The Influence of a Train-The-Trainer Professional Development on Teacher Perceptions of Science Integration and Inquiry-...

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
The Influence of a Train-The-Trainer Professional Development on Teacher Perceptions of Science Integration and Inquiry-Based Instruction.
Physical Description:
1 online resource (235 p.)
Language:
english
Creator:
Blythe, Jessica M
Publisher:
University of Florida
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date:

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Doctorate ( Ph.D.)
Degree Grantor:
University of Florida
Degree Disciplines:
Agricultural Education and Communication
Committee Chair:
MYERS,BRIAN E
Committee Co-Chair:
OSBORNE,EDWARD WAYNE
Committee Members:
THORON,ANDREW C
ADAMS,ALYSON JOYCE

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
agriscience -- development -- inquiry -- integration -- professional -- teacher -- train -- trainer
Agricultural Education and Communication -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre:
Agricultural Education and Communication thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract:
The purpose of this study was to describe the influence of the train-the-trainer professional development form of professional development on participants' perceptions of agriscience integration and inquiry-based instruction (IBI). The independent variables considered were elements of high-quality professional development, such as duration, active participation, coherence, and school culture; teacher attitudes towards professional development; and teacher demographics. The dependent variables assessed were teachers' perceptions of agriscience integration and IBI. This study utilized a quasi-experimental design to assess the impacts of a teacher professional development program and experimental follow-up support on secondary teachers' perceptions of science integration and IBI. This study was a census of all teachers who attended a 2012 professional development workshop facilitated by a National Agriscience Teacher Ambassador at the FFA and/or NAAE National Convention. Participants completed four surveys over the subsequent year to assess their perceptions of agriscience integration and IBI. Descriptive methods were used to analyze teachers' perceptions of agriscience integration and IBI. Correlations and follow-up regression analysis were conducted to determine the relationships between the teachers' perceptions and the elements of high-quality teacher professional development. Results of the study revealed that respondents had favorable perceptions of science integration into agriculture programs and planned to increase the levels of science integration in their programs. Additionally, a majority of respondents reported utilizing IBI more than once a week. Because participants of the study did not utilize the experimental follow-up support system for the workshop, clear effects could not be determined. There was a positive correlation between science integration and IBI. A variation of positive and negative correlations was found between the dependent and independent variables. Five models were found to be significant predictors of respondents' perceptions of science integration three models were found to be significant predictors of IBI. These findings indicate that teachers perceive science integration and IBI as positive influences in secondary agriculture education which supports the integration of science and science teaching techniques in secondary agriculture education programs. Though relationships exist between science integration and IBI, and various elements of school culture and professional development, further investigation is needed to better understand these relationships and their predictive variability.
General Note:
In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note:
Includes vita.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description:
Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description:
This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Jessica M Blythe.
Thesis:
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2014.
Local:
Adviser: MYERS,BRIAN E.
Local:
Co-adviser: OSBORNE,EDWARD WAYNE.

Record Information

Source Institution:
UFRGP
Rights Management:
Applicable rights reserved.
Classification:
lcc - LD1780 2014
System ID:
UFE0046642:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 THE INFLUENCE OF A TRAIN THE TRAINER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT ON TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF SCIENCE INTEGRATION AND INQUIRY BASED INSTRUCTION By JESSICA MARIE BLYTHE A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVER SITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2014

PAGE 2

2 2014 Jessica Marie Blythe

PAGE 3

3 To all the agriscience teachers who mentor, encoura ge, and care for their students and to my students at Bak er Country High School, Florida

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First and foremost, I would like to thank my loving parents, JoAnn and Keith. Their unwavering support has been instrumental in allowing me to gro w into the person I have become, both professionally and personally. I would also like to thank my Nana and Duke for all of the love and encouragement a granddaughter could ever need. Over the years I have asked my family to support me as I moved farther a nd farther away from home. They have instilled in me a sense of curiosity and love for life long learning. Their caring, compassionate, and understanding natures have allowed me to strive for my professional goals while knowing I have a strong foundation i n my family. I am blessed to have you as my family and I love you all. I would also like to thank those friends who have become my sisters over the years as they enabled me to put school first Tera, Meggers, Ida, and Lauren. They provided support and bal ance in my life. Your encouragement, support and ideas have been greatly cherished. I would also like to thank my little sister, Julie. Your mastery of the English language and skill in academic writing are amazing! I am sure that I will learn from you for I would like to acknowledge the work of my advisor and mentor, Dr. Brian Myers, and thank him for all he has done to help me succeed in graduate school. Over the course of my graduate program he has worked hard to provide me with a variety of experiences to help me become a qualified faculty member and pursue a career about which I am passionate. I know that he will continue to be a trusted advisor and mentor as I enter the profession; I only hope that I can live up to his expectations as young faculty member.

PAGE 5

5 The members of my committee, Dr. Ed Osborne, Dr. Alyson Adams, and Dr. Andrew Thoron, have shown true dedication to the improvement of this work and my development as a future fac ulty member. They provided sound structure and questioned my ideas throughout the process to ensure a high quality research study and also to help me learn how to defend my decisions. They have put in numerous hours reading this dissertation, and I know th at it was at times very tedious. I would also like to express my gratitude for my amazing Ag Ed family. To my high school agriscience teachers, Ms. Wilard, Mrs. LaFlamme and Mr.Griffin, who instilled a love for Ag Ed through modeling dedication to the pro fession and their students. To Ms. Farrah Johnson, my trusted mentor, you showed me how determination and hard work can help make a difference and not just an impression. Your dedication to your students and service to the profession is inspirational. I ho pe that I can live up to the example you set. To Greg Johnson, my trusted co teacher and partner in teaching for four years, thank you for all that you have taught me over the years. As I have moved on into higher education you have always kept me grounded in the practical applications of the work I have done and still need to do. I have always valued your opinion and trusted your advice. To the Ag Ed teachers in Florida and across the nation, you have become more than just my peers but also my friends. Tha nk you for your dedication to your students, it is always inspirational. Finally, I would like to thank the undergraduate and graduate students I have worked with in AEC over the past 3 years. To the countless lunch buddies, study partners, office mates, mentors and mentees: You ha ve made work feel like a second home I am grateful for all of you.

PAGE 6

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS page LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 10 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 13 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................ ................................ ........................... 14 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 15 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 17 Preparing Effective Teachers ................................ ................................ .................. 17 Professional Development ................................ ................................ ...................... 20 Professional Development in Agricultural Education ................................ ........ 23 National Agriscience Teacher Ambassador Academy ................................ ...... 23 Statement of the Problem ................................ ................................ ....................... 24 Purpose of the Study ................................ ................................ .............................. 25 Statement of Objectives ................................ ................................ .......................... 26 Significance of the Study ................................ ................................ ........................ 26 Definition of Terms ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 28 Limitations of the Study ................................ ................................ ........................... 30 Assumptions of the Study ................................ ................................ ....................... 32 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 33 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE ................................ ................................ .................... 35 Theoretical Model Guiding the Study ................................ ................................ ...... 35 Constructivism ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 36 Model for High Quality Teacher Professional Development ............................. 39 High quality teacher professional development experiences ..................... 40 Train the trainer form of teacher professional development ...................... 44 Teacher knowledge and practice ................................ ............................... 49 Educational policies ................................ ................................ ................... 51 School cultur e ................................ ................................ ............................ 53 Student learning outcomes ................................ ................................ ........ 54 Review of Literature ................................ ................................ ................................ 56 Core Facets of High quality Teach er Professional Development ..................... 56 Content ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 58 Duration ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 58 Coherence ................................ ................................ ................................ 60 Active participation ................................ ................................ ..................... 60 Format ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 61

PAGE 7

7 Train the Tra iner Form of Teacher Professional Development ........................ 62 Context ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 63 Trainer professional development ................................ .............................. 64 Facilitator ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 67 Teacher trainer ................................ ................................ ........................... 68 Teacher participants ................................ ................................ .................. 69 Professional development program ................................ ........................... 69 Teacher Knowledge and Practice ................................ ................................ ..... 73 Educational Policies ................................ ................................ ......................... 75 School Culture ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 76 Student Learning Outcomes ................................ ................................ ............. 78 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 79 3 METHODS ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 84 Researc h Design ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 84 Professional Development Program ................................ ................................ ....... 86 Procedures ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 87 Population ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 88 Intervention ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 88 Instrumentation ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 89 Data Collection ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 92 Data Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 93 Research Objective One and Two ................................ ................................ .... 94 Research Objective Three ................................ ................................ ................ 94 Research Objective Four ................................ ................................ .................. 94 Research Objective Five ................................ ................................ .................. 94 Research Objective Six ................................ ................................ .................... 95 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 95 4 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 99 Response Rates ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 100 PostHoc Reliability of Instruments ................................ ................................ ........ 102 Description of the Population ................................ ................................ ................ 103 Objective One ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 110 Objective Two ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 118 Objective Three ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 123 Objective Four ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 124 Objec tive Five ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 124 Objective Six ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 129 5 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIO NS ................................ 175 Objectives ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 176 Methods ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 177 Summary of Findings ................................ ................................ ............................ 180

PAGE 8

8 Description of Population ................................ ................................ ................ 180 Objective One ................................ ................................ ................................ 182 Objective Two ................................ ................................ ................................ 184 Objective Three ................................ ................................ .............................. 185 Objective Four ................................ ................................ ................................ 1 86 Objective Five ................................ ................................ ................................ 186 Objective Six ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 187 Conclus ions ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 188 Implications from Findings ................................ ................................ .................... 190 Objective One: Describe the long term perceptions of science integration in agriculture following a trainer led professional development workshop ................................ .......... 190 long term perceptions of inquiry based instruction (IBI) implementation following a trainer led professional development workshop ........................ 193 NATAA follow up support after a trainer led pr ofessional development workshop ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 194 Objective Five: Determine the relationship between NATAA workshop science integration in agriculture and IBI and selected elements of the high quality teacher professional development model ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 194 Obj ective Six: Determine the predictive variation of teacher perceptions of science integration in agriculture and IBI based on elements of the high quality teacher professional development model ................................ ........ 197 Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 199 Relationship between Science integration in agric ulture and Implementation of IBI ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 199 High Quality Teacher Professional Development ................................ ........... 200 Designing Studies Accessing Teachers over Time ................................ ........ 201 Recommendations for Future Research ................................ ............................... 202 Recommendations Related to Teacher Professional Development ............... 202 Recommendations Related to Science Integration in Agriculture and Inquiry Based Instruction ................................ ................................ ............. 204 Recommendations for Teacher Professional Development ................................ .. 205 Recommendations for Agricultural Education ................................ ....................... 205 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 207 APPENDIX A RESOURCE REMINDER ................................ ................................ ..................... 208 B CONTENT REMINDERS ................................ ................................ ...................... 209 C INTEGRATIVE SCIENCE SURVEY ................................ ................................ ..... 211 D INQUIRY BASED TEACHING TECHNIQUES ................................ ...................... 215

PAGE 9

9 E SCHOOL CULTURE SURVEY ................................ ................................ ............. 217 F TEACHER ATTITUDES TOWARDS PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT ............ 219 G CORE FACETS OF PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT QUESTIONS ................ 220 H IRB INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE EMAIL, AND CONSENT EMAIL ................ 221 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 225 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 234

PAGE 10

10 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3 1 I nternal validity threats and controls ................................ ................................ ... 97 3 2 Data collection timeline ................................ ................................ ....................... 97 3 3 Aligned research objectives with instrumentation and data analysis .................. 98 4 1 Treatment group membership and participant totals ................................ ........ 131 4 2 Response rates for data collection componen ts ................................ ............... 131 4 3 PostHoc reliability of instruments ................................ ................................ ...... 131 4 4 Demographic profile of respondents ................................ ................................ 132 4 5 ................. 133 4 6 Means for school culture survey ................................ ................................ ....... 133 4 7 ................................ .... 134 4 8 ................................ ..... 136 4 9 duration during NATAA workshops ................................ ................................ ... 138 4 10 development of collective participation during NATAA workshops ................................ ............. 138 4 11 development of coherence during NATAA workshops ................................ ..... 139 4 12 development of active participation during NATAA workshops ........................ 140 4 13 ............... 141 4 14 .................... 142 4 15 ........... 143 4 16 ............ 144 4 17 ............. 145 4 18 to integrate science ................... 146

PAGE 11

11 4 19 ........ 147 4 20 December respon ......... 148 4 21 student recruitment ................................ ................................ ........................... 149 4 22 recruitment ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 149 4 23 cience integration on student recruitment ................................ ................................ ........................... 150 4 24 student recruitment ................................ ................................ ........................... 150 4 25 ................ 151 4 26 ...................... 152 4 27 ........... 153 4 28 egration ............ 154 4 29 ................................ ....................... 155 4 30 enrollment ............ 156 4 31 ................................ ........ 156 4 32 activities and planning when implementing inquiry based instruction ................................ ............................. 157 4 33 implementing inquiry based instruction ................................ ............................. 158 4 34 implementing inquiry based instruction ................................ ............................. 159 4 35 implementing inquiry based instruction ................................ ............................. 160 4 36 n implementing inquiry based instruction in a specific class ................................ 161 4 37 when implementing inquiry based instruction in a s pecific class ...................... 162

