efficacy scores significantly predicted te aching intention scores, F (2, 192) = 77.336, p <.001. The R2 coefficient for the model was .45, and the adjusted R2 was .44. Table 4-26 shows the individual regression coeffici ents for this model. Teaching expectations scores ( t = 9.655, p <.001) and teacher efficacy scores ( t = 2.906, p = .004) contributed significantly ( = .05) to predicting teachi ng intentions scores. These two variables accounted for 44% of the variance in t eaching intentions scores. Table 4-26 Stepwise Multiple Regression An alysis of Teaching Intentions Scores Variable B SE t p Constant 5.505 5.389 1.022 .308 Teaching Expectations Score .818 .085 .575 9.655 <.001 Teacher Efficacy Score .174 .060 .173 2.906 .004 Objective Three Describe the variance in preservice agricultu re teachers’ intended length of teaching tenure attributed to person inputs (demogr aphics), contextual influences, selfefficacy, and outcome expectations. Stepwise regression was used to select the best model for predicting preservice agriculture teachers’ intende d length of teaching tenure us ing person inputs, such as gender and ethnicity; background influences, su ch as cumulative grade point average, agricultural occupational experience, non-ag ricultural occupational experience, years involved in 4-H, years involved in FFA, and years in agricultural education; teacher efficacy score; teaching expectations score; lik elihood of career barriers score; difficulty of overcoming career barriers score; and mean support score. For purposes of analysis,

PAGE 114

100 categorical variables were dummy coded. In regards to gender, males were coded one and females coded zero. Teaching expectations score, gender, and the number of years enrolled in agricultural education yielded the best model in predic ting intended length of teaching tenure. The regression analysis revealed that a linear combination of teaching expectations scores, gender, and years of ag ricultural education enrollment significantly predicted preservice teachers’ inte nded length of teaching tenure, F (3, 173) = 18.852, p <.001. The R2 coefficient for the model was .25, and the adjusted R2 was .24. In Table 427, individual regression coefficients are reported. Teaching expectations scores ( t = 5.813, p <.001), gender ( t = 3.022, p = .003), and years of enrollment in agricultural education ( t = 2.159, p = .032) contributed significantly ( = .05) to pr edicting intended teaching tenure. These three variables accoun ted for 24% of the variance in intended length of teaching tenure. Table 4-27 Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis of Intended Teaching Tenure Variable B SE t p Constant -12.753 5.872 -2.172 .031 Teaching Expectations Score .594 .102 .390 5.813 <.001 Gendera 4.482 1.483 .201 3.022 .003 Years of Agricultural Education .968 .448 .143 2.159 .032 Note. Dummy coding used for analysis. Females coded zero; Males coded one. Summary The findings of this study were presented in this chapter. These findings were organized around the guiding objectives of the study. The objectives were: (1) describe the person inputs (demographics), contextu al influences, self-efficacy, and outcome expectations of preservice agriculture teacher s in selected collegiate agriculture teacher

PAGE 115

101 preparation programs; (2) describe the va riance in preservice agriculture teachers’ intentions to teach attributed to person input s (demographics), contextual influences, selfefficacy, and outcome expectations; and (3 ) describe the variance in preservice agriculture teachers’ intende d length of teaching tenure a ttributed to person inputs (demographics), contextual influences, se lf-efficacy, and outcome expectations. The findings presented in this chapter will be di scussed in further detail in the forthcoming chapter. In addition, conclusions, recommenda tions, and implications will be presented based on these findings.

PAGE 116

102 CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS The purpose of the study was to describe the influence and predictive nature of person inputs, contextual influences, se lf-efficacy, and outcome expectations on preservice agriculture teachers’ intentions to pursue a teaching position, and on their intended teaching tenure. The dependent variables for this study were preservice agriculture teachers’ intentions to pursu e a teaching position, and the number of years they expected to remain in the profession. The independent variables consisted of person inputs, contextual influen ces, perceived self-efficacy, and outcome expectations. Objectives The following three objectives guided this study: (1) describe the person inputs (demographics), contextual influences, se lf-efficacy, and outcome expectations of preservice agriculture teachers in selected collegiate agri culture teacher preparation programs; (2) describe the variance in preservi ce agriculture teachers’ intentions to teach attributed to person inputs (demographics), contextual influenc es, self-efficacy, and outcome expectations; and (3) describe the variance in pres ervice agriculture teachers’ intended length of teaching tenure attributed to person inputs (demographics), contextual influences, self-efficacy, and outcome expectations. Research Hypotheses Based on the reviewed litera ture and research, the fo llowing research hypotheses were developed: (1) preservice agriculture te achers who have greater intentions to teach agriculture report perceptions of higher self-efficacy, more positive outcome

PAGE 117

103 expectations, more positive support systems, fewer perceived career barriers, stronger agricultural backgrounds, and higher academ ic achievement; and (2) preservice agriculture teachers who perceive longer agricu lture teaching tenures report perceptions of higher self-efficacy, more positive outco me expectations, more positive support systems, fewer perceived career barriers, str onger agricultural backgrounds, and higher academic achievement. Methods This study was conducted using a causal-c omparative design. This method is commonly referred to as ex post facto resear ch because the relationships or possible causes of a given phenomenon are studied after they have exerted their effect on another variable (Gall et al., 1996). In the case of this study, th e independent variables have already affected the decision-making process of the preservice teachers. Therefore, experimental manipulation and c ontrol would be impossible. The population of this study was all preser vice agriculture teachers completing their teaching internship experience in agricult ure teacher preparation programs throughout the nation during the 2004-2005 academic year. A purposive sample of 262 student teachers was selected from 42 institutions. This sample constituted all preservice agriculture teachers completing their internship experience during the Fall 2004 academic term. Data collection procedures began by c ontacting each institution listed in the American Association of Agricultural E ducators (AAAE) directory. The department leader or teacher education coordinator was aske d to respond to a requ est to participate in the study by administering a que stionnaire to their fall teachi ng interns. A total of 42 institutions agreed to admini ster the questionnaire to their 262 preservice agriculture teachers. After regular email and telephone contacts and follow-up, usable responses

PAGE 118

104 were received from 215 preservice agriculture teachers from 34 institutions representing 25 states. A response rate of 82.1% ( n = 215) was achieved, with 81% of the institutions contributing responses. To accurately assess the independent a nd dependent variables in this study, numerous measurements were needed. With the exception of the Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scales, these construct scales were developed or modified by the researcher. Prior to collecting the primary data for this study, a pilot test was conducted. The pilot test was necessary to establish the validity and reliabilit y of the measurement instrument used in the study. A convenience sa mple of 36 preservice agriculture teachers from institutions in California, Florida, and Missouri was used. The analysis of the pilot data yielded the following Cronbach’s alpha coefficient estimates: Teacher Intentions Scales .86 ( n = 34), Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale .86 ( n = 35), Teacher Expectations Scale .68 ( n = 35), Likelihood of Car eer Barriers Scale .75 ( n = 35), Difficulty of Overcoming Career Barriers .86 ( n = 35), and Teaching Support Scale .74 ( n = 7). After the primary study data were collect ed, post-hoc reliabil ity estimates were calculated for the construct scales that composed the instrument. Results of the analysis showed that all reliability coe fficients increased from the pilot data estimates. The post hoc reliability analysis of the data yiel ded the following Cronbach’s alpha coefficient estimates: Teaching Intentions and Aspirations Scale .88 ( n = 215), Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale .92 ( n = 215), Teaching Expectations Scale .84 ( n = 213), Likelihood of Career Barriers Scale .86 ( n = 207), Difficulty of Overcoming Career Barriers Scale .90 ( n = 207), and Teaching Support Scale .91 ( n = 53).

PAGE 119

105 Data Analysis Data analysis was conducted using SPSS version 12.0 for WindowsTM. The first objective of the study was accomplished using de scriptive statistics, specifically means and frequencies. To facilitate analysis, summated scales of Likert-type items were treated as interval data as ou tlined by Clason and Dormody (1994). In order to accomplish objectives two and three, multiple regression models were utilized. The coefficient of multiple determination ( R2) was used to explain the variance in the dependent variables based on the independ ent variables. In both cases, a stepwise elimination process was used for building the model. In order to determine that no multicollineari ty effects existed in the models, each independent variable was regr essed on the other independent variables. Results of individual multiple regression analyses found R2 for each independent variable to range from .201 to .433. Based on the recommendati ons of Agresti and Finlay (1997), the researcher concluded that multicollinearity posed no significant risk to the validity of the regression analyses conducted on the dependent variables. Summary of Findings The findings of this study are summari zed in relation to the three objectives presented in Chapter 1. Objective One Objective one sought to describe the pe rson inputs (demographics), contextual influences, self-efficacy, and outcome expecta tions of the preservi ce teachers in the sample. The sample consisted of 262 preservice agriculture teachers completing their student teaching experience dur ing the fall 2004 semester/quarter at 42 institutions. Approximately half (52.1%) of the part icipants in this study were female ( n = 112). The

PAGE 120

106 average age of participan ts was 24.06 years (SD = 4.85, n = 215). Participants ranged in age from 21 to 57 years. The particip ants were predominately Caucasian ( n = 198) with 93.4% indicating such, 2.4% were Hispanic/Latino ( n = 5), 1.9% were Native American/Alaskan ( n = 4), 1.4% were African American ( n = 3) and 0.9% were Asian ( n = 2). Over 98% of the 212 respondents reported a cumulative grade point average above 2.5 ( n = 211), with 34.4% reporting 2.6 to 3.0 ( n = 74), 39.1% with 3.1 to 3.5 ( n = 84), and 24.7% with a grade point average greater than 3.5 ( n = 53). Results were similar for participants’ major grade point average ( n = 214) with over 99% reporting grade point averages above 2.5. Major grade point av erages between 2.6 to 3.0 were reported by 15.4% of respondents ( n = 33), 38.1% reported 3.1 to 3.5 ( n = 82), and 45.8% with 3.6 to 4.0 grade point averages ( n = 98). When asked about their 4-H involvement, pa rticipants’ responses ranged from 0 to 8 years with an average of 5.19 years (SD = 4.82). Of the 213 respondents, 38.0% ( n = 69) felt they were “Very Involved” in 4-H, 29.6% ( n = 63) reported being “Moderately Involved”, and the remaining 32.4% indicate d they were “Not at all Involved”. Participants reported that the number of years they were involved in the National FFA Organization ranged from 0 to 10 years with a mean of 4.04 years ( SD = 2.40). Over 67% of the 214 respondents reported be ing “Very Involved” in FFA, while 15.9% ( n = 34) believed they were “M oderately Involved”, and 16.8% ( n = 36) were “Not Involved at All”. Participants indicated the total number of years in which they were enrolled in middle and high school agriculture classes ranged from 0 to 7 years with a mean of 3.29 years (SD = 1.73).

PAGE 121

107 When asked to indicate the location of their childhood and adolescent home, 86% of respondents reported living in a rural setting, with 56.5% ( n = 121) of participants living on a rural farm and 29.9% ( n = 64) living in a rural non-farm setting. Of the remaining participants, 10.7% (n = 23) reported their residence to be in a suburban area and 2.9% ( n = 6) grew up in an urban setting. Participants ( n = 208) averaged 3.42 years ( SD = 5.52) of full-time agricultural occupational experience with a range of 0 to 32 years. Respondents ( n = 208) indicated 0 to 24 years of part-time agricultural experience a nd a mean of 3.78 years ( SD = 4.35). When asked about non-agricultural occ upational experience, participants ( n = 208) reported 0 to 25 years of full-time ex perience with a mean of 1.53 years ( SD = 3.29) and 0 to 12 years of part-time experi ence with a mean of 2.0 years ( SD = 2.49). When the 215 participants’ summated teaching intentions scores were analyzed, the mean was found to be 65.71 ( SD = 10.59). Teaching intentions scores ranged from 36 to 85. The possible range of scores on the 18-it em teaching intentions scale was 18 to 90. Of the 211 respondents, over 80% ( n = 169) indicated they plan to teach agriculture. Those participants who planned to teach ha d a mean teaching intentions score of 69.31 ( SD = 7.89) and scores ranged from 49 to 85, while those not planning to teach had a mean teaching intentions score of 51.62 ( SD = 8.15) and scores ranged from 36 to 66. When participants were asked what other plans they might pursue in lieu of teaching agriculture, respondents most frequently men tioned teaching positions in other subjects or at different levels of education, su ch as elementary or higher education.

PAGE 122

108 Participants were asked to report their in tended length of agriculture teaching tenure if they were to choose to enter the teac hing profession. For th e 190 respondents, the mean was 20.87 years ( SD = 11.07, n = 190) and the reported years ranged from 0 to 40. On the Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy scale, participants had a mean summated score of 88.91 ( SD = 10.44). The participants’ scores ranged from 51 to 108. On this 12-item scale, possible scores were 12 to 108. Participants’ teaching expectations scores ranged from 20 to 68 with a mean score of 54.90 ( SD = 7.42, n = 215). The possible scores on th e 14-item scale ranged from 14 to 70. The participants’ perceptions of career barriers were measured by the likelihood of career barriers and the difficulty of overcomi ng career barriers scales. The possible range of scores on both 16-item scales was 16 to 80. Participants’ mean score on the likelihood of barriers scale was 30.80 ( SD = 9.98, n = 207) and scores ranged from 16 to 66. On the difficulty of overcoming career barriers scal e, the participants’ mean score was 32.23 ( SD = 10.49, n = 208) and the scores ranged from 16 to 58. On the teaching support scale, mean scores were used for the analysis due to missing data created by particip ants indicating that a person was “Not Applicable” in their case. Analysis of 214 participant re sponses yielded an overall mean teaching support score of 4.26 ( SD = .54). Participants’ individua l means ranged from 3.54 to 4.54. The possible mean scores were between 1.00 and 5.00. Numerous relationships we re found between the variab les in this study. A high correlation was found between years enrolled in agricultural e ducation and years involved in FFA ( r = .71). Substantial correlati ons were found between teaching

PAGE 123

109 intentions and teaching expectations ( r = .65), likelihood of career barriers and difficulty of overcoming career barriers ( r = .62), full-time non-agricultu re experience and age ( r = .61), full-time agricultura l experience and age ( r = .58), teaching expectations and teaching support ( r = .53), and teaching intentions and intended length of tenure ( r = .50). Moderate correlations were found between te aching expectations and intended length of tenure ( r = .43), teaching expectations and teacher efficacy ( r = .43), teaching intentions and teacher efficacy ( r = .42), full-time agricultura l experience and full-time nonagricultural experience ( r = .36), age and years in FFA ( r = -.34), teaching support and likelihood of career barriers ( r = -.33), teacher expectations and likelihood of barriers ( r = -.33), age and years in 4-H ( r = -.32), and teacher efficacy score and teaching support ( r = .31). Numerous low associations were found to exist between the variab les in the study. Dichotomous variables were also examined for relationship with other variables. For analysis purposes, males were coded highe r than females and “yes” was coded higher than “no” for the item that asked participants whether they planned to teach agriculture. Substantial correlations were found between plan to teach and teaching intentions score ( r = .67). Moderate associations were f ound between plan to teach and teaching expectations ( r = .49) and also with intended length of tenure ( r = .42). Participant responses to plan to teach were found to ha ve low correlations with teacher efficacy ( r = .26), teaching support mean ( r = .21), likelihood of career barriers ( r = -.16), and fulltime agricultural occupational experience ( r = .14). Gender was found to have low relationships with inte nded length of tenure ( r = .25), full-time agricultural occupational experience ( r = .22), part-time non-agricultural experience ( r = -.22), and age ( r = .15).

PAGE 124

110 Objective Two Objective two sought to describe the vari ance in preservice ag riculture teachers intentions to teach attributed to person input s (demographics), contextual influences, selfefficacy, and outcome expectations. Stepwise regression analysis indicated that teaching expectations scores ( t = 9.655, p < .001) and teacher efficacy scores ( t = 2.906, p = .004) contributed significantly ( = .05) to predicting teaching intentions scores. The two variables accounted for 44% of the vari ance in teaching intentions scores. Objective Three Objective three sought to describe the variance in preservi ce teachers intended length of teaching tenure at tributed to person inputs (demographics), contextual influences, self-efficacy, and outcome expect ations. Stepwise regression analysis indicated that teaching expectations scores ( t = 5.813, p < .001), gender ( t = 3.022, p = .003, and years enrolled in agricultural education ( t = 2.159, p = .032) contributed significantly ( = .05) to predicting intended length of teaching tenure. The three variables accounted for 24% of the variance in intended length of teaching tenure. Conclusions The sample used in this study was pur posively selected and not randomly drawn from the population. With this limitation in mind, the following conclusions were derived from the findings of the three research objectives. Objective One 1. Approximately half of all agriculture t eacher preparation programs provide students the opportunity to complete their final field experien ce during the fall academic term.

PAGE 125

111 2. Based on demographic and background findi ngs, the typical preservice agriculture teacher in this study is considering agri cultural education as a first career, is Caucasian, has at least a 2.6 grade point average, was involved in 4-H and FFA, was enrolled in secondary ag ricultural education for at least four years, as a child resided in a rural area, possesses some type of agricultural occ upational experience, and also has some non-agricultural occupational experience. 3. No relationship exists be tween preservice agriculture teachers cumulative grade point average and their decision to pursue teaching positions in agriculture. 4. There is no association between preservice agriculture teachers involvement in 4-H programs or the National FFA Organiza tion and their intentions to teach agriculture. 5. Nearly all the preservice agriculture t eachers had moderate to high intentions to teach agriculture, such that over 80% of the preservice agriculture teachers planned to teach agriculture. 6. On average, the preservice agricultur e teachers intended to make teaching agriculture a life long career however, male preservice teachers had a slight tendency to perceive longer tenures than did women. 7. In regards to their teachi ng ability, the preservice agri culture teachers were highly efficacious. 8. Overall, the preservice agriculture teacher s were highly positive about the potential outcomes of teaching agriculture, however, their opinions were mixed regarding the adequacy of teacher salaries and the amount of recreational time available. 9. Most preservice agricultur e teachers perceived the like lihood of career barriers and the difficulty of overcoming those barriers to be low and their level of career support to be high. Of those respondents who indicated that car eer barriers were likely, location of a job and family responsib ilities had the most potential to impact their decision to teach agriculture and were the most difficult barriers to overcome. Objective Two 1. The findings of this study provided support for the Social Cognitive Career Theory (Lent et al., 1994). As Lent et al. (1994) purported, re lationships existed between outcome expectations and intentions, efficacy and intentions, efficacy and expectations, and a negative relationshi p existed between ca reer supports and barriers. 2. Preservice agriculture teachers percep tions of teacher efficacy and teaching expectations were significant predictors of their intentions to teach agriculture. These two variables accounted for 44% of the variance in preservice teachers intentions to teach agriculture.

PAGE 126

112 Objective Three 1. Preservice agriculture teachers’ gender, ye ars enrolled in agricu ltural education, and their perceptions of teaching expectations were significant predictors of their intended length of agriculture teaching te nure. These three variables accounted for 24% of the variance in preservice agricultu re teachers’ intended length of teaching tenure. Research Hypotheses 1. The findings of this study provide partia l support for the firs t research hypothesis presented. Preservice agriculture teachers w ho have greater intentions to teach did report perceptions of higher self-efficacy, more positive outcome expectations, more positive support systems, and fewer perceived career barriers. No support was found for the hypothesized relationshi ps between intentions to teach and academic performance, or between intenti ons to teach and agricultural background. 2. The findings of this study provide partia l support for the second research hypothesis presented. Preservice agriculture teach ers who perceived lo nger teaching tenure reported higher teacher efficacy, more posit ive outcome expectations, more positive support systems, fewer perceived career barriers, and stronger agricultural backgrounds. No support was found for the hypothesized relationship between intentions to teach and academic performance. Discussion and Implications Objective One Conclusion Approximately half of agricul ture teacher preparation programs provide students the opportunity to comple te their final field experience during the fall academic term. Based on the number of instit utions participating in th is study and responses of teacher educators to email and telephone contacts, the researcher concluded that approximately half of all agriculture education teacher preparation programs allow preservice teachers to complete their final fi eld experience during the fall. Of the 89 institutions contacte d for this study 47% ( n = 42) indicated having fall teaching interns. While soliciting the participation of institutio ns, the researcher found that an additional 10 institutions offer students the opportunity to complete their final field experience

PAGE 127

113 during the fall, however during the fall term wh en data were collected these institutions had no such students. With approximately half of the teacher pr eparation institutions offering final field experience during the fall term only about one third of preservice agriculture teachers complete during this term. This proportion was based on the findings of the last six national supply and demand studies spa nning 1989 to 2001 (Camp, 2000; Camp et al., 2002), in which the researcher found that the annual average of newly qualified teachers was 705 over this period of time. Given this information it can be conc luded that although institutions provide students the opportunity and flex ibility to complete their pr eparation program mid year, most preservice teachers continue to follow a program of study that concludes during the spring term. This is likely due to the convenience of following a sequence of required coursework, but moreover spring completion al so corresponds with the hiring schedules of most middle and seconda ry schools. Those who comp lete their program of study during the fall term may face the challenge of finding a temporary position until teaching positions open for the forthcoming school year. Some may chose to use this time to take additional coursework or possi bly begin graduate studies. Conclusion Based on demographic and background findings, the typical preservice agriculture teacher in this study is considering agricultural education as a first career, is Caucasian, had at least a 2.6 grade point average, was involved in 4H and FFA, was enrolled in secondary agricultu ral education for at least four years, as a child resided in a rural area, possesse s some type of agricultural occupational experience, and also has some non-agr icultural occupational experience. With over 87% of the preservice teachers in this study being 26 years of age or younger, the researcher concluded that most preservice teachers pursue the ag riculture teaching profession as a first career. Th is study found that less than 10% of the

PAGE 128

114 preservice agriculture teachers were over 30 year s of age. This small proportion of older students may indicate that those who wish to enter agricultural education as a second career may do so by means other than traditional teacher preparation programs. According to the National Center for Edu cational Information (2005), approximately 35,000 individuals enter teaching through altern ative paths each y ear and of those teachers, 70% are older than 30 years of age. Similarly, Rocca and Washburn (2005) found that agriculture teach ers who entered the profession through alternative certification paths were older and possessed more occupational experience than their counterparts who received certification through tr aditional programs. This all leads the researcher to conclude that the limitations of traditional teacher preparation programs are such that working professionals looking for a second career teaching agriculture may not view these programs as viable options. Over 93% of the preservice agriculture te achers were Caucasian. The agricultural education field continues to be pred ominately Caucasian. In 1998 and 2001, the proportions of Caucasian preservice ag riculture teachers were 93.6 and 91.1% respectively (Camp 2000; Camp et al., 2002). Furthermore, the proportions of African American, Hispanic, Native American, and Asia n preservice teachers were found to have only fluctuated one to two percentage points. This information demonstrates the lack of ethnic diversity in the nation’s agriculture te acher preparation programs. According to the National FFA Organization (2005), 77% of FFA members are Ca ucasian. With 23% of agricultural education stude nts representing a minority culture, concerns arise whether preparation programs are providi ng preservice agriculture teach ers who can relate with a more diverse population of students.

PAGE 129

115 Along with the issue of ethnicity, this study has brought to light the high proportion of preservice teachers with rural backgrounds The finding of over 86% of preservice agriculture teachers coming from rural farm and non-farm settings creates additional questions of how representative potential teac hers will be of the student population they will face in the future. The National FFA Organization (2005 ) reported that 34% of FFA members attend school in urba n and suburban areas. Can these predominately Caucasian teachers from rural backgrounds relate to urban minority students? Suburban and urban FFA members repres ent over 200,000 agriculture students. One would assume that these students are a fraction of the suburban and urban students who need to develop an awareness of our nation’s food, fiber, and natural resources systems. This issue creates another ques tion, that being why so few FFA members who attend urban and suburban agriculture progr ams decide to pursue a career teaching agriculture? The thought of teaching a subj ect so closely connected to one’s rural upbringing must be appealing to the student from a rural area. Does the prospect of teaching in an unfamiliar rural setting deter urban and suburban students from considering agricultural education? Over 60% of secondary ag ricultural education students attend school in rura l communities (National FFA Organization, 2005). With this in mind, do urban and suburban agricultu re students consider a career teaching agriculture as a viable option? These are va lid questions that need to be explored. With the vision of agricultural education calling for an agriculturally literate society, the call must be sounded in agriculture education to recruit, educate, and prepare preservice teachers who are wil ling and able to promote agri culture in all the different areas and with all populations that make up our society. This will obviously not be easy

PAGE 130

116 to achieve. It will take the cooperation of all those involved with agricultural education. However, the effort to recruit preservice teachers from urban, suburban, and rural areas really begins at the grassroot s level. The influence of th e secondary agriculture teacher should not be underestimated. Agriculture inst ructors are highly influential in students’ decisions to pursue college and agriculture careers (Kotrlik & Harri son, 1987). Hillison et al. (1986) found that agricu lture teachers were the fourth most influential people in determining whether a student chooses an underg raduate major in agricultural education. Based on this information, agriculture teachers need to discuss in a positive light the opportunities provided to students with a ca reer teaching agriculture. Agriculture teachers must recognize that they serve as m odels for their students and demonstrate what it is to be an agriculture teacher. As positiv e role models agriculture teachers have the potential to make an impact in the profe ssion by assisting with the reduction of the teacher shortage. This requires that e ducators not only do their part by providing a quality program to prepare their students, but they must also contribute by becoming advocates for agricultural education and the career opportunities it provides. The distribution of cumulati ve grade point averages in Table 4-4 shows that a standard exists for academic performance in agriculture teacher preparation programs. Over 98% of the preservice agriculture teachers possessed grade point averages greater than 2.5. This would indicate that agriculture teacher educ ation programs have academic standards in place to maintain a minimum level of academic performance in their program completers. Over 80% of the preservice agriculture teachers had been involved with the National FFA Organization and more than two thirds were members of 4-H.