PAGE 12

12 4 38 implementing inquiry based instruction in a specific class ................................ 163 4 39 instruction ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 164 4 40 classroom instruction ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 165 4 41 instruction ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 166 4 42 instruction ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 167 4 43 Ask an expert email correspondence ................................ ............................... 168 4 44 Participants support for implementing IBI ................................ ......................... 168 4 45 Participant explanation for non use of ask an expert follow up support ........... 169 4 46 Correlations between variables in January ................................ ....................... 170 4 47 Correlations between variables in May ................................ ............................. 170 4 48 Correlation s between variables in September ................................ .................. 171 4 49 Correlations between variables in December ................................ ................... 172 4 50 Regression analysis of responden January, May September and December ................................ ......................... 173 4 51 based teaching techniques in January, May Sep tember and December ................................ ... 174

PAGE 13

13 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2 1 A model for the study of high quality teacher professional development utilizing train th e trainer model for professional development ............................ 81 2 2 The Train the trainer design for teacher professional development ................... 82 2 3 A m odel for the study of high quality te acher professional development ............ 83

PAGE 14

14 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS FFA T HE N ATIONAL FFA O RGANIZATION IBI I NQUIRY BASED I NSTRUCTION ISS I NTEGRATIVE S CIENCE S URVEY ITT I NQUIRY BASED T EACHING T ECHNI QUES NAAE N ATIONAL A SSOCIATION OF A GRICULTURAL E DUCATORS NATAA N ATIONAL A GRISCIENCE T EACHER A MBASSADOR A CADEMY NCTAF N ATIONAL C OUNCIL ON T EACHING AND A MERICA S F UTURE NRC N ATIONAL R ESEARCH C OUNCIL NWP N ATIONAL W RITING P ROJECT SCS S CHOOL C ULTURE S URVEY Q U ESTIONNAIRE TAP T EACHER A TTITUDES TOWARDS P ROFESSIONAL D EVELOPMENT Q UESTIONNAIRE T T T T RAIN THE T RAINER

PAGE 15

15 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements fo r the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy THE INFLUENCE OF A TRAIN THE TRAINER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT ON TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF SCIENCE INTEGRATION AND INQUIRY BASED INSTRUCTION By Jessica Marie Blythe May 2014 Chair: Brian E. Myers Major: Agricultu ral Education and Communication The purpose of this study was to describe the influence of the train the trainer of agriscience integration and inquiry based instructio n (IBI). The independent variables considered were elements of high quality professional development, such as duration, active participation, coherence, and school culture; teacher attitudes towards professional development; and teacher demographics. The d ependent variables This study utilized a quasi experimental design to assess the impacts of a teacher professional development program and experimental follow up support on secondary t science integration and IBI. This study was a census of all teachers who attended a 2012 professional development workshop facilitated by a National Agriscience Teacher Ambassador at the FFA and/or NAAE National Convention. Particip ants completed four surveys over the subsequent year to assess their perceptions of agriscience integration and IBI. Descriptive methods were

PAGE 16

16 and follow up regression an alysis were conducted to determine the relationships quality teacher professional development. Results of the study revealed that respondents had favorable perceptions of science integration into agriculture programs and planned to increase the levels of science integration in their programs. Additionally, a majority of respondents reported utilizing IBI more than once a week. Because participants of the study did not utilize the experimental follo w up support system for the workshop, clear effects could not be determined. There was a positive correlation between science integration and IBI. A variation of positive and negative correlations was found between the dependent and independent variables. Five models were found to be significant predictors of significant predictors of IBI. These findings indicate that teachers perceive science integration and IBI as positive influ ences in secondary agriculture education which supports the integration of science and science teaching techniques in secondary agriculture education programs. Though relationships exist between science integration and IBI, and various elements of school culture and professional development, further investigation is needed to better understand these relationships and their predictive variability.

PAGE 17

17 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Building and developing a better teacher workforce has been a focus across the United States (National Council on Teacher Quality, 2012; National Commission on [NCTAF] 2010). Approximately 36% of teachers have not graduated from a university or college teacher preparation program (NCTAF, 2010), while almost on e quarter of teachers have emergency or substandard teaching licenses (NCTAF, 2010). Additionally, teaching has been such a c hallenging profession that as many as one third of all teachers have left the profession within three years, and 50% have left with in five years (Ingersoll, 2003). The accumulations of these factors and other factors have demand ed that continuous professional development opportunities skills and unders tandings of teacher practice. Preparing Effective Teachers schools and students. Teaching is not just a technical activity but one that requires theoretical and practical understanding and abilities related to teaching and learning (National Research Council, 1996). The gap between teaching practices a nd educational reform outcomes ha s not been without reason: the teaching profession has changed over the past century, continuously alter ing the knowledge and skills that teachers need in order to positively impact student learning (Darling Hammond & Bransford, 2005). In order to close the gap between teacher preparedness and the knowledge and skills demanded by the changes in society, con tinuous teacher

PAGE 18

18 professional development has become a standard of educational reforms and an expectation of teachers. Before formal teacher education programs existed in the United States, the assumption was that anyone who had completed a given level of e ducation could teach effectively up to that grade level (Labaree, 2008). However, the common school movement of the early nineteenth century induced not just a need for more teachers but also demanded higher teacher qualifications. This increased the nece ssity for systematic and professional training in the teaching profession (Labaree, 2008). In the nineteenth century teacher education occurred in a variety of organizational settings until state Normal Schools emerged in the last quarter of the century (L abaree, 2008). More recently, preservice teacher education degrees have been offered through a variety of institutions. This has allowed teachers to enter the classroom with a variety of backgrounds in teaching and learning and participate in professional development from an assortment of sources. When hoping to increase student learning outcomes and success, one must begin with recognition of the impact teachers have on student outcomes. New student performance expectations have impl ied that new ways of te aching are needed. Schools cannot be improved without improving the skills and abilities of the teachers who work in them (Darling Hammond et al 2009), because teachers are the direct connection to the students Teaching quality has been found to be one o f the most important factors in raising stude nt achievement (Mitzell, 2010). In the past 100 years, a shift has occurred from teachers as the professional in charge of making decisions about curriculum, teaching, learning and assessment for

PAGE 19

19 their classroom s to a culture where state s have made the decisions about what students learn, what they must achieve as the outcome, and what standards apply (Days & Sachs, 2004). Though both mindsets have recognized the need for teacher learning, adaptation, and change in order to successfully create a culture of student their classroom has diminished due to constraints by educational policies and administrators. Reform efforts in education have required a substantive change in how classes are taught (NRC, 1996; 2009). School reform and current legislative actions have demanded instructional changes designed to address the need for higher student achievement in the United States today (Ashdown & Hummel with the need to raise standards of achievement and improve their positions in the world economic tables, governments over the last 20 years have intervened more actively to school system must start with change in teacher practices, thus creating a strong need for continuous and effective teacher preparation and professional development (D arling Hammond & Bransford, 2005 ). Teaching is a diverse and complicated practice and no indiv idual can be expected to know everything about the profession simply by earning a degree in education (Dar ling Hammond & Bransford, 2005). The credit requirements of undergraduate teacher preparation programs have limited the time available to prepare pres ervice teachers for the many responsibilities of being a teacher (M yers, Dyer, & Washburn, 2004).

PAGE 20

20 teach, which must begin with pre Hammond & McLaugh l in, 1995, p. 203). Professional development is a complex process, which mirrors the complexity of the purposes and practices of teaching and learni ng. The p rofessional development of teachers must be a continuous, life long learning process (Desimone, 2009; NRC, 1996) in which teachers engage to help create a culture of life long learning for their students and school (Mitzell, 2010). An evelopment must be ongoing and situated in an authentic context where new meanings are co constructed and internalized through interactions with others (Darling Hammond & McLaug h lin, 2005; Guskey, 2000; Po lln ow, 2012). Though most professional development has focused on the needs of beginning teachers, a majority of experienced teachers have also confront ed challenges each year (Roberts & Dyer, 2004) Experienced teachers have face d changes in subject matter, new instructional methods, new technology, chang ed laws or standards, and different student l earning needs (Mitzell, 2010). Professional development has allowed teachers to strengthen teaching practice throughout their careers to help provide the best educationa l practices for their students. Profession al Development patchwork of opportunities stitched together into a fragmented and incoherent hers have var ied widely. Some have perceive d professional development as everything a learning experience should not be an imposed, brief, deficit o riented, underfunded process lacking rigor and coherence, treated as an additional responsibility for teac hers instead of part of a natural process (Days & Sachs, 2004). Others have perceive d

PAGE 21

21 professional development as an inspiring, engaging learning opportunity that can impact ing from an individual commitment to learning (Days & Sachs, 2004). The philosophy behind professional development has evolved from a focus on training teachers to adopt particular teaching practices in their classrooms to a focus on helping teachers adopt a critically reflective approach to teaching and learning that allows them to examine when effective teaching is occurring in their classrooms (Smith, Hofer, Fillespie, Solomon, & Rowe, 2003). Prior to the mid 1990s, teacher professional development was a matter of voluntary commitment or something for those with career ambitions (Craft, 2000). Teachers have pursue d individual professional development opportunities, from (Gu skey, 2000). Additional professional development has occurred in social settings through conversations with other teachers, joining professional associations, and classroom observations (Wilson & Ba rne, 1999). Teachers have experience d a wide range of acti vities and interactions that can influence their knowledge and skills; improve their teaching practice; and contribute to their personal, social and emotional growth (Cohen, McLaughlin, & Talbert, 1993; Desimone, 2009). Though professional development has been an expected part of the teaching profession for decades, little evidence existed that describe d what professional development programs have looked like over time (Webster Wright, 2009). What teachers learn during professional development and what aspe cts of professional develop ment promote teacher change have remained difficult to determine, because of

PAGE 22

22 the lack of clear, systematic information concerning professional development (Desimone, 20 09 ). Though the literature has identifie d a common set of cha racteristics that need to be considered to make professional development effective, littl e direct evidence has shown these characteristics are related to improve d teaching practices and increased student achievement (Garet et al., 2001; Loucks Horsley et a l., 2011 ; U.S. Department of Education, 1999). Some studies have suggested professional development that shares all or most of the identified characteristics can have a substantial, positive influence on tea Birman, Desimone, Gare t, & Porter, 2000; Garet et al., 2001). If teachers critically and reflectively engage in professional development activities designed to develop learning, meet student needs or manage change to the classroom environment then professional development can l ead to teacher change (Gu, 2007). Research has criticized professional development opportunities as ineffective necessary for increasing teacher knowledge and fosterin g meaningful changes in their Horsley, Hewson, Love, & Stiles, 1998, p.258 ). Duration and follow up support of a professional development program was found to be related to the degree of teacher change (Shields, Mars h, & Adelman, 1998; Weiss, Montgomery, Ridgeway, & Bond, 1998). The lack of evaluative information on the professional development opportunities from which teachers and school districts can choose (Hill, 2009) has shown that little was known about what teachers actually lea rn while at tending professional development programs (Wilson & Berne, 1999).

PAGE 23

23 Professional Development in Agricultural Education Professional development programs have historically assisted agriculture teachers in developing the knowledge and skills necessa ry to perform their teaching roles (Barrick, Ladewig, & Hedges, 1983; Birkenholz & Harbstreit, 1987). Like agricultural professionals in other fields, agriculture teachers must be continually updated on advances within the agriculture industry, in addition to continually refining their education professional skills (Guskey, 2000; S c hunk, 2008). As any other teacher, agriculture teachers have been expected to take part in professional development ( Greiman, 2010 ), yet little is known about the professional de velopment experiences of secondary agriculture teachers. Due to the diversity between and within states, professional development opportunities for agriculture teachers must include breadth and depth of content, in additi on to being diverse in format (Harr is, 2008 ). Secondary agriculture teachers must take advantage of a diverse array of professional development opportunities to keep current with the changes that take p lace in education and the agriculture industry ( Harris, 2008 ). National Agriscience Teach er Ambassador Academy One of the longest running national professional development opportunities for secondary agriculture teachers has been the National Agriscience Teacher Ambassador Academy (NATAA). Over 170 teachers from 48 states have participated in NATAA over the past 10 years (NAAE.org, 2013). NATAA focused on the incorporation of inquiry scientific knowledge (NAAE.org, 2013). The Academy has three guiding object ives (NAAE.org, 2013) :

PAGE 24

24 Provide teachers with educational resources, training and information on ways to implement science based activities in classroom for environmental science, food science, sustainability and biological sciences; Share lesson plans, l aboratory exercises and teaching strategies in order to improve the resources available to teaching agriscience; Train and influence the next generation and future employees who will advance agricultural sciences to the next level. NATAA has utilized a tra in the trainer (TtT) professional development model. The premise of this model has been that a select group of teachers from across the United States participates in an intensive, weeklong professional development program that immerses them in inquiry base d instruction (Myers & Parker, 2011). Upon completion the teachers become trainers, with the expectation that they will then conduct additional workshops to help additional teachers (participants) learn how to utilize IBI in their classrooms. NATAA has als o offered follow up opportunities for the trainers. However, no follow Thoron, & Thompson, 2009; Sh oulders & Myers, 2011; Thoron, Myers, & Abram 2011). However, the impact of trainer led workshops on the participants had not been determined Statement of t he Problem Profes sional development programs have been an essential component o f the ng Hammond & Bransford, 200 5 ). The ever evolving educational practices and standards that have dominated have demand ed continuously developed to meet the needs o f their learners ( Webster Wright 2000 ).

PAGE 25

25 Wh ile professional development has been a mandated part of teacher practice, the opportunities for professional develop ment have not always resulted in changes in teacher practice (Garet et al, 2001 ). The NRC (2009 & 1996) and the National Research Agenda (Doerfert, 2011) have called for an examination of teacher professional development practices as a way to develop highl y qualified, expert teachers wh o can impact student learning. A common recommendation has been that professional development be recognized as part of the continuous life long learning process for individual and professional growth, enabling teachers to bec ome robust experts in learning processes. While research has focused mainly on teacher satisfaction, commitment to innovation (Desimone, 20 09 ), and detailing key characteristics and design elements of professional development (Good, 2007), little research has examined interactions between the elements of professional development and teacher change in practice. Analysis of professional development characteristics has no t shown any single formula for teacher professional development that creates change in te acher practice. Ther e has been a perceived weak correlation between teacher professional development and effective sustained improvement in teacher practice. This study addressed this problem by beginning to address this problem by exploring the various el ements of high quality development content over the course of a year. Purpose of the Study The primary purpose of this study was to describe the influence of the train the t of science integration in agriculture and inquiry based instruction

PAGE 26

26 Statement of Objectives In order to meet the above purpose se veral objectives were developed: Objective 1 term perceptions of science integration in agriculture following a t rainer led professional development workshop. term perceptions of inquiry based instruction (IBI) implementation following a t rainer led professional development workshop. Objective 3: To det ermine N ATAA follow up support after a t rainer led professiona l development workshop. Objective 4: To determine the effects of online follow up on NATAA workshop science integration in agriculture and IBI. Objective 5: To determine the relationship between NATAA workshop pe rceptions of science integration in agriculture and IBI and selected elements of the high quality teacher professional development model (teacher variables, professional development program variables, school culture and other professional development). Obj ective 6: To predict teacher perceptions of science integration in agriculture and IBI based on the elements of the high quality teacher professional development model. Significance of the Study This study was significant for agricultural teacher educators seeking to create models. The train the trainer professional development model has been a well received model for teacher professional development, but the effects of the pr ofessional development on the second generation of te achers trained by this model have not been empirically supported (Pollnow, 2012). The results of this study may inform professional development planning, as well as introduce how train the trainer models of professional development may inform teacher practice. Overall, this study can provide implication s for teacher educators by modernizing their outreach programs to practicing teac hers.

PAGE 27

27 The National Agriscience Teacher Ambassador Academy may also find va lue in this study. The findings of this study can be utilized to provide insight into the factors of the professional development program which may be influencing the teacher influence the NATAA professional development program for the trainers. The cost of teacher professional development has also been a matter of interest. The results of this research may be utilized to provide insight into the influence of online follow up s upport with respect to teacher change, allowing more follow up support to occur for teachers who participate in professional development. Additionally, funding agents of professional development have typically require d empirical support for the models of p rofessional development that receive funding This study also h eld significance for agricultural education. The National Research Agenda (Doefert, 2011; Osborne, n. d.) and the National Research Council (1998; 2009) called for agricultural education to pre pare successful secondary agriculture teachers. The results of this study may help to quantify how agricultural education may influence teacher change through professional development and provide a system of effective teacher professional development that promotes teacher change th at impact s student learning. Finally, this study h eld significance for practicing teachers. Teachers have often been required to participate in professional development and follow up activities related to the professional developm ent The results of this study may indicate the importance of follow up activities, as well as quantify how professional development may contribute to teacher practices

PAGE 28

28 Definition of Terms The following terms were operationally defined for use in this stu dy: AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION. The profession of teaching students in the diverse aspects of the agriculture industry (Thoron, 2010). CORE FACETS OF TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT. A set of facets related to teacher professional development which provides a framework or examining the quality of diverse professional development experiences. The facets include: active participation, coherence, collaborative participation, content, duration (Desimone, 2009) and form (Guskey, 2000) Coherence, collaboration, dur ation and active participation are core facets which are treated as independent variables in this study. CORE FACET OF ACTIVE PARTICIPATION. The level of engagement of teachers in their own learning during the professional development experience ( Garet et al., 2001 ). For the purposes of this study active participation and active learning are used interchangeably. The core facet of active participation is treated as an independent variable in this study. CORE FACET OF COHERENCE. How the professional develo pment aligns with district and state policies. Additionally, the alignment of the professional development with previous, concurrent and future professional development opportuni ties is included in the core facet of coherence (Desimone, 2009). The core facet of coherence is treated as an independent variable of this study. CORE FACET OF COLL ECTIVE PARTICIPATION. Participation of teachers from the same, school, grade or department that allows teachers to interact and support each other as they implement the professional development innovation. (Desimone, 2009). The core facet of collaborative participation is treated as an independent variable of this study. CORE FACET OF CONTENT. The new skill, knowledge and understanding that are the central focus of the professional development (Guskey, 2000). Inquiry based instruction and science integration in agricu lture were the content focus of the professio nal development program examined i n this study, and are the dependent variables. CORE FACET OF DURATION. Duration of a professional development experience includes the number of contact hours spent on the professional development activity, as well as the time span over which professional development activities occur (Desimone, 2009). The core facet of duration is treated as an independent variable in this study.

PAGE 29

29 CORE FACET OF FORM. There are many forms of professional development available and they vary in the way the other core facets of professional development are implemented. The form of the professional development examined in this study is the Train the Trainer form of professional development. EFFECTIVE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT. Professional development that successfully increases teacher learning and changes teaching practice, with the ultimate goal of improving student learning (Desimone, 2009). FACILITATOR. The individual or group of individuals who guides the trainers as they construct the new knowledge and practices throughout the professional development (Borko, 2004). HIGH QUALITY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT. Professional development experiences that utilize the core facets of professional development to impact teacher knowledge and practices. The elements of high quality profes sional development are the independent variables of this study. questions; examining books and other sources of information to see what is already known; planning investigatio ns; reviewing what is already known in light of experimental evidence; using tools to gather, analyze, and interpret data; proposing answers, explanations, and predictions; and communicating the results. Inquiry requires identification of assumptions, use of critical and logical INQUIRY BASED INSTRUCTION. (IBI) Instructional methods that require students to acquire knowledge through the process of inquiry (NRC, 2000). The workshop content provided by the trainers to the participants in this study were lessons that utilized inquiry based instruction. IBI represents one of the dependent variables in this study. INQUIRY BASED INSTRUCTION METHODS. The particular methodological knowledg e and skills needed to implement Inquiry based instruction within a classroom. For this study the methodological knowledge and skills were assessed through the IBI reported perceptions of specific bench marks related to IBI. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOLLOW UP. The activities, interaction and support provided by professional development providers after the initial training activities. Follow up represents the support system offered as continued professiona l development as teachers implement and adapt what they learned to fit their own classrooms (Borko, 2004; Desimone, 2009). An email support system was developed to provide the follow up program for the NATAA professional development workshops in this study This was an independent variable of the study.

PAGE 30

30 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM. All aspects of a professional development experience grouped together. This in cludes the initial interaction, t he face to face components of the professional development, a nd additional follow up elements provided by the professional development program (Borko, 2004). SCHOOL CULTURE. School culture is a complex pattern of norms, beliefs, values, and attitudes that are ingrained in an educational institution (Barth, 2002). A collaborative school culture includes factors such as, collaborative leadership, teacher collaboration, professional development, unity of purpose, collegial support and learning partnerships (Gruenert, 1998). School culture is an independent variable of the study. SCIENCE INTEGRATION IN AGRICULTURE. The accentuation of the natural sciences concepts and competencies when teaching secondary agricultural education curriculum. Science integration in agriculture is one of the dependent variables of this study TEACHER ATTITUDES TOWARDS PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT. This was treated a s an independent variable of this study. TRAINER. The individual teacher who was guided through the intensive professional development by the facilitators, and then became the leader of additional professional development with the same content focus for an additional set of teacher participants. Trainers represented the first generation of teachers within the train the trainer professional development model. TRAIN THE TRAINER. A speci fic form of professional development in which facilitators lead highly skilled teacher trainers through an intensive professional development program. The trainers, in turn, conduct workshops with additional teacher participants, passing on the knowledge a nd skills developed in the original professional development to a second generation of teachers (Pollnow, 2012). TRAIN THE TRAINER PARTICIPANTS. The individual teachers who are guided through professional development by the trainers. They represented the s econd generation of teachers within the train the trainer professional development model. WORKSHOP. Discrete professional development events that are generally short and not repetitive in nature (Guskey, 2000). Limitations of the Study The conclusions and implications drawn from this study were subject to the

PAGE 31

31 study, fidelity of the workshop content, the environment of the workshop, the online nature of the follow up su pport, as well as the motivation of teachers. The data were limited to the purposively selected census of teachers participating in the National Agriscience Teacher Ambassadors workshops at the National FFA convention and the National Association of Agricu lture Educators annual conference. Therefore, the results cannot be generalized beyond the population of this study. Additionally, non response from the teacher participants also limited the generalizability. Th e duration of the study subjected it to the t hreat of history, as teachers may have be en exposed to additional professional development or information concerning inquiry based instruction methods therefore the length of the study is a limitation When al factors could have impacted perceptions concerning inquiry based instruction length was maturation, as teachers continue d to develop their teaching practices between the beginning and end of the study. The f idelity of workshop content is also a limitation of this study. The professional development workshops were not delivered by the researcher ; multiple teacher trainers delivered the workshops. As a result, instruction of inquiry based instruction durin g the workshop may have varied. This threat wa s reduced due to the training the teacher trainers received during their National Agriscience Teacher Ambassador Academy. The initial professional development workshops occurred as part of part of larger conven tion. Teacher participants attended the workshops while at the National FFA Convention or the National Convention of the National Association of Agricultural

PAGE 32

32 Educators. While at the National FFA Convention teachers were most likely chaperoning students thr oughout the convention. Therefore, the environment surrounding the workshop may not have been conducive to teachers having complete focus on the professional development. An additional limitation was the o nline nature of follow up support utilized in this study. The structure of follow up delivery was online, which may have influenced addressed through the posting of a description of the follow up on the NATAA website and announcement of the follow up support during each of the workshops. Finally, the motivation of the participants is also a limitation of this study. The self motivation of teachers for participating in the professional development was not explored in depth in this study. The role of teacher motivation in professional follow up support. Assumptions of the Study The following assumptions were made in order to conduct this stud y: Teachers participating in this study answered the questions on the instrument to the best of their ability. Teacher trainers participating in the study delivered the professional development content concerning inquiry based instruction according to what they learned at NATAA. Measured variables, such as methodology, impact of student outcomes, and utilization of inquiry based instruction, were accurately identified. Teachers participated in the follow up support services provided.

PAGE 33

33 Summary Professional de velopment has been a requirement of the teaching profession, for which teachers have been held accountable by agencies, policy makers, and society. However, there has been a chasm between current professional development practices and the understanding of the effects of professional development on teacher practice. If professional development is to positively impact teachers, who in turn impact student learning, the components of professional development events must be examined. This study addressed the Nat engagement in professional development practices as a continuation of preparing and developing teachers, which can result in meaningful learning for students. Chapter 1 outlined the importance of pr ofessional development within the teaching profession and how essential it has been in assisting teachers to be adaptive in the ever changing environment of public schools today. Though there have been many challenges to conducting effective professional d evelopment the manner in which different components of professional development experiences impact teacher change must be understood. This study addressed the need for teacher education, specifically agriculture teacher education, to examine current profe ssional development practices and opportunities to support teacher change following a professional development of inquiry based instruction and the effects of online fol low up support after a professional development workshop deliver ed by trainers prepared by a train the trainer professional development model. The significance of this study stemmed from the examination of how aspects of the t rain the t rainer professional development model on

PAGE 34

34 science integration in agriculture and inquiry based instruction. The results of this study h eld meaning for teacher educators, teacher professional development practitioners, NATAA and practicing tea chers.

PAGE 35

35 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE Chapter 1 described the justification for examining models of professional development within agri cultural education. The principal focus of this study was to determine the effects of a train the trainer professiona perception s of inquiry based instruction. This Chapter describes the theoretical and conceptual framework that guid ed the study. Also included in C hapter 2 is a review of the relevant research The review of literature focu sed on empirical research in the following areas: the core facets of professional development, the train the trainer professional development model, teachers as professional development participants, professional development program ming, and teacher percep tions. Theoretical Model Guiding the Study A conceptual model, depicted in Figure 2 1, was used to guide this study and explain high quality teacher professional development utilizing the t rain the t rainer (TtT) form of professional development. High quali ty teacher professional development directly impacts teacher knowledge and practice, which in turn influences student adaptation of professional development content are also inf luenced by school culture and the educational policies imposed within their school systems. School culture and educational policies also influence teacher professional development and student learning outcomes. The embedded model represents the interaction s taking place specifically during a TtT professional development program (Figure 2 2) The TtT form includes two

PAGE 36

36 generations of professional development programing and participants, which occur in two distinctly different contexts. The main program compo nents of each generation are composed of similar elements, but differences arise within each element. The contexts account for the environment in which the professional development occurs. Within the context there is interaction between the leaders of the professional development, the development within each context. The emphasis of this study focused on the second generation of the TtT form of professional development. Th e goal of this study was to describe the relationship form This was accomplished by examining the interactions between the professional development program and the teacher participant, as well as the relationship between the teacher trainer and teacher participant, Constructivism The philosophy grounding this study was constructivism, which states that all learning is the construction of knowledge thr ough experience (Fosnot, 2005). Based on work in philosophy, psychology, science and biology, constructivism describes developmental, nonobjective, viable constructed explanation by humans engaged in meani ng making in cultural and social communities of dis Constructivist theories can be germane to a variety of educational contexts (Gurney, 1989), and educators have accepted the constructivist approaches to teacher learning (Bor ko, 2004; Darling Hammond & McLaughlin, 2011; Le Fe rve & Richardson 2002; Patton, Parker, & Neutzling, 2013 ; Sigel, 1978).