PAGE 131

117 Additionally, the majority of preservice agricult ure teachers were enroll ed in at least four years of secondary agricultural education. Although these three va riables did not prove to be predictive of preservice teachers’ inte ntions to teach agriculture, they are still pertinent to the career decision process. Th ese experiences provide preservice agriculture teachers with learning experiences that shap e perceptions of self-efficacy and beliefs about the outcomes of a car eer teaching agricu lture. According to Bandura (1997), mastery experiences, vicarious learning, and pe rsuasive feedback, lik e that provided in agricultural education and in programs such as 4-H and FFA, are the primary source of one’s efficacy beliefs. Involvement in 4-H and FFA allows students to learn vicariously through teacher and advisor modeling and mo re importantly to engage in mastery learning experiences in agriculture. These le arning experiences provi de students with the opportunity to form perceptions of their ow n abilities and ultimately, these experiences directly contribute to an individuals’ self-efficacy. The high proportion of preser vice agriculture teachers involved in these programs has implications for those interested in recr uiting new students. Events such as 4-H and FFA field days, fairs and shows, and conferen ces provide faculty and outreach staff with access to hundreds or in some cases thousands of potential students. Given limited time and finances for outreach and recruitment, these activities may be the most efficient way to make contact with large numbers of potential students. In addition to their involvement in 4H and FFA, these pres ervice agriculture teachers also obtained work experience. Over 90% of the preservice agriculture teachers were found to possess either full-time or part -time occupational experience related to agriculture. Furthermore, 75% of the pr eservice teachers had non-agricultural work

PAGE 132

118 experience as well. Based on the involvemen t in these organizations and their rural upbringing it comes as no surprise that so ma ny of the preservice teachers have worked in an agricultural job. Their involvement in 4-H and FFA may have contributed to their agricultural experience in the form of experi ential learning activities. These learning activities can translate into opportunities for employment and entrepreneurship. According to the SCCT (Lent et al., 1994), such background affordances provide preservice teachers with learning experiences that contribute to efficacy beliefs. Few would argue that content knowledge and an unde rstanding of the agriculture industry is essential in agricultural e ducation. Occupational experi ence provides students with hands-on opportunities to appreciate all that agriculture has to offer and ultimately this experience assists agricultural teachers in ma king the classroom curriculum come alive. Conclusion No relationship exists between preservice agriculture teachers’ cumulative grade point average and their de cision to pursue teaching positions in agriculture. Analysis of the correlation matrices led th e researcher to conclude that differences in preservice agriculture teachers’ deci sion to teach were not distinguishable by cumulative grade point average. The point bi serial correlation between cumulative grade point average and decision to teach agriculture was found to be .017. Additionally, when cumulative grade point average and teaching intentions scores were analyzed for a relationship, the results were similar. The two variables produced a Pearson’s correlation of .075. These findings support Muller and Miller (1993) who suggested that academic ability provided no significant means of di fferentiating between graduates who enter teaching and those who do not. However, this issue remains inconclusive as contrary findings are found in the literature. Thes e include McCoy and Mortensen (1983) and Baker and Hodges (1991) who found that agri cultural education graduates who entered

PAGE 133

119 teaching could be distinguished from those who opted not to teach when compared by grade point average and othe r related variables. The lack of an association between cu mulative grade point average and teaching intentions may be explained by the limited va riance found in the data. With 65% of the respondents indicating a grade poi nt average greater than 3.0 and with all participants expressing moderate to high intentions to teach there may not have been sufficient variance to establish a linear relati onship between these variables. Conclusion There is no association between preservice agriculture teachers’ involvement in 4-H programs or the National FFA Organization and their intentions to teach agriculture. In both cases, 4-H and FFA involved were found to have negligible relationships with preservice agriculture te aches’ intentions to teach. Although no direct relationship was found in this study, preservice agricu lture teachers’ involvement in these organizations may still be important to the career decision-making process. Based on the findings of Cole (1984), FFA membership may be related to agriculture teacher retention. Cole (1984) reported that 80% of graduates who were still teachi ng reported being FFA members, compared to only 55% of thos e who never taught, and 74% of those who taught and quit. As mentioned in the di scussion of 4-H and FFA involvement, there could be an indirect link between involv ement in these organizations and teaching intentions. This would be consistent with the SCCT model (Len t et al., 1994), 4-H and FFA involvement could impact the decision to teach agriculture through its influence on preservice teachers’ learning experiences. Th ese experiences shape efficacy and outcome expectations that ultimately contribute to an individual’s career decisions. As with the previous conclusion, the absence of an association between involvement in 4-H and FFA and intentions to teach may be a result of the limited

PAGE 134

120 variance. With participants’ high level of involvement in these organizations and intentions to teach being moderate to hi gh, it creates a narrow data range and low variance. These limitations may have contri buted to the findings that no relationships exist between these variables. Conclusion Nearly all the preservice agriculture teachers had moderate to high intentions to teach agriculture, such th at over 80% of the preservice agriculture teachers planned to teach agriculture. Analysis of participants’ teaching intentions scores demonstrated that nearly all preservice agriculture teachers had moderate to high intentions to teach. Their high intention scores were supported by data showi ng that 80.1% did plan to teach agriculture. This high proportion comes as no surprise, as preservice agricultu re teachers were completing their program of study in agricultu ral education as well as their final field experience. One would assume that after completing numerous years of coursework and training, an individual must have strong interest in careers re lated to their area of study. However, as Camp et al. (2002) found in the supply and demand study, some of those individuals who had aspirations to teach pursue other interests. To be specific, of those newly qualified teachers who wanted to te ach 72.5 to 77.9% actually found placement (Camp et al., 2002). To put this in perspectiv e, if 80% of the 215 pa rticipants in this study want to teach, it would equate to 172 newly qualified teachers looking for positions. If 75% of these 172 teachers found jobs teaching agriculture it would result in a total of 129 newly qualified teachers entering the profession. Compared to the total number of preservice teachers ( n = 215), this figure represents a placement rate of 60%. This would correspond with what Camp et al have found to be the proportion of all newly qualified agriculture teachers entering the teaching profession. Although this is a very rough estimate, it does help demonstrate that the discrepancy between the number of

PAGE 135

121 newly qualified teachers and those finding placement may not be a matter of low intentions to teach agriculture. However, it is the belief of the researcher that progress can be made, especially with those preservice teachers possessing moderate intentions to teach. Preservice teachers with marginal t eaching intentions should be identified and provided with support and counseling to assist them in making sound career choices. In some cases, pursuing other career interests ma y be the best course, but for some this intervention may be the guidance needed to solidify a student’s d ecision to become an agriculture teacher. Conclusion On average, the preservice agricult ure teachers intended to make teaching agriculture a life long career, however male preservice teachers did perceive longer tenures than did women. With the average length of intended teach ing tenure being over 20 years, the researcher concluded that most preservice te achers intend to teach agriculture their entire career. However, based on the findings of this study there appears to be a difference between the intended length of tenure of male and female preservice teachers. The point biserial correlation between gender and inte nded length of tenure yielded a significant coefficient estimate of .253. This relationship was further supported by the results of the multiple regression analysis on the dependent variable of intended length of teaching tenure. The results of this analysis yielde d three significant predic tors: gender, teaching expectations, and years enroll ed in agricultural education. In both analyses, positive relationships were found, which according to the coding used in these analyses demonstrates that male preservice teachers intend to have longer teaching tenures than their female counterparts. This conclusion has important implica tions for those working to reduce the agriculture teacher shortfall. In the coming years, the agriculture teaching profession will

PAGE 136

122 be faced with the retirement of the “baby boomer” generation. Many of these individuals spent their entire careers teaching agriculture. Will those who replace these teachers have the desire to make their decision to teach ag riculture one that spans their entire working career? These results imply that this may not be the case, and for women there may be even greater concern warranted. The current teacher shortage has no simple solution. Recruiting and placing more teach ers is just one piece of the solution. The real challenge will be how to retain these teachers and help them continue to grow professionally so that they may wish to make teaching agriculture a life long pursuit. An increased proportion of women entering the profession, may lead to shorter average te nures. Given this information, teacher preparation programs, st ate agricultural education staff, and school administrators need to recognize the changi ng dynamics of the ag ricultural education culture and begin to consider how each can play a part in increasing the retention rate of both female and male agriculture teachers. Conclusion In regards to their teaching abilit y, the preservice agriculture teachers were highly efficacious. Over 80% of the preservice agriculture teachers reported high teacher efficacy scores. The remaining participants would be considered to be moderately efficacious. The SCCT (Lent et al., 1994) and the work of Bandura (1997) may provide an explanation for these high levels of teacher efficacy. The SCCT posits that person inputs and background influences impact an individu al’s learning experiences and in turn these experience shape one’s perceptions of self-efficacy (Lent et al., 1994). Based on the findings of this study, it is appare nt that these preservice teac hers possess a great deal of experience in agricultural yout h organizations, agricultural occupational experience, and they are completing an extensive field prepar ation program. These types of experiences

PAGE 137

123 provide participants with numerous opportuni ties to build their pe rceptions of selfefficacy. Through their involvement and preparation, preservice teachers learn vicariously, they master tasks and improve th eir performance, they are provided with persuasive feedback, and they learn from th eir physiological and affective states and reactions. Bandura (1997) believed an indi vidual’s self-efficacy beliefs were built on these four types of learning experiences. Based on this information, the researcher believes that the extensive agriculture background, teacher preparation program, and field experiences of these preservice agriculture teachers may have contributed to their high levels of teacher efficacy. With the knowle dge that none of the preservice teachers indicated low teacher efficacy, the research er concluded that agriculture teacher preparation programs provide preservice teacher s with effective lear ning experiences that help shape their efficacy beliefs. Conclusion Overall, the preservice agriculture te achers were highly positive about the potential outcomes of teaching agricul ture, however their opinions were mixed regarding the adequacy of teacher salaries and the amount of recreational time available. Based on the findings presented in Chap ter 4, it was apparent that preservice agriculture teachers had highly positive expect ations of the outcomes associated with a career teaching agriculture. After analyzing the data and reviewi ng the individual items that comprised the teaching expectations scale, the researcher concluded that most of the preservice teachers felt they could be succe ssful and would enjoy the outcomes of a career teaching agriculture. However, preservi ce teachers recognized the potential salary limitations and additional time requirements associated with teaching agriculture. Individual items related to salary and time for recreation and hobbies were the only items that were not positively perceived by partic ipants. With this information in mind, one

PAGE 138

124 can conclude that most preservice teachers appreciate the positive outcomes of a career teaching agriculture and they are willing to accept the salary limitations and additional time requirements. For those in agricultural education, this demonstrat es that many preservice agriculture teachers have negative perceptions of teacher salaries and time expectations. Teacher educators and state agricultural edu cation staff should attempt to address these issues in an effort to minimize the negative impact they may have on preservice teachers’ career decisions. Providing preservice teach ers with accurate information regarding teacher salaries and the expect ations of the job may ensure that preservice teachers’ perceptions are based on fact rather than popular opinions. Conclusion Most preservice agriculture teachers perceived the likelihood of career barriers and the difficulty of overcoming th ose barriers to be low and their level of career support to be high. Among respondents findings career barriers more likely, location of a job and family responsibilit ies were not only the most difficult to overcome, but also had the most potentia l to impact their decision to teach agriculture. Over 80% of the preservice agriculture teachers indicated a low likelihood of experiencing career barriers. Likewise ove r 73% felt the difficulty of overcoming these barriers was low. Complementing the low leve ls of perceived barri ers were preservice agriculture teachers’ perceptions of high suppor t for their career decisions. According to Lent et al. (2000), ample support and few barriers are predicted to facilitate th e process of transforming career inte rests into goals and those goals into actions. In this study, evidence of a relationship was found showi ng a positive relationship between teaching intentions and career support ( r = .34) and a negative relationship between teaching intentions and like lihood of barriers ( r = -.26). Additiona lly, career support and likelihood of experiencing barriers shared a negative relationship ( r = -.33) as expected.

PAGE 139

125 Although most preservice teachers reported low likelihoods of experiencing career barriers and low difficulty overcoming these ba rriers, those who did indicate that items were more than slightly likely to become a barrier commonly reported the same four items. These items pertain to their responsib ilities for family and relationships, their desire to live in a certain area, and their unwillingness to move way. Preservice agriculture teachers concerns about family and location of a job may have important implications for the profession. If a subs tantial number of preservice teachers’ job opportunities are limited to a gi ven area within a state, the question arises of whether teacher supply and demand is a national, state, or regional concern. For example, in the state of Florida a preservice teacher who hails from the northwest por tion of the state, referred to as the panhandle, may not consider any teaching positions outside of the panhandle region. Even with multiple opening s left unfilled in south Florida, a newly qualified teacher may decide to pursue other oc cupations rather than having to relocate. In many cases, relocation may not be an opti on due to one’s family, relationships, or financial situation. Some have suggested that perceptions of barriers are related to an individual’s gender (Foster, 2001; Foster et al., 1991). Cont rary to the findings of these researchers, gender discrimination was not perceived to be a likely barrier for pres ervice teachers in this study. An informal analysis of the data yielded slightly higher perceptions of career barriers for female participants, however no practical difference appeared to exist between the means of men and women. On av erage, both men and women felt that their family, relationships, home location, and willingn ess to move were slightly to moderately likely to impact their decision to enter the ag riculture teaching profession. The researcher

PAGE 140

126 believes the answer may be in addressing the teacher shortage as a regional issue. If a geographic region of a state co ntinually struggles to find enough qualified teachers, an effort needs to be made to find potential teach ers who are likely to want to teach there. Based on this regional supply concept, if an ample number of ag ricultural education students from different geographic regions in a state complete teacher education programs and consider positions close to home, it could provide a more balanced, stable supply of teachers who are fam iliar with the region and its agricultural industries. To implement such an idea, recruitment efforts should be broadened and additional emphasis placed on recruiting from those regions wher e the major shortages exist rather than focusing recruitment efforts solely on the ar eas that traditionally have strong secondary agriculture programs. By r ecruiting potential agricultur al education students from programs in areas that suffer from shortages it may provide more new teachers who are willing to take teaching positions in those ar eas. Furthermore, by increasing recruitment efforts in urban and suburban areas where cr itical teacher shortages exist, the benefits may be two fold. Urban and suburban recru itment could provide an increased number of students entering agriculture teacher prepar ation programs as well as greater ethnic diversity. However, those involved in r ecruiting agricultural e ducation students may need to evaluate their present recruitment procedures. Do the current recruitment procedures used provide access to all stud ents who may be interested in studying agricultural education? Ba sed on the findings of this study, it would appear that recruitment efforts continue to be focused pr imarily on traditional ag riculture, 4-H, and FFA activities. These venues are valuable recruitment opportunities, however if these activities are the sole means of recruiting students it is possible this may perpetuate the

PAGE 141

127 present situation. To attr act and prepare a sufficient number of students into the profession, it is apparent that recruitment efforts must be expanded and the scope of those considered to be potential students needs to be broadened. To do so, a collective effort is needed to build a greater awareness of th e opportunities that a career in agricultural education provides for all student s no matter where they reside. Objective Two Conclusion The findings of this study provided support for the Social Cognitive Career Theory (Lent et al., 1994). As Lent et al. (1994) purported, significant relationships existed between outcome expe ctations and intentions, efficacy and intentions, efficacy and expectations, a nd a negative relationship exists between career supports and barriers. With their SCCT model, Lent et al. (1994) posited that both self-efficacy beliefs and outcome expectations predict career inte rests. These interests, together with a person’s perceptions of efficacy and outcome e xpectations lead to goal formulation. The goals an individual sets affect their career decisions. The fi ndings of this study appear to support these proposed relationships. A moderate positive relationship ( r = .42) was found between teacher efficacy and teaching intentions and a substantial positive relationship ( r = .65) was discovered between teac hing outcome expectations and teaching intentions. Based on the literature and the links purported by Lent et al. (1994), a stronger relationship may have been anticipat ed between teacher efficacy and intentions to teach agriculture, like that found between out come expectations and intentions score. Although a moderate relationship should not be disregarded, some may ask why self-efficacy and intentions to teach did not have the strongest relationship? The researcher believes this may be due to the mode rate to high levels of efficacy that all the participants exhibited. Although 20% of the participants indicated they did not plan to teach, these individuals had at least moderate levels of e fficacy. This would lead the

PAGE 142

128 researcher to conclude that those preservice teachers w ho did not plan to enter the profession had strong beliefs in their ability to teach agri culture. These individuals believe they can be effective teachers, however for some r eason they do not have strong intentions to teach. The substantial rela tionship between outcome expectations and teaching intentions may help explain this situ ation. An individual may feel that they are capable of teaching, but have low expecta tions of the outcomes of a career teaching agriculture. It is possible that the limited salary prospects or additional time requirements of a career teaching agriculture may have had a detrimental effect on a preservice teacher’s decision to teach. An individual co uld indicate a high efficacy score, but report low outcome expectations, and low intentions to teach. This situ ation would cause the relationship between efficacy scores and teachin g intentions to be lower than that of outcome expectations and teachi ng intentions. Lent et al. (1994) also belie ved that a relationship existe d between self-efficacy and outcome expectations. Lent et al. posite d that outcome expectations are partially determined by an individual’s self-efficacy beliefs, particularly when outcomes are closely tied to one’s quality or level of pe rformance. Support for this relationship was provided in this study with a correlation co efficient of .43. These findings demonstrate the importance of preservice teachers’ percepti ons of their own teaching abilities. These perceptions not only contribute to preservice teachers’ intenti ons to teach, but they also impact preservice teachers’ feelings about th e expected outcomes of a career teaching, which has also been found to be predictive of preservice agriculture teachers intended length of tenure. This relationship may al so be lower than expected; however the aforementioned explanation may apply here as well. A preservice teacher may believe in

PAGE 143

129 their abilities to teach, but have negative ex pectations of a career teaching agriculture. These individuals may be those that expressed an interest in other formal and informal teaching careers, such as elemen tary or extension education. Further evidence for the S CCT model was found related to career supports and barriers. According to Lent et al. (2000), an individual’s perception of ample support and few barriers is predicted to faci litate the process of transforming their career interests into goals and those goals into actions. The analys is of this study’s da ta found relationships consistent with those propos ed in the model. A negativ e relationship existed between support and the likelihood of experiencing barriers. Career support had a positive association with teaching intentions, and a negative association existed between teaching intentions and the likelihood of experiencing barriers. These findings lead the researcher to conclude that the SCCT posited by Lent et al. (1994) and its thr ee key social cognitive variables of self-efficacy, outcome expecta tions, and goals (intentions /aspirations) provide a relevant theoretical framework to guide future studies, investigations, and interventions into the career decisions of preservice agriculture teachers. Since the central constructs of SCCT are amenable to change, the potential for intervention is believed to be the most valuable attri bute of this theory (Rasheed, 2001). Conclusion Preservice agriculture teachers p erceptions of teacher efficacy and teaching expectations were significant p redictors of their intentions to teach agriculture. These two variables accounted for 44% of the variance in preservice teachers’ intentions to teach agriculture. As posited by Lent et al. (1994) in the So cial Cognitive Career Theory, the results of this study showed that self-efficacy and out come expectations predict career interests and aspirations. Based on the findings of this study, it appears that these two variables account for a substantial amount of the vari ance in preservice agriculture teachers’

PAGE 144

130 intentions to teach at 44%. This conclusion has important implications for teacher preparation and future research. Given th e relationships that exist between teaching intentions and preservice teachers efficacy and outcome expectations, it seems that practitioners and researchers should take not e and avoid overlooking the predictive nature of these two variables. With the knowledge that preservice teach ers who possess high teacher efficacy and outcome expectations are more likely to te ach agriculture, those in teacher education have reason to put more focus and investiga tion into building pres ervice teachers’ selfperceptions related to these two constructs. As the tenets of the SCCT state, these variables can be manipulated. Teacher educ ators can identify preservice teachers’ level of teacher efficacy and their perceptions of the outcomes of teaching agriculture. Interventions can be developed, such as modifying a students’ program of study or possibly by providing supplemental activities to help increase a student’s positive perceptions of these two variab les. For example, after surveying a freshman class of agricultural education students it may become apparent that some students possess little agricultural experience and express concern abou t their ability to teach given their limited subject matter knowledge. Through advisement, a teacher educator could recommend subject matter course work that would provi de students with lear ning experiences that may help build their subject matte r knowledge in those areas in which they feel deficient. Additionally, teacher educators could also assi st students in considering ways to gain agricultural experience. A student may consider agricultural internships, summer employment, or possibly a part-time job worki ng in a university agri culture laboratory or production unit. All of these experiences woul d benefit a student by providing them with

PAGE 145

131 valuable experience related to their conten t area, and these experiences also provide students with opportunities to develop sk ills and knowledge, ultimately building their self-perceptions. In order to address negatively perc eived outcomes of a career teaching, the perceptions of preservice teachers must be identified. Once negative perceptions are identified, efforts can be made to address th ese issues in the curri culum and also through student advising. Unfortunatel y, an individual’s expectations of the outcomes of a career teaching are not always based on fact. Pres ervice agriculture teachers need to have accurate information on which to base thei r career decisions. Too often preservice agriculture teachers’ percep tions of career outcomes are founded on rumor, gossip, and stereotypes perpetuated by thos e with less than accurate a nd sometimes biased opinions of a career teaching agriculture. It is the obligation of professionals in agricultural education to provide potential teachers with honest and accurate information so that they may pursue a career teaching agriculture for the right reasons. By knowing what to expect, they will hopefully continue t eaching for the span of their career. Objective Three Conclusion Preservice agriculture teachers’ gend er, years enrolled in agricultural education, and their teaching expectatio ns were significant predictors of their intended length of agriculture teaching te nure. These three variables accounted for 24% of the variance in pres ervice agriculture teachers’ in tended length of teaching tenure. The results of this study pr ovided evidence of three sign ificant predictors of the intended length of tenure of preservice agricu lture teachers. The predictors, gender, years enrolled in agriculture education, and teaching expectations were shown to account for 24% of the variance in intended length of agriculture teaching tenure. As aforementioned, these relationships allowed th e researcher to conclude that female

PAGE 146

132 participants do not intend to teach as long as men. In addition, those preservice teachers who spent more time in agricultural educa tion and possessed higher expectations of the outcomes of teaching had longer intended teachin g tenures. Given the potential impact of shorter teaching tenures on teach er attrition, this informati on provides practitioners and researchers with important issues to consider. Females comprised 52.1% of the preservice ag riculture teachers in this study. This proportion differs from the proportion of fema le agriculture teachers nationwide. Camp et al. (2002) reported that 22% of agricultu re teachers were women in 2001, which was substantially lower than the proportion of wo men in the U.S. workforce (United States Department of Labor Women’ s Bureau, 2000). If the propor tion of female preservice teachers in this study is representative of all preservice agriculture teachers, future proportions of agriculture teachers may be more reflective of the nations work force. In time an increased proportion of females ente ring the agricultural education profession coupled with the retirement of male teach ers would lead to an agriculture teaching profession that is more representative of the approximate gender balanced workforce foreseen by the Department of Labor. If th ese female agriculture teachers have shorter tenures than their male counter parts, how will it impact the teacher shortfall? In light of this information, it would seem plausible th at the coming years could have the potential for even greater deficits due to increased attr ition of agriculture teachers. This possibility warrants the attention of the agricultural education profe ssion. Additional support and professional development is needed for ag riculture teachers to maintain their job satisfaction and balance their fa mily and professional commitments in an effort to extend their teaching tenure.

PAGE 147

133 The relationship between years in agricu lture education and intended length of teaching tenure has implications for teacher education. As mentioned, the vast majority of preservice teachers have been involved in FFA and with that involvement comes enrollment in agricultural educ ation. This involvement allows students to gain first hand insight into the responsibilities of agriculture teachers. This experience may contribute to the third predictor, teaching expectations. Through additional time and experience in an agricultural education program, students form their own beliefs about the outcomes of a career teaching agriculture. In some cases, agri culture teachers may inspire their students and that inspiration may contribut e to students’ decisions to pu rsue a major in agricultural education. These learning experiences influenc e preservice teachers’ beliefs in their own ability and their positive perceptions of the outcomes of teaching agriculture. Given the potential for extending teaching tenures, ag riculture teachers and teacher educators should be cognizant of the impact that student s’ experience in agri cultural edu cation can have on the future supply and rete ntion of agriculture teachers. Research Hypotheses Conclusion The findings of this study provide pa rtial support for th e first research hypothesis presented. Preservice agricultu re teachers who have greater intentions to teach did report perceptions of high er self-efficacy, more positive outcome expectations, more positive support systems, and fewer perceived career barriers. No support was found for the hypothesized relationships between intentions to teach and academic performance, and intentions to teach and agricultural background. Based on the relationships found in this study, evidence was provided to support most of the directional associ ations posited in research hypoth esis one. The results of the correlation matrices show that significan t relationships exist demonstrating that preservice agriculture teachers with high in tentions scores had higher scores on the teacher efficacy scale, the teaching expectations scale, the support scale, and lower scores

PAGE 148

134 on the likelihood of experiencing barriers scale. However, the findings of this study did not provide significant evidence th at greater teaching intentions were associated with the difficulty of overcoming barriers, academic performance, and agricultural occupational experience. Conclusion The findings of this study provide partial support for the second research hypothesis presented. Preservice agriculture teachers who perceived longer teaching tenure did report higher te acher efficacy, more positive outcome expectations, more positive support syst ems, fewer perceived career barriers, and stronger agricultural backgrounds. No support was found for the hypothesized relationship between intentions to teach and academic performance. Based on the relationships found in this study, evidence was provided to support most of the directional associ ations posited in research hypoth esis two. The results of the correlation matrices show that significan t relationships exist demonstrating that preservice agriculture teachers who perceive d longer teaching tenure had higher scores on the teacher efficacy scale, the teaching e xpectations scale, th e support scale, lower scores on the likelihood of e xperiencing barriers scale, and stronger agriculture background experiences, which included gr eater FFA involvement and more years enrolled in agricultural education. However, the findings of this study did not provide significant evidence that longer intended t eaching tenures were associated with the difficulty of overcoming barriers, acade mic achievement, and other agricultural background experiences, such as involvemen t in 4-H and agricultural occupational experience. Recommendations for Practitioners 1. Recruitment and outreach efforts should pl ace greater emphasis on attracting a more diverse group of students, including ethni city and geographic location, and continue to target 4-H and FFA members and student s in agricultural education programs.

PAGE 149

135 2. Provide and assist preservice teachers in participating in rich learning experiences through the curriculum, demonstration a nd modeling, laboratory experience, field experience, occupational experience, inte raction with professionals and various other activities that help shape their deve loping sense of teacher efficacy and their expectations of a career teaching agriculture. 3. Consider the state’s demand for agriculture teachers from a regional perspective. Are there areas of the state that continually struggle to fill positions? What contributes to this situati on? Efforts may be needed to recruit and prepare more new teachers from these areas, since thes e newly qualified teachers may be more likely to want to return to the area to teach. 4. Provide additional support and inservice tr aining for agriculture teachers, so that a better balance between their family comm itments and professional lives can be achieved. 5. Identify those preservice teachers who have low perceived efficacy and negative perceptions of the outcomes of teaching ag riculture. These individuals should be supported and interventions should be devel oped to help improve their self-efficacy and reduce their negative belief s about teaching agriculture. 6. Agriculture teacher educators should iden tify the teaching outcome expectations of preservice teachers, so that positive expectations can be reinforced and negative expectations can be addressed. Recommendations for Research 1. The Social Cognitive Career Theory (Lent et al., 1994) appears to be a relevant theory for explaining the career interests and decisions of pr eservice agriculture teachers. In the future, researchers shoul d utilize this theory to guide related research. 2. The experiences provided in teacher prepar ation programs should be investigated to identify the learning experiences that c ontribute most to pres ervice agriculture teachers’ perceptions of teacher effi cacy and their outcome expectations. 3. Researchers should inves tigate alternatively certif ied agriculture teachers’ perceptions of traditional agriculture t eacher preparation programs and determine which factors contributed to their decisi on to pursue an alternative program for certification. 4. Additional studies are needed to furthe r examine the inconclusive association between preservice agriculture teachers’ decision to enter th e teaching profession and their academic achievement, and between decision to teach and involvement in 4-H and FFA programs. 5. Research is needed to test the effectiv eness of interventions designed to improve preservice teachers’ percepti ons of teacher efficacy and outcome expectations.

PAGE 150

136 6. Potential career barriers s hould be investigated to de termine if gender or ethnic differences exist. 7. This research found evidence of the predic tive nature of several variables in this study, however additional research is needed to discover if any causal relationships exist between these predictors and preser vice agriculture teachers intentions to teach and their intended length of tenure. 8. Research is warranted that compares the geographic area from which preservice agriculture teachers hail and the areas th ey would consider living and teaching. Further research would potenti ally identify the reasons for their limitations and their willingness or unwillingness to relocate. 9. Further investigation is need ed related to the level of in terest and potential barriers for preservice agriculture teachers who are Caucasian and from rural areas to consider teaching positions in urba n and suburban agriculture programs. 10. This study should be replicated and follow-up studies should be done with participants to determine which teachers secure agriculture teaching positions. Those individuals who do not find teaching pos itions should be studied to identify the factors that contributed to their decision not to enter the profession. This study would also provide the opportunity to esta blish the strength of association, if any, between teaching intentions and teacher placement. 11. A longitudinal study of pr eservice agriculture teache rs who enter the teaching profession is needed to establish the accuracy and reliability of preservice teachers’ intended length of tenure in relati on to their actual teaching tenure. 12. Replication of this study is needed to confirm the rela tionships that were supported in research hypothesis one, specifically if preservice agriculture teachers with higher intentions to teach have percepti ons of higher self-efficacy, more positive outcome expectations, more positive suppor t systems, and fewer perceived career barriers. 13. Replication of this study is needed to confirm the rela tionships that were supported in research hypothesis two, specifically if preservice agriculture teachers with longer intended teaching tenures have per ceptions of higher teacher efficacy, more positive outcome expectations, more positive support systems, fewer perceived career barriers, and stronger agricultural backgrounds. 14. The high levels of teacher efficacy observed in these preservice teachers completing their teaching internship warrants further research to determine if these high levels of efficacy continue during their first and subsequent years of teaching.

PAGE 151

137 APPENDIX A INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL

PAGE 152

138 APPENDIX B PARTICIPATION REQUEST EMAIL Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences Department of Agricultural Education and Communication305 Rolfs Hall PO Box 110540 Gainesville, FL 32611-0540 Telephone: (352) 392-0502 Fax: (352) 392-9585 Dear prefix L_name: I am writing to request your assistance in a nationwide study of pr eservice agriculture teachers. This study will help us learn more about the factors that influence preservice teachers decisions to pursue a career teach ing agriculture. This information may prove very valuable in the future to address teach er shortages and in gui ding agriculture teacher preparation programs. Your participation in this study would requi re that you administer an approximately 15minute questionnaire to your preservice t eachers who are completing their teaching internships during the fall seme ster 2004. The questionnaire should be administered as close to the end of the fall semester as possible. If you are not responsible for the teaching interns at your institution, I would appreciate you forwarding this message on to the appropriate faculty member. In return for your institutions participation, I will provide a summarized report of the results for your preservice teachers, which will also include the overall results as well. In order to determine your institutions eligibility and willingness to participate I ask that you respond to the following three questions: 1. Does your institution have te aching interns this fall? 2. If so, how many? 3. Are you or another member of your faculty willing to participate? Unfortunately, if you do not have fall teaching interns your institution is not eligible to participate in this study. However, I would r eally appreciate your response so that your institution can be removed from my contact li st. I would encourage you to reply with the requested information by October 18th, 2004. While your participation is voluntary, I would greatly appreciate your assistance with this important study. I do not anticipate any unfor eseen risks, compensa tion, or other direct benefits to you or your students as a result of your contributions to this study. Your

PAGE 153

139 identity, as well as your students, will be kept confidential to the ex tent provided by law. For questions about the rights of research pa rticipants, please contac t the UF Institutional Review Board Office at (352) 392-0433 or irb2@ufl.edu If you have any questions about this study plea se feel free to contact us at the numbers below. I look forward to hearing from you and thank you for your time and assistance with this study. Sincerely, Steven J. Rocca Graduate Assistant 305 Rolfs Hall, P.O. Box 110540 Gainesville, FL 32611-0540 Phone: (352) 392-0502 ext. 223 Email: srocca@ufl.edu Shannon G. Washburn Assistant Professor 305 Rolfs Hall, P.O. Box 110540 Gainesville, FL 32611-0540 Phone: (352) 392-0502 ext. 237 Email: swashburn@ufl.edu

PAGE 154

140 APPENDIX C PARTICIPATION REQUEST FOLLOW-UP EMAIL Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences Department of Agricultural Education and Communication305 Rolfs Hall PO Box 110540 Gainesville, FL 32611-0540 Telephone: (352) 392-0502 Fax: (352) 392-9585 Dear prefix L_name: Last week you should have received an em ail requesting your assistance in a nationwide study of preservice agriculture teachers. Th is study will examine factors that influence preservice teachers decisions to pursue a career teaching agriculture. Unfortunately, I have not received a response from you or your institution as of ye t. I would really appreciate it if you could answer the que stions below regarding your willingness to participate and your students' eligibility. This will only take a few minutes and will save us both the time and trouble of contacting you via the telephone. I would encourage you to reply with the requested information by October, 18th, 2004. In order to determine your institutions eligibility a nd willingness to participate I ask that you respond to the following three questions: 1. Does your institution have te aching interns this fall? 2. If so, how many? 3. Are you or another member of y our faculty willing to participate? Your participation in this study would requi re that you administer an approximately 15minute questionnaire to your preservice t eachers who are completing their teaching internships during the fall seme ster 2004. The questionnaire should be administered as close to the end of the fall semester as possible. If you are not responsible for the teaching interns at your institution, I would appreciate you forwarding this message on to the appropriate faculty member. In return for your institutions participation, I will provide a summarized report of the results for your preservice teachers, which will also include the overall results as well. Unfortunately, if you do not have fall teaching interns your institution is not eligible to participat e in this study. However, I would really appreciate your response so that your institut ion can be removed from my contact list. While your participation is voluntary, I would greatly appreciate your assistance with this important study. I do not anticipate any unfor eseen risks, compensa tion, or other direct

PAGE 155

141 benefits to you or your students as a result of your contributions to this study. Your identity, as well as your students, will be kept confidential to the ex tent provided by law. For questions about the rights of research pa rticipants, please contac t the UF Institutional Review Board Office at (352) 392-0433 or irb2@ufl.edu If you have any questions about this study plea se feel free to contact us at the numbers below. I look forward to hearing from you and thank you for your time and assistance with this study. Sincerely, Steven J. Rocca Graduate Assistant 305 Rolfs Hall, P.O. Box 110540 Gainesville, FL 32611-0540 Phone: (352) 392-0502 ext. 223 Email: srocca@ufl.edu Shannon G. Washburn Assistant Professor 305 Rolfs Hall, P.O. Box 110540 Gainesville, FL 32611-0540 Phone: (352) 392-0502 ext. 237 Email: swashburn@ufl.edu

PAGE 156

142 APPENDIX D INSTRUCTIONS FOR ADMINISTERING INSTRUMENT 1. Provide each potential participant with a questionnaire and informed consent form. 2. Ask that they read the informed consent form completely, and if they choose to participant, sign the document. 3. Inform participants that the second copy of the informed consent is for them to keep for their records. 4. Ask for a volunteer to colle ct the completed questionnair es and informed consent forms. 5. Inform the volunteer to place the comp leted questionnaires, signed informed consent forms, and any left over ma terials into the return envelope. 6. Once all participants are fi nished and materials collect ed, the volunteer should seal the return envelope. 7. Request that the volunteer drop off the sealed return envelope to you or a designated staff member at a predetermined location. 8. Inform participants that they are to place their completed questionnaires and informed consent forms into the return envelope. 9. Ask participants if they ha ve any questions regarding the informed consent form or these instructions. 10. Please leave the room once participan ts are ready to begin completing the questionnaire. 11. After you or the designated staff member receives the envelope containing the completed questionnaires and forms from th e volunteer, place it into the U.S. mail. 12. Thank you again for your time and assist ance. It is greatly appreciated.

PAGE 157

143 APPENDIX E INFORMED CONSENT STATEMENT Informed Consent Please read the following information, sign and return. Please keep the attached copy for your records. Dear Preservice Teacher: My name is Steve Rocca and I am a graduate student in Agricultural Education at the University of Florida. I am conducting a nationwide study of pr eservice agriculture teachers to help us better understand their career decision making process. The purpose of this study is to learn more about the factors that influence preservice agriculture teachers decisions to pursue careers teaching agri culture or to seek employment in other fields. Since the value of this study is dependent on the partic ipation of preservice agriculture teachers, I would lik e to ask you to participate. Your participation would only require you to complete a questionnair e, which should take approximately 20 minutes to complete. There is no foreseen risk of physical, psychological, or economic harm to participan ts. Your identity will not be disclosed, and will be kept confidential to the extent provide d by law. Your answers will be completely confidential and released onl y as summaries in which no individual’s answers can be identified. You may request results of this study and they will be provided to you after its’ conclusion. There is no compensation or other direct benefit to you for participation. Your participation in this study is completely voluntary and there is no penalty for not participating. You do not have to answer any questions you do not want to answer and you have the right to withdraw from th e study at any time without consequence. If you have any questions about this st udy you can contact Steve Rocca or Shannon Washburn at (352) 392-0502, or at the address below. S hould you have questions about your rights as a research part icipant, please contact the Univ ersity of Florida Institutional Review Board at (352) 392-0433 or PO Box 112250, Gainesville, FL 32611. Participants Signature Date I have read the procedure described above. I agr ee to participate in the procedure, and I have received a copy of this information.

PAGE 158

144 Please place this signed informed consent statement in the envelope provided and return to: Steve Rocca or Shannon Washburn University of Florida Agricultural Educati on and Communication 305 Rolfs Hall, PO Box 110540 Gainesville, FL 32611-0540 Tel: (352) 392-0502 Fax: (352) 392-9585 Please keep this copy for your record. Informed Consent Dear Preservice Teacher: My name is Steve Rocca and I am a graduate student in Agricultural Education at the University of Florida. I am conducting a nationwide study of pr eservice agriculture teachers to help us better understand their career decision making process. The purpose of this study is to learn more about the factors that influence preservice agriculture teachers decisions to pursue careers teaching agri culture or to seek employment in other fields. Since the value of this study is de pendent on the particip ation of preservice agriculture teachers, I would lik e to ask you to participate. Your participation would only require you to complete a questionnair e, which should take approximately 20 minutes to complete. There is no foreseen risk of physical, psychological, or economic harm to participan ts. Your identity will not be disclosed, and will be kept confidential to the extent provide d by law. Your answers will be completely confidential and released onl y as summaries in which no individual’s answers can be identified. You may request results of this study and they will be provided to you after its’ conclusion. There is no compensation or other direct benefit to you for participation. Your participation in this study is completely voluntary and there is no penalty for not participating. You do not have to answer any questions you do not want to answer and you have the right to withdraw from th e study at any time without consequence. If you have any questions about this st udy you can contact Steve Rocca or Shannon Washburn at (352) 392-0502, or at the address below. S hould you have questions about

PAGE 159

145 your rights as a research part icipant, please contact the Univ ersity of Florida Institutional Review Board at (352) 392-0433 or PO Box 112250, Gainesville, FL 32611. Participants Signature Date Please place this signed informed consent statement in the envelope provided and return to: Steve Rocca or Shannon Washburn University of Florida Agricultural Educati on and Communication 305 Rolfs Hall, PO Box 110540 Gainesville, FL 32611-0540 Tel: (352) 392-0502 Fax: (352) 392-9585 I have read the procedure described above. I agr ee to participate in the procedure, and I have received a copy of this information.

PAGE 160

146 APPENDIX F EMAIL REMINDER Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences Department of Agricultural Education and Communication305 Rolfs Hall PO Box 110540 Gainesville, FL 32611-0540 Telephone: (352) 392-0502 Fax: (352) 392-9585 prefix L_name: The end of the fall semester/quarter is qui ckly approaching and Im sure you are very busy, but I wanted to drop you a quick reminde r about my questionnaire. If you have already completed and returned the questionnai re(s), please accept my sincere thanks. If not, I hope you will still be able to admini ster the instrument(s) to your fall student teachers prior to your winter recess. Your st udents responses are extremely important to the success of my study and to the overal l value this study can contribute to the profession. I really appreciate the time and effort you have contributed in assisting me with collecting this data. I look forwar d to receiving your students completed questionnaires, preferably before you adjourn for winter recess. If you should have any questions please feel free to call (352) 3920502 or email me at srocca@ufl.edu. If you will be unable to return the completed questi onnaires to me by the end of December, I would greatly appreciate an email to that effect. Thank you and have a Happy Holiday Season, Steve Rocca.

PAGE 161

147 APPENDIX G FINAL EMAIL CONTACT Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences Department of Agricultural Education and Communication305 Rolfs Hall PO Box 110540 Gainesville, FL 32611-0540 Telephone: (352) 392-0502 Fax: (352) 392-9585 prefix L_name: I wanted to touch base with you regardi ng the administration of my questionnaire regarding Preservice Teacher Care er Decisions. According to my records, I have not yet received completed questionnaires from your in stitution. I hope to wrap up my collection of data this week and would really appreciate it if you could let me know if your have or will be returning any completed questionnaires If for some reason you were unable to administer the questionnaire, I would appreciate a message to that affect so that I may begin to move forward with my analysis of this data. I hope to hear from you soon and Happy New Year. Steve Rocca.

PAGE 162

148 APPENDIX H THANK YOU EMAIL Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences Department of Agricultural Education and Communication305 Rolfs Hall PO Box 110540 Gainesville, FL 32611-0540 Telephone: (352) 392-0502 Fax: (352) 392-9585 prefix L_name: I just wanted to confirm that I have receive d your students completed questionnaires. I greatly appreciate your time and effort to administer the inst rument and returning them so quickly. After receiving all th e completed questionnaires a nd analyzing the data, I will send you a summary of your students results. Thank you and have a Happy Holiday Season, Steve Rocca.

PAGE 163

149 APPENDIX I DEMOGRAPHIC INSTRUMENT Part VI: General Information 1. Your gender? [ ] Female [ ] Male 2. Your age? _____ years 3. Your ethnicity? [ ] African American [ ] Caucasian [ ] Hispanic/Latino [ ] Native American/Alaskan [ ] Asian/Pacific Islander 4. What is your approximate cu mulative grade point average? [ ] Less than 2.0 [ ] 2.1 to 2.5 [ ] 2.6 to 3.0 [ ] 3.1 to 3.5 [ ] 3.6 to 4.0 5. What is your approximate grade point average in your major (exclude general education courses)? [ ] Less than 2.0 [ ] 2.1 to 2.5 [ ] 2.6 to 3.0 [ ] 3.1 to 3.5 [ ] 3.6 to 4.0 6. Indicate the number of y ears of full-time and part-time work experience you have below. Agriculturally related job(s): Full time ______ year(s) Part-time ______ year(s) Non-agriculturally relate d job(s): Full-time ______ year(s) Part-time ______ year(s) 7. How many years were you involved w ith the following organizations? 4 H _____ year(s) FFA _____ year(s) 8. Indicate your level of in volvement in 4-H and/or FFA below. Mark the box corresponding to your level of involvement in each organization. If you were not a member of an organization please mark “Not Involved at all.” 4-H involvement: FFA involvement: [ ] Not Involved at All [ ] Not Involved at All [ ] Moderately Involved [ ] Moderately Involved [ ] Very Involved [ ] Very Involved

PAGE 164

150 9. How many total years were you enrolled in middle and high school agriculture classes? ____ year(s) 10. Indicate the response that best de scribes the geographi c location of your childhood/adolescent home? [ ] Rural on a farm [ ] Rural – but not on a farm [ ] Suburban [ ] Urban 11. Do you plan to teach agriculture? [ ] Yes [ ] No

PAGE 165

151 APPENDIX J PRESERVICE AGRICULTURE TEACHER INTENTIONS AND ASPIRATIONS SCALE Part I: Teaching Intentions and Aspirations Directions: Please indicate your level of agreement with each of the statements below by circ ling the appropriate number at the right of the statement. Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree A. I plan to pursue an agriculture teaching position. 1 2 3 4 5 B. I would prefer to work in a career field other than agricultural education. 1 2 3 4 5 C. I would take a job other than teaching agriculture if the right opportunity were offered to me. 1 2 3 4 5 D. I do not want to work in a ny other field besides agricultural education. 1 2 3 4 5 E. I would likely take an agri culture teaching position if it were offered to me. 1 2 3 4 5 F. I’m going to look for jobs in fields other than agricultural education. 1 2 3 4 5 G. I’m certain that I will not teach agriculture. 1 2 3 4 5 H. I would be satisfied just teaching my classes and doing nothing more. 1 2 3 4 5 I. I plan on developing into an expert in my career field. 1 2 3 4 5 J. I see myself having an active role in the development of a successful agriculture program at my school. 1 2 3 4 5 K. I would not plan on devoting time to further professional development beyond the requirements of my job. 1 2 3 4 5 L. I would like to have respons ibility for FFA, SAE, and other agricultural program activities. 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 166

152 M. When Im established in my career, I would like to help prepare and mentor new prof essionals in my field. 1 2 3 4 5 N. I plan to stay informed and become involved in issues pertaining to my profession. 1 2 3 4 5 O. I hope to minimize the amount of time I spend working after business hours and on weekends. 1 2 3 4 5 P. I plan on playing an important role in the accomplishments of my students. 1 2 3 4 5 Q. I truly want to teach agriculture. 1 2 3 4 5 R. I would not consider anot her profession besides teaching even if a good opportunity were presented to me 1 2 3 4 5 Teaching Intention Questions 1. If you were to teach agriculture, how ma ny years do you estimate you would teach? _____ year(s) 2. If you did not teach agriculture, what othe r career, educational, or personal plans would you pursue? Please specify: ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________

PAGE 167

153 APPENDIX K TEACHERS’ SENSE OF EFFICACY SCALE Part II: Teacher’s Sense of Efficacy Directions: Please indicate your opinion about each of the statements below by circling the appropriate number at th e right of statement. Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite A Bit A Great Deal A. How much can you do to control disruptive behavior in the classroom? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 B. How much can you do to motivate students who show low interest in school work? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 C. How much can you do to get students to believe they can do well in school work? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 D. How much can you do to help your students value learning? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 E. To what extent can you craft good questions for your students? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 F. How much can you do to get students to follow classroom rules? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 G. How much can you do to calm a student who is disruptive or noisy? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 H. How well can you establish a classroom management system? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I. How much can you use a variety of assessment strategies? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 J. To what extent can you provide an alternative explanation or example when students are confused? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 K. How much can you assist families in helping their children do well in school? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 L. How well can you implement alternative teaching strategies in your classroom? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

PAGE 168

154 APPENDIX L PRESERVICE AGRICULTURE TEACHER EXPECTATIONS SCALE Part III: Teacher Expectations Directions: Please indicate your level of agreement with each of the statements below by circling the appropriate number at the right of statement. As an agriculture teacher… Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree A. …I could be successful. 1 2 3 4 5 B. …I would have a bright future. 1 2 3 4 5 C. …I would be happy working in the profession. 1 2 3 4 5 D. …teaching would allow me to use my knowledge and abilities. 1 2 3 4 5 E. …I would help students develop an appreciation of agriculture. 1 2 3 4 5 F. …I would like the working hours and vacation time the job provides. 1 2 3 4 5 G. …I would receive a more than adequate salary and benefits. 1 2 3 4 5 H. …I would appreciate the job security provided by teaching agriculture. 1 2 3 4 5 I. …the community would s upport my agriculture program and students. 1 2 3 4 5 J. …I would be provided with adequate funding and administrative support. 1 2 3 4 5 K. …I would not have enough time for hobbies and recreation activities. 1 2 3 4 5 L. …I would enjoy working with students and seeing their accomplishments. 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 169

155 M. …my job would create probl ems in my relationship or marriage. 1 2 3 4 5 N. …administrators and othe r teachers would view my program as less important than other school programs. 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 170

156 APPENDIX M PRESERVICE AGRICULTURE TEACHER CAREER BARRIERS SCALE Part IV: Teacher Career Barriers Indicate the likelihood of each item to be a barrier to your entry into the agriculture teaching profession. If you were to encounter each of these barriers, indicate how difficult it would be to overcome? Not at all Likely Slightly Likely Moderately Likely Very Likely Definitely Likely Directions: Please read the instructions to the left and right of the items. Circle the appropriate numbers to the left and right of each item below. Not at all Difficult Slightly Difficult Moderately Difficult Very Difficult Could Not Overcome 1 2 3 4 5 A. Not enough confidence in my teaching ability 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 B. Friends don’t support my career plans 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 C. Being married or in a long-term relationship 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 D. Parents don’t support my career plans 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 E. Not being prepared enough 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 F. Family responsibilities 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 G. Lack of motivation 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 H. Pressure from spouse or boyfriend / girlfriend 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 I. Teachers don’t support my career plans 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 J. Gender discrimination 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 K. Racial / ethnic discrimination 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 171

157 1 2 3 4 5 L. None of my friends are agriculture teachers 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 M. Not willing to move away 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 N. Others don’t think I can do the job 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 O. No job opportunities in the area I want to live 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 P. Not ready to leave school yet 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 172

158 APPENDIX N PRESERVICE AGRICULTURE TEACHER SUPPORT SCALE Part V: Teacher Support Circle the number corres ponding with the level of encouragement /discouragement you received from the following persons pe rtaining to your decision about entering the agricultural teaching profession. Circle N/A = Not Applicable if that person does not apply in your case. For example, if you are an onl y child you would mark N/A for brother(s) and sister(s). Not Applicable Strongly Discouraging Discouraging Neutral Encouraging Strongly Encouraging A. Father N/A 1 2 3 4 5 B. Mother N/A 1 2 3 4 5 C. Brother(s) N/A 1 2 3 4 5 D. Sister(s) N/A 1 2 3 4 5 E. Other relative(s) N/A 1 2 3 4 5 F. Best friend(s) N/A 1 2 3 4 5 G. Other friend(s) N/A 1 2 3 4 5 H. Your high school agriculture teacher(s) N/A 1 2 3 4 5 I. Other high school agricu lture teacher(s) N/A 1 2 3 4 5 J. Your cooperating/mentor teacher(s) N/A 1 2 3 4 5 K. Your university teacher educator(s) N/A 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 173

159 L. Other university faculty N/A 1 2 3 4 5 M. University advisor/guidance counselor(s)N/A 1 2 3 4 5 N. High school guidance counselor(s) N/A 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 174

160 APPENDIX O PARTICIPANTS CAREER, EDUCATI ONAL, AND PERSONAL INTERESTS, OTHER THAN TEACHING AGRICULTURE Ag. Literacy Coordinator FFA Organization Farming Animal Science Vet School Nursing Open boarding kennel Vet tech. position Own landscape business political office Computer technology seedstock promoter Embryo transfer other teaching P.R./sales greenhouse manager Farming biology other teaching Ag. business industry Ag. business construction Extension business Sales 4-H Extension Farming other education opportunity Communication family Administration Family Elementary education sales Farming Extension Elementary Education Family Sales/marketing government position Production Ag. P.R. Farming greenhouse business Elementary Education Ag in Classroom Ag. business Family Ag. business dairy industry Graduate school University Professor Livestock Nutrition/Feed sale s Athletic Director 4-H Youth Development Graduate School Elementary education Substitute Teach Other teaching Finance Farming Real estate Extension Agent Ag. Business Management University Professor in Ag Ed Production Agriculture Homemaker Horticulture Extension University Homemaker Family

PAGE 175

161 Ag. sales Ag. lending Family Ag. related Ag marketing/sales Ag. Marketing Sales business owner Homemaker Ag. Communications Ag. Business Floral designer Ag. related Sign Lang. Interpreter Public service Banking Extension Agent Grad. school Extension Agent Homemaker Pest control Extension Extension Agent Ag. Production Ranching Wildlife biology Extension Agent sales Teach other subjects publication Pharmaceutical Industry Science Teacher Banking Business Ag Business Sales Swine Producer other Ag. related Sales Sales University Teacher Farm Credit Bank Baker beef production Meat industry communications job Horticulture P.R. Grad. School Sales Science teacher Extension Extension Comm. College Teacher Extension Equine Specialist Law School Auctioneer Computers Ag. communications Stock show coordinator Extension Law School Ag. business Mechanics Mechanics Farming NRCS Science Teacher Federal/State Agriculture agency Coaching Business Real Estate NRCS University -not teaching Agriculture lending Crop production Extension Teach other subject Ag. Extension Communication Ag. Business/sales Elementary teacher Ag. Sales/business Extension Grad school Teach history or English Architecture Sales

PAGE 176

162 Beef producer Rancher College Teacher Raise show cattle Electrical Coop Ranching/farming Extension service Extension Extension agent Ag Business Management Soil Conservationist Ag Loan Specialist Self-employed Bank Manager Extension Agent Architect Construction Hunting Guide Farm Credit Agent Ag related field Forest Service Animal Science Farming Sales Teach Science or History Greenhouse managment Teach Science Human Relations Ag. finance Extension service Ag. sales Soil Science Loan officer Elementary teacher Construction Farming/Ranch Teach speech & drama Horticulture Teach Junior College Ag. coaching Banking Extension Service Ag. Business Sales Police Officer, Detective or FBI Ranching Raise cattle Landscaping Camp director for FFA, FCCLA Camps Cattle rancher Flower seed salesman Administrator NRCS soil conservation Teach other subject Marketing Extension Teach other subject Ag Real Estate Ag related field Feed salesman Livestock Marketing Poultr y Industry Family Farm Florist Ag in the Classroom Elementary Teacher Teach other subjects Business owner Ag Sales or Management Appraiser 4-H Extension Equine farm management Family Coach soccer Teach special ed or elementary Air conditioning Teach science or math Administrator Teach Spanish Ag Sales Teach math, coach, administration Ranching Ag. related Science Teacher Farm/ranch manager Waitress Law Ranching

PAGE 177

163 4-H Extension/ Youth Development Ag. Business College Professor Business Sales Construction Ag. sales Ag related Teaching History or Speech School Administrator Whatever is available National Park Ranger Nursing Counseling Elementary teacher Food Critic Dentistry Restaurant owner Air Force Officer Crime Scene Investigator Ag Extension Teach other subject Legislative Assistant Teach Science Teach math Other business job Teaching math Comm. College Prof. Teach History/Government Ag Sales Spanish Teacher Construction/Builder Extension Rail Road Military Insurance Teach Biology Real Estate Teach Biology Ag Marketing Production Ag. Extension Agent Horticulture Family Extension Ag. Extension Ag related Ag. Inspector, Teach English, Special Ed. or History Cattle Breed Association Ag. Extension Politics Ag. Business

PAGE 178

164 LIST OF REFERENCES Agresti, A., & Finlay, B. (1997). Statistical methods for the social sciences (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. American Association for Employment in Education (2001 ). Educator Supply and Demand in the United States: 2000 Research Report Retrieved July 27, 2004, from the American Association for Employ ment in Education, Inc. Web site: http://www.aaee.org/ American Association of Agri cultural Educators. (2004). AAAE directory of university faculty in agricultural education Retrieved July 27, 2004, from the American Association of Agricultural Educator s Web site: http://aaaeonline.org/ American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. (2004). Teacher education primer 2004: Information for members of congress for the reaut horization of the higher education act Retrieved July 27, 2004, from th e American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education Web s ite: http://www.aacte.org/Government_ Relations/04primer.pdf Andrew, M. D. (1983). The characteristics of students in a five-year teacher education program. Journal of Teacher Education, 34 (1), 20-23. Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Razavieh, A. (2002). Introduction to research in education (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thompson Learning. Astin, H. S. (1984). The meaning of work in women’s lives: A socio-psychological model of career choice and work behavior. The Counseling Psychologist, 12 117126. Atkinson, J. W. (1964). An introduction to motivation Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand. Bajema, D. H., Miller, W. W ., & Williams, D. L. (2002). Aspirations of rural youth. Journal of Agricultural Education, 43 (3), 61-71. Baker, M., & Hedges, L. (1991). Professi onal education and differences between graduate career choice. Journal of Agricultural Education, 32 (3), 42-47. Bandiera de Mello, V., & Broughman, S. (1996). Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) by state, 1993-94 schools and staffing survey: Selected results Retrieved June 29, 2004, from the United States Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics Web site: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs96/web/96312.asp

PAGE 179

165 Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84 191-215. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44 1175-1184. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control New York: Freeman. Barrick, R. K. (1989). Agricultural e ducation: Building upon our roots. Journal of Agricultural Education, 30 (4), 24-29. Betz, N. E., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1987). The career psychology of women. Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Betz, N. E., & Hackett, G. (1981). The re lationship of career related self-efficacy expectations to percei ved career options in college women and men. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28 (5), 399-410. Betz, N. E., Harmon, L., & Borgen, F. H. ( 1996). The relationships of self-efficacy for Holland themes to gender, occupational group membership, and vocational interests. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43, 90-98. Betz, N. E. & Luzzo, D. A. (1996). Career assessment and the Career Decision Making Self-Efficacy Scale. Journal of Career Assessment, 4, 313-328. Betz, N. E., & Voyten, K. K. (1997). Efficacy and outcome expectations influence career exploration and decidedness. Career Development Quarterly, 46 354-366. Bontempo, B., & Digman, S. (1985, April). Entry level profile: Student attitudes toward the teaching profession Paper presented at the annua l meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chi cago, IL. (ERIC Docu ment Reproduction Service No. 258949) Book, C., Freeman, D., & Brousseau, B. ( 1985). Comparing academic backgrounds and career aspirations of educati on and non-education majors. Journal of Teacher Education, 36 (3) 27-30. Bores-Rangel, E., Church, T. A., Szendre, D., & Reeves, C. (1990). Self-efficacy in relation to occupational consideration a nd academic performance in high school equivalency students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 37 407-418. Braswell, C. C., & Cobia, D. (2000, October). The effect of internship and a personal trait on career development. Paper presented at the annua l meeting of the Southern Association for Institutional Researc h, Myrtle Beach, SC. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 450231)

PAGE 180

166 Brown, J. L. (1995). Patterns of supply and demand of teachers in agricultural education since 1965 Unpublished honors thesis, The Pe nnsylvania State University. Bryan, J. F., & Locke, E. A. (1967). Goal-setting as a means of increasing motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology. 51 274-277. Burke, S. R., & Hillison, J. (1991). Practici ng agricultural education teachers’ concerns and their implications fo r improving the profession. Journal of Agricultural Education, 32 (2), 10-15. Camp, W. G. (2000). A national study of the supp ly and demand of teachers of agricultural education in 1996-1998 Retrieved June 10, 2004, from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Agricultural Education Web site: http://www.aged.vt.edu/Pub lications/Report98.doc Camp, W. G., Broyles, T., & Skelton, N. S. (2002). A national study of the supply and demand of teachers of agricu ltural education in 1999-2001 Retrieved June 10, 2004, from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Agricultural Education Web site: http ://www.aged.vt.edu/Report01.doc Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1966). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Cano, J. (1990). Male vocational agriculture teachers’ attitude and perception towards female teachers of agriculture. Journal of Agricultural Education, 31 (3),19-23. Cano, J., & Miller, G. (1992). A gender analysis of job satisfaction, j ob satisfier factors, and job dissatisfier factors of agricultural education teachers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 33 (3), 40-46. Church, A. T., Teresa, J. S., Rosebrook, R ., & Szendre, D. (1992). Self-efficacy for careers and occupational consideration in minority high school equivalency students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 39 498-508. Chwalisz, K. D., Altmaier, E. M., & Russell, D. W. (1992). Causal attributions, selfefficacy cognitions, and coping with stress. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 11, 377-400. Clason, D. L., & Dormody, T. J. (1994). Anal yzing data measured by individual Likerttype items. Journal of Agricultural Education, 34 (4), 31-35. Clement, S. (1987). The self-efficacy expect ations and occupational preferences of females and males. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 60 257-265. Coladarci, T. (1992). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and commitment to teaching. Journal of Experimental Education, 60, 323-337.

PAGE 181

167 Cole, L. (1984). Oregon vocational agriculture teacher placement and retention factors. Journal of the American Association of Teacher Educators in Agriculture, 25 (3), 213. Coughlin, M. T., Lawrence, L. D., Gartin, S. A., & Templeton, M. E. (1988). Benefits and problems experienced by spouses of vo cational agriculture teachers in West Virginia. Journal of Agricultural Education, 29 (1), 53-57. Cruickshank, D., & Armaline, W. (1986). Fi eld experiences in teacher education: Considerations and recommendations. Journal of Teacher Education, 37 (3), 34-40. Cruickshank, D. R., Bainer, D., Cruz Jr., J ., Giebelhaus, C., McCullough, J. D., Metcalf, K.K., et al. (1996). Preparing America’s teachers Bloomington, ID: Phi Delta Kappan Educational Foundation. Davis, K., & Newstrom, J. W. (1989). Human behavior at work: Organizational behavior (8th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill. Defense Activity for Non-traditi onal Educational Support. (n.d.). Troops-to-Teachers Retrieved June 29, 2004, from http://www.dantes.doded.mil/dantes_web/ troopstoteachers/index.htm?Flag=True DeVaus, D. A. (1990). Surveys in social research (2nd ed.). London: Unwin Hyman. Diegelman, N. M., & Subich, L. M. (2001). Academic and vocational interests as a function of outcome expectancies in social cognitive career theory. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 394-405. Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Eccles, J. S. (1989). Bringing young women to ma th and science. In M. Crawford & M. Gentry (Eds.), Gender and thought (pp. 36-58). New York: Springer-Verlag. Edwards, M. C., & Briers, G. E. (2001). Select ed variables related to expected longevity in teaching of entry-phase agriculture teachers. Journal of Career and Technical Education, 18 (1). Retrieved March 3, 2004, from h ttp://scholar.lib.v t.edu/ejournals/ JCTE/v18n1/edwards.html Enochs, L. G., & Riggs, I. M. (1990). Furt her development of an elementary science teaching efficacy belief instrument: A preservice elementary scale. School Science and Mathematics, 90, 694-706. Evans, E. D., & Tribble, M. (1986). Perc eived teaching problems, self-efficacy, and commitment to teaching among preservice teachers. Journal of Educational Research, 80, 81-85.

PAGE 182

168 Farmer, H. S. (1985). Model of Career and Achievement Motivation for Women and Men. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 32 (3), 363-390. Fassinger, R. E. (1990). Causal models of career choice in two samples of college women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 36 225-248. Feather, N. T. (Ed.). (1982 ). Expectations and actions: Expectancy-value models in psychology Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Ferry, T. R., Fouad, N. A., & Smith, P. L. (2000). The role of family context in a social cognitive model for career-related behavi or: A math and science perspective. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 57 348-364. Fortman, C. K., & Pontius, R. (2000, October). Self-efficacy during student teaching Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-Western Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. Foster, B. B. (2001, December). Women in Agricultural Education: Who are You? Paper presented at the National Agricultural Education Research Conference, New Orleans, LA. Foster, R. M., Pikkert, J. J., & Husman, D. E. (1991, December). Self-perception of gender bias among women agriculture teachers. Paper presented at the National Agricultural Education Meeting, Los Angeles, CA. Fouad, N. A., & Smith, P. L. (1996). A test of a social cognitive model for middle school students: Math and science Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43 338-346. Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (1996). Educational research: An introduction (6th ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman Pubishers USA. Gerald, D. E., & Hussar, W. J. (2003, October). Projections of Education Statistics to 2013 Retrieved June 29, 2004, from the Unite d States Department of Education, National Center for Education Statis tics Web site: http://www.nces.ed.gov// programs/projections/ Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teach er efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 569-582. Glickman, C. D., & Tamashiro, R. T. (1982). A comparison of firstyear, fifth-year, and former teachers on efficacy, ego development, and problem solving. Psychology in the Schools, 19, 558-562. Guskey, T. R., & Passaro, P. D. (1994) Teacher efficacy: A study of construct dimensions. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 627-643.