PAGE 37

37 Rather than view learning as a linear process, similar to behaviorism and maturationism, constructivism views learning as a complex a nd fundamentally nonlinear process (Fosnot & Perry, 2005). Doolittle and Camp (1999) identif ied constructivism as a philosophy that is based on a continuum containing three broad categories of constructivism: cognitive constructivism, social constructivis m and radical constructivism. Cognitive constructivism anchors one end of the continuum focusing on the cognitive processes of the individual learner and states that individuals can accurately perceive and know the external knowledge (Doolittle & Camp, 199 9). The alternate end of the continuum is anchored by radical constructivism. Radical constructivism implies that knowledge constructed by an individual is simply a representation of external knowledge, but the external knowledge cannot be known by the ind ividual (Doolittle & Camp, 1999). Social constructivism lies between the two extremes and focuses on knowledge being constructed and shared socially rather than individually. This knowledge is bound by the setting and place in which it is constructed (Dool ittle & Camp, 1999). The cognitive constructivist framework suggest provide learners with opportunities to build knowledge rather than disp ense knowledge (Fosnot, 2005). Learning from the constructivist perspective is constru interpretive, recursive, nonlinear building process by which active learners interacting with their surround ings which closely aligns with the views of teacher learning in profession al development. A constructivist perspective provides a framework for examining teacher professional development by emphasizing the importance of teachers actively

PAGE 38

38 constructing knowledge through a well developed and supported professional development progr am. Based on the general principles of learning derived from constructivist theory, Fosnot and Perry (2005) suggested several instructional practices, which have been supported by additional professional development literature, which may be helpful in plan ning effective professional development. Learning is not a result of development; learning is development (Fosnot & Perry, 2005). When designing professional development for teachers, facilitators must address how learners understand, interpret and think a bout the content, as well as how the understanding of learning and understanding, teac hers must be engaged in the tasks of teaching, assessment, observation and reflection (Darling Hammond & McLaughlin, 2011). Additionally, constructivism asserts that uncertainty facilitates learning, and regulatory process of struggling with the conflict between Professional development facilitators must be cognizant of what teachers bring to the professional development experiences and challenge them with investigations in realistic and meaningful contexts (Patton, Parker, & Neutzling, 2013). Professional development for teachers must be grounded in experimentation and reflection through a process of inquiry (Darling Hammond & McLaughli n, 2011). Fosnot and Perry (2005) also state d that reflective abstraction drives learning as individuals attempt to generalize across previous experiences. Teachers must be

PAGE 39

39 provided with the opportunity to actively explore knowledge, solve problems, and th en reflect and think critically on the process (Brooks & Brooks, 1993) during professional with students and provide sustained, intensive support through modeling and colle ctive solving of problems related to the professional development content and implementation in individual classrooms (Darling Hammond & McLaughlin, 2011). To complete the constructivist instruction practices for teacher professional development suggested by Fosnot and Perry (2005), a dialog must occur between teachers and members of their learning community. Within a professional development program facilitators must encourage teachers to actively discover new knowledge, try new practices, and discuss pers onal activities and reflection with others (Patton, Parker, & Neutzling, 2013). Darling Hammond and McLaughlin (2011) stated that effective professional development must be collaborative through the sharing of knowledge and a fo cus on a community of practi ce. Teachers do not apply theories, rather they construct theories from their practice through active participation with the experiences provided by professional development and teaching practice (Keiny, 1994). Constructivism in the context of teacher prof essional development demands that teachers think, create, and be engaged in the learning process with support throughout the process provided by the profes sional development programming. Model for High Quality Teacher Professional Development High quality teacher professional development has been a necessity for teachers to continually update their knowledge and practices related to the profession. The effectiveness of professional development for teachers must be considered throughout

PAGE 40

40 the process, beginnin g with the planning process and following through to the improvement of student learning outcomes (Guskey & Sparks, 1996). Teacher professional development is a multidimensional process that involves complicated relationships between professional developme nt, teacher change and improvements in student learning (Guskey & Sparks, 1996). Many models have theorized relationships between elements of teacher professional development that have a positive impact on teacher knowledge and skill as well as student lea rning outcomes (Guskey & Sparks, 1996; Loucks Hor sle y & Matasuma, 2000; Borko, 2004). H igh quality teacher professional development experiences The central focus of the theoretical mode l guiding this study (Figure 2 3 ) is high quality teacher professional development. Although it has no direct impact on student learning outcomes, professional development is an important and necessary part of improvements in student learning (Guskey & Sparks, 1996). Though little is known empirically about high quality profe ssional development, a core set of facets that compri se effective high quality professional development has gained consensus (Desimone, 2009; Garet et al., 2001). The se facets provide a theoretical framework for examining the quality a diverse array of pro fessional development opportunities provided for teachers. The e ducational literature has suggested that these features are critical to improving teacher knowledge and skills which in turn, create change in teaching practices, leading to positive student learning outcomes (Grieman, 2010). Content, duration, coherence, active learning, collective participation and format are explicit facets that represent a guide for the considerations which must be made in order to develop and plan a high quality pro fessio nal development program.

PAGE 41

41 Content Literature has theorize d that content may be the most important factor in teacher professional development. Content is the knowledge and skills that ha ve been selected for teachers to learn to enhance their professional pr actices (Guskey & Sparks, 1996; Loucks Horsley & Matasumo, 2000). Greiman (2010) emphasize d the need to comple m ent content knowledge by also presenting pedagogical knowledge within professional development programing. Teachers must comprehend the central f acts and concepts of the content they teach and understand how content concepts are connected in order to enhance student understandin g of the content (Borko, 2004). According to Loucks Horsley and Matsumoto (1999), teachers must be able to make decisions know, what they need to know, and how they can be helped to gain that knowledge and the knowledge to help Darling Hammond and Bransford (2005) described three areas of knowledge required for effective teaching: subject matter knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and pedagogical content knowledge. Each of these three areas works together to assist the teacher in planning and implementing lesson plans that allow for student learning. Subject area knowledge i s the specific content in a discipline, pedagogical knowledge provides knowledge of universal teaching and learning principles, and pedagogical content knowledge is the discipline specific teaching and learning principles within that specific content area (Roberts & Kitchel, 2010). For teachers to be effective throughout their careers they must continually develop and update their knowledge and skil ls in all three of these areas.

PAGE 42

42 Duration Literature concerning the duration of professional development has i ndic ated that two aspects of time should be considered for professional development. The first is the number of contact hours spent on the professional development activity, emphasizing the time spent at a professional development event (Desimone, 2009; Ga ret et al., 2001). The second is the time span over which the professional development activities occur (Desim one, 2009; Garet et al., 2001). Both elements of duration contribute to the effectiveness of professional development because as time increases a deeper discussion of content and pedagogical strategies may occur. Additionally, teachers have more time to apply what they have learned in their own classroom with their own students (Garet et al., 2001). Coherence Three elements are of importance when describing the coherence of profess ional development experiences. The professional development opportu nities must align with the individual teacher knowledge, beliefs and practices, as well as the school, district, state and federal expectations and trend s Additionally, professional development opportunities should also be coherent with previous, concurrent, and future professional development opportunities they have participated in (Desimo ne, 2009; Garet et al., 2001). Professional development must build and expand on previous professional development experiences by helping teachers make connections to what they have previously learned. Active p articipation Teachers must be actively engaged in their own learning, just as they engage their students in the learning process (Garet et al., 2001). Garet et al. (2001) describe d participation, also referred to as

PAGE 43

43 active learning should occur bo th during the professional development and as part of the follow up procedures that are incorporated as teachers apply the professional development content to their classrooms (Guskey & Yoon, 2009). Some examples of active learning within professional deve lopment are classroom observations, curriculum planning, and revie w of student work and progress. Additionally, t he experiences that occur during the professional development program are themselves, situations in which active le arning occurs (Desimone, 200 9). Collective p articipation Collective participation allows for teachers who participate in professional development to interact and support each other as they implement the professional development innovation in their own classrooms. Desimone (2009) art teachers from the same school, Implementation of this facet within a professional development program provides support for building an active learnin g community after the professional development program concludes. It engages teachers in ongoing discussion, reflective teaching, observation and interactive support that allow the professional development to continue over t he school year (Greiman, 2010). Collective participation can utilize technology to bridge distances between teacher participants but may also occur in person (Greimen, 2010), as long as the opportunity for interaction of all the professional development participants is provided. Format There have been many forms of professional development available, and research has not indicated one specific form or structure better than another. Each professional development has been unique and the way in which the other facets of

PAGE 44

44 professional develo pment (content, active learning, duration, coherence, and collective participation) have been utilized make a professional development effective or not. Graduate coursework, summer conferences, one shot workshops, mentoring, communities of practice are all for ms of professional development (Greiman, 201 0 ). Train the trainer form of teacher professional development The basic premise of the TtT form of professional development is a multi generational process of training a select number of participants (traine rs) who in turn provide training for a broader array of participants (see Figure 2 2) The TtT form has been used extensively in the business world, the military, and government, in addition to applications in educational institutions (Joyce, 2007). The T tT form utilizes the advantages of small group formatting and avoids lecture hall atmospheres, which encourages active participation and collaboration (Dooley, Metcalf, & Martinez, 1999; Joyce, 2007). The TtT form has traditionally utilized localized exper ts who share skills and provide support for their colleagues (Technology, 2001). Careful attention should be pa id to the selection of trainers in order to provide for differences in location and teaching experiences (Joyce, 2007; Pollnow, 2012), because th ey provide additional, localized professional development and support to the second generation of teacher participants. The trainers can develop and adapt the second generation of professional development programming to meet the needs a specific group of t eacher participants, allowing for variations in contexts, time frames, and programing aspects (Joyce, 2007). Borko, Elliott, and Uchiyama (2002) identif ied the TtT form of professional development to be a cost effective way of delivering prof essional devel opment to teachers in dive rse locations and rural states.

PAGE 45

45 The quality of professional development can be charted using the relationships of elements of a professional deve lopment system. The professional development program, facilitators, teachers and context provide for the relationships which occur during professional development that lead to improvements in teacher practice and student learning outcomes. Borko (2004) rec ognized the complex links between the form of the elements of a professional development system a lign s with th e embedded train the t rainer form of teacher professional development and provides the framework of the relationships that exist with the professional development. Multi generational professional development T he TtT form of professional devel opment has two generations of professional development to be considered T he relationships between the context, facilitator, teacher participant and professional development programming need to be examined within both generations. The trainer professional development represents the first generation of professional development in the TtT form of teacher professional development. This generation of TtT professional development focuses on the development of teacher trainers which is executed by the facilitato r and has its own distinctive professional development programming experiences within a unique context. The second generation of the TtT form of professional development allows for the transform ation the teacher trainer into the role of facilitator, durin g professional development programs with teacher participants

PAGE 46

46 Context Guskey and Sparks (1996) recommen ded the context of professional development to be twofold. Context must provide for both the culture in which the professional development takes place, as well as where new knowledge from professional development will be implemented. Context characteristics are the 996, p. 35). Borko (2004) recognize d that both the individual teacher and the social systems in which he/she participate in learning activities are essential when examining professional development, as they influence the effectiveness of the professional d evelopment. Facilitator, teacher participant and professional development program focus are also determined by the social systems in which a professional development occurs (Borko 2004). Mewborn (2003) suggested the professional development should occur i n the ledge and skills in classrooms. In the framework of the TtT form of teacher professional development, context provided an examination of the environment in which the professional de velopment took place. Context includes the location, as well as the organizations providing for the professional development and teachers reasons for att ending (Guskey & Sparks, 1996). Facilitator s tantively (Thomas, 2010, p. 239). However, new approaches to facilitation have describe d a different version, putting teachers at the center of professional development with a f ocus developing personal and professional relationships and providing support in addition to

PAGE 47

47 content expertise (Patton, Parker, & Neutzling, 2013). Facilitation should focus on what the teacher knew, believed, and brought to the learning situation and how learners understood, interpreted, thought and felt about the content presented (Rovegno & Dolly, 2006). Facilitators may have a variety of traditional roles: administrators, mentors, instructional coaches, subject area specialists or teachers (Croft et al 2010 ). Teacher trainer Th e teacher trainer is the center point of the TtT form of teacher teacher learner to facilitator within the professional development program. When examining the tr role in professional development d considerations for teacher learning and development that lead to specific knowledge and practice that may impact student learning outcomes. Formative experience s, development experiences and teacher characteristics ability to learn from the professional development as well as effectively teach additional professional development participants. Dunkin and Biddle (1974) provide d t hat teacher experience and prope rties include a wide array of elements education experiences, the attitudes of instructors as well and any in service teaching and teaching practice Any activity or experiences teacher s ha ve t hat can shape their behavior in the classroom is a presage variable and contribute s to teaching style and expectations for le arning (Dunkin & Biddle, 1974). Teacher formative experiences represent all experiences teachers encounter prior to teacher trainin g (Dunkin & Biddle, 1974). Teacher formative experiences may include socio economic status, age, gender, race, or any additional experiences which may influence teacher characteristics and personality (Dunkin & Biddle, 1974). Teacher

PAGE 48

48 development experien ce s represent any training teaches may have received to enhance their knowledge of teaching and learning. These experiences include college during practice teaching, and professional development or post graduate education (Dunkin & Biddle, 1974). Dunkin and Biddle (1974) describe d teacher properties as s with her into the teaching experiences are applied into classroom practices. Teacher participant The teacher participant component of the TtT form of teacher professional development is composed of variables similar to those of the t propertie s and perceptions all influence the teachers relationships with the professional development program, teacher train er and the classroom practices. Professional dev elopment program st aff development and improvement in student learning, the quality of teacher professional development is based on three major factors: content variables, process variables, and context characterist ics. If only one factor is the focus of planning professional development then the effectiveness of the professional development is weakened, with a diminished chance of improving student learning (Guskey & Sparks, 1996). Content variable characteristics knowledge, skills, and understandings that are the foundation of any professional Guskey & Sparks, 1996, p. 34). The content of professional development

PAGE 49

49 must help teachers keep pace with the changing know ledge base concerning both educational practices and subject matter information and be used to help teachers develop their teaching practices (Guskey & Sparks, 1996). Professional development content must focus on scope, credibility, and the practicality o f teacher change required to implement the new kn owledge, in addition to building the teacher s knowledge base (Guskey & Sparks, 1996). Content variables align with the content core facet of high quality professional development previously discussed. The c ontent variables of the NATAA professional development program focus ed on science integration and the use of inquiry based instruction (IBI) in secondary agricultur al education programs. Process variables of a professional development program are concerned with the types and forms of professional development, as well as how the professional development is planned, implemented and followed up (Guskey & Sparks, 1996). Process variables are concerned with the forms of professional development and the way those Sparks, 1996, p. 35). Process variables align with the duration, active learning, collaboration and form facets of high quality professional development. T hree major process variab les were identified in the second generation of NATAA professional development: workshops, follow up and online components of professional development. Teacher knowledge and practice P rofessional development has a direct effect on teacher knowledge and pra ctices, which directly influen ces student learning outcomes. Teacher knowledge and practices are the most significant outcome of any professional development effort

PAGE 50

50 (Guskey & Sparks, 1996; Loucks Horsl e y & Masumoto, 1999). If professional development does not change teacher professional knowledge or classroom practices, then improvements in student learning should not be expected (Guskey & Sparks, 1996). Loucks Horsley and Matsumoto (1999) recognize d that teacher learning, in both knowledge and practice, is the connection between teacher professional development and student learning. Guskey (2000) present ed a comprehensive hierarchal evaluation model for examining teacher learning in relation to professional development programs. The lowest level of evaluati on, which must be conducted before exploring higher levels, is evaluation of participant reactions. This represents the assessment of questions about content, process and context that are often obtained through participant questionnaires at the end of pro fessional development sessions (Guskey, 2000). Guskey (2000) consider ed the initial satisfaction measures to be of importance, as higher level outcomes are based on positive reactions from teacher participants. The second level outcomes are related to part icipant learning. Guskey divided learning into three goals: (a) cognitive, which are t he knowledge and understandings; (b) psychomotor goals, which are skills and behaviors ; and (c) affective goals, which are attitudes and beliefs. Third level outcomes of professional development evalu ation are those that relate to organization al chan ge and support, which determine the effectiveness of the teacher professional development wi thin a specific context. Fourth level outcomes are the ledge and skills within classroom practice. By selecting

PAGE 51

51 to reflect on what they learne (Guskey, 2000, p. 178). The final level outcomes in Guskey evaluation of teacher professional development are the evaluation of student learning outcomes. Harland and Kinder (2006) also theorize d a typology of professional devel opment outcomes, which provide d three orders of outcomes. Third order outcomes are: (a) provisionary outcomes, which are the physical resources which result from professional development participation; (b) informational outc omes, which occur when teachers are cognizant of the basic knowledge and facts pertaining to the professional development content; and (3) new awareness, which is a shift in teacher perceptions from previous assumptions about the content of the professiona l development. Second order outcomes are: (a) affective outcomes, which relate to the emotional experiences of teachers in the learning situation; (b) motivational outcomes, which relate to teachers motivations to implement the content learned at the profe ssional development program; and (c) institutional outcomes, which are influenced by collaboration, school culture and the collective impact o f a group of teachers. First order outcomes are: (a) value congruent outcomes, which occur when teachers personali ze the professional development content to inform their personal teaching practices and (b) knowledge and skills, which exemplify the development of deeper levels of understanding related to the professional development content. Harland and Kinder (2006) h ypothesize d that when all order outcomes have been achieved the ultimate goal of professional development can be reached, w hich is the impact on practice. Educational policies T he model for high quality teacher professional development recognizes the impac t educational policies makes on teacher knowledge and practice, as well as the

PAGE 52

52 professional development experience and student learning outcomes. New course mandates, curriculum frameworks, testing and policies cannot produce increases in student learning without an investment in the professional development of teachers, as the need for changes in teaching practices have often been founded on changes in educational policy (Da rling Hammond & McLaughlin, 2011 ). Darling Hammon d and McLaughlin (2011) identified the need for educational policies and legislation to examine and emphasize job embedded professional development to assist in development of teacher knowledge and practice. Successful educational reforms have relied on continuous teacher learning, and e ff ective teacher learning has relied on new approaches to teacher professiona l development (Scribner, 1999). All major education policy areas, including those that relate to curriculum, assessment, teacher and administrator licensing and evaluation, and acco untability have shape d the preferred teaching practices and expected learner outcomes within all schools (Da rling Hammond & McLaughlin, 2011) Professional development programs and teachers implementing new ideas must filter through previous policies that send contradictory signals and impede enactment of new practices (Da rling Hammond & McLaughlin, 2011 ). Mandatory standardized testing, assigned textbooks, rigid curriculum guides, and teacher evaluation systems are familiar examples and have create d incent ives to maintain status quo teaching practices (Da rling Hammond & McLaughlin, 2011 ). Policies that govern the evaluation of teachers must support teaching for understanding and continuous teacher learning, based in ongoing improvement and critical inquiry. Many evaluation processes have been founded on a notion of teaching

PAGE 53

53 as a set of routines that can be observed and checked off during a brief inspection (Darling Hammond & McLaughlin, 201 1 techniques and ma intain a positive evaluation. Evaluations can also be detrimental to the mindset of teachers concerning continuous professional development as needs improvement has often the lowest score on teacher evaluations; yet all teachers should strive to improve p rofessional practices (Darling Hammond & McLaughlin, 2010). School culture including but not limited to administration, peer teachers, parents and students that may contribute to the school environment. The importance of a supportive school culture to clear in the 1960s and 1970s when teachers who attended exciting National Science Foundation funded institutes found it difficult to apply their lea administrative, collegial, material, and parental support to use new practices learned through the professional development (Loucks Horsley & Matsumoto, 1999). If administrators ar e part of the professional development program, administrator knowledge and practices may be directly influenced by the professional development such as clinical supervi sion, coaching and evaluation may influence tea knowledge and practice. tone for school culture by modeling high standards of professional behavior and by ensuring the school is a true learning community that s (Guskey & Sparks, 1996, p. 36). Administrators also influence the development of school organization, the curriculum, assessment,

PAGE 54

54 textbooks, discipline, attendance, and which have a powerful impact on how students learn and what they learn (Guskey & Sparks, 1996 p. 36). The model of the relationship between professio nal development and improvement in student learning recognizes policies, but that influence depends on the degree to which teacher input is accepted (Guskey & Sparks, 1996). Student learning outcomes Student learning outcomes have been the paramount purpose of education, as all elements of school ing demand that studen t learn. Desired student learning outcomes influence the educational policies and the school culture as well as the knowledge and sk ills needed by teachers. Goals f or student learning outcomes influence high quality teacher professional development as th ey have demand ed that teacher knowledge and practice are current and effective. Designing professional development programs with clear student learning outcomes in mind require s those designing professional development to cultivate an ideal mix of effectiv e practices that lead to the desired results (Guskey, 2000). Student learning outcomes represent the broad range of student learning goals found in formal education settings. Outcomes may be assessment results, portfolio evaluations, or scores from standar dized tests; or they could be measures of student attitudes, study habits, classroom behavior or work completion rates (Guskey & Sparks, 1996). Evaluating professional development in te rms of student learning provides new perspectives on teacher profession al development and provides rigorous standards for effective professional development (Guskey, 2000). Clear goals based on student learning help to provide purpose for professional development and guidelines for

PAGE 55

55 evaluation of professional development (Gusk ey, 2000). Additionally, by focusing on student learning outcomes of professional development the relationships surrounding effective professional development can be broadened allowing for a more systematic approach to professional development and evaluat ion (Guskey, 2000). Guskey (2000) suggested that student learning outcomes examined in relation to high quality teacher professional development will depend on the goals of professional development. Measures of student learning typically included as indica tors of student performance and achievement, such as assessment results and assignment grades, can be used to examine the impact of professional development. Additionally measures of student attitudes, skills, and behaviors should also be considered, with multiple methods of assess ment being used (Guskey, 2000). ching and learning identified the outcome s of effective teaching as product variables, which are concerned with changes that develop in a student as a result o f being involved in classroom activities with a teacher. The changes can be seen and evaluated in both immediate student growth and long term student growth. Immediate student growth is often investigated through measures of subject matter learning and stu dent attitudes toward the subject (Dunkin & Biddle, 1974). Long term growth is extremely difficult to measure, given the large number of factors that could impact student learning over an extended period of time. It has been difficult to attribute long ter m student growth to a specific teacher or course (Dunkin & Biddle, 1974). Though difficult to measure professional development should be designed with both immediate and long term student learning in mind.

PAGE 56

56 Review of Literature Core Facets of High quality Teacher Professional Development The literature base included few studies that empirically explored what constitutes high quality or effective professional development programs (Borko, 2004; Desimone, 2009; Webster Wright, 2000). Instead, research has focu sed on teacher feedback and perceptions concerning professional development programming. To date there have been few evaluations of professional development that incorporated multiple sources and included information concerning the implementation of profes sional development content and outcomes in student learning (Borko, Jacobs, & Koeliner, 2010). Quantifying the principles outlined for professional development in the theoretical literature has proven difficult for researchers (Bo rko, Jacobs, & Koeliner, 2 010). Garet et al. (2001) used data from a national evaluation of the National Eisenhower Professional Dev elopment Program, which supported professional development for math and science teachers The program examine d the relationship between features of pr reported change in knowledge, skills and classroom practices. The researchers categorized professional development activities into two groups. Reform professional development activities were considered to be activi ties such as study groups, committees, mentoring, internships, and resource centers W orkshops and conferences were considered traditional professional development activities. The reform professional development activities spanned longer periods and ha d a greater number of contact hours, in addition to having a modest direct effect on enhancing teacher knowledge and skills (Garet et al., 2001). Additionally, the authors found that the durational elements of a professional

PAGE 57

57 development program, time span, and contact hours had a substantial positive influence on opportunities for active learning and coherence. Duration was also found to have a moderate, positive influence on the emphasis of content knowledge. These findings indicated that high quality professi onal development must be sustained over time and involve a substantial number of hours. The longer duration provided time for teachers to participate in active learning strategies, align the professional development with personal goals and teaching framewo rks, as well as focus on the content (Garet et al., 2001). Content focus, active learning and coherence were found to have a substantial positive effect on enhanced knowledge and skill (Garet et al., 2001). A ctivities that emphasized content, were connecte experiences and involved active learning strategies impacted teacher knowledge and skill. In a similar study Desimone, Porter, Garet, Yoon and Birman (2002) examined features of professional development and their eff ect on changing teaching practice in mathematics and science from 1996 to 1999. The longitudinal study found that professional development is more effective in changing teacher practice when it has or grade; and active learning opportunities, such as reviewing student work or obtaining feedback on teaching; and knowledge. Reform type professional development also (Desimone et al., 2002, p. 102). The study found no significant effects concerning the duration o f the professional development.