PAGE 183

169 Hackett, G. (1985). The role of mathematic s self-efficacy in the choice of math-related majors of college women and men: A path analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 18 173-188. Hackett, G. (1995). Self-efficacy in career c hoice and development. In A. Bandura (Ed.), Self efficacy in changing societies (pp. 232-258). New York: Cambridge University Press. Hackett, G., & Betz, N. E. (1989). An exploration of the mathematics selfefficacy/mathematics performance correspondence. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 20, 261-273. Hanson, S. L. (1994). Lost talent: Unrealized educational aspirati ons and expectations among U.S. youth. Sociology of Education, 67 159-183. Hillison, J., Camp, W. G., & Burke, S. R. (1987). Why undergraduates chose agricultural education as a major: 1980 vs. 1985. Journal of Agricultural Education, 28 (2), 2-7, 32. Holland, J. L. (1966). The psychology of vocational choice Walham, MA: Blaisdell. Hussar, W. J. (1998). Predicting the need for newly hired teachers in the United States to 2008-09 Retrieved July 21, 2004, from the United States Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistic s Web site: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs99/ 1999026.pdf Ingersoll, R. M. (2001, January). Teacher turnover, teacher shortages, and the organization of schools Retrieved July 21, 2004 from the Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington Web site: http://depts.washington.edu/ctpmail/ PDFs/ Turnover-Ing-01-2001.pdf Irwin, F. W. (1971). Intentional behavior and mo tivation: A cognitive view Philadephia: Lippincott. Joseph, P., & Green, N. (1986). Perspectives on reasons for becoming teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 37 (6), 28-33. Kemper, R., & Mangieri, J. (1985). Student interest in teaching: Implications for recruitment Teacher Educator, 20 (4), 19-24. King, S. H. (1993). Why did we choose teaching careers and what will enable us to stay: Insights from one cohort of the African American teaching pool. Journal of Negro Education, 62 (4), 475-491. Knight, J. (1987, Decemeber). Current status of wome n teachers of vocational agriculture in Ohio and their percepti on of their place in the profession. Paper presented at the National Agricultural Education Research Meeting, Las Vegas, NV.

PAGE 184

170 Knobloch, N. A. (2002). Exploration of effects caused by the first ten weeks of the school year on teacher efficacy on student teachers and novice teachers in agricultural education in Ohio Unpublished doctoral dissertati on, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH. Knobloch, N. A., & Whittington, M. S. (2002). Novice teachers’ perceptions of support, teacher preparation quality, and student teaching experience related to teacher efficacy. Journal of Vocational Education Research, 27 (3), 331-341. Kotrlik, J. W., & Harrison, B. C. (1987). Factor s related to the career decisions of seniors who have taken vocational agriculture. Journal of the American Association of Teacher Educators in Agriculture, 25 (3), 13-21. Krumboltz, J. D. (1994). Improving career deve lopment theory from a social learning theory. In M. L. Savickas & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Convergence in career development theories: Implications for science and practice (p. 84). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press. Krumboltz, J. D., Mitchell, A. M., & Jones, G. B. (1976). A social learning theory of career selection. The Counseling Psychologist, 6 71-81. Lapan, R. T., Hinkelman, J. M., Adams, A ., & Turner, S. (1999). Understanding Rural Adolescents’ Interests, Values and Efficacy Expectations. Journal of Career Development, 26 (2), 107-124. Lapan, R. T., & Jingeleski, J. (1992). Circum scribing vocational aspi rations in junior high school. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 39 81-90. Lapan, R. T., Shaughnessy, P., & Boggs, K. (1996). Efficacy expectations and vocational interests as mediators between sex and c hoice of math/science college majors: A longitudal study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49 277-291. Lauver, P. J., & Jones, R. M. (1991). Factors associated with percei ved career options in American Indian, White, and Hisp anic rural high school students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38 159-166. Lawler, E. E. (1977). Satisfacti on and behavior. In W.C. Hamn er & F. L. Schmidt (Eds.), Contemporary problems in personnel (pp. 352-361). Chicago: St. Clair Press. Lent, R. W., & Brown, S. D. (1996). Social cognitive approach to career development: An overview. Career Development Quarterly, 44 310-321. Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., Brenner, B., Chopr a, S. B., Davis, T., Talleyrand, R., et al. (2001). The role of contextual supports and barriers in the choice of math/science educational options: A test of social cognitive hypotheses. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 48 (4), 474-483.

PAGE 185

171 Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic inte rest, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45 79-122. Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (2000). Contextual suppor ts and barriers to career choice: A social cognitive analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47 (1), 36-49. Lent, R. W., Brown S. D., & Larkin, K. C. (1984). Relation of self-efficacy expectations to academic achievement and persistence. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31 356-362. Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Larkin, K. C. (1986). Self-efficacy in the prediction of academic performance and perceived career options. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 33 265-269. Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Larkin, K. C. ( 1989). Relation of self-efficacy expectations to academic achievement and persistence. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31, 356-362. Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., Schmidt, J., Br enner, B., Lyons, H., & Treistman, D. (2003). Relation of contextual supports and barri ers to choice behavior in engineering majors: Test of alternative social cognitive models. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50 (4), 458-465. Lent, R. W., & Hackett, G. (1987). Career efficacy: Empirical status and future directions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 30 347-382. Lent, R. W., Hackett, G. & Brown, S. D. (1996). A social cognitive framework for studying career choice and transition to work. Journal of Vocational Education Research, 21 (4), 3-31. Lent, R. W., Lopez, F. G., & Bieschke, K. J. (1991). Mathematics self-efficacy: Sources and relation to sciencebased career choice. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38 424-430. Lent, R. W., Lopez, F. G., & Bieschke, K. J. (1993). Predicting mathematics-related choices and success behaviors: Test of an expanded social cognitive model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42 223-236. Lopez, F. G., Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Gore, P. A. (1997). Role of social-cognitive expectations in high school students’ mathematics-related interests and performance. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 44 44-52. Lucas, M. (1997). Identify development, career development, and psychological separation from parents: Similarities and differences between men and women. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 44 123-132.

PAGE 186

172 Luzzo, D. A., Funk, D. P., & Strang, J. (1996). Attributional retraini ng increases career decision making self-efficacy. Career Development Quarterly, 44 378-386. Luzzo, D. A., & Taylor, M. (1993-1994). Effect s of verbal persuasion on the career selfefficacy of college freshman. California Association for Counseling and Development Journal, 14 31-34. Matsui, T., Ikeda, H., & Ohnishi, R. (1989). Relations of sex-typed socializations to career self-efficacy expectati ons of college students. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 35 1-16. Matsui, T., Matsui, K., & Ohnishi, R. (1990) Mechanisms underlying math self-efficacy learning of college students. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 37 225-238. Matsui, T., & Onglatco, M. L. (1991). Instru mentality, expressiveness, and self-efficacy in career activities among Japanese working women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 39 241-250. Matsui, T., & Tsukamoto, S. I. (1991). Rela tion between career se lf-efficacy measures based on occupational titles and Holla nd codes and model environments: A methodological contribution. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 38, 78-91. Matzeder, M. E., & Krieshok, T. S. (1995). Career self-efficacy and the prediction of work and home role salience. Journal of Career Assessment, 3, 331-340. McCoy, J. S., & Mortensen, J. H. (1983). Recent Pennsylvania ag ricultural education graduates: Their academic ability and teaching status. Journal of the American Association of Teacher Educ ators in Agriculture, 24 (3), 46-52. McGhee, M. B., & Cheek, J. G. (1990). Assessm ent of the preparati on and career patterns of agricultural educa tion graduates, 1975-1985. Journal of Agricultural Education, 31 (2), 17-22. McWhirter, E. H. (1997a). Perceived barriers to education and career: Ethnic and gender differences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50 124-140. McWhirter, E. H. (1997b, August). Perceived educational barriers and adolescents Paper presented at the meeting of th e American Psychological Association, Chicago, IL. McWhirter, E. H., Hackett, G., & Bandalos, D. (1998). A causal model of the educational plans and career expectations of Mexican American girls. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45 166-181. McWhirter, E. H., Rasheed, S., & Crothers, M. (2000). The effects of high school career education on social cognitive variables. Journal of Counse ling Psychology, 47, 330-341.

PAGE 187

173 Miller, L. E. (1994). Correlations : Descriptions or Inferences? Journal of Agricultural Education, 35 (1), 5-7. Miller, W. W., Kahler, A. A., & Rheault, K. (1989). Profile of th e effective vocational agriculture teacher. Journal of Agricultural Education, 30 (2), 33-40. Muller, J. E., & Miller, W. W. (1993). Are th e more academically able agriculture teacher candidates not entering or remain ing in the teaching profession? Journal of Agricultural Education, 34 (4), 64-71. Multon, K. D., Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W. (1991). Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to academic outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 30-38. National Center for Edu cation Information (2005). Alternative Teacher Certification: A State-by-State Analysis 2005. Retrieved March 7, 2005, from the National Center for Education Information Web site: http://www.ncei.com/introduction05.html National Council for Agricu ltural Education. (1999). The national strategic plan and action agenda for agricultural education: Reinventing agricultu ral education for the year 2020 Retrieved June 29, 2004, from the National Council for Agricultural Education Web site: http://www.te amaged.org/plan2020/plan_cover.htm National FFA Organization. (n.d.). The FFA mission Retrieved June 29, 2004, from the National FFA Organization Web site: h ttp://www.ffa.org/a bout_ffa/index.html National FFA Organization. ( 2005). FFA Statistics. Retrie ved February 16, 2005 from the National FFA Organization Web site: http://www.ffa.org/about_ffa/html/ ffa_statistics.htm Nauta, M. M., Epperson, D. L., & Kahn, J. H. (1998). A multiple-groups analysis of predictors of higher level career aspirati ons among women in mathematics, science and engineering majors. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45 (4), 483-496. Nebraska State Educa tion Association. (n.d.). National Teacher Shortage Retrieved June 16, 2004, from http://www.nsea.org/legpol/shortage.html Noble, A. J., Hackett, G., & Chen, E. C. (1992, April). Relations of career and academic self-efficacy to the career aspirations and academic achievement of ninth and tenth grade at risk students Paper presented at the meeti ng of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. Norusis, M. J. (2004). SPSS 12.0 guide to data analysis Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Novi, M. J., & Meinster, M. O. (2000). Achi evement in a relationa l context: Preferences and influences in female adolescents. The Career Development Quarterly, 49 7384.

PAGE 188

174 O’Brien, K. M., & Fassinger, R. E. (1993). A causal model of the car eer orientation and choice of adolescent women. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 40 456-469. O’Brien, K. M., Gray, M. P., Tourajdi, P. P., & Eigenbrode, S. P. (1996, August). The operationalization of women’s career choices: The career aspiration scale. Paper presented at the meeting of the Ameri can Psychological Association, Chicago, IL. Paa, H. K., & McWhirter, E. H. (2000). Pe rceived influences of high school students’ current career expectations. The Career Development Quarterly, 49 29-44. Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in achievement settings. Review of Educational Research, 66 543-578. Pajares, F. (2002). Overview of social cognitive theory and of self-efficacy Retrieved September 17, 2003, from http://www.em ory.edu/EDUCATION/mfp/eff.html Parmley, J.D., Bowen, B. E., & Warmbrod, J. R. (1979, August). The supply and demand of teachers of agriculture: C an the situation be explained Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Central Region Conference in Agricultural Education, Manhattan, KS. Perrone, K. M., Sedlack, W. E., & Alex ander, C. M. (2001). Gender and ethnic differences in career goal attainment. The Career Development Quarterly, 50 (2), 168-178. Phillips, D. A., & Zimmerman, M. (1990). The developmental course of perceived competence and incompetence among compet ent children. In R.J. Sternberg & J. Kolligian, Jr. (Eds.), Competence considered (pp. 41-66). New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press. Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1973). Orga nizational, work, and personal factors in employee turnover and absenteeism. Psychological Bulletin, 80 (2), 151-176. Post-Kammer, P., & Smith, P. L. (1985). Sex differences in career self-efficacy, consideration, and interests of eighth and ninth graders. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 32 551-559. Rasheed, S. (2001). Prediction of post secondary plans for rural Appalachian youth. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon, Eugene. Rocca, S. J., & Washburn, S. G. (2005, February). A Comparison of Teacher Efficacy of Traditionally and Alternatively Certified Agriculture Teachers Paper presented at the Southern Region Agricultural Educa tion Research Conference, Little Rock, AR. Rooney, R. A., & Osipow, S. H. (1992). Task specific occupational self-efficacy scale: The development and validation of a prototype. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 40, 14-32.

PAGE 189

175 Rotberg, H. L., Brown, D., & Ware, W. B. ( 1987). Career self-effi cacy expectations and perceived range of career options in community college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34 164-170. Schaffner, M., & Jepsen, D. A. (1999). Testing a social cognitive model of career choice development within the context of a minority teacher recruitment program Washington, DC: United States Depart ment of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED469724) Schlecty, P. C., & Vance, S. V. (1981). Do acad emically able teachers leave education? The North Carolina case. Phi Delta Kappan, 63 (2), 106-112. Schunk, D. H. (1989). Self-efficacy and cognitive skill learning. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in educati on, Vol. 3: Goals and cognitions (pp. 1344). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Serow, R. (1994). Called to teach: A study of highly motivated pre-service teachers. The Journal of Research and Development in Education, 27 (2), 65-71. Sharf, R. S. (1996). Applying career development theory to counseling (2nd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company. Snyder, J. F., Doer, A. S., & Pastor, M. (1995). Perceptions of preser vice teachers: The job market, why teaching and alternatives to teaching. Slippery Rock, PA: Office of Career Services, Division of Student Affairs, Slippery Rock University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED390865) Smith, P. L., & Fouad, N. A. (1999). Subject-m atter specificity of self-efficacy, outcome expectancies, interests, a nd goals: Implications for th e social-cognitive model. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46 (4), 461-471. Smith, S. M. (2001). A social cognitive a pproach to the career development of undergraduate students. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 43 (4), 200-214. Super, D. E. (1990). A life-span, life-space ap proach to career development. In D. Brown, L. Brooks, & Associates, Career choice and development (pp. 197-261). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Swanson, J. L., Daniels, K. K., & Tokar, D. M. (1996). Assessing perceptions of career related barriers: The car eer barriers inventory. Journal of Career Assessment, 4 219-244. Swanson, J. L., & Woitke, M. B. (1997). Theo ry into practice in career assessment for women: Assessment and interventions re garding perceived career barriers. Journal of Career Assessment, 5, 443-462.

PAGE 190

176 Taylor, K. M., & Betz, N.E. (1983). Appli cations of self-efficacy theory to the understanding and treatmen t of career indecision. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 22, 63-81. Taylor, K. M., & Pompa, J. (1990). An ex amination of the relationships among career decision making self-efficacy, career sali ence, locus of control and vocational indecision. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 37, 17-31. Trusty, J. (1998). Family influences on e ducational expectations of adolescents. Journal of Educational Research, 91 260-270. Trusty, J., Ng, K. M., & Plata, M. (2000). In teraction effects of ge nder, SES, and raceethnicity on post secondary educatio nal choices of U.S. students. The Career Development Quarterly, 49 45-59. Trusty, J., Robinson, C. R., Plata, M., & Ng, K. M. (2000). Effects of gender, socioeconomic status, and early aca demic performance on post secondary educational choice. Journal of Counseling and Development, 78 463-472. Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W.K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68, 202-248. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783-805. United States Department of Labor, Office of Employment and Unemployment Statistics. (2001). Labor force participation of persons 16 years old and over, by age, sex, race/ethnicity, and highest le vel of education: 2000 Retrieved July 1, 2004, from the National Center for Education Stat istics Web site: http://nces.ed.gov/ programs/digest/d01/dt379.asp United States Department of Labor, Wo men’s Bureau. (2000). Facts on Working Women. Retrieved September 13, 2000, from the United States Department of Labor Web site: http://www.dol .gov/dol/wb/public/wb_pubs/20fact00.htm Vondracek, F. W., Lerner, R. M ., & Schulenberg, J. E. (1986). Career development: A life-span developmental approach Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation New York: Wiley. Wall, J., Covell, K., & MacIntyre, P. D. (1999). Implications of social supports for adolescents’ education and career aspirations. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 31 (2), 63-71 Wayne, A. J. (2000). Teacher supply and de mand: Surprises from primary research. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8 Article 47. Retrieved June 2, 2004, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n47.html

PAGE 191

177 Webster’s New Reference Library: An Encyclopedia of Dictionaries (1984). Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers. Wheeler, K. G. (1983). Comparisons of se lf-efficacy and expectancy models of occupational preferences for college males and females. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 56 73-78. Whitener, S. D., Gruber, K., Lynch, H ., Tingos, K., & Fontelier, S. (1997). Characteristics of stayers, movers, and le avers: Results from the teacher followup survey 1994-95 Retrieved June 29, 2004, from the United States Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics Web site: http://nces.ed.gov/ pubs97/97450.pdf Williams, D. L. (1991). Focusing agricultural education research: Strategies for the discipline. Journal of Agricultural Education, 32 (2), 7-12. Zimpher, N. (1989). The RATE project: A pr ofile of teacher education students. Journal of Teacher Education, 40 (6), 27-30

PAGE 192

178 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Steven John Rocca was born November 13, 1971, in Fresno, CA. He grew up near the small community of Ea ston where he attended Wash ington Union High School. Steven was an active member of the East on-Fresno FFA chapter and held numerous leadership positions and eventually earned the American FFA Degree, the highest degree an FFA member can achieve. After graduating in 1990, Steven entered California State University, Fresno where he began studying agriculture. He comple ted his Bachelor of Science degree in agricultural education in 1995 and after completing his cr edential coursework and student teaching at Sierra Joint Uni on High School he received his te aching certification in 1996. Steven accepted a position to teach agri culture at Washingt on Union, his alma mater. As a high school teacher, he had th e opportunity to restru cture and expand the agriculture program from a single teacher program to a four teacher department. During his tenure, his peers honored him as the Wa shington Union High School District Teacher of the Year, the West Fresno-Madera Outs tanding Young Teacher, and his program was recognized as the California Agriculture T eacher Associations Outstanding 2-3 Teacher Program. While teaching, Steven also comple ted his Master of Science degree in Agricultural Education at California Polyt echnic State University, San Luis Obispo in 2000. His success at the high school level opened the door for a position at California State University, Fresno, where in January 2001, he accepted a lectureship in Agricultural

PAGE 193

179 Education. At Fresno State, Steven taught ag ricultural education cour ses, supervised the Colleges ambassador program, and co-advised the student committees that coordinated the FFA Field Day and California Stat e FFA Leadership Conference. Stevens career interests in higher education led him to consider doctoral study. In doing so, he was offered the College of Agricultural and Life Sciences Alumni Fellowship at the University of Florida. He accepted and began his doctoral program in agricultural education in 2003, with an emphasis in teacher education. During his time at the University of Florida, he served as a gr aduate teaching and research assistant. He taught and assisted with various undergraduate courses and a ssisted with the development and teaching of two graduate distance educat ion courses. Additionally, Steven conducted research related to the factor s that affect students choice of a university and preservice agriculture teachers career decisions. While completing his degree, he was also a member of two honor societies, Alpha Ta u Alpha and Gamma Sigma Delta, and the Agriculture Education and Comm unication Graduate Student Association, in which he served as the organizations Treasurer.


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0010003/00001

Material Information

Title: Predicting Preservice Agriculture Teachers' Intentions to Teach Utilizing Person Inputs, Contextual Influences, Teacher Efficacy, and Outcome Expectations
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0010003:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0010003/00001

Material Information

Title: Predicting Preservice Agriculture Teachers' Intentions to Teach Utilizing Person Inputs, Contextual Influences, Teacher Efficacy, and Outcome Expectations
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0010003:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text












PREDICTING PRESERVICE AGRICULTURE TEACHERS' INTENTIONS TO
TEACH UTILIZING PERSON INPUTS, CONTEXTUAL INFLUENCES, TEACHER
EFFICACY, AND OUTCOME EXPECTATIONS













By

STEVEN JOHN ROCCA


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2005

































Copyright 2005

by

Steven John Rocca

































This document is dedicated to my parents.















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The completion of my degree would have been an impossibility if it had not been

for the assistance and support of many people. My greatest debt of gratitude is to my

major professor, Dr. Shannon Washburn, for his tremendous dedication to my success

and the countless hours spent guiding me through my program. His influence has not

only helped launch my career in academia, but more importantly has shown me that true

success cannot be achieved without a balance in one's life.

I would like to thank Dr. Edward Osborne, Dr. Jim Dyer, Dr. Tracy Irani, and Dr.

Diane Yendol-Hoppey for serving on my doctoral committee. Their advice, input, and

assistance have not only shaped this document, but have also shaped my ability to

become a scholar. In addition to my committee members, I would like to express my

appreciation to all of the faculty and staff of the Agricultural Education and

Communication Department. I consider myself lucky to have had the opportunity to

learn and work with such a quality group of people.

I have to admit that this experience has been much more enjoyable than I ever

thought possible for this I have to thank my fellow graduate students. During these past

two years, my colleagues have been there to answer many questions, provide assistance,

and most importantly to help me enjoy this experience. I am very thankful that I had the

opportunity to work with such an excellent group of people and I am grateful to have had

their support and friendship.









All of this would not have been possible though without the support and love of my

parents. I would not have had the strength or ability to succeed if it had not been for

them. Their support and belief in my ability have provided me with the work ethic,

motivation, and persistence to be successful in my doctoral program as well as my career

pursuits for this I will be forever grateful.

I am also very thankful for the support of my family and friends. My sister and her

family have encouraged me throughout this process and my friends back home have

always been there to lend their support and help remind me why I have chosen this path.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ................................................................................................. iv

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................. x

L IST O F F IG U R E S .... ...... ................................................ .. .. ..... .............. xii

A B S T R A C T .............................................. ..........................................x iii

CHAPTER

1 IN TR OD U CTION ............................................... .. ......................... ..

State ent of the Problem ............................................................................. ........ 6
Purpose of the Study ............... .................................................7.
Objectives ..................................... ................................ ......... 8
R research H ypothesis ................. .... ............................. ........ .. ............ .... .
D definition of T erm s ................. ................................ ........ ........ .......... .......
L im stations of the Study .............................. ........................ .. ........ .... ............10
A ssum options of the Study ................................................... ........ ............... .10
S u m m a ry ............................................................................................................... 1 1

2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ...................................................................... 12

Self-E ffi cacy ............................................... ..... ..................... .... 19
Self-Efficacy Research Relevant to Career Development..............................20
Self-Efficacy Research Relevant to Teaching................. ............................21
O utcom e E expectations ..................................................................................... .... 23
Outcome Expectations Research Relevant to Career Development..................24
Outcome Expectations Research Relevant to Teaching............................... 25
G oals M mechanism s .............. ........ ................................................ .. ............ 29
Learning Experiences, Person Inputs, and Contextual Influences ...........................32
Influence of Learning Experiences .......................................... ...............33
Influence of P erson Inputs.............................................................................. ...36
G ender and ethnicity ............................................................................. 36
Socioeconom ic status ............................................................................40
Influences of Contextual Affordances.............................................................. 42
E nvironm ental barriers ........................................... ................................ 44
E nvironm ental supports.......................................... ........... ............... 45









Contextual influences relevant to Agricultural Education...........................46
M o d el T estin g ......................................................... ........... ................ 5 1
M odel Comparison and Integration.......................... ....................... ............... 54
Chapter Sum m ary ............................................ .. .. .... ........ ......... 56

3 M E T H O D S ........................................................................................................... 5 8

R e se arch D e sig n ................................................................................................... 5 9
P population and Sam ple ....................................................................... ..................63
P ro c e d u re .......................................................................................6 3
Instrumentation ................ ........ .......................65
Demographics Instrument (Person Inputs) .................................. ... ..................66
Preservice Agriculture Teacher Intentions and Aspirations Scale ....................66
T teacher E efficacy Scale ............................ ........... .. ......... ............................... 67
Preservice Agriculture Teacher Expectations Scale.........................................68
Preservice Agriculture Teacher Career Barriers Scale .................................69
Preservice Agriculture Teacher Support Scale............................ .....................70
Analysis of Data ........... .. .. ................ ............. ..... ........................ 70
Chapter Sum m ary ............................................ .. .. .... ........ ......... 72

4 R E S U L T S .............................................................................7 3

Objective One .......... ....... ........ .....................77
Person Inputs Age, Gender, and Ethnicity ....................................... .......... 77
Background Contextual Influences .......................................... ............... 78
G rade point average ........................... ...... ............... ........ .. .......... 78
Involvement in 4-H program s ........................................... ............... 79
Involvement in the National FFA Organization.............................79
Enrollm ent in Agricultural Education.................................. ... ................ 80
Location of childhood/adolescent residence .........................................80
O occupational experience ........................................ ......................... 81
Teaching Intentions and Aspirations ..................................................82
Intended Length of Teaching Tenure ...................................... ............... 83
Career Interests Other Than Agricultural Education...................... ............... 85
Teacher Efficacy .............. ... ....................... .............. .. ........ .... 86
T teaching E x p ectation s.............................................................. .....................87
Likelihood of Career Barriers........................................... .................... ....... 88
Difficulty of Overcoming Career Barriers .................................. ............... 90
T teacher Support Score ............................................... ............................. 91
Relationships Between Variables .............................. ........ .............. 93
O objective T w o .........................................................................98
O objective T three ........................................................................99
Sum m ary ............................................................... ........ .......... 100

5 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................... 102

O bj ectiv e s ...................................... ................................................ 10 2









Research Hypotheses ............... ......... .. ............ ......... ........ 102
M e th o d s .............................................................................1 0 3
D ata A n aly sis ............................................................................................... 10 5
Sum m ary of Findings .................................. .. .... .... .... ................105
O bje ctiv e O n e .............................................................................................. 10 5
Objective Tw o ................................................................. .. ......... 110
Objective Three ......................................... ................... .... ...... 110
C on clu sion s...................................................... 1 10
O bje ctiv e O n e .............................................................................................. 1 10
Objective Tw o .............................................................. .. .. ............... 111
Objective Three ......................................... ................... .... ...... 112
R research H y p oth eses ................................................................................... 112
D discussion and Im plications .................................. ....... ............... ...............112
O bje ctiv e O n e .............................................................................................. 1 12
Objective Tw o ......................................... ................... .... ....... 127
Objective Three ......................................... ................... .... ...... 131
R research H y p oth eses ................................................................................... 133
R ecom m endations for Practitioners .......................................................................134
Recomm endations for Research ............................................................ ........ 135

APPENDIX

A INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL ..... ................137

B PARTICIPATION REQUEST EMAIL ........................................ ...............138

C PARTICIPATION REQUEST FOLLOW-UP EMAIL .......................................140

D INSTRUCTIONS FOR ADMINISTERING INSTRUMENT ............................. 142

E INFORMED CONSENT STATEMENT ....................................................... 143

F EMAIL REMINDER..............................................146

G FINAL EMAIL CONTACT ...........................................................................147

H TH A N K Y O U EM A IL ............................................................................................ 148

I DEM OGRAPHIC IN STRUM ENT .................................................................... 149

J PRESERVICE AGRICULTURE TEACHER INTENTIONS AND ASPIRATIONS
S C A L E ................................................................................................................ 1 5 1

K TEACHERS' SENSE OF EFFICACY SCALE .................................................. 153

L PRESERVICE AGRICULTURE TEACHER EXPECTATIONS SCALE .............154

M PRESERVICE AGRICULTURE TEACHER CAREER BARRIERS SCALE .......156









N PRESERVICE AGRICULTURE TEACHER SUPPORT SCALE .........................158

O PARTICIPANTS' CAREER, EDUCATIONAL, AND PERSONAL INTERESTS
OTHER THAN TEACHING AGRICULTURE.....................................................160

LIST OF REFEREN CES ........................................................... .. ............... 164

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ............................................................. ............... 178
















LIST OF TABLES


Table p

4-1 Institution and Preservice Teacher Participation Summary ...................................75

4-2 Post-H oc Instrum ent R liability ............... .... .................... .....................77

4-3 A ge of Study Participants............................................... .............................. 78

4-4 Participants' Cumulative and Major Grade Point Averages.............. .....................79

4-5 Participants' Years of Involvem ent in 4-H ................................... .................79

4-6 Participants' Years of Involvement in FFA .................................. ............... 80

4-7 Participants' Years of Enrollment in Agricultural Education ..............................80

4-8 Participants' Agricultural and Non-agricultural Occupational Experience .............82

4-9 Participants' Teaching Intentions and Aspirations Summated Score ....................83

4-10 Summary of Participants' Responses on Individual Items of the Teaching
Intentions and Aspirations Scale .......................... ................... ....... 84

4-11 Participants' Intended Length of Teaching Tenure ...........................................85

4-12 Participants' Career, Educational, and Personal Interests Other than Teaching
A g ricu ltu re ...............................................................................................................8 6

4-13 Participants' Teacher Efficacy Summated Scores.................................................87

4-14 Summary of Participants' Responses on Individual Items of the Teachers' Sense of
E efficacy S cale ................................................... ................ 8 7

4-15 Participants' Teaching Expectations Summated Scores ........................................88

4-16 Summary of Participants' Responses on Individual Items of the Teaching
E x p ectation s S cale ............ ... .............................................................. ........ .. ....... .. 89

4-17 Participants' Likelihood of Experiencing Career Barriers Summated Scores .........89









4-18 Summary of Participants' Responses on Individual Items of the Likelihood of
Experiencing Career Barriers Scale .............................................. ............... 90

4-19 Participants' Difficulty of Overcoming Career Barriers Summated Scores ............91

4-20 Summary of Participants' Responses on Individual Items of the Difficulty of
Overcom ing Career Barriers Scale...................................... ......................... 91

4-21 Participants' M ean Teacher Support Scores .................................... ............... 92

4-22 Summary of Participants' Responses on Individual Items of the Teacher Support
S c a le ............................................................................. 9 3

4-23 Correlations Betw een V ariables........................................ ........................... 95

4-24 Point Biserial Correlations Between Variables.....................................................97

4-25 Multicollinearity Analysis of Coefficient of Determination...................................98

4-26 Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis of Teaching Intentions Scores..................99

4-27 Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis of Intended Teaching Tenure ...............100
















LIST OF FIGURES


Figure


2-1 M odel of triadic reciprocality ............................................................. ................ 15

2-2 Model of person, contextual, and experiential factors affecting career-related choice
behavior ..................................... .................. .............. ........... 17


page















Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

PREDICTING PRESERVICE AGRICULTURE TEACHERS' INTENTIONS TO
TEACH UTILIZING PERSON INPUTS, CONTEXTUAL INFLUENCES, TEACHER
EFFICACY, AND OUTCOME EXPECTATIONS

By

Steven John Rocca

May 2005

Chair: Shannon G. Washburn
Major Department: Agricultural Education and Communication

The purpose of the study was to describe the influence and predictive nature of

person inputs, contextual influences, self-efficacy, and outcome expectations on

preservice agricultural teachers' intentions to teach, and intended length of teaching

tenure. The dependent variables were preservice teachers' intentions to teach, and the

number of years they expected to remain in the profession. The independent variables

consisted of person inputs, contextual influences, self-efficacy, and outcome

expectations. A causal-comparative design was used to accomplish the purpose of the

study. A purposive sample of 262 preservice agriculture teachers representing 42

different institutions was selected. This sample represented all preservice agriculture

teachers completing their final field experience during the fall of 2004. Participants

completed a questionnaire, which measured their teaching intentions, teacher efficacy,

teaching expectations, career barriers, career support, and demographics.









Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and stepwise multiple regression

was used to construct prediction models. Results showed that participants were

predominately Causasian, from rural areas, and approximately half were female. Most

participants had been actively involved in 4-H, FFA, and enrolled in agricultural

education. Nearly all participants had grade point averages greater than 2.5 and

possessed some type of agricultural occupational experience. The findings provided

partial support for the posited relationships of the Social Cognitive Career Theory, which

served as the theoretical frame for this study. Analyses showed that preservice

agriculture teachers who had greater teaching intentions reported higher teacher efficacy,

more positive outcome expectations and support systems, and fewer perceived career

barriers. Additionally, participants who perceived longer teaching tenures reported higher

teacher efficacy, more positive outcome expectations and support systems, fewer

perceived career barriers, and stronger agricultural backgrounds. Results of stepwise

regression analyses produced two prediction models. Perceptions of teacher efficacy and

teaching expectations were significant predictors of intentions to teach agriculture

accounting for 44% of the variance. Gender, years in agricultural education, and teaching

expectations were significant predictors of intended length of teaching tenure accounting

for 24% of the variance. Based on these findings, recommendations for practitioners and

researchers were presented.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

The agricultural education community envisions "a world where all people value

and understand the vital role of agriculture, food, fiber, and natural resource systems"

(National Council for Agricultural Education, 1999, p. 3). Ultimately, agricultural

education has sounded the call to make all students agriculturally literate. In order to

reach this vision for the future, the strategic plan for agricultural education called for an

abundant supply of highly motivated, well-educated teachers in all academic disciplines

from pre-kindergarten through adult levels providing some type of agricultural education

(National Council for Agricultural Education, 1999).

Although this is a valiant plan, it faces a difficult challenge. Agricultural education

has suffered from a shortage of qualified candidates to accept teaching positions for at

least the last 37 years (Camp, Broyles, & Skelton, 2002). In 2001, Camp et al. (2002)

reported that nationwide 67 agricultural teaching positions went unfilled and 35

agricultural programs were closed due to the lack of a qualified teacher candidate.

Similarly, in 1995 and 1998, respectively, 41 and 55 departments did not operate after

failing to hire a qualified agriculture teacher.

Agricultural education is not alone in its struggle for an ample supply of qualified

teachers. The entire educational system of the United States is faced with hiring millions

of new teachers. The National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) reported that

during the period of 1998 to 2008, an estimated 1.7 to 2.7 million new teachers would

need to be hired to fulfill the demand created by historically high student enrollment,









teacher retirement, and teacher attrition (Hussar, 1998). NCES projections show that this

trend will continue through the next decade. By 2013, the NCES estimates that the

national demand for teachers will be 182,000 greater than in 2004 (Gerald & Hussar,

2003). The difficulty of meeting the 2013 demand for teachers will be compounded by

the retirement of approximately one million "baby boomer" teachers nationwide over the

next ten years (Nebraska State Education Association, n.d.). Even conservative estimates

call for an increase in teaching positions of two percent per year over the next decade

(Wayne, 2000). Based on the 2001 study conducted by the American Association for

Employment in Education, shortages of qualified teachers are already present in subject

areas such as language, special education, math, science, computer science, and English

as a Second Language. Shortages also exist in high-poverty communities and in certain

regions of the country where enrollment growth is large (American Association for

Employment in Education, 2001). Compounding the need for additional teachers, one-

fourth of all beginning teachers leave the profession by their fifth year. In high poverty

areas, teacher attrition rates climb as high as 50% (Bandiera de Mello & Broughman,

1996; Whitener, Gruber, Lynch, Tingos, & Fontelier, 1997).

Unlike the decisions that are often made regarding elective programs, school

administrators cannot decide to close academic programs due to the lack of qualified

teachers. As a result, schools are forced to lower standards to fill teaching positions,

inevitably increasing the number of under-qualified teachers and lower school

performance (Ingersoll, 2001).

Although none argue the existence of a problem, there are several schools of

thought regarding a solution to the teacher shortage. Many believe the shortage is a









problem of insufficient supply, while others see it as a teacher retention issue. Ingersoll

(2001) suggested that teacher shortages are primarily due to the "revolving door" that

exists in many schools, in which large numbers of teachers leave the profession for

reasons other than retirement. Empirical evidence supports such a belief as studies have

shown factors such as job satisfaction can influence teacher attrition, absenteeism, and

burnout (Cano & Miller, 1992; Davis & Newstrom, 1989; Lawler, 1977; Porter & Steers,

1973). Ingersoll (2001) stated that popular educational initiatives, such as teacher

recruitment programs, would not solve teacher shortage problems without addressing the

organizational sources of low teacher retention.

Teacher recruitment programs are the product of another school of thought held by

those who believe the shortage is simply a matter of an insufficient supply. This includes

state and federal agencies that have funded numerous initiatives to help recruit new

teachers, including programs such as Teacher Corps, Teach for America (Cruickshank et

al., 1996), and Troops-to-Teachers (Defense Activity for Non-traditional Educational

Support, n.d.). Most states have resorted to alternative means of teacher certification in

hopes of recruiting more teachers into the field. In 2005, 47 states and the District of

Columbia reported having some type of alternative certification process for certifying

elementary and secondary teachers. As a result, a total of 122 routes other than the

traditional approved college teacher education program exist for certifying teachers in the

United States (National Center for Education Information, 2005). In spite of these

recruitment initiatives and alternative certification programs, the teacher shortage has not

been eliminated.









Research in agricultural education has proposed yet another possible solution. In

1979, Parmley, Bowen, and Warmbrod examined data from previous national supply and

demand studies and concluded that the teacher shortage in agricultural education was not

a result of a shortfall in the number of graduates from teacher preparation programs, but

rather too few of those graduates choosing to enter the teaching profession. Brown

(1995) supported this conclusion, finding that approximately half of agricultural

education graduates had elected not to pursue teaching positions. Brown (1995) found

that although there were ample numbers of graduates, the problem lay in insufficient

recruitment of those qualified graduates into the profession. In their national supply and

demand study, Camp et al. (2002) reported that the percentage of newly qualified

agricultural education graduates entering the teaching profession from 1994 to 2001

ranged from 48.4 to 63.8%. Conversely, a 2004 report issued by the American

Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE) stated that highly ranked

colleges of education reported 90% or greater placement rates in educational jobs for

2002 graduates who elected to teach.

Camp et al. (2002) provided additional pertinent information in the percentage of

newly qualified agriculture teachers who were rated by their teacher educators as those

who "probably wanted to teach" (p. 11). Of this group, Camp et al. (2002) found that

72.5 to 77.9% were placed in teaching positions between 1994 and 2001. With these

numbers being higher than those of qualified teacher candidates finding placement (48.4

to 63.8%), it raises the question of why there is such a disparity between the percentage

of those who wanted to teach and those who actually found a teaching position.









Hillison, Camp, and Burke (1987) reported that some graduates naturally decide to

seek employment outside of teaching. They concluded that the flexibility of the

agricultural education major both permits and prepares graduates to pursue a broad range

of careers in the agricultural industry. However, no matter what their major is, some

graduates may opt to not enter the workforce at all. According to the United States

Department of Labor (2001), only 84.4% of 20 to 24 year olds who received bachelor's

degrees or higher were members of the work force.

These questions and disparities have received little attention in the agricultural

education literature. Related research has primarily focused on follow-up studies of

recent graduates. Results of such studies comparing agricultural education graduates who

taught with those who chose not to teach have been inconclusive. Graduates who entered

teaching were found to be distinguishable from those who chose not to do so by academic

achievement (Baker & Hedges, 1991; McCoy & Mortensen, 1983). However, Muller

and Miller (1993) showed agricultural education graduates entering the teaching

profession were not distinguishable academically from their peers who chose to seek

employment in other professions.

Although these studies provided valuable information, much is still unknown about

this phenomenon. Additional research is warranted to better understand the career

decision-making process of agricultural education students. Related research and

theories from other disciplines may provide tested methods to guide such inquires. One

such theory served as the basis for this study.

The Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT) posited by Lent, Brown, and Hackett

(1994) was used as the theoretical basis for this study. SCCT was chosen as the guiding









framework for several reasons. First, SCCT is a relatively recent addition to the career

development literature and it builds upon a large body of previous research and integrates

other tested theories to help explain career and educational choices of adolescents and

young adults (Lent et al., 1994). Second, the central tenets of SCCT have been well

defined and articulated in the literature, and most importantly, have been shown to have

an influence on the career and educational choices of college students. Third, the central

constructs of SCCT are task and environment specific, and can be adapted to the specific

characteristics of different environments and educational tasks. Therefore, SCCT can be

used to describe the specific social and cognitive mechanisms that are important in the

career decision-making process of preservice agriculture teachers. Last, what might

possibly be the most valuable attribute of this theory is that the central constructs of

SCCT are amenable to change and ultimately have promise for the design of

interventions (Rasheed, 2001). If, for example, preservice teachers who decide not to

pursue teaching positions are found to be lacking confidence or self-efficacy in their

teaching ability, then interventions can be designed to help boost preservice students'

confidence and perceptions of their ability to teach. Such interventions could provide a

means of increasing the percentage of agricultural education graduates pursuing teaching

positions, and ultimately contribute to the elimination of the present teacher shortage in

agricultural education.

Statement of the Problem

To fulfill the goals set forth in the agricultural education strategic plan, the

profession must have an ample supply of well-prepared, qualified teachers. However, the

present situation in agricultural education is one of teacher shortages and of hiring under-

qualified instructors. Although this dilemma weighs heavily on the minds of many in the









profession, little attention has been given to understanding the factors contributing to the

shortage. Whereas researchers in the profession have proposed explanations for the

teacher shortfall, these explanations have spurred few investigations. With further

research, a better understanding of this problem is possible.

This study was conducted to examine why newly qualified preservice teachers

decide not to enter the teaching field, a phenomenon that is believed to contribute to the

shortage of agriculture teachers. By investigating the career decision process of

preservice agriculture teachers within the constructs of the SCCT, efforts can be made to

assist in providing a solution to this problem. Therefore, the following questions were

addressed by this study: "What factors contribute to the career decision-making process

of preservice agriculture teachers?" and "Which factor, if any, is predictive of preservice

teachers' intentions to enter the teaching field?"

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the study was to describe the influence and predictive nature of

person inputs, contextual influences, self-efficacy, and outcome expectations on

preservice agricultural teachers' intentions to teaching, and on their intended length of

teaching tenure. The dependent variables for this study were agricultural preservice

teachers' intentions to pursue a teaching position, and the number of years they expected

to remain in the profession. The independent variables consisted of person inputs,

contextual influences, perceived self-efficacy, and outcome expectations.









Objectives

The following three objectives guided this study:

1. Describe the person inputs (demographics), contextual influences, self-efficacy, and
outcome expectations of preservice agriculture teachers in selected collegiate
agriculture teacher preparation programs.

2. Describe the variance in preservice agriculture teachers' intentions to teach
attributed to person inputs (demographics), contextual influences, self-efficacy, and
outcome expectations.

3. Describe the variance in perservice agriculture teachers' intended length of teaching
tenure attributed to person inputs (demographics), contextual influences, self-
efficacy, and outcome expectations.

Research Hypothesis

Based on the reviewed literature and research, the following research hypotheses

were developed.

1. Preservice agriculture teachers who have greater intentions to teach agriculture
report perceptions of higher self-efficacy, more positive outcome expectations,
more positive support systems, fewer perceived career barriers, stronger agricultural
backgrounds, and higher academic achievement.

2. Preservice agriculture teachers who perceive longer agriculture teaching tenures
report perceptions of higher self-efficacy, more positive outcome expectations,
more positive support systems, fewer perceived career barriers, and stronger
agricultural backgrounds, and higher academic achievement.

Definition of Terms

A number of important terms appear throughout this study. To ensure these terms

are understandable and considered in the proper context, the following operational

definitions were constructed.

1. Agricultural education the scientific study of principles and methods of teaching
and learning as they relate to agriculture (Barrick, 1989; Williams, 1991)

2. Career barriers "events or conditions, either within the person or in his or her
environment, that make career progress difficult" (Swanson & Woitke, 1997, p.
446)









3. Career decision-making efficacy confidence in one's ability to make career-
related decisions (Hackett, 1995)

4. Career goal mechanisms operationalized as career plans, aspirations, decisions
and expressed choices (Lent et al., 1994)

5. FFA National FFA Organization, formerly known as the Future Farmers of
America. A national youth leadership organization dedicated to "making a positive
difference in the lives of young people by developing their potential for premier
leadership, personal growth and career success through agricultural education"
(National FFA Organization, n.d., T 1).

6. Goal "the determination to engage in a particular activity or to effect a particular
future outcome" (Bandura, 1986, p. 468)

7. Instructional efficacy see teacher efficacy

8. Outcome expectations personal beliefs about the probable response outcomes or
consequences of performing an activity (Lent et al., 1994).

9. Preservice teacher a prospective teacher enrolled in teacher preparation courses,
who has not yet received teaching certification or licensure (Knobloch, 2002).

10. Self-efficacy "beliefs in one's capabilities to organize and execute the course of
action required to produce given attainments" (Bandura, 1997, p. 3)

11. Student teacher a preservice teacher placed in a public school for a clinical
experience over an extended period of time under the supervision of a cooperating
teacher and a university supervisor (Knobloch, 2002)

12. Supports or support systems "environmental variables that can facilitate the
formation and pursuits of individuals' career choices" (Lent, Brown, & Hackett,
2000, p. 42)

13. Teacher efficacy self-perceived belief in one's capabilities to bring about desired
outcomes, even with students who are unmotivated or present discipline problems
(Bandura, 1977)

14. Teacher preparation comprehensive university programs in which students receive
instruction on technical, professional, and pedagogical subjects and participate in
various clinical experiences









Limitations of the Study

Like any other scholarly work, the results, conclusions, and implications of this

study have limitations. These limitations are primarily determined by the research design

utilized to answer the research question. The following are limitations of this study:

1. This study utilized a causal-comparative research design. Therefore, determining a
true cause-and-effect relationship is impossible (Ary, Jacobs, & Razavieh, 2002).

2. The sample of preservice teachers used in this study was not randomly selected.
Therefore, caution is warranted when attempting to generalize these findings
beyond this specific population at the approximate time this study was conducted.

3. The instrumentation used in this study was developed and/or modified for this study
from existing assessments. However, these instruments have not been used in this
context prior to the pilot test conducted for this study.

4. Data were collected from preservice agriculture teachers with the assistance of
teacher educators at the participating institutions. This situation could have
influenced students' responses on the questionnaire.

5. Participants in the study reported their intention to teach at the time of data
collection. This assessment may not reflect their actual decision to pursue a
teaching position.

Assumptions of the Study

Assumptions have been made prior to and during this study. The assumptions of

this study are listed below.

1. A self-assessment instrument can accurately measure person inputs, contextual
influences, self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and teaching intentions of
preservice agriculture teachers.

2. Participants in this study honestly and accurately completed the instrument without
outside influences.

3. Preservice agriculture teachers completing their teaching internship experience in
the fall semester or quarter are similar to those completing in the spring semester or
quarter.









Summary

Agricultural education is faced with an ongoing shortage of qualified candidates to

fill teaching positions. Although teacher preparation programs produce an adequate

number of graduates each year, too few of these candidates decide to enter the teaching

profession. Little is known about why agricultural education graduates choose not to

teach; therefore, further research is needed regarding this phenomenon. A better

understanding of this problem could provide an opportunity to design and test

interventions that may increase the proportion of agricultural education graduates who

enter the teaching profession. This study examined the factors that contribute to

preservice agriculture teachers' intentions to enter the profession by describing the

influence and predictive nature of person inputs, contextual influences, self-efficacy, and

outcome expectations. The chapter concluded by presenting the three guiding objectives

of the study, the research hypotheses, providing operational definitions of key terms,

describing the limitations, and outlining the assumptions of the study.














CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Chapter 1 provided an introduction and basis for this study. The current teacher

shortage in agricultural education was discussed and a need for further research was

established. The purpose of this research study was presented as well as the research

questions and objectives. The chapter concluded by defining key terms, stating

limitations, and outlining the assumptions of the study.

A review of the career choice related literature in agricultural education yielded

very limited results. For the most part, such literature examined agricultural education

graduates' career choices relative to their academic ability, and their perceived

professional and technical competence.

McCoy and Mortensen (1983) compared the academic performance of three groups

of agricultural education graduates. The groups consisted of (1) those who entered and

remained in teaching (n = 53), (2) those who began teaching and quit after one or more

years (n = 40), and (3) those who chose a vocation other than teaching after graduation (n

= 60). After examining the cumulative grade point averages and student teaching grades

of each group, it was concluded that students who remained in the teaching profession

had both higher cumulative grade point averages and grades in student teaching than

those who left teaching or never entered the profession. These findings were supported

by a later study conducted by Baker and Hedges (1991) of 160 agricultural education

graduates at The Ohio State University. These researchers found that graduates who

entered the teaching profession could be distinguished from those deciding not to teach









based on their cumulative grade point average, grades in student teaching and

professional preparation coursework, and certification status.

Likewise in 1993, Muller and Miller examined whether more academically able

agricultural education graduates were entering and remaining in the teaching profession

or opting for other career options. Their follow-up of 294 Iowa State graduates found

that those graduates who chose to teach were just as academically able as those who

accepted positions in other fields.

The most comprehensive study found in the agricultural education literature was the

graduate follow-up study conducted by Cole (1984) at Oregon State University. The

study's sample consisted of all agricultural education graduates who were certified to

teach over a twelve-year period between 1971 and 1982. Of the 151 respondents, 40%

reported still being agriculture teachers, 35% had started teaching and quit during this

time, and 25% of the graduates had never taught agriculture. Cole concluded that teacher

educators and teacher preparation programs can have the greatest impact on improving

agriculture teacher placement and retention by ensuring quality student teaching

experiences, quality professional and technical preparation, and by reducing specific

concerns pertaining to negative outcomes associated with the agricultural teaching

profession. Graduates mentioned concerns such as, spousal support, low salary, long

hours, and time for hobbies and recreation (Cole, 1984).

McGhee and Cheek (1990) found more favorable results in their follow-up of 189

agricultural education graduates between 1975 and 1985 at the University of Florida.

They reported that over 60% of graduates entered and remained in the agricultural

teaching profession, while 12% began teaching and left the profession. Yet, the









percentage of graduates that indicated never teaching agriculture was similar to that of

the 1984 Cole study at 28%.

In 1994, a theory emerged that may provide a means for further study of the

processes and challenges that agricultural education graduates face when making the

decision to enter the teaching profession. The Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT) as

posited by Lent et al. (1994) outlined a process whereby people form academic and

occupational interests, make academic and career choices, and achieve in their

educational and vocational pursuits. This theory may be important to understanding the

factors that most significantly influence the career choice decisions of agricultural

education graduates because of its emphasis on the reciprocal interaction of

environmental factors, personal factors, and an individual's behavior.

Proposed by Lent and colleagues (1994), SCCT represents an effort to understand

the processes through which people develop interests, make choices, and achieve varying

levels of success in academic and occupational pursuits. SCCT stems primarily from

Bandura's (1986) general Social Cognitive Theory (SCT). Bandura (1997) viewed

individuals as dynamic self-systems capable of exercising self-regulation of their

behavior, not as mere simple reactive beings. Bandura's (1986) conception of "reciprocal

determinism" explains how three important factors interact and influence one another. In

doing so, these factors determine an individual's behavior pattern. These three factors

consist of personal attributes (cognitive and affective states and biological events),

external environmental factors, and overt behavior (Bandura, 1986). This interaction,

termed "triadic reciprocality," is depicted in Figure 2-1.










Behavior








Personal Factors -4 Environmental Factors
Figure 2-1. Model of triadic reciprocality (Bandura, 1997)

The reciprocal interaction of the determinants of human functioning in social

cognitive theory provides for the possibility of treatment efforts to be directed at

personal, environmental, or behavioral factors (Pajares, 2002). In education for example,

teachers are faced with the challenge of improving student learning and increasing test

scores. Using the social cognitive theory as a framework, a teacher can correct a

student's negative self-beliefs and habits of thinking (personal factors), improve self-

regulatory practices (behavior), and also modify the school and classroom structures

(environmental factors) that may hinder student success (Pajares, 2002).

Social cognitive theory is grounded in a view of human agency. As agents,

individuals are proactively engaged in their development and can make things happen by

their own actions (Bandura, 1986). Thus, individuals are seen as both products and

producers of their own environment and of their social systems (Pajares, 2002).

Bandura's social cognitive theory is a clear contrast to behaviorist theories of human

functioning that place a greater emphasis on environmental factors in the development of

human behavior and learning (Pajares, 2002). For Bandura (1986), "a theory that denies

that thoughts can regulate actions does not lend itself readily to the explanation of

complex human behavior" (p.16).









Lent et al. (1994) drew from Bandura's general SCT (1986) to adapt, elaborate, and

extend the aspects that seem most relevant to the career development process. The result,

the Social Cognitive Career Theory, provides a framework for understanding the three

intricately linked aspects of career development: (1) forming and elaborating career

interests, (2) selecting academic and career choice options, and (3) performance and

persistence in educational and vocational pursuits (Lent et al., 1994). This framework is

conceptualized as being relevant to both academic and career behavior. Lent et al. (1994)

saw academic development as "dovetailing" with career development. Models of

academic choice and career development often contain similar important causal

mechanisms. Additionally, interests and skills developed during an individual's school

years later translate into career selections (Lent el al., 1994).

SCCT appears to be an ideal theory for explaining the development of career

interests and decisions of agricultural education graduates because it focuses on specific

mechanisms that shape interests and choices related to entry into the profession. Figure

2-2 depicts the model hypothesized by Lent et al. (1994) to explain the development of

career and academic interests over time, participation in career and academic activities,

and the acquisition of career related skills. In the model, Lent et al. (1994) assert that

throughout childhood and adolescence, people are exposed to a wide array of activities

that have potential career relevance. Additionally, they are exposed vicariously to

various tasks related to potential occupations. During this period of life, individuals are

differentially reinforced for pursuing certain activities and for their performance.
















Person Inputs
- Predispositions
- Gender
- Race/ethnicity
- Disability/Health


Contextual Influences
Proximal to Choice Behavior


Figure 2-2. Model of person, contextual, and experiential factors affecting career-related choice behavior (Lent et al., 1994, p. 93).
Copyright 1993 by R.W. Lent, S. D. Brown, and G. Hackett. Reprinted by permission.









With continued engagement in activities, modeling, and given feedback from others,

children and adolescents begin to refine their skills, form their own performance

standards and perceptions of their level of efficacy, and develop expectations about the

outcomes of their performance (Lent et al., 1994).

The SCCT framework presents three social cognitive mechanisms as the most

relevant to career development: (1) self-efficacy, (2) outcome expectations, and (3) goals

(Lent et al., 1994). These three factors are the central core of the SCCT model through

which individuals develop, pursue, and modify their career interests. The Lent et al.

(1994) model hypothesizes that both self-efficacy beliefs and outcome expectancies

predict career interests. This is based on Bandura's (1986) assertion that interests arising

from activities are more likely to persist over time when the person feels he or she is

effective and successful in completing those activities. Likewise, when an individual

believes the outcome of an activity will not be positive, he or she will tend to lose interest

in that activity (Sharf, 1996). These interests, together with a person's perceptions of

efficacy and outcome expectancies lead to goal formulation. The goals an individual sets

affect their actions, or in this case, career decisions (Sharf, 1996). The development of

interests in a career would then lead an individual to pursue that chosen career (Lent et

al., 1994; Smith & Fouad, 1999). In 2000, Lent and colleagues further contributed to the

model by providing a better understanding of the impact contextual influences, such as

support systems and barriers had on career development. The following sections will

provide a more detailed explanation of the theory and a review of the scholarly literature

related to the constructs within SCCT model.









Self-Efficacy

Bandura (1997) defined self-efficacy as "beliefs in one's capabilities to organize

and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments" (p. 3). Self-

efficacy is believed to be at the very core of social cognitive theory (Pajares, 2002).

Pajares (2002) asserted that "self-efficacy beliefs provide the foundation for human

motivation, well-being, and personal accomplishment" (T 14). Without a belief in one's

ability to produce a desired outcome, there is little incentive to pursue or persevere when

faced with difficulties (Pajares, 2002). Bandura (1997) contended that "people's level of

motivation, affective states, and actions are based more on what they believe than on

what is objectively true" (p. 2). An individual's perception of his or her ability is often a

better predictor of their capabilities than what he or she can actually accomplish, since

self-efficacy beliefs help determine what a individual does with the knowledge and skills

that he or she possesses (Pajares, 2002). People's behaviors are sometimes incongruent

with their actual capabilities. According to Pajares, a person's beliefs and reality are

seldom matched perfectly. Consequently, perceived beliefs about a person's

accomplishments are generally better predictors than their previous performance,

knowledge, and attainments (Pajares, 2002).

An individual's efficacy beliefs can influence and enhance their accomplishments

and well being in numerous ways. A person's beliefs also influence the choices he or she

makes and the courses of action a person pursues (Pajares, 2002). The choices made

during formative periods, such as childhood and adolescence shape the course of a

person's life (Bandura, 1997). Choices are made to pursue certain occupations and stay

clear of others based on a person's perception of his or her capabilities and conceptions

of those occupations (Bandura, 1997).









Self-efficacy beliefs are domain specific, meaning they are tied to specific

performances and tasks. An individual may feel efficacious in his or her abilities and

knowledge about one topic but non-efficacious about another (Pajares, 1996). For

example, an agriculture instructor may feel efficacious about teaching within his or her

discipline, but if assigned to teach a mathematics course he or she may have a low

perceived level of efficacy. Although both assignments call for similar skills, the

differing subject matter (domain) may cause the person to feel differently about his or her

ability to teach the course effectively.

Self-Efficacy Research Relevant to Career Development

A large body of research exists showing that self-efficacy plays a key role in career

development (Bandura, 1997). Most of the research testing the SCCT has been

supportive, however these studies have examined the relationships between self-efficacy,

outcome expectations, interests, and goals primarily within the domains of math and

science. Little is known about the support of the SCCT model in other subject areas

(Smith & Fouad, 1999).

In 1981, Betz and Hackett extended Bandura's (1977) self-efficacy construct into

career development theory. Betz and Hackett's (1981) research provided a conceptual

framework for understanding the career development of women. In their study of 235

undergraduate men and women, Betz and Hackett found that the level of self-efficacy of

women was relative to the traditional nature and range of careers they considered viable.

Hackett (1985) later extended this study and made the argument that self-efficacy

expectations were more important than a student's actual ability in their decision of a

math or science related major. Numerous other studies have continued to extend this line

of research and consistently link efficacy perceptions to decision-making processes that









are important to the choice of a math or science related major (Fassinger, 1990; Lapan &

Jingeleski, 1992; Lapan, Shaughnessy, & Boggs, 1996; Lent et al., 1994; Lent & Hackett,

1987; Lent, Lopez, & Bieschke, 1991, 1993; O'Brien & Fassinger, 1993). In general,

research has shown a wider range of career options and a greater interest in those options

was exhibited by those persons with a higher perceived efficacy to fulfill educational

requirements and job functions (e.g., Betz & Hackett, 1981; Lent, Brown, & Larkin,

1986; Matsui, Ikeda, & Ohnishi, 1989).