PAGE 58

58 Penual, Fishman, Yamaguchi, and Gallagher (2007) also studied the effects of different characteristics o ability to implement the professional development content in their teaching practice. Survey results from teachers who participated in professional development provided by 28 different providers were analyzed and the findings were consistent with earlier studies ( Desimone et al., 2002: Garet et al., 2000). The authors found that providing teachers with time to plan for implementation and technical support were significant for encouraging implemen tation of professional develo pment content in the classroom. Content When planning for professional development, research findings have indicated content may be the most important consideration (Desimone, 2009). According to Darling Hammond et al. (2009), one fourth of teachers identified learning more about the content they teach as their priority for professional development. When considering the content choices of focus for professional development, one should consider content knowledge as well as teachi ng strategies, pedagogical content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and student outcomes (Garet et al., 2001). Desimone, Porter, Garet, Yoo n and Birman (2002) reported that professional development focused on examining specific teaching practices can incr ease the use of those practices. Fennema et al. (1996) observed that the use of professional development related to student thinking of specific content was helpful to teacher curriculum development that enhanced student learning. Duration Penuel, Fishman, Yamaguchi and Gallagher (2007) indicated that often one of the most common criticisms of professional development opportunities is that they are

PAGE 59

59 regard to duration, research has shown no tipping point at which teacher professional development becomes effective. However, the research indicated that 20 30 hours should be spent on the professional development activity and spread over the course of a school semester (Desi mone, 2009; Guskey, 2000; Garet et al., 2001; Yoon, Duncan, Le es, Scarloss, & Shapley, 2007). Guskey and Yoon (2009) found that professional development programs lasting 30 or more hours showed positive effects on teacher practice and student learning outc omes. However, Kennedy (1998) reported that the effectiveness of the activities in which teachers participate throughout the duration of the professional development may be more important to improvements in studen t outcomes than duration alone. Supovitz an d Turner (2000) examined the relationship between high quality teacher professional development, inquiry based instruction and investigative classroom culture. Utilizing the Local Systematic Change (LSC) initiative of the National Science Foundation evalua tion, Supovitz and Turner (2000) surveyed 4907 teachers in 787 different schools concerning their classroom practices, attitudes towards teaching, and their professional development experiences. Both models explored in the study found that increasing amoun ts of professional development were statistically associated with increases in IBI utilizations and investigative classroom culture. Findings indicated that teachers with less than 40 hours of professional development experiences used less inquiry oriented teaching practices than the average teacher. Additionally, teachers with more than 80 hours of professional development reported using IBI significantly more often than the average teacher. Similarly, teachers with 40 79 hours of professional

PAGE 60

60 development programming ha d significantly more investigative classroom cultures than those of the average teachers. Both of these indicated a strong positive relationship between the amount of teacher professional development and classroom practices. Coherence Garet et al. (2001) reported activities that were coherent appeared to support unless they can directly see the benefits of their attendance, and those perceived benefits may be based on prior professional development experiences (Darling Hammond, et al., 2009). According to Loucks knowledge prior to a professional development experience affect what they learn. Darling Hammon d et al. (2009) reported that teachers indicate d professional development must be connected to practice and address everyday challenges they face in the classroom. Professional development must also align with other initiatives at the school district, stat e, and national level in order for the teachers to want to participate in a professional development opportunity. Teachers applied new techniques and materials to fit their own teaching styles and classrooms based on their own goals and experiences (Louck s Horsley & Matsumoto, 1999). Active p articipation During the professional development program teachers need the opportunity to experience the content as both the teacher and as students would in their classrooms. Classroom observation, both being observ ed and being th e observer, is part of active learning; observations provide feedback and an opportunity to engage in discussion about the professional development innovation within the classroom context (Garet et

PAGE 61

61 al., 2001). Curriculum planning time engage s teachers in analyzing and applying the professional development innovation to their own teaching context, such as their classroom and individual teaching styles. Reviewing student work, as well as making presentations or leading discussions concerning t he professional development innovation, provide s opportunities for teachers to interact, reflect on their teaching practices, and spend time focused on what and how the professional development has impacted their teaching experiences (Gare t et al., 2001; G reiman, 2010). Format leader with expertise (Loucks Horsley, Stiles, Mundry, Love & Hewson, 2010). The current rese conflicting findings and n o substantive proof that provides for a clear decision as to the effectiveness of workshops. Professional development that utilizes this format appears to have limited impact on learning (Greiman, 2010). Huffman, Thomas, and Lawrenz (2003) researched the r elationships between the different types of professional development, teacher instructional practice, and student achievement. The authors divided professional development activities into five categories: immersion, curriculum implementation, curriculum de velopment, examining practice, and collaborative work. Huffman, Thomas, and Lawrenz (2003) reported that use of curriculum and instruction in science and mathematics, wh ile immersion, curriculum implementation, and collaborative work were not found to be significant predictors. The authors reported that the model using curriculum development and

PAGE 62

62 examining practice provided for 35% of the variance in science teachers use o f the standards ba sed curriculum and instruction. Train the Trainer Form of Teacher Professional Development Alt hough the TtT form of professional development has been commonly used, a review of literature reveal ed little empirical evidenc e supporting its effectiveness. TtT professional development has not been rigorously studied in regards to actual impact on teacher knowledge and practice or student learning, leading some to report that the TtT form of professional development does not achieve the goals o f impacting and providing meaningful professional development for an abundant numbers of teachers (Office of Education and Research, 1997) (see Figure 2 2) examination of research pertaining to teacher professional development fou nd nine studies that met the standards of credible evidence set by the What Works Clearinghouse, none of which used a TtT approach These researchers concluded that c urrently no strong, valid evidence demonstrates that TtT form of professional development is effective (Guskey & Yoon, 2009). The longest standing implementation of a TtT model for te acher professional development has been the National Writing Project (NWP), which concentrated on improving the teaching of writing and the learning occuring withi (Leiberman & Wood, 2003). Utilizing a TtT model, the NWP focused on situating context and activities involved with the NWP and the related workshops h ave not been clearly described (St. John, Hirabayashi, & Stokes, 2004). Case studies and interviews were utilized to gather self reported data from teachers, which showed that NWP helped teachers develop a valuable professional network, changed personal te aching

PAGE 63

63 philosophies concerning writing, and increased the time spent on writing instruction and the diversity of teaching practices (Borko, 2004). Joyce (2007) implemented and evaluated a modified TtT professional development program that was designed to t each spreadsheet skills to elementary teachers and students. To address limitations of TtT form of professional development, Joyce integrated action research, peer coaching and mentoring int o the TtT for the study. The results indicated that the content kn owledge focus of the professional development was successfully transferred from the facilitator to the trainers, next to the reported program elements that contributed to the transfer of knowledge between generations. Time was reported by both trainers and participants as an essential element of the professional development program, because it equated to a sense of value about what teachers were learning, as well as pro vided time to process the knowledge (Joyce, 2007). Participants appreciated that program sessions were delivered over an extended period of time that allowed teachers to master the skills needed to understand and teach the new concept and experiment and ex plore the content. The trainers within the study reported that sup provided by the facilitator and peer trainers was essential to the professional developme nt at all points (Joyce, 2007). Context Borko, Jacobs and Koeliner (2 010) found that context was not a factor traditionally considered when planning for professional development but has recently been recognized for the important role that it should play in shaping professional development. Many publications have emphasize d the importance of describing and

PAGE 64

64 exploring context in relation to teacher learning through professional development; however, emp irical literature which examined the relationship of context on the effectiveness of tea cher professional development proved di fficult to find. importance of the program environment in transferring knowledge between facilitators, trainers, and participants. The trainers indicated that they felt safe try ing new ideas and sharing experiences, while teacher participants indicated that the relationships with the trainer and the small learning community created a non threatening learning environment (Joyce, 2007). Traditionall y, professional development has t aken place away from schools, classrooms, and students; while more contemporary professional development opportunities have occurred classrooms (Borko, Jacobs, & Koeliner, 2010). Trainer professional d evelopment A number of studies have examined the trainer level of professional development within the National Agriscience Teach er Ambassador Academy (NATAA). Though the studies have not focused on the outcomes of the professional development, they have provided insi ght into professional development programming and trainer perceptions concerning science integration and inquiry based instruction. barriers of integrating science, perceived co mpetence of agricultural education teachers integrating science, and use of inquiry based teaching methods during an initial profess ional development experience. These researchers reported that trainers value inquiry based strategies and recognize the impo rtance of integrating science into agriculture curriculum. The NATAA trainers indicated positive benefits for students when

PAGE 65

65 science is integrated into the agricultural curriculum, which is similar to results of previous research (Layfield Minor & Waldvog el, 2001; Myers & Washburn, 2008 ; Thompson & Balschweid, 1999 ; Thompson & Schumacher, 1998). perceptions indicated that students were more motivated to learn, better prepared for science, and had more experiences in solving science prob lems when taught in the context of agriculture ( Myers, Thoron, & Thompson, 2009). NATAA trainers reported that the biggest impediments to integrating science were insufficient time and planning support (Mye rs, Thoron, & Thompson, 2009). Additionally, train ers were concerned with the lack of materials and science content experience when integrating science and using inquiry based instruction within agriculture courses (Myers, Thoron, & Thompson, 2009). Though trainers reported engaging students in inquiry ba sed instructional methods more than once a month, 90% of the trainers indicated they planned on increasing the amount of science that was integrated into their curriculum upon completion of the NATAA program (Myers, Thoron, & Thompson, 2009). NATAA trainer s believed that administrators, peer teachers, guidance counselors, and community members support agriculture teachers and programs, including the teaching of science concepts and IBI in agriculture coursework (My ers, Thoron, & Thompson, 2009). Myers and T hompson (2009) used a Delphi study of NATAA trainers to develop a list of actions to move agricultural education forward in regard to the integration of math, science, and reading. A consensus of the 2007 NATAA trainers indicated that curriculum developmen t must include academically enhanced and integrated projects and activities, as well as expanded FFA career development events related to the core

PAGE 66

66 content integration area. Additionally, trainers reported that professional development related to academic i ntegration and instruction in math, science, and reading was essential at the national, regional, state, and local levels. Myers and Thompson (2009) also reported that NATAA participants indicated the need for transformation within the teachers, teacher educators, and department of education officials 83). NATAA trainers agreed on the need for agriculture teachers to collaborate with math, science and r eading teachers for student benefits (Myers & Thompson, 2009). Thoron, Myers, and Abrams (2011) used focus groups to determine the perceptions of NATAA trainers when implementing IBI into agricultural education programs. The authors found that the week lon g NATAA professional development the concepts and roles during IBI. Additionally, Thoron, Myers and Abrams (2011) reported that trainers transitioned to IBI methods diffe rently. Though all trainers reported that the initial preparation for inquiry lessons took additional time and the rewards most often occurred during instruction al inqui ry in the school environment were also favorable and indicated that IBI led to positive connections between the agriculture teachers, their peers, and administrators. promoted a change in behavior resulti ng in the agriculture teacher becoming a leader (Thoron, Myers, & Abrams, 2011, p. 103). Thoron, Myers, and Abrams (2011) found that NATAA trainers were divided on student ass essment in inquiry based instruction;

PAGE 67

67 some trainers reported they assessed learning the same as before the training while others noted that changes were needed. regarding IBI and how th e NATAA professional development program influenced their comfort levels with IBI. The findings support ed the effectiveness of the NATAA professional development cited in previous research. The participant responses indicated that NATAA professional develo pment reduced low level concerns for teachers who participated for two years, which indicated that the increase in professional development participation allowed for the teacher participants to focus on higher level concerns related to the implementation o f IBI. The research found that the amount of teaching experience did not directly affect the effectiveness of NATAA professional development; however, associated variables such as tenure, current economic climate, and job security may have influenced conce rns of teachers with less Facilitator Through a study of 12 experienced profes sional development facilitators Patton, Parker, and Neutzling (2013), identified that successful facilitators accentuated how teacher participants ac experiences, acknowledge d the influences of others in a social environment and a ccumulated a wealth of experience s, have view ed themselves as learners, willing to share accomplishments and defeats, are intrinsically motivated, and essential in creating professional development knowledge (Patton, Parker, & Neutzling, 2013).

PAGE 68

68 Teacher trainer Though little has been exami ned concerning teachers as professional development facilitators, publications indicate d the effectiveness of peer teachers in helping develop teacher change (Garet et al., 2001; Guskey, 2000). Teacher 2007, p. 95), and that teachers as facilitators created an environment that allowed them to focus on learning the skill. Teachers s elected to serve as trainers have been generally identified as exemplary teachers and lea ders in teaching and learning within their school (Joyce, 2007; Pollnow, 2012). The NATAA trainers have previously been identified as leaders in the teaching profession (Myers, Thoron, & Thompson, 2009; Myers & Thompson, 2009), which has le d previous resea rchers to suggest the benefits of involving NATAA trainers in developing curriculum providing workshops and leading further integration of science into agriculture curriculum. Joyce (2004) identified stages of personal development for trainers. The first stage of personal development of trainers during the professional development process was buy in. Extrinsic buy in was established prior to the professional development program, when trainers were asked to assist in developing the curriculum, which trainer s indicated created a sense of personal value in the system (Joyce, 2007). Intrinsic buy in occurred as trainers attended sessions and created personal spreadsheets and facilitate activitie The second stage of personal development identified by the trainers was ownership as they worked to create a curriculum that consisted of learning experiences that would be

PAGE 69

69 valuable for implementing the curriculum content in their classrooms provided them with additional opportunities to develop knowledge and understandings of the professional development content an development needs of t he participants (Joyce, 2007). Teacher p articipants Supovitz and Turner (2000) also explored effects of teacher properties on the relationship between high quality teac her professional development and IBI and investigative classroom culture. The authors reported that male teachers were more conservative in their inquiry practices and classroom culture than their female counterparts though the gender differences were only significant when examining the findings in relation to investigative classroom culture. Minority teachers reported more significant increases in IBI practices and investigative classroom culture than their white counterparts. Additionally, teaching experi ence was also found to have a significant negative associati on with investigative culture. Supovitz and Turner (2000) reported that content were the most powerful individual i nfluences on IBI practices and classroom culture. Teachers who reported more sympathetic attitudes toward the professional development content had significantly higher IBI practices and in vestigative classroom cultures. Professional development program Con tent v ariables In 1988, the National Research Council recommended that academics be integrated into agricultural education which has increased the amount of

PAGE 70

70 on into agriculture curriculum. Layfield, Minor, and Waldvofel (2001) conducted a study utilizing survey design science integration. The authors found that teachers were prepared to teach integrated scien ce concepts, yet barriers to integration included lack of funding, availability of equipment and scarcity of professional development opportunities focused on scienc e integration into agriculture. Using similar methods, Balschwie l d and Thompson (2002) dete rmined Indiana and reported similar positive attitudes to integration. Respondents indicated that the ndicated they had less time to prepare for classes and/or less personal time during their teaching da y as a chwield & Thompson, 2002, p. 7). Research conducted in a different state identified sim ilar perceptions and barriers (Warnick & Thompson, 2007). The respondents indicated that their own lack of science competence was an additional barrier to science integration. Warnick and Thompson (2007) reported that while a majority of respondents agreed to the benefits of collaboration between the school science department and agriculture department for student learning, fewer than half indicated they participate in such collaborations. Myers and Washburn (2008) studied Florida agriculture teacher percep tions toward science integration. The respondents reported similar attitudes toward the

PAGE 71

71 importance of collaboration for student benefit and that students leaned more science and agriculture content through integration of the subjects. The a uthors reported half of the respondents felt science integration required additional preparation, and over two thirds reported inadequate planning time as a barrier to science int egration of agriculture course. An 18 month study assessed the quality of math and science in struction in over 350 lessons (Weiss & Pasley, 2004; Weiss, Pasley, Smith, Banilower, & Heck, 2003). The researchers found that only 15% were of high quality and less than 20% of the lessons wer e rigorous (Weiss & Pasley, 2003 ). Though the NRC has made num erous calls to utilize inquiry in science classrooms, the Weiss et al. (2004) findings ind icated a lack of focus on IBI. Process v ariables Workshops have been criticized as the epitome of ineffective professional deve lopment practices. This claim has been amplified by programs which have occur red once and have provide d no follow up or sustained support. However, Guskey and Yoon (2009) found that all nine studies that met the standards of credible evidence set by the What Works Clearinghouse and also showed a positive relationship between professional development and improvements in student learning involved based instructional practices, involved active learning experiences for participants and provided teachers with opportunities to adapt the practice to their unique classroom Lydon and King (2009) i nvestigated the impacts of a 90 minute workshop on teacher reactions, teacher learning, organizationa l support and change, new teacher

PAGE 72

72 knowledge and skill, and student learning outcomes. The researchers reported the 90 minute workshops resulted in long term, positive change in teaching practices. Immediately following the workshop 86% of teacher participa nts indicated the professional development had increased their knowledge and understanding, while 80% reported an increase in their confidence levels. Eighty eight percent of the teachers indicated that they intended to increase their use of content relate d to earth science practical work, and 64% intended to increase the amount of earth science i nvestigational work. The teacher participants had incorporated the workshop content into their teaching on a long term basis ( Lydon & King, 2009) Teachers have ne eded job embedded assistance as they have adopted new strategies, curriculum and practices to their unique classroom contexts (Guskey & Yoon, 2009). All of the teacher professional studies identified by Guskey and Yoon (2009) showed significant positive ef fects on teacher practice and student learning up after the main professi 497). Follow up support has been found to be influential in the TtT model of profess ional development. Pollnow (2012) reported schools that had dedicated coaching programs to assist teachers in implementing the professional development content after the professional development program observed an increase in use of the content and the ef fectiveness of its use. When trainers can model professional development content strategies and provide coaching support for job embedded professional development, participants report a greater influence on classroom instruction (Pollnow, 2012).

PAGE 73

73 Advancemen ts in technology have impacted teacher professional development models (Borko, Jacobs, & Koeliner, 2010). Professional development opportunities have been able to incorporate technology centered components such as digital libraries, virtual learning envir onments, electronic conferencing, and online community building (Borko, Jacobs, & Koeliner 2010). Technology has allowed for teachers to be involved in both synchronous and asynchronous conversations by employing different online tools (Borko, Jabobs, & Ko eliner, 2010). Dede (2006) reviewed a plethora of empirical studies focused on online and hybrid professional development programs and found that most reports evaluated elements of program design, delivery, participation levels, and discourse in online env ironments. Few participants of online professional development have reported changes in teacher knowledge and skill (Dede, 2006). Ramsdell, Rose and Kadera (2006) used formative and summative evaluations to examine the PBS TeacherLine site, which offers on line professional development courses to preK 12 teachers in a variety of fields. The professional development model utilized online discussions by trained facilitators with backgrounds in specific subject matter to tie classroom practice to local and nati onal standards through streaming video and sharing of student work (Ramsdell, Rose, & Kadera, 2006). Findings showed directly related to the quality of the facilitator and the satisfaction of the course (R amsdell, Rose, & Kadera, 2006). Teacher Knowledge and Practice Garet et al. (2001) found enhanced knowledge and skills have a substantial positive influence on changes in teaching practice, demonstrating that teachers w ho

PAGE 74

74 reported enhanced knowledge and skills due to the professional development are more likely to report changing their teaching practices. In addition to the impact enhanced knowledge and skills have on changing teacher practice, coherence also has an impo rtant positive influence on change in teaching practice. This suggested teachers are more likely to change their practice when professional development experiences are connected to their other professional development experiences and are aligned with stand ards and assessments (Garet et al., 2001). Crandall et al. (1982) examined efforts to implement 61 innovative practices in schools and classrooms in 146 districts across the United States and focused on stimulating teachers commitments to new practices. Cr andall et al (1982) found when teachers were involved in the problem solving and decision making about the professional development prior to program implementation, the program lost effectiveness because of the alterations made by the teachers. The study s howed that teacher commitment to the improvement efforts took place after teachers had implemented the practices in their own classrooms and had experience with the innovation (Crandall et all 198 2 ). Loucks Horsley and Matsumoto (1999) identified five the mes related to how teachers learn and further develop their knowledge and skills. The first entails that meaning is made by building a structure organized around core concepts of a discipline. This indicated teachers need a foundation within the subject ar ea they teach as well as an understanding of how students learn within the specific subject matter (Loucks techniques unique to their disciplines to access relevant pieces of t heir stored

PAGE 75

75 Horsley & Matsumoto, 1999, p. 261), showing teachers must be capable of making decisions about what students know, what they need to know, how students can gain knowledge, and the best ways to help students do so. Learners m ust develop an understanding of how concepts can be generalized and applied in other situations, indicating teachers must know what knowledge to apply in different learning and teaching situations (Loucks Horsley & Matsumoto, 1999). The fourth theme identi fied by Loucks Horsley & Matsumoto (1999) was that learning is reinforced through the opportunity to self assess, reflect and adapt the concepts. The final theme was that learning is influenced by a community and its sub cultures; reinforcing the importanc e of teachers interactions with others as they implement the professional development content (Lou cks Horsley & Matsumoto, 1999). Educational Policies When educational policies highlight new teacher behaviors, teacher learning is provided with a common set of goals and challenges which support ed teacher learning (Loucks Horsley & Matsumoto, 1999). The educational policies surrounding effective te acher professional development have not been empirically linked to high quality professional development for teac hers or teacher knowledge and practice. Garet et al. (2001) noted 79% of the teachers in the study reported participating in district spon sored professional development. Pals and Crawford (1980) examined the roles and responsibilities of groups in providi ng professional development for secondary agriculture teachers in Iowa. The researchers found, according to agriculture instructors, that agricultural industry personnel, school district administrators, university college of agriculture department chairs, education professional development specialists, extension directors, extension specialists and community agriculture departments

PAGE 76

76 heads, local school districts, and state departments of education should shoulder the responsibility of funding professional de velopment costs. The findings went on to state that u niversity faculty and agriculture teachers should determine the goals and objective s for professional development. School Culture Professional development has been most successful when state, district, and local leaders have promoted a culture of continuous learning for teachers and created a school culture that has work day (Croft et al., 2009). Teachers who have work ed together to analyze t he student achievement data and then base decisions for teacher professional development on those analyses have experienced high quality teacher professional development programs (Lou cks Horsley & Matsumoto, 1999). Distinct differences have be en seen in sc hools in which teachers frequently interact and work closely on issues of teaching and learning and schools that do not (Rosenholtz, 1991). Additionally, Little (1982) found that teachers at schools characterized by collegiality, collaboration, and experim entation continuously engaged in professional learning (as cited by Loucks Horsley & Matsumoto, 1999). However, not all research has found that a school culture that emphasizes teacher collaboration and experimentation fosters increased student achievement Fullan and Hargreaves (1996) and McLaughlin (1993) reported that collaborative environments reinforce traditional teaching pr actices and stifle innovation. Pollnow (2012) found the TtT model had a great influence on classroom instruction in schools where a culture of learning existed. input and provided individual professional development at the request of the teachers

PAGE 77

77 and administrators. Teachers felt more comfortable in experimenting with new learning and were willing to try Croft et al. (2009) suggested district leaders and school administrators develop a kreader and Weathersby (1998) studied professional development differences between low and high performing schools and found that schools with principals staff, and decision makers who were advocates for professional development which was focused on stud ent achievement, school goals, Supovitz and Turner (2000) also explored the effects of elements of school culture on the relationship between high quality teacher professional development and IBI and investig ative classroom culture. Teachers who reported that they were supported in the use of IBI and investigative classroom cultures by administration showed a significantly greater use of the professional development content in their classrooms. Additionally, i nstructional materials, time for teachers to plan lessons, and availability of the related science supplies had a significant influence on teachers IBI practices. Teachers in schools with high numbers of students on free or reduced lunch programs had signi ficantly lower levels of IBI and investigative classroom cultures, while the type of community the schools were situated in had little influence on teachers practices. recommendat ions on how to move agricultural education into the areas of math, sci ence, and reading integration. One of the key findings of this study was the need to

PAGE 78

78 focus on collaboration efforts between academic and agriculture teachers when integrating core subjec t areas into agriculture curricula. NATAA trainers indicated collaboration of teachers within a school system can help students better understand the academic and technical concepts and principles taught (Myers & Thompson, 2009). Student Learning Outcomes Loucks Horsley and Matsumoto (1999) reported schools recognized for having exemplary professional development programs had aligned the professional development decisions with the student learning goals. lationship between professional development and student achievement found the professional development for science teachers was not significantly related to student achievement. However, the authors reported that curriculum development had a significant n egative relationship with student achievement in the cases of math teachers, which indicated mathematics teachers of student with lower achievement scores were found to engage in more long term curriculum development. Regression models were used to examine the extent to which the five types of professional development were predictive of student achievement. The model for curriculum development accounted for 16% of the v ariance of student achievement. Though research has highlighted the teaching methods and teacher knowledge and practices that impact student learning outcomes, empirical research has not linked teacher professional development directly to student learning. For example, Thoron (2010) sampled NATAA trainers for a study to ascertain the effects i nquiry based instruction on student argumentation skills, scientific reasoning, and content knowledge of secondary agriscience students. The trainers used in the study were provided

PAGE 79

79 additional materials and tut orials to enhance their inquiry based teaching practices, thus was derived from a group of trainers who attended NATAA, no link was made to imply e on student learning. Summary The objective of Chapter 2 was to describe the theoretical and conceptual framework that guided this study. Furthermore, Chapter 2 presented the salient literature relevant to the study. The review of literature focused on em pirical research in the areas of high quality teacher professional development, TtT form of professional development, inquiry based instruction, teacher learning and educational policies, school culture, and student learning outcomes in relation to te ache r professional development. Teacher professional development has played an important role in education. High quality teacher professional development has been examined using a set of core facets and relationships between the professional development progra ming and individuals involved. Content, duration, coherence, active learning, collective participation, and form have been facets that must be considered when implementing high quality professional development. Additionally, publications have indicated tha t a relationship exists between school culture, educational policies and teacher professional development, teacher knowledge and practice, and student learning outcomes. The TtT form of professional development has been common practice for teacher professi onal development yet little empirical research has shown that TtT models of professional development have an impact on both the first and second generations of

PAGE 80

80 first gener ation of teachers, who become trainers and generally attend longer professional development programs that include all the core facets of professional development. To date no research has shown an impact on the teacher participants of professional developm ent programs conducted by trainers.