In addition to the research conducted in the math and science domains, many other

studies have linked self-efficacy with numerous career-related variables, such as career

exploration (Betz & Voyten, 1997; Rasheed, 2001), career choice making indecision

(Taylor & Betz, 1983; Taylor & Pompa, 1990), career salience (Matzeder & Krieshok,

1995), specific occupational tasks (Rooney & Osipow, 1992); vocational interests based

on inventory instruments (Betz, Harmon, & Borgen, 1996; Lent, Brown, & Larkin, 1989;

Matsui & Tsukamoto, 1991) and academic performance (Betz & Luzzo, 1996; Hackett &

Betz, 1989; Multon, Brown, & Lent, 1991).

Self-Efficacy Research Relevant to Teaching

The challenge of creating a learning environment that is conducive to the effective

development of the cognitive competencies of students is heavily influenced by an

educator's perceived efficacy. A teacher's efficacy beliefs affect their view of the entire

education process and impact their instructional activities (Bandura, 1997). Teacher

efficacy is a self-perceived belief in one's capabilities to bring about desired outcomes,

even with students who are unmotivated or present discipline problems (Bandura, 1977).

Teacher efficacy has been found to influence teacher behavior, such as effort, innovation,

planning and organization, persistence, resilience, enthusiasm, willingness to work with









difficult students, and commitment to teaching and career longevity (Tschannen-Moran,

Woolfolk Hoy, & Hoy, 1998).

Teacher efficacy has implications on a teacher's management of the learning

environment as well. Teachers who are highly efficacious tend to rely on persuasory

means rather than authoritarian classroom control; in turn they support the development

of students' intrinsic interest and promote academic self-directedness (Bandura, 1997).

Miller, Kahler, and Rheault (1989) found motivated and confident teachers were

more effective. Students achieved more, exhibited greater motivation, and had a higher

level of perceived self-efficacy when their teacher possessed a higher level of perceived

teacher efficacy (Guskey & Passaro, 1994).

Teacher efficacy has also been examined and found to affect teachers' level of

professional commitment and teacher attrition. Links have been found between low

levels of teacher efficacy and increased stress, lack of coping abilities, and burnout

(Bandura, 1997; Chwalisz, Altmaier & Russell, 1992). As a means of coping with stress,

teachers may avoid engagement in certain instructional activities (Bandura, 1997).

Ultimately, teachers who have a low sense of instructional efficacy show a weak

commitment to the teaching profession (Evans & Tribble, 1986), they spend less time

teaching the subject areas in which they feel less efficacious (Enochs & Riggs, 1990), and

also dedicate less total time to academic matters (Gibson & Dembo, 1984). In a study of

170 elementary teachers, Coladarci (1992) found the best predictor of a teacher's

commitment to the profession was their sense of instructional efficacy. These findings

were supportive of earlier work by Glickman and Tamashiro (1982) who compared self-

efficacy of first year (n = 50) and fifth year teachers (n = 49), as well as teachers who had









left the profession (n = 30). They concluded that teachers who have low levels of self-

efficacy are the most likely to drop out of the profession.

In summary, self-efficacy is a dynamic set of self-beliefs that are specific to a

domain and that continually interact in a complex manner with other personal,

behavioral, and contextual factors (Lent et al., 1994). In the teaching profession, teacher

efficacy has continually been found to have a positive relationship with a teacher's

performance, commitment to the profession, and ultimately student achievement.

Numerous studies incorporating self-efficacy have significantly contributed to our

understanding of the career development process. However, the recent introduction of

the SCCT has caused researchers to examine the interaction between efficacy beliefs and

the other contextual and individual variables that influence the career development

process (Rasheed, 2001). The SCCT provides a means to better understand the

importance of efficacy beliefs and demonstrates the impact these beliefs have on outcome

expectations, career interests, goal formation, actions, and accomplishments.

Outcome Expectations

Outcome expectations are personal beliefs about probable response outcomes. That

is, where self-efficacy beliefs are concerned with one's perceived abilities to complete

tasks or activities (i.e., "Can I do this?"), outcome expectations involve the perceived

consequences of actually performing the activity [i.e., "If I do this, what will happen?"]

(Lent et al., 1994, p. 83).

In his social cognitive theory, Bandura (1986) suggested that people act not only on

their beliefs about what they are capable of doing but also on their beliefs about the likely

effects of their actions. Although both self-efficacy and outcome expectations are seen as

influencing career related behavior, Bandura (1986) has argued that these two factors are









often differentially potent, with self-efficacy being the most influential in determining

behavior (Lent et al., 1994). In situations where the quality of performance guarantees a

desirable outcome, self-efficacy is seen as the most influential causal factor. However,

when outcomes are not completely tied to quality of performance, the outcome

expectations may exert an independent contribution to motivation and behavior (Bandura,

1989; Lent et al., 1994).

Outcome Expectations Research Relevant to Career Development

Unlike self-efficacy, few studies have been conducted focused on outcome

expectations and career related behavior (Diegelman & Subich, 2001). The reported

research has provided significant findings supporting Lent and colleagues' (1994)

hypothesized relationship of outcome expectations to formation of interests, intentions,

and setting of goals (Diegelman & Subich, 2001). However, SCCT is not the only theory

to place heavy emphasis on the relationship between expected outcomes and actions.

Vroom's (1964) model presented choice behavior as being highly dependent upon an

individual's perception of the probability that certain actions will produce particular

outcomes and of the value placed on those outcomes. Irwin's (1971) theory of

intentional behavior and motivation is based on act-outcome expectancies. According to

these and other theorists, an individual's level of performance is a function of his or her

expectancy that behaving in a certain way will lead to a desired outcome (Atkinson,

1964; Feather, 1982; Vroom, 1964).

Among a sample of 350 undergraduate college students, Betz and Voyten (1997)

found that career decision-making efficacy and outcome expectations were good

predictors of academic and career indecision, and intentions to engage in career

exploration. In their study of 380 middle school students, Fouad and Smith (1996) found









results supporting the SCCT model. Their analysis showed a strong association existed

between self-efficacy and outcome expectations. Additionally, outcome expectations

were found to be strongly associated with career exploration intentions.

Swanson and Woitke (1997) looked specifically at the effect of negatively

perceived outcomes and barriers on women's career choices. These researchers

concluded that although an individual may have a high level of self-efficacy and interest

in a career, he or she might end their pursuit of that career path if he or she perceived

substantial barriers and negative outcomes.

In 2001, Diegelman and Subich conducted an experiment with 85 college students

that examined the function of self-efficacy and outcome expectations as posited in SCCT

by Lent et al. (1994). By manipulating perceptions of outcome expectations for a given

major, the researchers found that increased outcome expectations significantly predicted

increased intentions to pursue that major. The results of this study supported SCCT,

demonstrating the hypothesized relationship of outcome expectations to interest,

intentions, and self-efficacy (Diegelman & Subich, 2001).

Outcome Expectations Research Relevant to Teaching

The educational literature is nearly void of research that examines outcome

expectations within the teaching profession. However, one such study found in the

literature provided a very thorough statistical test of the SCCT in a minority teacher

recruitment program. Schaffner and Jepsen (1999) surveyed 243 African American,

Hispanic American, and Native American secondary students participating in the first

year of a minority teacher recruitment program. The researchers' findings provided

mixed support for the SCCT model. Outcome expectations and interests were both found

to have a direct effect on choice behavior; however the negative relationship found in the









study contradicted the positive relationship hypothesized by the SCCT (Schaffner &

Jepsen, 1999).

In order to fully explore the importance of outcome expectations of teachers, this

literature review was extended to include research that examined reasons why preservice

teachers choose to teach. Webster's New Reference Library (1984) defines a reason as a

"basis or motive for an action, decision, or conviction" (p. 349). Outcome expectations

are defined by Lent et al. (1994) as "personal beliefs about probable response outcomes"

(p. 83). Presumably, a person's reasons for entering the teaching profession would be

similar and consistent with his or her beliefs about the probable outcomes that would

result from that decision. For example, a preservice teacher's reasons for not entering the

teaching profession may be based on his or her belief that agriculture teachers are poorly

paid and have little time off. Similarly, he or she may perceive the probable outcome of

the decision to teach as receiving a low salary and little time for recreation and family.

A consistent set of reasons for wanting to teach can be found in the literature

(Snyder, Doerr, & Pastor, 1995). In a study of 248 preservice students at the University

of New Hampshire, Andrew (1983) found that the most important factor for students to

pursue a career in teaching was their motivation for social service. Students felt the

enjoyment of working with children and their love for the subject were the next most

important factors contributing to their decision (Andrew, 1983). Bontempo and Digman

(1985) found very similar reasons for choosing to teach when surveying 356 education

undergraduates at West Virginia University.

Book, Freeman, and Brousseau (1985) examined the differences between education

(n = 258) and non-education (n = 146) majors' reasons for pursuing their chosen fields of









study. They cite the following are the most common reasons education majors choose to

teach: (1) desire to help others gain a sense of personal achievement, (2) love to work

with children, (3) opportunity to help others gain knowledge and an understanding of

content they believe to be important, (4) can make better use of their abilities in the

teaching field, (5) provides opportunity to apply what they learned in their major course

work, and (6) to help others less fortunate than.

Joseph and Green's (1986) study of 234 preservice teachers also found that students

chose teaching because of their desire to work with people and to be of service. They

also added other important reasons, such as their desire to continue in the academic

setting, favorable working hours and vacation allowances, and feeling of security that

teaching provides as something to fall back on. Likewise, Kemper and Mangieri (1985)

found that job security was an important factor in a student's decision to teach. They also

provided further support of the factors already mentioned, as did Zimpher (1989), Serow

(1994), and King (1993), who found similar reasons reported by African American

students.

In their study of agriculture teacher concerns, Burke and Hillison (1991) reported

several rewarding outcomes experienced by a sample of 76 agriculture teachers in

Virginia. These actual outcomes may provide further understanding of the possible

outcome expectations perceived by preservice teachers. The most rewarding outcome

reported by teachers in this study was their being a part of the growth and development of

students, closely followed by the satisfaction felt from students' achievement in

leadership and FFA events. Teachers also reported other rewarding experiences, such as,

teaching and interacting with students, professional development, developing quality









agricultural education programs and receiving recognition for their teaching (Burke &

Hillison, 1991). The researchers provided negative outcomes reported by the agriculture

teachers in this study as well. Teachers' most frustrating experiences were: students' lack

of interest, poor administrative support, difficulties with student management and lack of

student guidance support, large time demands, inadequate facilities and supplies,

excessive paperwork, and poor program and student quality.

In an earlier study, Coughlin, Lawrence, Gartin, and Templeton (1988) identified

agriculture teachers spouses' perceived benefits of a career teaching agriculture. A

survey was administered to 96 spouses of agriculture teachers in West Virginia. Spouses

appreciated the job security, benefits, extended contracts, and additional pay. They

enjoyed seeing the excitement, dedication, satisfaction, and pride that their spouse felt

from their experiences teaching students (Coughlin et al., 1988). The negative outcomes

of their spouses' teaching positions were the tremendous number of extra hours they

worked, great deal of time spent away from home and family, stress and fatigue on

family, too little pay, lack of appreciation from administration, and a feeling that

agriculture was viewed as less important than other school programs.

In summary, outcome expectations are a person's beliefs in the probable outcomes

of his or her actions and are another important component of the SCCT. Little research

has been conducted investigating the influence of outcome expectations on one's career

decisions. Further research is warranted, especially in the field of education, so that a

better understanding of how outcome expectations interact with self-efficacy, interests,

and goal mechanisms can be achieved.









Goals Mechanisms

According to social cognitive theory, goals play an important role in self-regulation

of behavior (Lent et al., 1994). SCT presents the view that humans are seen as more than

simple responders to deterministic forces. Through the process of setting goals, people

organize and guide their own behavior in order to increase the likelihood that desirable

outcomes can be attained (Lent et al., 1994).

Bandura (1986) defined a goal as "the determination to engage in a particular

activity or to effect a particular future outcome" (p. 468). Goals function principally

through an individual's ability to symbolically represent desired future outcomes and to

react to his or her own behavior in a self-evaluative manner based on the individual's

own internal standards for performance (Lent et al., 1994). The self-motivating qualities

of goals are achieved by linking self-satisfaction to goal fulfillment and by enacting those

behaviors that are consistent with a person's internally set standards (Lent et al., 1994).

However, setting a goal does not automatically activate the self-influence mechanisms

that govern an individual's behavior. Certain goal properties exist that affect an

individual's performance towards achieving that goal (Bandura, 1986). Bandura (1986)

mentioned three factors that have the greatest affect on the motivating nature of goals:

specificity, challenge, and proximity.

Goal specificity contributes to the degree to which a goal creates incentives and

guides one's actions (Bandura, 1986). The specificity of a goal serves as a source of

motivation, and goals also foster positive attitudes towards activities associated with

goals (Bryan & Locke, 1967).

The challenge of attaining a goal is dependent upon the level at which it is set.

When self-satisfaction is dependent upon attainment of challenging goals, an individual









will exert more effort than if they perceive the goal to be easy to achieve (Bandura,

1986). If goals are set unrealistically high, most efforts to achieve are disappointing.

After repeated efforts produce failure, self-efficacy perceptions are weakened and the

motivation to perform an activity is greatly reduced (Bandura, 1986).

The effectiveness of goal mechanisms in regulating behavior depends greatly on

how far into the future the attainment of the goal is projected (Bandura, 1986). Goals that

are perceived to be too distant in the future do not provide effective incentives and guides

for one's present behavior. The setting of subgoals (incremental goals) has been found to

reduce the risk of self-demoralization that results from an individual comparing his or her

current performance to lofty future performance goals (Bandura, 1986).

In the career development literature, career goal mechanisms are commonly

operationalized as plans, aspirations, decisions, and expressed choices. The differences

between these goal terms are related to their degree of specificity and proximity to actual

choice implementation (Lent et al, 1994).

As in the case of outcome expectations, the career development research provides

very few studies examining variables related to goal mechanisms. In the agricultural

education field, one such study was found. Bajema, Miller, and Williams (2002)

compared the career aspirations of 883 urban and rural high school seniors in 17 schools

in Iowa. They found no differences between the two groups in their diversity of

educational and occupational aspirations. The researchers also reported a high level of

congruence existed between students' occupational aspirations and their educational

goals, demonstrating that many students were pursuing their chosen career paths.









Students viewed the school environment as being supportive of their aspirations, and

barriers to their goals were perceived to be minimal (Bajema, Miller & Williams, 2002).

Perrone, Sedlack, and Alexander (2001) examined barriers to and facilitators of

career goals among college students within the context of the SCCT. The researchers

surveyed 2,743 college freshman measuring gender and ethnicity differences related to

factors influencing career goals, perceptions of barriers to attaining goals, and academic

resilience. Their findings reported gender and ethnicity differences exist in perceptions

of barriers to career goals. Perceptions of facilitators of career goals differed by ethnicity

as well. These findings were consistent with those of McWhirter (1997a) who examined

differences of perceived barriers between ethnicity and gender in 1,139 high school

juniors and seniors. McWhirter demonstrated that female participants anticipated more

barriers to career goals than did males, and that Mexican Americans anticipated more

barriers than European American participants.

Nauta, Epperson, and Kahn (1998) investigated 546 undergraduate women's

aspirations toward leadership and advanced positions within their chosen occupation.

The researchers stated, "social-cognitive theory suggests that higher level career

aspirations can be predicted by ability via self-efficacy" (p. 484). These higher-level

aspirations may be influenced by role models as well. Role models affect aspirations by

increasing self-efficacy and by vicariously demonstrating how they perform multiple life

roles (Nauta, Epperson, & Kahn, 1998). The study found that self-efficacy mediated the

relationship between ability and women's aspiration to advance in their chosen career

fields. These researchers also concluded that self-efficacy was an important predictor of









higher-level career aspirations and they suggested that interventions could be designed to

increase students' self-efficacy (Nauta, Epperson, & Kahn, 1998).

In summary, career goals and aspirations have been given limited attention in the

career development literature. However, studies have shown that goal formation and

attainment is influenced by self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and environmental

factors. Goals play an important role in SCCT, as they provide much of the motivation

and guidance in the career choice process. Given the essential nature of goals and

aspirations in the choice process and the lack of related research in agricultural education,

a deeper examination of the influence of career-related goals on an individual's decision

to teach agriculture education is warranted.

Learning Experiences, Person Inputs, and Contextual Influences

In an effort to further elaborate on the role of the three sociocognitive mechanisms

of self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and goal mechanisms, Lent et al. (1994) presented

a more comprehensive account of the career development process by addressing another

set of important model components. Person inputs, such as inherited affective and

physical attributes, contextual features of the environment (social, physical, and cultural)

that may support or limit development, and career-relevant learning experiences may

influence career interests and choice behavior (Lent et al., 1994). While the model

acknowledges the interdependent relations among these components, Lent et al. (1994)

envisioned three causal pathways through which person, contextual, and experiential

factors may influence career interests and choices. These factors may serve as (a)

precursors of sociocognitive variables, (b) moderators of interest-goal and goal-action

relationships, and (c) direct facilitators or deterrents of goal activity.









Influence of Learning Experiences

According to social learning theorists, such as Krumboltz, and Lent and colleagues,

learning experiences play a very crucial role in the career-decision process (Sharf, 1996).

Krumboltz's social learning theory postulated that career decision is heavily influenced

by genetic endowment, environmental conditions, task-approach skills, and learning

experiences (Sharf, 1996). Krumboltz (1994) presented the following:

People acquire their preference for various activities through a multitude of learning
experiences. They make sense of their activities because of ideas they have been
taught. They acquire beliefs about themselves and the nature of their world through
direct and indirect educational experiences. They then take action on the basis of
their beliefs using skills that they have developed over time. (p. 17)

In the SCCT model, Lent and colleagues (1994) posited that experience contributes

directly to an individual's sense of efficacy and outcome expectations. Bandura (1997)

posited that four types of learning experiences influence the development of one's self-

efficacy and outcome beliefs. These include vicarious learning, personal performance

accomplishments, social persuasion, and physiological and affective states and reactions.

Performance accomplishments, or what Bandura (1997, p. 80) refers to as "mastery

experiences," are the most influential source of self-efficacy. This is due to the authentic

evidence such experiences provide, and in doing so, build upon an individual's sense of

efficacy. Successful experiences are known to raise an individual's sense of efficacy,

while failure tends to cause a decrease in self-effacacy (Bandura, 1997; Lent & Brown,

1996). The actual effect of mastery experiences (performance accomplishments) on self-

efficacy depends on several factors, such as the variety of conditions under which the

task was performed and the consequences of the task performance (Lent et al., 1994).

For example, a preservice teacher may feel very confident in teaching a lesson to his or









her peers, but may have a low sense of efficacy when faced with an actual class of high

school students.

The impact of a mastery experience will also depend on the perceived difficulty of

the task (Bandura, 1997). Success in a task that is perceived to be easy may not have any

affect on an individual's efficacy beliefs. However, successfully completing a task that is

perceived as being difficult conveys new information for raising an individual's beliefs in

his or her capabilities (Bandura, 1997).

Vicarious learning is also believed to have an effect on one's self-efficacy,

especially if a person has had little direct experience to estimate his or her own

competence at that task (Lent et al., 1994). Observing others succeed or fail at a task

(modeling) serves as another effective tool for promoting an individual's sense of

efficacy (Bandura, 1997). In the absence of direct experience with a task, people must

appraise their capabilities in relation to the attainment of others. For example, a student

may enter a required academic course hesitantly and with a low sense of efficacy based

on his or her observation of classmates' struggles and failures in that course. Through

social comparative inferences, the student judges his or her classmates' attainments to be

similar to his or her own capabilities. This phenomenon can persuade individuals that

they have the capabilities to raise their performance, or inversely, lower their sense of

efficacy by observing those with similar competence fail (Bandura, 1997).

Social persuasion can further strengthen a person's beliefs that he or she has the

capabilities to achieve desired outcomes. People who are persuaded verbally (feedback)

that they can achieve desired tasks are more likely to put forth greater effort.

Additionally, they sustain that effort longer when faced with difficult tasks, than those









who doubt their abilities and dwell on their personal deficiencies (Bandura, 1997). Put

another way, evaluative feedback highlighting personal capabilities and improvement

enhances perceived efficacy.

Luzzo and Taylor (1993-1994) found that college freshman who received

encouragement from a career counselor demonstrated higher levels of career decision

making self-efficacy than their counterparts who received no such encouragement. These

results are supported by additional studies showing the effect of verbal persuasion on

self-efficacy (Luzzo, Funk, & Strang, 1996; Schunk, 1989).

In judging his or her own capabilities, a person's physiological and emotional states

when performing a task may also have an impact on self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997).

People often read physiological states, such as stress or fatigue, as a sign of vulnerability

or weakness. For example, a person feeling anxiety, fatigue, or depression while

performing a task may suffer a lowered sense of efficacy, while feelings of composure,

stamina, or exhilaration may increase perceptions of competence and self-efficacy (Lent

et al., 1994).

Although not substantiated in the literature, Lent et al. (1994) proposed that

performance accomplishments, vicarious learning, social persuasion, and physiological

and affective states also influenced outcome expectations. They opined that:

People likely anticipate future response-contingent outcomes by (a) recalling the
extrinsic and intrinsic (e.g., self-evaluative) outcomes that attended for their own
relevant past actions (e.g., studying produced good grades and self-approval); (b)
observing the consequences experienced by similar others (modeling), and (c)
attending to third-person accounts of reinforcement contingencies. (p. 103)

In summary, four types of learning experiences influence self-efficacy and outcome

expectations. Performance accomplishments are considered to be the most influential

learning experience (Bandura, 1997). Vicarious learning also influences self-efficacy









through observations of similar others' successes and failures. Through studies using

encouragement and discouragement, social persuasion has been found to impact efficacy

beliefs (Luzzo & Taylor, 1993-1994). Physiological and affective states, such as levels

of composure or stress, also affect the way a person perceives his or her capabilities (Lent

et al., 1994). The following sections elaborate on person and contextual factors that

affect an individual's learning experiences and in turn his or her perceptions of self-

efficacy and outcome expectations.

Influence of Person Inputs

A vast array of career-relevant person inputs can have an impact on the career

choice process (Lent et al., 1994). These personal characteristics have been found to

have direct effects on self-efficacy and outcome expectations (Fouad & Smith, 1996) and

indirect effects through their influence on learning experiences (Lopez, Lent, Brown, &

Gore, 1997). These inputs include, but are not limited to, genetic predispositions, gender,

ethnicity, socioeconomic status (SES), and disability or health status (Lent et al., 1994).

Social cognitive career theorists view person variables such as gender, ethnicity, and SES

as being linked to the learning experiences that shape an individual's beliefs of self-

efficacy and outcome expectations. Gender and cultural factors may further influence

career development by their effect on people's view of, and attempts to, implement their

goals expectations (Lent, Hackett, & Brown, 1996).

Gender and ethnicity

Gender and ethnicity have been found to relate to self-efficacy, outcome

expectations, interests, and career choice in a number of ways. Gender differences in

self-efficacy and career-related choice have been reported in diverse samples of

university, community college, and trade school students (Betz & Hackett, 1981; Church,









Teresa, Rosebrook, & Szendre, 1992; Clement, 1987; Matsui & Tsukamoto, 1991;

Rooney & Osipow, 1992; Wheeler, 1983). According to SCCT, gender and race

differences arise primarily through differential access to opportunities, supports, and

socialization processes (Lent et al., 1994). Differences in gender and race influence

career development and career choices by mediating a person's learning experiences.

The consequences of these learning experiences give rise to one's self-efficacy and

outcome expectations (Lent et al. 1994).

Additionally, gender and cultural factors have been found to be linked to

opportunity structures, which impact the academic and career goals an individual

considers (Lent et al., 1994). Barriers such as gender stereotyping may strongly influence

a person's career choice behavior whether or not the person perceives it. Since SCCT

assumes individuals are active agents in the career choice process, the effect of

stereotyping often depends on the individual's perception and response (Lent et al.,

1994). Betz and Hackett (1981) provided a demonstration of the effects that gender

stereotyping can have on women considering nontraditional occupations. Although

women in the study exhibited equal levels of mathematical ability, the effects of

stereotyping may have led them to feel less efficacious in pursuing careers related to

math and science. Betz and Hackett (1981) concluded that family, the educational

system, the mass media, and the culture at large shaped women's beliefs about their

capabilities and their career aspirations. Since this landmark study, other researchers

have found similar results further demonstrating the impact of stereotyping on women's

career aspirations (Hackett, 1995; Lucas, 1997). In more recent studies, evidence

suggested that occupational gender stereotyping might be weakening. In their study of









108 college bound high school students, Post-Kammer and Smith (1985) revealed that a

smaller disparity existed between male and female students' efficacy to pursue varied

careers (Bandura, 1997). Similarly, when Lent, Brown, and Larkin (1984) examined

self-efficacy in 42 high ability men and women with similar past performance, they found

that differences in achievement and persistence were more attributable to self-efficacy

differences rather than gender.

Gender stereotyping not only has a potential effect on an individual's view of

opportunities, but on that individual's parents as well. Parents' beliefs about their

children's capabilities and their achievement expectations can differ according to their

child's gender (Bandura, 1997). In a longitudinal study by Eccles (1989), results showed

that parents' beliefs were consistent with cultural stereotypes that girls were less capable

in mathematics than boys, even when their grades were equivalent. Parents' gender-

linked beliefs have given rise to children's differing patterns of self-appriasal (Bandura,

1997). Phillips and Zimmerman (1990) found striking developmental gender differences

existed between children's ability and their perceived capabilities. Their results showed

boys tended to have an inflated sense of competence, whereas girls were more likely to

disparage their capabilities. Fouad and Smith (1996) also found differences between

middle school students' career expectations that were inconsistent with their actual math

and science capabilities. Although female students reported having stronger interests in

math and science occupations, their male counterparts had higher outcome expectations

for math and science occupations.

These studies provide evidence of the differences that exist between males and

females in terms of their self-efficacy and outcome expectations. Additional research on









these differences, specifically perceptions of barriers and supports are provided in

subsequent sections.

Unlike the extensive literature that exists on gender differences related to self-

efficacy, little research has been done examining ethnicity (Bandura, 1997). Some

studies have found differences in students' perceptions of career and academic self-

effiacy and outcome expectations between ethnic groups (Lauver & Jones, 1991; Noble,

Hackett, & Chen, 1992). Bandura (1997) believed ethnicity could exert its' effect on an

individual's psychosocial functioning in several ways. Through a culture's customs and

social practices, values and standards are molded. Social networks are formed that help

shape and regulate major aspects of one's life. This socialization process helps to

promote a sense of collective identity (Bandura, 1997). A person's cultural background

may influence the experiences that shape his or her efficacy beliefs, however self-

efficacy relates more directly than ethnicity to an individual's career and academic

attitudes and choices. For instance, Noble et al. (1992) found that students with high

academic self-efficacy were more likely to aspire to higher levels of education and

consider advanced occupational training regardless of their ethnicity.

Bores-Rangel, Church, Szendre, and Reeves (1990) found in their study of 35

migrant Hispanic students that stronger academic efficacy related to higher educational

aspirations and academic achievement. The researchers found that highly efficacious

students considered a wider range of occupations regardless of the required level of

education. Students also exhibited stronger interest in these occupations than did those

who lack confidence in their capabilities (Bores-Rangel et al., 1990).









Comparative studies of ethnic minorities have further shown the generalizability

of efficacy effects (Bandura, 1997). Findings from studies of career self-efficacy with

Caucasian Americans appear to be generalizable across ethnic minority groups within the

United States (Bores-Rangel et al., 1990; Church et al., 1992; Rotberg, Brown, & Ware,

1987), as well as other Western and non-Western countries (Clement, 1987; Matsui,

Matsui, & Ohnish, 1990; Matsui & Onglatco, 1991; Matsui & Tsukamoto, 1991;

Wheeler, 1983).

Bandura (1997) provided a thorough explanation of the role of ethnicity in SCCT:

The combined influence of low academic expectations and downgrading of
scientific aspirations in the students' schooling, deficient academic preparation, lack
of occupational role models and support systems for pursuits in scientific and
technological fields, and social barriers in opportunity structures will constrain
perceived occupation efficacy in various minorities and nonminorities alike (p.
438).

Socioeconomic status

Socioeconomic status (SES) is another important factor that is largely void in the

career literature (Rasheed, 2001). However, the research that has been conducted,

demonstrates that SES can have an influence on an individual's choice of academic

endeavors and the amount of education he or she expects to achieve (Hanson, 1994;

McWhirter, Hackett, & Bandalos, 1998; Trusty, 1998; Trusty, Ng, & Plata, 2000; Trusty,

Robinson, Plata, & Ng, 2000).

Bandura (1997) posited that the effect of SES on an individual's career-related self-

efficacy is indirect. By affecting parental and family efficacy beliefs, SES indirectly

influences the support structure for children's educational development and aspirations.

Parents' and family's sense of efficacy and aspirations raise their children's educational

aspirations and in doing so, raise the child's own academic, social, and self-regulatory









self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997). Children from various socioeconomic backgrounds differ

very little in terms of their occupational aspirations, however, differences have been

found to exist based on their perceptions of personal control. Children with high-

perceived efficacy are more likely to take preparatory steps toward achieving their

educational goals, while those who feel they have little personal control over their

occupational future tend to believe that working hard is not worth the effort (Bandura,

1997).

Although believed to be an indirect influence, SES has been shown to have

predictive power in determining college major. Trusty, Robinson et al. (2000) sampled

7,645 adolescents examining their post-secondary educational aspirations. Their findings

revealed that SES was a fairly strong predictor of the type of college major considered by

male and female students. In another related study, gender, SES, and ethnicity were

found to have a three-way interactive relationship. Ethnicity had the strongest effect on

males' choice of major and the weakest effect for females with high SES (Trusty, Ng et

al., 2000).

The results of these studies demonstrated that SES can interact with person inputs

such as gender and ethnicity, thus influencing career choice. Bandura (1997) believed

this influence is one of an indirect nature, stemming from parental and environmental

influences. However, given that the majority of students from rural areas are from

middle to lower SES backgrounds (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000, as cited in Rasheed, 2001)

it may be important to examine how SES, ethnicity, and gender may interact with the key

sociocognitive mechanisms and contextual factors considered in SCCT to influence

career development and choices.









Influences of Contextual Affordances

In addition to person inputs, environmental influences also have been found to

affect learning experiences and to have an indirect influence on self-efficacy and outcome

expectations. Lent et al. (1994) posited that contextual factors have an impact on

learning experiences. These factors affect socio-cognitive mechanisms that drive a

person's interests and career choices and comprise the opportunity structure in which an

individual forms and implements their career plans. Additionally, certain environmental

factors may also have a direct effect on choice formation and implementation.

In order to conceptualize these environmental influences, Lent and colleagues

(1994) have adapted the constructs of perceived "structure of opportunity" (Astin, 1984)

and "contextual affordance" (Vondracek, Lerner, & Schulenberg, 1986). Vondracek et

al. (1986) stated, "The concept of affordance centers on the idea that environments offer,

provide, and/or furnish something to the organism as long as the organism can perceive

'it' as such" (p. 38). In SCCT, Lent et al. (1994) incorporated the constructs of

contextual affordances and structure of opportunity to show how the differential

emphasis of perceived and actual aspects of the environment can influence an

individual's academic and career behavior. According to Lent et al. (1994), certain

behavioral patterns, such as gender role stereotyping, may have an effect on one's goals

and implementation of those goals, regardless of whether those patterns are actively

perceived by the individual. The actual effect of a contextual factor was found to depend

on the individual's appraisal and response to the particular factor (Vondracek et al.,

1986). This emphasis on personal perceptions is consistent with the importance SCT

places on cognitive appraisals that are believed to guide behavior (Lent et al., 1994).









For conceptual convenience, Lent et al. (1994) divided contextual affordances into

two subgroups. They based this division on the proximity of influence to career choice

points: (1) more distal, background influences, and (2) proximal influences. Background

influences are those that influence the learning experiences through which self-efficacy

and outcome expectations are developed, such as exposure to tasks or role models, the

nature of support or discouragement one receives for engaging in activities, and cultural

and gender socialization. Proximal influences are those that operate during the critical

choice junctures. These included support systems, such as personal network contacts,

and structural barriers, like discriminatory hiring practices (Lent et al., 1994). In the

SCCT, Lent et al. (1994) posited that proximal contextual factors may moderate the

relations of interest to choice goals and goals to actions. According to the model, if a

person perceives environmental barriers will impede his or her efforts, they are less likely

to translate his or her career-related interests into goals and goals into actions (Lent et al.,

2000). Conversely, an individual's perception of ample support and few barriers is

predicted to facilitate the process of transforming his or her interests into goals and

ultimately, goals into actions.

Within these two sets of influences some elements tend to overlap. Although their

influence may vary over time, contextual influences such as family and social inputs may

play key roles throughout an individual's academic and career progression (Lent et al.,

1994). Given the importance of contextual influences in shaping and moderating career

choices, the following sections will describe in greater detail, career-related barriers,

support systems, and specific contextual factors related to agricultural education.









Environmental barriers

In recent years, career barriers have been introduced in the literature primarily

focusing on women's career development (Swanson, Daniels, & Tokar, 1996; Swanson

& Woitke, 1997). Researchers believed studying barriers for women might provide a

means of explaining the restriction of woman's career aspirations and the gaps between

their abilities and achievement (Betz & Fitzgerald, 1987). Subsequently, the construct of

career barriers has since been expanded to include the study of racial-ethnic minority

groups and men's career development (Lent et al., 1994).

Swanson and Woitke (1997) defined career barriers as "events or conditions, either

within the person or his [her] environment, that make career progress difficult" (p. 446).

Lent et al. (1994) incorporated contextual influences into the SCCT model. However, not

until recently (Lent et al., 2000) did they expand on the role and specific location of

barriers and supports with the model. In 1997, Swanson and Woitke suggested that

barriers moderated relationships between socio-cognitive variables and that the nature of

a particular barrier would determine its role and location in the SCCT model. Lent et al.

(2000) concurred and expanded on the model by conceptualizing career barriers as either

background contextual factors that may influence self-efficacy and outcome expectations

through learning experiences and also as moderators of the interest-to-goal and goal-to-

action process. However, empirical tests of this relationship suggested that barriers and

supports are linked to choice goals and actions indirectly, through self-efficacy (Lent et

al., 2001; Lent et al., 2003). Based on the limited number of studies related to contextual

influences, Lent et al. (2003) recommended that further research be conducted studying:

(a) the SCCT contextual hypotheses, (b) relations of support and barrier precepts to









choice behavior within different cultural contexts, and (c) the dimensionality of

contextual influences.

Environmental supports

In addition to barriers, supports or support systems are also conceived within SCCT

as environmental variables that exert an influence on formation and implementation of

career pursuits (Lent et al., 2000). Research pertaining to contextual support mechanisms

has been rare, largely due to the interest in exploring barriers to women's career

development (Lent et al. 2000). Lent et al. (2000) suggested this barrier-focused view

might have constricted research on contextual effects. Lent et al. (2000) further

purported that to thoroughly study contextual roadblocks, it is essential to also study the

environmental factors that can facilitate career choice and development. Only a few

studies in the career development literature have examined the impact of contextual

support systems, such as parental, peer, and teacher support.

In a study of 1,863 high school students, Farmer (1985) found that parental support

was a significant predictor of the career aspirations of ninth graders, while twelfth graders

were more influenced by teacher support. Wall, Covell, and Maclntyre (1999) found that

high school males' and females' perceived peer, family, and teacher support was

predictive of students' perceptions of opportunity. In their investigation of 126 tenth

through twelfth graders, Lapan, Hinkelman, Adams, and Turner (1999) found that

students' perceptions of parental support were significant predictors of differences in

self-efficacy, perceived value, and vocational interests across four out of six groups

representing each of the types established by Holland (1966). Even in undergraduate

college students, parental encouragement has been found to have a significant effect on









learning experiences, self-efficacy, and outcome expectations (Ferry, Fouad, & Smith,

2000).

Additionally, Paa and McWhirter (2000) found in their study of 464 high school

students that differences between genders existed with regard to their perceived influence

of career expectations. Female students reported more positive influence from their

female parent, peers, and teachers, whereas, males perceived positive influence from their

father, as well as their mother, peers, and teachers. The influence of peers is also

demonstrated in Novi and Meinster's (2000) study of 500 adolescent girls. High

cohesion peer groups were found to exert a greater influence upon girls' academic

achievement efforts than lower cohesion peer groups.

Contextual influences relevant to Agricultural Education

In order to more fully understand the impact of background and proximal

contextual influences upon a preservice teacher's decision to enter the agriculture

teaching profession an expanded search of the literature was conducted. A number of

contextual factors were identified as possible supports and/or barriers to one's decision to

teach agriculture.

Gender Discrimination. The teaching profession is commonly considered a

traditional occupation for women. However, agricultural education differs in that it is

viewed as a male dominated field (Foster, 2001). In his 1987 national study, Knight

found that only 5.1% of agriculture teachers were women. While the United States

Department of Labor (DOL) Women's Bureau (2000) reported that women made up 38%

of the nation's labor force in 1970 and 42% in 1980. This total is expected to reach 48%

by the year 2008. In recent years, the percentage of males and females in secondary

agricultural education has shifted in a more equitable direction. In a 1998 nationwide









survey, Camp (2000) reported that the percentage of female teachers had risen to 15.8%

and more recently the survey showed that the number had reached 22% (Camp et al.,

2002). The Camp et al. (2002) study also noted that 43% of the newly qualified teachers

of agriculture were female, which is much more in line with the Department of Labor

estimate.

As the number of women in the field increased, researchers began to examine the

potential barriers faced by women entering the profession. In a study of 369 male

agriculture teachers in Ohio, Cano (1990) found perceptions of sexual discrimination

were evident and brought upon by male agriculture teachers. Data indicated that female

teachers perceived instances of sexual harassment by students and parents. Female

teachers also expressed concerns of gender bias in nominations for leadership positions

within their professional organization. A study by Foster, Pikkert, and Husman (1991)

found gender bias to be a definite deterrent to women considering the agricultural

education profession.

In 2001, Foster surveyed 579 female agriculture teachers from across the nation.

The results of the study showed that 61.7% of respondents reported experiencing barriers

or challenges as a teacher due to their gender. When asked what they felt was the

greatest barrier faced by female agricultural education teachers, the most common

response was "acceptance by peers and other males in industry" (p. 392). Other areas

that produced significant responses were: "balancing family and career, acceptance by

administrators, acceptance by community, and gender-related issues" (p. 392).

Teacher Preparation. Little research investigating the contextual influences

associated with teacher preparation programs exists in the current body of literature. For









the most part, the teaching internship experience has received the most attention. This

focus on field experience may be due to the commonly held belief that this component is

the "most important phase of teacher education" (Cruickshank & Armaline, 1986, p. 35).

The student teaching experience has been found to have a positive impact on preservice

teachers' perceived self-efficacy (Fortman & Pontius, 2000; Knobloch & Whittington,

2002).

Braswell and Cobia (2000) found that there was a significant increase in the

instructional self-efficacy of preservice teachers following their internship period.

Subjects' sense of performance accomplishment was also a significant predictor of

changes in self-efficacy. Fortman and Pontius (2000) found similar results in their study

of 100 preservice teachers in a variety of student teaching settings. Self-efficacy was

assessed using a pretest/post test method. Data analysis showed that the group of

preservice teachers made significant gains in efficacy as a result of their student

internship experience.

In 2002, Knobloch and Whittington analyzed the percent of variance in teacher

efficacy of 106 student and novice agriculture teachers in Ohio. Using selected variables

related to collective efficacy, teacher preparation quality, and student internship

experiences, they explained 17% of the variance in teaching efficacy. Teachers'

perceptions of their student internship experience accounted for 2.8% unique variance.

Cole (1984) provided a different perspective, suggesting that the quality of

technical agriculture preparation may contribute to an agricultural education graduates'

decision to enter teaching. Cole stated, "technical knowledge and hands-on skills are

important criterion to vocational agriculture [teacher] placement and retention" (p. 11).









He also added that teachers stay in the profession because of "acquisition of technical

skills, (from whatever source), professional preparation, and they enjoy the work and

student relationships" (p. 8).

Academic Achievement. Although no literature exists linking academic efficacy

to one's choice to teach agriculture, researchers have investigated the influence of

academic ability on graduates' decision to enter the teaching profession. Much of the

research in this area stemmed from a 1981 study by Schlechty and Vance of all newly

certified teachers in North Carolina between 1973 and 1980. These researchers

concluded that graduates with high academic ability were more likely to not enter

teaching than their lower performing colleagues.

Subsequent studies in agricultural education contradicted the findings of Schlechty

and Vance (1981). Muller and Miller (1993) examined 294 agricultural education

graduates who were certified between 1980 and 1989 at Iowa State University. Their

findings suggested that academic ability and adequacy of the teacher education program

provided no significant means of differentiating between graduates who enter teaching

and those who do not.

In McCoy and Mortensen's (1983) study of Pennsylvania agricultural education

graduation, results suggested that students who entered and remained in the teaching

profession actually achieved higher cumulative grade point averages and higher grades

on their student teaching experience than those who chose not teach or had left the

profession. Similarly, in 1991 Baker and Hodges found that agricultural education

graduates (n = 160) who entered teaching could be distinguished from those who opted

not to teach when compared by cumulative grade point average, grades in student









teaching and professional education courses, and certification status. In a multiple

regression analysis, these variables were found to explain 16% of the variance in graduate

career choice, with grades in student teaching and certification status being the most

powerful discriminating variables.

Agricultural and FFA Background. Although no studies have been conducted

examining the influence of contextual factors such as background and experience in

agriculture and FFA, these factors may have an impact on career decisions by moderating

self-efficacy, and interest-goal and goal-action processes.

As previously mentioned, Cole's (1984) study compared 151 agricultural education

graduates from Oregon State University who never taught, those who taught and quit, and

those who were still teaching. Cole examined graduates' experience with secondary

agricultural education and work experience in the agricultural industry. Data analysis

showed that a number of notable differences existed in these groups, especially between

those who never taught and those still teaching. When examining membership in FFA (4

years), 80% of graduates who are still teaching reported being FFA members, compared

to only 55% of those who never taught, and 74% of those who taught and quit. Another

difference was found in Supervised Occupational Experience Program (SOEP)

participation. Only 32% of graduates who chose not to teach had an SOEP for four years,

while 72% of those still teaching had SOEPs. When these two groups were compared on

the degree of activity in FFA and SOEPs, the results again showed that those still

teaching were nearly 20% more active than those who never taught. Cole also looked at

the number of years of agricultural work experience graduates possessed and found a

difference of only one year, however, about 11% more of those still teaching reported









that this work experience was of excellent quality (37% still teaching vs. 26% never

taught). The study also found virtually no difference when looking at the percentage of

graduates from rural high schools.

In 1987, Hillison, Camp, and Burke compared 1980 and 1985 agricultural education

graduates at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. When they examined

the influence of factors on graduates' decisions to become agricultural education majors,

they found that 1985 and 1980 graduates rated their farm backgrounds as the second and

fifth most influential, respectively. Graduates reported that their own agriculture teachers

were influential in the process of choosing agricultural education as a major. Another

important finding from this study was that the most influential factor for both groups of

graduates was that the agricultural education major provided an opportunity to get into

other agricultural jobs, besides teaching agriculture. Graduates found this flexibility to be

the most influential aspect of the major.

Although a study by Edwards and Briers (2001) focused on longevity in teaching

rather than on the decision to teach, they found that moderate relationships existed

between expected years of teaching and agricultural work experience, and between FFA

involvement and teachers' perceived level of competence. These researchers concluded

that teachers with more years of agricultural work experience and FFA involvement

expected to teach longer and were more confident in their abilities to do so.

Model Testing

The studies discussed in previous sections have primarily focused on specific

SCCT constructs, however a number of researchers have chosen to examine the tenets of

the SCCT as posited by Lent et al. (1994). In their monograph, Lent et al. posed a series

of predictions in the form of twelve propositions and related hypotheses. These









propositions have provided a structure in which researchers have tested the SCCT model

within different contexts. The following are the twelve prediction propositions posited

by Lent et al. (1994) in their SCCT model:

Proposition 1. An individual's occupational or academic interests at any point in
time are reflective of his or her concurrent self-efficacy beliefs and outcome
expectations.

Proposition 2. An individual's occupational interests also are influenced by his or
her occupationally relevant abilities, but this relation is mediated by one's self-
efficacy beliefs.

Proposition 3. Self-efficacy beliefs affect choice goals and actions both directly and
indirectly.

Proposition 4. Outcome expectations affect choice goals and actions both directly
and indirectly.

Proposition 5. People will aspire to enter (i.e., develop choice goals for)
occupations or academic fields that are consistent with their primary interest areas.

Proposition 6. People will attempt to enter occupations or academic fields that are
consistent with their choice goals, provided that they are committed to their goal,
and their goal is stated in clear terms, proximal to the point of actual entry.

Proposition 7. Interests affect entry behaviors (actions) indirectly through their
influence on choice goals.

Proposition 8. Self-efficacy beliefs influence career/academic performance both
directly and indirectly through their effect on performance goals. Outcome
expectations influence performance only indirectly through their effect on goals.

Proposition 9. Ability (or aptitude) will affect career/academic performance both
directly and indirectly through its' influence on self-efficacy beliefs.

Proposition 10. Self-efficacy beliefs derive from performance accomplishments,
vicarious learning, social persuasion, and physiological reactions (e.g., emotional
arousal) in relation to particular educational and occupationally relevant activities.

Proposition 11. As with self-efficacy beliefs, outcome expectations are generated
through direct and vicarious experiences with educational and occupationally
relevant activities.

Proposition 12. Outcome expectations are also partially determined by self-efficacy
beliefs, particularly when outcomes (e.g., successes, failures) are closely tied to the
quality or level of one's performance.









Proposition 1 has received the most attention in the literature. In this proposition,

Lent et al. (1994) proposed that at any given time, an individual's career or academic

interests are reflected by his or her self-efficacy beliefs and outcome expectations. Fouad

and Smith were the first to formally test this proposition in 1996. Using an ethnically

diverse sample of 380 middle school students, Fouad and Smith (1996) investigated

whether students' vocational interests were reflective of their self-efficacy beliefs and

outcome expectations. The study also included inquiries into propositions 3 and 4, which

hypothesize that self-efficacy beliefs and outcome expectations affect choice, goals, and

actions. Results of the structural equation modeling analysis supported the propositions

of Lent et al. (1994). Self-efficacy beliefs were shown to have a direct influence on

students' interests and an indirect influence on interests through outcome expectancies.

The model also revealed outcome expectations were a determinant of interests and

intentions, and interests were shown to be determinants of career intentions.

Schaffner and Jepsen (1999) conducted their own test of the SCCT model within

the context of a minority teacher recruitment program. In this study, the researchers

focused again on Lent et al.'s (1994) propositions 1, 3, and 4. This study also examined

proposition 5, which hypothesizes that people aspire to enter career fields that are

consistent with their interest areas. The sample consisted of 243 at-risk, minority high

school students from various cities. In this case, data analysis yielded mixed support for

propositions of the SCCT model. In support of proposition 1, self-efficacy was found to

be strongly linked to interests. However, contrary to proposition 1, the independent

effect of outcome expectancies on interests was not observed. Additionally, the influence

of teacher self-efficacy on teaching goals was found to be only an indirect influence









rather than the direct influence predicted in SCCT proposition 3. Examining the

influence of outcome expectations, researchers found that there was indeed a direct effect

on choice actions, however the relationship was reported to be negative, rather than the

positive nature predicted by SCCT. Lastly, results from the study also showed that

interests directly influenced choice actions supporting proposition 5 and earlier findings

by Lent et al. (1994).

In 2001, Smith tested propositions 1, 3, and 12 in an investigation of 289

undergraduates completing computer related coursework. Smith used path analysis to

examine the relationship among career self-efficacy, outcome expectations, career choice

goals, vocational interests, and career barriers. Findings were supportive of propositions

1 and 3; career self-efficacy had a significant relationship with vocational interest and

career choice goals. Smith did not produce supportive findings related to proposition 12,

in which no significant relationship between career self-efficacy and outcome

expectations existed.

Model Comparison and Integration

Only recently has Bandura's (1977) general social learning theory been applied to

career and academic behavior (Lent et al., 1994). In doing so, two distinct branches of

social cognitive theories have emerged. These theories include the social learning theory

of career selection posited by Krumboltz, Mitchell, and Jones (1976) and Betz and

Hackett's (1981) self-efficacy theory. The SCCT integrates important aspects of both of

these theories, yet it remains distinctly different from each (Lent et al., 1994).

Similar to the Krumboltz et al. (1976) social learning theory, the SCCT

acknowledges the impact of factors such as genetic endowment, special abilities, and

environmental conditions on career choice behavior (Lent et al., 1994). These theorists









also held similar views regarding the importance of learning experiences, and the

influence of person inputs, and contextual factors in guiding an individual's career

development. Where these theories differ is in what they attempt to explain. Krumboltz

et al. (1976) primarily focused on choice behavior, whereas the SCCT examined the

entire developmental process, choice behavior, and performance attainment (Lent et al.,

1994). Additionally, the two theories differ in the emphasis placed on self-efficacy

mechanisms. Social cognitive career theorists contend self-efficacy is a major mediator

of career choice and development, however it is Krumboltz's position that self-efficacy

plays a minor role in choice behavior (Lent et al., 1994).

The SCCT doesn't contrast the self-efficacy theory posited by Betz and Hackett

(1981), but rather builds upon it. These two theories share views of the importance of

self-efficacy and the moderating effect of perceived barriers. However, Lent and

colleagues (1994) have broadened their view of choice behavior to include the influence

of outcome expectations, interests, and performance.

The SCCT also has the potential to complement other popular theorists views of

career development. Holland's Theory of Types (1966) viewed career choice and career

adjustment as an extension of a person's personality (Sharf, 1996, p. 90). His theory

hypothesized that people tend to gravitate toward careers that are compatible with their

interests (Lent et al., 1994). Social Cognitive Career Theory shares a related view of

career interests. However, it builds upon it by suggesting the relationship between

interests and choice behavior is mediated by goals, and environmental features moderate

the relation of those goals to actions (Lent et al., 1994). For instance, an individual may

have an interest in a compatible career, yet he or she may be less likely to take action on









that interest due to an absence of support from a parent or other significant person in his

or her life.

The SCCT also exhibits a degree of commonality with Super's (1990) career

development theory. Like Lent et al., Super believed learning experiences were essential

in the development of personality variables related to career development, such as career

interests. Lent et al. (1994) emphasized specific learning processes and mechanisms not

contained in Super's theory. Social Cognitive Career Theory could serve as an adjunct to

Super's more general approach (Lent et al., 1994).

Chapter Summary

This chapter attempted to provide a review of the pertinent literature related to the

research problem of this study. A theoretical framework was presented based on

Bandura's (1977) Social Learning Theory. The conceptual basis of the study was

developed around the model of Social Cognitive Career Theory posited by Lent et al.

(1994). A description of the core sociocognitive components, self-efficacy, outcome

expectations, and choice goals were provided. The influence of other factors, such as

person inputs and contextual influences were also explained.

Research relevant to the sociocognitive components of SCCT was summarized.

This research provided support for the major tenets of SCCT theory, however a few

studies have found results contrary to some of the propositions posited by Lent and

colleagues (1994). These studies do provide evidence that SCCT has demonstrated its

utility for explaining development of specific career relevant interests of adolescents and

young adults. The reviewed studies suggest that sociocognitive mechanisms such as self-

efficacy, outcome expectations, and goal mechanisms are major components of the career

development and decision-making process. These mechanisms have been shown to






57


interact with learning experiences and person inputs to influence career behaviors and

interests. Although this research provides a basis for understanding the career

development process for a number of age groups and within various contexts, no such

research has been conducted in agricultural education. Given the domain specificity of

the career development process and lack of research related to career decision in

agricultural education, the need for additional research in this area is obvious.














CHAPTER 3
METHODS

Chapter 1 provided an introduction and basis for this study. The current teacher

shortage in agricultural education was discussed and a need for further research was

established. The purpose of this research study was presented as well as the research

question and objectives. The chapter concluded by defining key terms, outlining

assumptions and stating limitations of the study.

In Chapter 2, the theoretical and conceptual framework for this study was outlined.

A review of the relevant literature provided a thorough background on the SCCT and its

core components: self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and goals, as well as other

variables related to this study. The literature review yielded a limited amount of research

pertaining to the career decision-making process of preservice agriculture teachers, thus

establishing a need for additional research.

This chapter outlines the research methodology used in conducting this study. The

research design, study procedures, population and sample, instrumentation, data

collection, and analysis are addressed.

The purpose of the study was to describe the influence and predictive nature of

person inputs, contextual influences, self-efficacy, and outcome expectations on

preservice agricultural teachers' intentions to pursue a teaching position and their

intended length of teaching tenure. The dependent variables for this study were

preservice agriculture teachers' intentions to pursue a teaching position, and the number

of years they expected to remain in the profession. The independent variables consisted









of person inputs, contextual influences, perceived self-efficacy, and outcome

expectations.

Research Design

This study utilized a causal-comparative design (Gall, Borg, & Gall, 1996). Causal-

comparative research is a type of quantitative research that attempts to discover possible

cause-and-effect relationships between variables. This is done by comparing individuals

with certain behavior patterns or personal characteristics with those that are lacking or

exhibit these patterns or characteristics to a lesser degree (Gall et al., 1996). This method

is commonly referred to as ex post facto research because the relationships or possible

causes of a given phenomenon are studied after they have exerted their effect on another

variable (Gall et al., 1996). In the case of this study, the independent variables have

already affected the decision-making process of the preservice teachers. Therefore,

experimental manipulation and control would be impossible. It was, however, possible to

investigate potential relationships between the existing independent variables and the

dependent variables of the study.

Causal-comparative and experimental research designs share some similarities.

Both research methods can be utilized to test hypotheses regarding the relationship

between independent and dependent variables. Causal-comparative research can yield

the same kind of information that an experimental design can provide (Ary et al., 2002).

However, causal-comparative methods provide researchers with less convincing evidence

of causal relationships between variables than do experimental methods. This is

primarily due to the researcher's inability to control the independent variables by

manipulation and lack of randomization. Due to this lack of control, an inference about

the causal relationships between variables is hazardous in a causal-comparative study









(Ary et al., 2002). A researcher may mistakenly attribute causation based on an observed

relationship between variables. This error is referred to as "post hocfallacy (Ary et al.,

2002, p. 337). According to Ary et al. (2002), if a researcher wishes to conclude that a

variable (X) is the cause of an effect on another variable (Y), three types of evidence are

necessary: (1) a statistical relationship between variables X and Y must be established,

(2) variable X must precede Y in time, and (3) it must be determined that other factors

did not cause Y. By testing and determining that no other factors caused Y, researchers

can exclude the possibility of a spurious relationship. Ary et al. (2002) defines a spurious

relationship as "one in which the two variables really have no effect on each other but are

related because some other variable influences both" (p. 337).

In order to draw correct conclusions from a study, Campbell and Stanley (1966)

state that internal validity is a basic requirement. Given the similarities between

experimental and causal-comparative research they also share some of the same threats to

internal validity and external validity. Ary et al. (2002) defined internal validity as "the

extent to which the changes observed in a dependent variable are, in fact, caused by the

independent variable in a particular experimental situation rather than by some

extraneous factors" (p. 281).

Campbell and Stanley (1966) identified eight extraneous variables that frequently

pose a threat to the internal validity of a research design. These threats include: history,

maturation, testing, instrumentation, statistical regression, differential selection,

mortality, and the interaction of these threats. Given the design and survey procedure

used in this study, the most serious threat to internal validity comes from the

measurement instrumentation. Threats due to history, maturation, testing, and mortality









were controlled for through the selection of a sample that represented the entire

accessible population. Concerns pertaining to statistical regression and differential

selection were also addressed by the sample selection. By including all fall teaching

interns across the nation in the sample, it ensured that participants were selected based on

a naturally occurring characteristic rather than a characteristic determined by the

researcher.

The threat of an instrument to the internal validity of a study is the result of the

unreliability of the instrument (Ary et al. 2002). This threat can be further broken down

into four areas of concern when utilizing a questionnaire for data collection. These

instrumentation threats include: face validity, content validity, construct validity, and

criterion-related validity (Ary et al. 2002).

Face validity is simply a matter of whether the instrument appears valid for its

intended purpose (Ary et al., 2002). In this study, a panel of experts consisting of five

university faculty specializing in teacher education (four) and communications (one)

reviewed the instrumentation ensuring its face validity. After a thorough review,

suggestions were proposed and modifications made to the instrument establishing its face

validity.

Content validity is the degree to which the scores yielded from an instrument

represent the content that the instrument was supposed to measure (Gall et al., 1996).

Threats to content validity were eliminated by the expert panel's review of the

instrument's content and also by analyzing the results of a pilot test conducted prior to

the actual study. The pilot instrument was administered to 36 preservice teachers

enrolled in agriculture teaching methods courses at three different institutions. This









sample of students was determined to be similar to the study's target population by the

panel of experts.

Construct validity is the extent to which an instrument assesses a construct that it

purports to measure (Gall et al., 1996). Establishing construct validity is difficult given

the abstract nature of a construct. Constructs are defined as "abstractions that cannot be

observed directly" (Ary et al., 2002, p. 32). Examples of common constructs measured in

educational research are motivation, anxiety, satisfaction, efficacy, and self-concept. The

instrument used in this study proposed to measure five constructs. To ensure that the

instrument provided an accurate representation of the desired constructs, the researcher

utilized the panel of experts, reviewed the literature that provided empirical evidence

supporting construct validity, and conducted post hoc analysis of the internal consistency

of the pilot-tested instrument. Further explanation regarding the construct validity and

reliability of the instrument will be discussed later in this chapter.

The final threat to internal validity addressed in the study was criterion-related

validity. Criterion-related validity was determined by answering the question of whether

the instrument was the correct way to assess the construct it was designed to measure

(Ary et al., 2002). To ensure this was the case, the panel of experts was again consulted

and a thorough review of the literature was conducted which provided empirical evidence

of the criterion-related validity of the instrument.

The causal-comparative design of this study also posed external validity concerns

that had to be addressed. External validity refers to the generalizability or

representativeness of the study's findings (Ary et al., 2002). Questions pertaining to the









population and ecological external validity of this study have been considered and are

addressed in the next section pertaining to the study's population and sample.

Population and Sample

The population of this study consisted of all preservice agriculture teachers

completing their teaching internship experience in all agriculture teacher preparation

programs throughout the nation during the 2004-2005 academic year. A purposive

sample of 262 student teachers was selected from 42 institutions. This constituted all

students completing their internship experience during the Fall 2004 academic term. This

sampling method, also referred to as convenience sampling, was deemed to be

appropriate when "sample elements judged to be typical, or representative, are chosen

from the population" (Ary et al., 2002, p. 169). Gall et al. (1996) stated that data

collected from a convenience sample could be analyzed using inferential statistics

provided that the sample is carefully conceptualized to represent the target population.

Therefore, attempts to generalize the findings of this study will be contingent upon

researchers efforts to find evidence the population of interest is similar to those

preservice agriculture teachers included in the sample selected for this study. Chapter 4

provides a description of the respondents, allowing researchers to compare this sample to

the population.

Procedure

Prior to collecting the primary data for this study, a pilot test was conducted. The

pilot test was necessary to establish the validity and reliability of the measurement

instrument used in the study. With the exception of the teacher efficacy scale

(Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001), all other measurement scales were

developed and modified by the researcher for this study. However, most of the scales









used in this study were based on similar scales found in the career development literature

and previously determined to be valid and reliable.

Prior to beginning the pilot study the researcher submitted the study's protocol for

review and received approval from the University of Florida Institutional Review Board

(see Appendix A). The pilot study was conducted in October of the Fall 2004 semester.

The pilot instrument was administered to 36 preservice teachers in agricultural teaching

methods courses at three institutions representing each of the geographic regions of the

American Association for Agricultural Education. The institutions included California

State University, Fresno of the Western Region, University of Missouri of the North

Central Region, and the University of Florida representing the Southern Region. This

convenience sample consisted of 22 female (61%) and 14 male students in the final year

of their agriculture teacher preparation program. The participants had a mean age of 23

years. The ethnicity of the group was 94% Caucasian and the remainder were

Hispanic/Non-Caucasian. Results of the pilot test and further explanation of each

measurement scale is provided later in this chapter.

The procedures for conducting the main study began early in the Fall 2004

semester. By utilizing the 2004 membership directory of the American Association of

Agricultural Educators (AAAE) a list of 89 teacher preparation institutions was

generated. In mid October, an email message was sent to the Department Chair or lead

teacher educator at each institution explaining the purpose of this study and soliciting

their participation (see Appendix B). After 10 days, those institutions not replying to the

email were sent a follow-up request (see Appendix C). If an email response was not

received after one week, the researcher then attempted to make contact via the telephone.









Eligibility for this study required that the institution had students completing their

teaching internship experience during the fall semester, and a faculty member must

administer the instrument at, or as near as possible to the conclusion of the semester. An

institution's willingness to participate was demonstrated by their response to the email or

expressed in the telephone conversation and also by providing the researcher with the

number of teacher interns under their supervision. The instruments were mailed to

teacher educators during the first week of November with instructions and administered

during regular meetings or seminars with student teachers. The packet of information

sent to teacher educators included specific directions for administering the instrument

(see Appendix D) and informed consent forms (see Appendix E). A follow-up email was

sent one week after the instruments were mailed to confirm teacher educators received

the materials and as a reminder to administer the instrument prior to or at the end of the

academic term. Completed instruments were returned to the researcher in the provided

return envelope. Institutions not returning completed questionnaires by the first of

December were sent an email reminder (see Appendix F). The final email contact was

made during the first week of January, requesting an expeditious return of the completed

questionnaires or confirmation of the institution's decision to not participant in the study

(see Appendix G). Following the return of each institution's study materials an email

was sent to the institution's contact person confirming the receipt of the materials and

thanking them for their assistance (see Appendix H).

Instrumentation

To accurately assess the independent and dependent variables in this study,

numerous measurements were needed. When possible, existing instruments with

established validity and reliability were used in their entirety or after modification









appropriate for the specific population of this study. In the following sections, each

instrument is presented in further detail with its established reliability and validity.

Demographics Instrument (Person Inputs)

A researcher-developed instrument was used to collect demographical data (see

Appendix I). In the context of the Social Cognitive Career Theory, demographical data is

referred to as "person inputs." An expert panel of five faculty from the Department of

Agricultural Education and Communication and the Department of Teaching and

Learning at the University of Florida reviewed the 10-item instrument and established

face and content validity. Items were determined to have "an accurate, ready-made

answer" and did not demand considerable time or thought, nor did they create

considerable variation, therefore the instrument posed little threat to reliability (Dillman,

2000, p. 35).

Preservice Agriculture Teacher Intentions and Aspirations Scale

This instrument was developed by the researcher based on the Career Aspiration

Scale (O'Brien, Gray, Tourajdi, & Eigenbrode, 1996). The Career Aspiration Scale

(CAS) used ten 5-point Likert-type items to assess the degree to which individuals aspire

to advancement and leadership positions within their careers. The CAS includes four

reverse scored items and all items were summated to calculate an individual's total score.

O'Brien et al. (1996) reported the CAS had an estimated alpha coefficient of .73 for a

sample of 107 high school females.

The researcher-developed instrument consisting of 18 items was developed by

selecting relevant items from the CAS and also by using CAS items as a basis to create

new items that better reflect the career aspirations of preservice agriculture teachers (see

Appendix L). In post-hoc analysis of the pilot study data (n = 34) the Preservice









Agriculture Teacher Intentions and Aspirations Scale was found to have an alpha

estimate of .86.

For the purposes of describing preservice agriculture teachers' scores on the

Intentions and Aspirations scale, summated scores were categorized as low, moderate, or

high. The range of scores were divided into thirds, which equated to summated scores of

66 or greater being considered high, scores between 43 and 65 were categorized as

moderate, and those of 42 or less were considered low intentions and aspirations to teach

agriculture.

Teacher Efficacy Scale

To measure perceptions of self-efficacy related to teaching, the researcher utilized

the Teachers' Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES) [See Appendix K] developed by

Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001). Through factor analysis, these researchers

found this scale measured teachers perceived confidence on three identifiable sub-

constructs, which included student engagement, using instructional strategies, and

classroom management. This 12-item scale uses a 9-point Likert-type response format

ranging from "Nothing" (1 point) to "A Great Deal" (9 points). Individual scores for the

construct were calculated by a summation of the 12 items. Higher scores on the scale

indicated greater perceived confidence in one's teaching ability.

Through a series of three developmental studies, which included 624 preservice and

inservice teachers, Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001) established the internal

consistency of the scale. Over the three studies, the TSES had a reported estimated alpha

of .90. Further evidence of internal consistency was provided by the post-hoc reliability

analysis of the pilot test, which yielded an estimated alpha of .86 (n = 35).









In order to describe participants' level of teacher efficacy the researcher categorized

teacher efficacy scores as high, moderate, or low. These categories were determined by

dividing the possible range of scores on the TSES in thirds. This meant that summated

scores of 76 or greater were considered to be high efficacy scores, 75 to 45 were

moderate, and scores of 44 or less were categorized as low.

Preservice Agriculture Teacher Expectations Scale

The Vocational Outcome Expectations (VOE) [McWhirter, Rasheed, & Crothers,

2000] scale served as an example for the development of the teacher expectation scales

used in this study. The VOE is a six-item scale that assesses career outcome

expectations. For a sample of 166 high school sophomores the Cronbach's alpha for the

VOE was .83.

Based on the VOE, the researcher developed a 14-item scale (See Appendix L)

incorporating the outcome expectations mentioned in the agricultural education literature

(i.e. Burke & Hillison, 1991; Coughlin et al., 1988). Results of the pilot test yielded an

alpha coefficient of .68 (n = 35). The nature of this alpha coefficient was such that

further investigation of the reliability of this scale was warranted, which lead the

researcher to conduct post-hoc analysis of the final study data. These findings will be

presented in Chapter 4.

Preservice agriculture teacher expectations were described in this study as high,

moderate, and low. The range of possible summated scores were divided evenly into the

three categories, so that expectations scores of 52 or greater were considered high, 51 to

34 were moderate, and scores of 33 or less were considered to be low expectations

scores.









Preservice Agriculture Teacher Career Barriers Scale

The career barriers scale utilized in this study was developed by the researcher

based on the Perceptions of Educational Barriers (POE) scale developed by McWhirter

(1997b). The POE is an 84-item assessment designed to measure three dimensions of

barriers to the pursuit of post-secondary education. The researcher developed a 14-item

scale utilizing two of the dimensions outlined by McWhirter (1997b), which include the

likelihood of encountering barriers and the difficulty of overcoming barriers. In 2000,

McWhirter et al. found estimated alpha coefficients for the likelihood and difficulty

subscales of .95 and .91, respectively.

The Preservice Agriculture Teachers Career Barriers Scale developed by the

researcher consisted of 14 double-scaled items (see Appendix M). Participants were

asked to indicate how likely they were to encounter each barrier in their decision-making

process and also, if they did experience such a barrier how difficult would each be to

overcome. Both scales consisted of 5-point Likert-type items with the likelihood scale

ranging from "Not at all Likely" (1 point) to "Definitely Likely" (5 points) and the

difficulty scale ranging from "Not all all Difficult" (1 point) to "Could not Overcome" (5

points). Results of the post hoc reliability analysis of the pilot test (n = 35) provided an

alpha coefficient of .75 for the Likelihood scale and .86 for the Difficulty scale.

In describing the findings of this study, career barriers scores were categorized as

high, moderate, or low. As with the preceding instruments, the range of possible scores

was divided into thirds by the researcher. Summated scores of 49 or greater were

considered high, 48 to 34 were moderate, and scores of 33 or less were considered to be

low.









Preservice Agriculture Teacher Support Scale

A researcher-developed instrument was used to measure the amount of support

perceived by preservice agriculture teachers pertaining to their decision to enter teaching

or not (see Appendix N). The development of this instrument was inspired by five scales

used by Rasheed (2001) to measure students' perceptions of the degree to which they

experienced support from parents, siblings, friends, and teachers with respect to their

educational and occupational activities, ideas, and plans. Given the broad scope and

excessive length of these five scales (118 items), the researcher created a 14-item scale

that focused specifically on preservice agriculture teachers' decisions to enter the

profession. The instrument included items related to the amount of perceived support

from parents, siblings, friends, and school staff and teachers. The researcher used a 5-

point Likert-type scale and also included a response choice for participants to indicate

those persons who were not applicable in their case. The results of the pilot test yielded a

Cronbach's alpha of .74 (n = 7) for the support scale. Due to the small number of eligible

cases caused by the occurrence of persons deemed to be non-applicable by the

participants, additional data and further analysis seemed appropriate to provide stronger

evidence of the reliability of this scale. Thus, post-hoc reliability analysis of the final

study data was performed to provide additional evidence of the internal consistency of

the support scale. The findings of this analysis will be provided in Chapter 4.

Analysis of Data

Data analysis was conducted using SPSS version 12.0 for WindowsTM. The first

objective of the study was accomplished using descriptive statistics, specifically means

and frequencies. In doing so, summated scales of Likert-type items were treated as

interval data as outlined by Clason and Dormody (1994). The use of Likert scaling









presumes the existence of a latent or underlying continuous variable. The value of this

variable characterizes the respondents' attitudes and opinions. Clason and Dormody

(1994) stated, "If it were possible to measure the latent variable directly, the

measurement scale would be, at best, an interval scale" (p. 31). Given the nature of the

attitudinal construct scales included in this study and the established research base for

these constructs, the researcher concluded that the treatment of summated scores as

interval data was appropriate.

In order to determine that no multicollinearity effects existed in the models, each

independent variable was regressed on the other independent variables. According to

Agresti and Finlay (1997), in this type of analysis researchers should be concerned about

possible multicollinearity effects when the value of the coefficient of multiple

determination (R2) is close to 1. This would suggest that the variable might not be

needed in the model, once the others are included.

In order to accomplish objectives two and three, multiple regression models were

utilized. The coefficient of multiple determination (R2) was used to explain the variance

in the dependent variables based on the independent variables. In both cases, a stepwise

elimination process was used for building the model. This procedure begins by placing

all independent variables in the model and deletes one variable from the model at each

step. As each variable is dropped from the model the procedure also drops any variables

that no longer make significant partial contributions until all the remaining variables are

found to be significant predictors of the dependent variable (Norusis, 2004).









Chapter Summary

This chapter addressed the methods utilized to achieve the objectives and to test the

hypotheses identified in Chapter 1. In doing so, the research design, population and

sample, procedure, instrumentation, and data analysis were discussed.

The design of this study was identified as causal-comparative. The attributes of this

research design were presented and the threats to validity were addressed. The

independent variables in this study were person inputs, contextual influences, self-

efficacy, and outcome expectations. The dependent variables were preservice agriculture

teachers' intentions to pursue a teaching position, and the number of years they intended

to remain in the profession.














CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

Chapter 1 provided an introduction and basis for this study. The current teacher

shortage in agricultural education was discussed and a need for further research was

established. The purpose of this research study was presented as well as the research

question and objectives. The chapter concluded by defining key terms, outlining

assumptions, and stating limitations of the study.

In Chapter 2, the theoretical and conceptual framework for this study was outlined.

A review of the relevant literature provided a thorough background on the SCCT and its

core components: self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and goals, as well as other

variables related to this study. The literature review yielded a limited amount of research

pertaining to the career decision-making process of preservice agricultural teachers, thus

establishing a need for additional research.

Chapter 3 outlined the research methodology used in conducting this study. The

research design, study procedures, population and sample, instrumentation, data

collection, and analysis were addressed. The design of this study was identified as

causal-comparative. The purpose of the study was to describe the influence and

predictive nature of person inputs, contextual influences, self-efficacy, and outcome

expectations on preservice agriculture teachers' intentions to pursue a teaching position

and perception of their teaching longevity. The dependent variables for this study were

preservice agriculture teachers' intentions to pursue a teaching position, and the number

of years they expected to remain in the profession. The independent variables consisted









of person inputs, contextual influences, perceived self-efficacy, and outcome

expectations.

This chapter presents the findings of this study. The results address the objectives

of this study in determining the predictive nature of person inputs, contextual influences,

self-efficacy, and outcome expectations on preservice agriculture teachers' intentions to

pursue a teaching position and their intended length of teaching tenure.

The population of this study consisted of all preservice agriculture teachers

completing their teaching internship experience during the 2004-2005 academic year at

all of the agriculture teacher preparation programs throughout the nation. A purposive

sample of 262 preservice teachers was selected from 42 institutions. This constituted all

students completing their internship experience during the Fall 2004 academic term.

After following the data collection procedures outlined in Chapter 3, usable

responses were received from 215 preservice agriculture teachers from 34 institutions,

representing 25 states (see Table 4-1). Based on the aforementioned sample size, a

response rate of 82.1% (n = 215) was achieved, with 81% of the institutions contributing

responses.

In cases where a respondent failed to respond to a single item within a construct

scale, the missing item was replaced by the mean of the participant's responses on the

other items within the scale (DeVaus, 1990). In cases where the participant did not

respond to an entire scale or failed to respond to a demographic question, the variable

was coded as missing and excluded from analyses involving the variable.

Prior to data analysis, post-hoc reliability analyses were conducted for each of the

instrument scales developed or modified by the researcher. A post-hoc reliability









analysis was also performed on the Teachers Sense of Efficacy Scale since no such

analysis was found in the literature pertaining to this population. All of the scales within

the instrument measured participant responses using Likert-type items, therefore tests for

internal consistency were performed using Cronbach's alpha.


Table 4-1 Institution and Preservice Teacher Participation Summary
Preservice
Institution Teachera Participants
Auburn University 1 0
University of Arkansas 2 2
Arkansas State University 3 3
Southern Arkansas University 4 3
California Polytechnic State University, Pomona 1 0
California Polytechnic State University, San Luis 13 12
Obispo
California State University, Chico 1 1
California State University, Fresno 1 1
Colorado State University 2 1
University of Delaware 1 0
Fort Valley State University 2 2
Southern Illinois University 4 2
Western Illinois University 2 2
Iowa State University 3 1
Kansas State University 2 2
Western Kentucky University 5 4
College of the Ozarks 2 2
Montana State University 2 2
University of Nebraska 5 1
New Mexico State University 10 9
Cornell University 8 3
North Carolina A & T State University 1 1
North Dakota State University 1 1
The Ohio State University 36 34
Oklahoma State University 11 11
Panhandle State University 4 0


%

0.0
100.0
100.0
75.0
0.0
92.3

100.0
100.0
50.0
0.0
100.0
50.0
100.0
33.3
100.0
80.0
100.0
100.0
20.0
90.0
37.5
100.0
100.0
94.4
100.0
0.0









Table 4-1 Continued
Preservice
Institution Teacher Participants %
Clemson University 1 1 100.0
South Dakota State University 11 10 90.9
University of Tennessee at Martin 2 2 100.0
Middle Tennessee State University 3 3 100.0
Texas A & M University 33 33 100.0
Prairie View A & M University 1 0 0.0
Sam Houston State University 10 9 90.0
Stephen F. Austin State University 3 0 0.0
Tarleton State University 17 16 94.1
Texas Tech University 17 17 100.0
Utah State University 13 12 92.3
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State 1 1 100.0
University
Washington State University 2 0 0.0
West Virginia University 5 5 100.0
University of Wisconsin Platteville 4 0 0.0
University of Wisconsin River Falls 12 5 41.7
Total 262 215 82.1
Note: aPreservice Teachers indicates total number of students completing teaching
internship experiences during fall 2004 semester as reported by the university contact.

As shown in Table 4-2, the reliability estimates for the construct scales ranged from

.84 to .92. All of the reliability coefficients increased from the estimates established

previously by analysis of the pilot data. A notable increase was observed in the Teaching

Expectations Scale. The pilot test analysis of this scale yielded a Cronbach's alpha of

.68, whereas post hoc data analysis from the study produced a Cronbach's alpha of .84.

Due to the small number of usable instruments in the pilot test, questions also remained

about the reliability of the Teaching Support Scale. The post hoc reliability analysis

provided further evidence of the reliability of this scale with a coefficient estimate of .91

(n = 53). The Teacher Support Scale included a response item of "Not Applicable",









which, for purposes of analysis was coded as missing data. The existence of any missing

data resulted in the software package dropping all of an individual's data from the

reliability analysis, therefore only those participants who responded to every item were

included in the analysis. For the purpose and objectives outlined in this study, the results

reported in Table 4-2 suggest that all of these instrument scales are sufficiently reliable

(Borg et al., 1996).

Table 4-2 Post-Hoc Instrument Reliability
Instrument n Reliability
Teaching Intentions and Aspirations Scale 215 .88
Teachers' Sense of Efficacy Scale 215 .92
Teaching Expectations Scale 213 .84
Likelihood of Career Barriers Scale 207 .86
Difficulty of Overcoming Career Barriers Scale 207 .90
Teaching Support Scale 53 .91
Note. All reliability coefficients were estimated using Cronbach's alpha.

Objective One

Describe the person inputs (demographics), contextual influences, self-efficacy, and
outcome expectations of preservice agriculture teachers in selected collegiate
agriculture teacher preparation programs.

Person Inputs Age, Gender, and Ethnicity

Of the 215 participants in the study, 52.1% were female (n = 112). The ages of the

participants ranged from 21 to 57 years (see Table 4-3). The average age of the

participants was 24.06 years (SD = 4.85, n = 215). The ethnicity of the participants was

93.4% Caucasian (n = 198), 2.4% Hispanic/Latino (n = 5), 1.9% Native

American/Alaskan (n = 4), 1.4% African American (n = 3), and 0.9% Asian (n = 2).









Table 4-3 Age of Study Participants
Years f %
21 23 144 66.9
24 26 44 20.5
27 30 12 5.5
31 -33 6 2.8
34-36 3 1.4
37 -40 2 1.0
41-43 0 0.0
44 46 1 0.5
48 50 1 0.5
51 + 2 1.0

Background Contextual Influences

Background influences include those variables related to the experience of

preservice agriculture teachers that may have an impact on the career decision-making

process. These variables include: grade point average, involvement in 4-H and the

National FFA Organization, location of childhood/adolescent residence, and occupational

experience.

Grade point average

Participants reported their cumulative and major grade point averages by selecting

which range of values represented their grade point average. Over 64% of the preservice

agriculture teachers (n = 212) included in this study reported cumulative grade point

averages above 3.0; furthermore, 25% of the participants reported cumulative grade point

averages above 3.5 (see Table 4-4). Less than 1% of the participants reported cumulative

grade point averages below 2.5 and none less than 2.0.

Of the 214 respondents, 84.1% indicated that their major grade point average was

greater than 3.0, with nearly 46% reporting major grade point averages above 3.5 (see









Table 4-4). Approximately 16% of the participants indicated major grade point averages

of 3.0 or less. No respondents reported major grade point averages below 2.0.

Table 4-4 Participants' Cumulative and Major Grade Point Averages
Cumulative GPA Major GPA
Grade Point Average f % f %
2.1-2.5 1 0.5 1 0.5
2.6 3.0 74 34.5 33 15.4
3.1 -3.5 84 39.5 82 38.3
3.6 -4.0 53 25.0 98 45.8

Involvement in 4-H programs

Participants were asked to respond to two items related to their level of involvement

in 4-H programs. In the first item, participants reported the number of years they had

been involved in 4-H. Participants' responses ranged from 0 to 18 years with a mean of

5.19 years (SD = 4.82) [see Table 4-5]. The second item asked that participants to report

their level of involvement in 4-H. Of the 212 respondents, 38.0 % (n = 81) indicated they

were "Very Involved", 29.6% (n = 63) reported being "Moderately Involved", and the

remaining 32.4% (n = 69) were "Not at all Involved".

Table 4-5 Participants' Years of Involvement in 4-H
Years f %


0
1-5
6-10
11-15
16+


31.1
24.5
28.2
14.6
1.5


Involvement in the National FFA Organization

The participants also reported the number of years and level of involvement in the

National FFA Organization. The 213 respondents indicated 0 to 10 years of involvement









in FFA, and an average of 4.04 years (SD = 2.40) [see Table 4-6]. Over 67% of the 214

respondents reported being "Very Involved" in FFA (n = 144), while 15.9% (n = 34)

believed they were "Moderately Involved", and 16.8% (n = 36) were "Not Involved at

All".

Table 4-6 Participants' Years of Involvement in FFA
Years f %
0 31 14.6
1-2 15 7.0
3-4 92 43.2
5-6 45 21.1
7-8 21 9.9
9+ 9 4.2

Enrollment in Agricultural Education

The participants reported the total number of years in which they were enrolled in

middle and high school agriculture classes. The 214 respondents indicated a range of 0 to

7 years of enrollment in agricultural education (see Table 4-7). The mean number of

years participants were enrolled was 3.29 (SD = 1.73).

Table 4-7 Participants' Years of Enrollment in Agricultural Education
Years f %
0 33 15.4
1-2 19 8.8
3-4 133 62.1
5-6 28 13.0
7 1 0.5

Location of childhood/adolescent residence

Participants were asked to indicate the location that best described their childhood

and adolescent residence. Of the respondents (n = 214), over 86% reported living in a

rural setting, with 56.5% (n = 121) of the participants living on a rural farm and 29.9% (n









= 64) living in a rural area but did not consider their residence a farm. Most of the

remaining participants (10.7%, n = 23) reported their residence to be in a suburban area,

while only 2.9% (n = 6) grew up in an urban setting.

Occupational experience

Participants were asked to specify the number of years of occupational experience

they possessed in four categories: full-time agricultural experience, part-time agricultural

experience, full-time non-agricultural experience, and part-time non-agricultural

experience. The respondents (n = 208) indicated a range of 0 to 32 years of full-time

agricultural occupational experience (see Table 4-8), with an average of 3.42 years (SD =

5.52). Respondents (n = 208) reported 0 to 24 years of part-time agricultural

occupational experience and a mean of 3.78 years (SD = 4.35). When asked the number

of years of non-agricultural work experience, the 208 respondents indicated 0 to 25 years

of full-time experience with an average of 1.53 years (SD = 3.29), and 0 to 12 years of

part-time experience and an average of 2.0 years (SD = 2.49). Analyses were also

conducted to determine the proportion of participants who possessed no occupational

experience in the combined categories of agricultural and non-agricultural experience.

Of the 209 respondents 8.6% (n = 18) reported no agricultural occupational experience,

while 24.9% of respondents (n = 52) had no non-agricultural experience. Every

participant reported either agricultural or non-agricultural experience and in some cases

participants indicated having both.









Table 4-8 Participants' Agricultural and Non-agricultural Occupational Experience
Agricultural Non-agricultural
Full-time Part-time Full-time Part-time
Years f % f % f % f %
None 106 51.0 62 29.8 133 63.9 94 45.2
1 -3 37 17.8 57 27.4 43 20.7 61 29.3
4 -6 25 12.0 47 22.6 23 11.0 42 20.2
7 -9 12 5.8 20 9.6 4 2.0 6 2.9
10-12 10 4.8 15 7.3 2 1.0 5 2.4
13- 15 5 2.4 1 0.5 0 0.0 0 0.0
16-18 8 3.9 3 1.5 0 0.0 0 0.0
19-21 4 1.9 0 0.0 1 0.5 0 0.0
22 24 0 0.0 3 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.0
25 + 1 0.5 0 0.0 1 0.5 0 0.0

Teaching Intentions and Aspirations

Teaching intentions scores were determined by summing the values of the 18 items

included in the construct scale. Summated scores were calculated for all 215 participants.

The minimum possible score for the construct was 18 and the maximum was 90.

Participants' scores were found to be between 36 and 85, which resulted in a range of 49

(see Table 4-9). The summated mean score was 65.71 (SD = 10.59), which based on the

instrument scale and the criteria established in Chapter 3, the mean would be considered

to be high (high = 66 or greater). The individual item means ranged from 2.79 to 4.39

(see Table 4-10) and the median ranged from 2 to 5. The means of the six negatively

worded items ranged from 1.86 to 3.95 and medians were found from 2 to 4. These items

were reverse coded in calculating each individual's summated intentions score.

To collect additional evidence of preservice teachers' intentions to teach and to

verify the accuracy of the Teaching Intentions Score, participants were asked to respond

to this question, "Do you plan to teach agriculture?" This item asked participants to









respond by selecting either "yes" or "no". Of the 211 respondents, 80.1% (n = 169)

indicated that they plan to teach agriculture. Those participants who planned to teach

were found to have teaching intention scores ranging from 49 to 85 with a mean of 69.31

(SD = 7.89). Those who indicated they did not plan to teach had teaching intentions

scores ranging from 36 to 66 with a mean score of 51.62 (SD = 8.15). The point biserial

correlation between these variables was r = .67 (refer to Table 4-14 presented later in this

chapter).

Table 4-9 Participants' Teaching Intentions and Aspirations Summated Score
Summated Score f %
36 44 8 3.7
45 53 21 9.8
54 62 47 21.9
63 -71 67 31.2
72 80 59 27.4
81 + 13 6.0

Intended Length of Teaching Tenure

Participants were asked to estimate the number of years they intend to teach, if they

were to enter the agriculture teaching field. The participants (n = 190) reported intended

tenures from 0 to 40 years (see Table 4-11). The mean of the respondents was 20.87

years (SD = 11.07).









Table 4-10 Summary of Participants' Responses on Individual Items of the Teaching
Intentions and Aspirations Scale


Item
I plan on playing an important role in the accomplishments of my
students.
I plan to stay informed and become involved in issues pertaining
to my profession.
I would likely take an agriculture teaching position if it were
offered to me.
I see myself having an active role in the development of a
successful agriculture program at my school.
I would like to have responsibility for FFA, SAE, and other
agricultural program activities.
When I'm established in my career, I would like to help prepare
and mentor new professionals in my field.
I plan to pursue an agriculture teaching position.
I plan on developing into an expert in my career field.
I truly want to teach agriculture.
I would take a job other than teaching agriculture if the right
opportunity were offered to me.
I'm going to look for jobs in fields other than agricultural
education.
I hope to minimize the amount of time I spend working after
business hours and on weekends.
I do not want to work in any other field besides agricultural
education.
I would prefer to work in a career field other than agricultural
education.
I would not consider another profession besides teaching even if a
good opportunity were presented to me.
I would be satisfied just teaching my classes and doing nothing
more.
I would not plan on devoting time to further professional
development beyond the requirements of my job.
I'm certain that I will not teach agriculture.


M
4.40


Mdn
5


4.39 4 .70

4.20 4 1.03

4.20 4 .95

4.16 4 1.07

4.13 4 .90


4.03
3.98
3.97
3.95a


1.13
.90
1.15
1.04


3.35a 3 1.18

3.01a 3 1.09

2.79 3 1.07

2.55a 3 1.17


2.28


2 1.05


2.20a 2 1.12

1.90a 2 .89

1.86a 2 1.09


Note. Rating Scale: 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree. aActual mean score
reported here, coding was reversed when computing summated scores.









Table 4-11 Participants' Intended Length of Teaching Tenure
Years f %
None 5 2.6
1 -5 25 13.3
6-10 23 12.1
11 15 16 8.4
16 20 27 14.2
21 -25 16 8.4
26 30 58 30.5
31 -35 12 6.3
36+ 8 4.2

Career Interests Other Than Agricultural Education

Participants were asked to specify other career, educational, or personal plans they

may pursue if they were to decide not to teach agriculture. Responses to this open-ended

item were categorized and frequencies are reported in Table 4-12. Participants were

allowed to provide multiple responses. In all, 819 different responses were observed (see

Appendix N). Responses were sorted into 20 categories by the researcher. Participants

reported 56 responses expressing an interest in other teaching opportunities or subjects.

Other career and life interests frequently mentioned, in descending order, were extension

and youth development, agricultural and non-agricultural business, production

agriculture, public relations and marketing, banking and lending, family/homemaker, and

animal science and health industry.









Table 4-12 Participants' Career, Educational, and Personal Interests Other than Teaching
Agriculture
Category f
Other teaching positions or subjects 56
Extension and youth development 35
Agricultural business 33
Business non-agricultural 32
Production agriculture 29
Public relations and marketing non-agricultural 17
Banking and lending 13
Family/Homemaker 12
Animal science and health industry 11
Government service and agencies 9
Advanced education 8
Other agricultural jobs 8
Natural Resource conservation 6
Communications including agriculture 6
Horticulture and landscaping 6
School administration and counseling 5
Armed services and law enforcement 4
Medical and dental fields 4
Real Estate 4
Agricultural literacy 3
Note. Complete list of participants' responses provided in Appendix N.

Teacher Efficacy

Teacher efficacy scores were calculated by summing the participants' responses on

the TSES instrument. The TSES instrument consisted of 12 9-point Likert-type items.

The lowest possible summated score for this instrument was 12 and the highest possible

was 108. Participants' scores (n =215) ranged from 51 to 108, which resulted in a range

of 57 (see Table 4-13). The mean teacher efficacy score was 88.91 (SD = 10.44). This

mean would be described as high, given that high levels of teacher efficacy were

categorized as summated scores of 76 or greater. The means of the individual items