PAGE 81

81 Figure 2 1. A model for the study of high quality teacher professional development utilizing train the trainer model for professional development. ( Adopted from Borko, 2004; Guskey & Sparks, 1996)

PAGE 82

82 Figure 2 2 The Train the trainer form for teacher professional development

PAGE 83

83 Figure 2 3 A model for the study of high quality t eacher professional development. ( Adopted from Borko, 2004; Guskey & Sparks, 1996)

PAGE 84

84 CHAPTER 3 METHODS Chapter 1 described the justification for examining the influence high quality teacher professional development on teacher perceptions, as well as introduced the Train the trainer (TtT) model of teacher professional development. The principal focus of this study was to describe the relationships between various aspects of TtT professional development and teacher perceptions of IBI. Chapter 2 s conceptual model. This study (1996) model for staff development and improvements in student learning, as well as A review of literature quality professional development and the features of Train the trainer model of teacher professional developments. Chapter 3 describes the methods utilized t o address the st objectives. The C hapter provides information on the research design, procedures, population and sample, intervention, instrumentation, data collection procedures and methods of data analysis. Research Design This was a quant itative study that used a quasi experimental design. This research design allowed the researcher to describe the various groups within the study, compare the differences between the groups, investigate the relationships between the independent and dependen t variables and determine the predictive value of the

PAGE 85

85 independent variables on the dependent variables (Ary, Jacobs, & Sorenson, 2010). The dependent variables of this study were science integration in agriculture and inquiry based instruction (IBI). The i ndependent variables in this study were the core facets of high quality teacher professional development, school culture, and teacher variables. Randomized subjects, post test only comparison groups were used. The randomization of subjects into groups cont rols for extraneous variables and ensured initial differences between the groups are attributed only to chance (Ary et al., 2010). alternative explanations, as does comparison making it possible to draw well founded conclusions form the findings of the study (Ary et al., 2010). The use of this design is recommended for research on changing attitudes and perceptions and is useful for stu dies in which a pretest is not available or appropriate (Ary, et al., 2010). According to Campbell and Stanley (1963), the posttest only comparison group design controls for all factors of internal validity: history, maturation, testing, instrumentation, r egression, subject selection, mortality, and the interaction effects. However, Ary et al. (2010) identified mortality is a threat because of the lack of a pre test. Researchers are unable to determine differences in participants who drop out of the study and those who completed the study due to the lack of pretest (Ary et al., 2010). The researcher monitored instances of mortality and evaluated differences between the experimental and comparison group. Additionally, the time series element of the design c reated two threats to internal validity: history and instrumentation

PAGE 86

86 (Campbell & Stanley, 1963). According to Campbell and Stanley (1963) history threats occur when specific events occur during the extended time between the observation points of the study. To control for history threats, a comparison group was utilized. Instrumentation threats occur when changes in observers or scores used may produce changes in measurements (Campbell & Stanley, 1963). To control for instrumentation threats the measurement of the instruments was standardized, and a comparison group was used. Table 3.1 includes a complete list of threats and the design controls. Professional Development Program The National Agriscience Teacher Ambassador Academy (NATAA) is one of the longest running, national professional development experiences for secondary agriculture teachers. The NATAA program utilizes a train the trainer form of professional development. The program is sponsored by Dupont and coordinated by the National Association of Agricultural Education. The first generation of the program provides an in depth training for secondary agriculture teachers. The participants of this generation of the professional development are selected through an application process and represent a wi de variety of states and secondary agriculture prog rams ; they all value science integration and improving their teaching practice. Once selected the participants attend an intensive one week program in Maryland. Each day of the one week program provides an intensive mixture of activities from a series of short lectures about IBI and science education to completing science laboratory activities utilizing IBI methods. The instruction content of the labs and lessons vary from activity to activity, but they include a variety of agricultural concepts including animal science, plant science, environmental science, water issues, food science and

PAGE 87

87 natural resources. The participants are also engaged in cooperative lesson planning and sharing as well as provided personal reflection time. Once the participants complete the week long program they become the NATAA trainers and are expected to provide workshops at the National FFA convention and the National Convention for NAAE. The trainers work in groups of 2 3 t o provide IBI by using one of the laboratory activities that the trainers completed during their professional development. The workshops presented at the conventions by the trainers bec ome the second generation of the TtT design of professional development, which is the focus of this study. Procedures The initial experience for participants was attendance at a 2012 NATAA workshop. These workshops focused on implementing inquiry based in struction into secondary agricultural classrooms. Teachers engaged in professional development designed by the NATAA trainers, which used a variety of content areas (water conservation, photosynthesis, alternative energy, animal science, plant science, and aquaculture) to implement IBI methods. The NATAA workshops varied in duration from 60 to 95 minutes depending on the specific convention and session they occurred. The NATAA workshops implemented a number of active learning and collaboration techniques to assist teachers in developing IBI knowledge and skills. NATAA staff collected contact information from all participants. Following the initial professional development experience, the participants were randomly assigned to two groups; the experimental gro up and the comparison group. The experimental group received the follow up intervention designed by the researcher,

PAGE 88

88 while the comparison groups did not. Teacher perceptions of science integration in agriculture and IBI were assessed at each data collectio illustrated below: Ex X W X FU O X FU O X FU O X FU O Com X W O O O O Key Ex Experimental Group Com Comparison Group X Treatment W Workshop FU Follow up Intervention O Observation Population population was secondary agricultural education teachers who attended NATAA workshops at the 2012 National FFA Convention and the 2012 National Association of Agriculture Educators National Convention. This study was a census of all teachers attending wor kshops at the 2012 conventions (N=261). A census was chosen due to the relatively small population and the ability to contact the complete population (Jupp, 2006). Contact information for each workshop participant was collected by NATAA at the beginning of the workshop and shared with the researcher. Additionally, by including the entire population, the researcher hoped to receive an increased number of respondents who completed surveys at all four data collection points. Intervention The intervention for t his study consisted of email follow up support for 2012 NATAA workshop participants. The support was broken down into two levels of email follow up: resource reminders and content reminders.

PAGE 89

89 An NATAA ask an expert email address was created that was staffe d by a NATAA trainer to answer and assist teachers in implementing workshop IBI content. The email address was provided at the conclusion of all 2012 NATAA workshops. Additionally, all participants were reminded of the NATAA ask the expert email follow up support when provided with the initial survey point. Participants randomly assigned to the experimental group received an initial email from the ask an expert email address that explained the follow up support program and encouraged participation in the fo llow up. For the first 5 months monthly emails were sent from the ask an expert to the experimental group to remind them that the support resource was available to them (resource reminders) (see Appendix A) These emails encouraged participants to use the email resources to assist with lesson planning and IBI implementation IBI implementation. Beginning in June 2013 the email reminders were altered to include more active support of IBI implementation. The monthly emails for the duration of the study included consisted of content reminders (Appendix B ) which were developed by the researcher, based on practices taught in the NATAA trainer professional development. The material of the content reminders was reviewed by the NATAA trainer staffing the ask an expert email for content validity. The active emails included frequently asked questions and answers, mini lesson ideas, and the key components of IBI. Instrumentation The survey instrument used in this study was based on two instruments used by other researchers examining science integration and inquiry based instruction related to agriscience education (Dunbar, 2002; Layfield, Minor, & Waldvogel, 2001; Thompson &

PAGE 90

9 0 Balschweid, 1999; Thompson & Schumacher, 1998). Additional questions were added to the survey instrument, concerning professional development experiences and school culture that related to the objectives of the study. A panel of experts consisting of faculty from the University of Florida review ed the instrument for face and content validity. The Integrative Science Survey (ISS) instrument developed by Thompson and Schumacher (1998) was used to identify participant perceptions of integrating science and agriculture (see Appendix C) The instrumen t used 5 point Likert type scales to assess teacher perceptions related to preparation for, barriers to, and support for integrating science into agriculture programs. Previous studies utilizing the ISS reported pha of .80 and .88 (Myers, Thoron, & Thompson, 2009; Thompson & Schumacher, 1998). Constructs of the ISS assessed agriscience teacher perceptions towards the integration of science, preparation to integrate science, support for integration, student impact of integration, barriers to integration, collaboration, and level of integration. The Inquiry based Teaching Techniques (ITT) instrument was used to examine teachers perceptions related to their use of inquiry based teaching practices (see Appendix D) Pre vious studies that used the ITT instrument reported an internal Thompson, 2009). The ITT instrument asked teachers to report the frequency of engagement in inquiry based inst ructional practices and their perceptions of IBI on student learning outcomes. The ITT focused its assessment scales on frequency of IBI teacher practices and frequency of IBI student practices.

PAGE 91

91 Additional questions were added to the surveys to assist in g athering additional information that utilized to the model of high quality teacher professional development. These included questions related to the core facets of professional development, additional professional development experiences, school culture, t eacher attitudes towards professional development and demographic information. The School Culture Survey (SCS) was develope d by Gruenert and Valentine (199 8), based on literature related to school culture, effective school cultures and collaborative school cultures (see Appendix E) Many previous studies have utilized the SCS (Fraley, 2007; Gruenert, 1998 ; Herndon, 2007; Mitchell, 2008; Sullivan, 2010). The instrument included 35 Likert type questions, from strongly disagree to strongly agree, that examined six factors related to school culture (Gruenert, 1998). The six factors were: (a) collaborative leadership, (b) teacher collaboration, (c) professional development, (d) collegial support, (e) unity of purpose, and (f) learning partnerships. The descriptio n and reliability coefficient (Gruenert, 1998) for each of the factors is shown below: Collaborative leadership measures the degree to which school leaders establish .91). Tea cher collaboration measures teacher engagement in constructive dialogue Professional development measures the extent to which teachers valued continuous personal and professional development and school wide Collegial support measures the degree to which teachers work together common

PAGE 92

92 Learning partnerships measures the extent that teachers, parents and students The Teacher Attitudes about Professional Developme nt (TAP) scale was developed by Torff, Sessions, and Brynes (2005) to assess how favorably teachers respond to professional development initiatives (see Appendix F) The TAP scale used five Likert type questions (strongly agree to strongly disagree) to mea sure how professional development impacts teaching practices. Teacher demographic characteristics were measured using researcher created items that were included on the instrument. Demographic items consisted of gender, teaching experience, grade levels an d subjects taught, age, teaching licensure, and highest level of education with coordinating majors. All items were constructed according to recommendations by Dillman, Smyth and Christian (2009). Data Collection A longitudinal panel study was used to adm inister the questionnaires to the teacher participants. According to Ary, Jacobs and Sorensen (2010), a longitudinal panel study gathers information from the same subjects over an extended period of time. This survey method allowed for researchers to see c behaviors and perceptions and investigate reasons for the change (Ary, Jacobs, & Sorensen, 2010). This research project was approved by the Institutional Review Board at the U niversity of Florida (Appendix H ). Upon IRB approval, data were collected over a 12 month time period following the conclusion of the 2012 NAAE convention. Data were collected using online survey software, Qualtrics .

PAGE 93

93 The questionaire was administered to teacher participants at four points in time over the year after their attendance at the 2012 convention workshops. At the time of the initial survey email, participants were provided with the IRB protocol (Appendix H ) and informed of the confidentiality of responses and the voluntary nature of the research. Parti cipants were also informed that there were no risks or benefits of participating in the study, and UF IRB office contact information was provided. Each data collection point included a different v ersion of the instrument due to the accumulation of SCS and TAP to assess additional elements of high quality teacher professional development. These were spread out over the course of the time series, to ensure that the time required for teachers to complete the survey was not to o lengthy. The initial survey instr ument included the ISS, ITT and demographic information questions. In the second survey instrument the participants completed the ISS and ITT The final survey utilized the ISS, ITT, TAP, and additional survey questions related to the professional development experiences over the past year. Procedures from the first administration was used during all subsequent survey administrations. Table 3.2 shows the timeline of the a dministration of the data collection points. Data Analysis The researcher was interested in the data from all participants who completed the instrument at each data collection point. Data were analyzed through SPSS version 20. Table 3.3 aligns the research objectives with instrumentation and data analysis methods.

PAGE 94

94 Research Objective One and Two Research objectives one and two were to describe NATAA workshop science integration in agriculture and inquiry based instruction over ti me after a trainer led professional development wo rkshop. Data for each element were analyzed using descriptive statistics (measures of central tendency and frequencies) for each data collection point. Research Objective Three Research objective three was follow up support over the course of the year. To accomplish this objective, data were collected from the ask the expert email account and survey instruments. These data were analyzed using descriptive statis tics (measures of central tendency and frequencies) at each data collection point. Research Objective Four Research objective four was to determine the effects of follow up with NATAA science integration in ag riculture and IBI. The appropriate ANOVA statistics were run to determine significan t mean differences among groups Research Objective Five Research objective five was to determine the relationships between NATAA sci ence integration in agriculture and IBI with the selected elements of the high quality teacher professional development model. To accomplish this objective, the direction and strength of the relationships between variables were calculated using the Pearson moment correlation coefficients.

PAGE 95

95 and equal variance were met. The relationships explained the degree of linear relationship between the dependent variables ( sc ience integration in agriculture and IBI) and selected independent variables (teacher variables, process variables, school culture and other professional development). Research Objective Six Research objective six was to explain the variance in teacher per ceptions of science integration in agriculture and IBI based on elements of the high quality teacher professional development model. Based on significant relationships identified in objective five multiple regression was utilized to determine if the eleme nts of high perceptions of science integration in agriculture and IBI. The stepwise regression method was utilized, as this method allows for variables that do not contribute to the prediction of dependent variables to be removed from the overall model (Agresti & Finlay, 2009). Four assumptions of multiple regression have been identified, tested and controlled. Regression assumes that variables have normal distributions, that the relationship between dependent and independent variables is linear in nature, variables are measured without error, and that the variance of errors is the same across all levels of the independent variable (Osborne & Waters, 2001). Summary Chapter 3 detai led the methods used in this study through reporting of the research design and procedures, population, data collection instruments and procedure s and data analysis. The dependent variables of focus in this study were the ce integration into agriculture education and the implementation of IBI. The dependent variables of the core facets of high quality

PAGE 96

96 teacher professional development, school culture, and teacher variables were utilized as the independent variables of this s tudy The treatment group received additional follow up support throughout the year following the NATAA workshop experience The experimental intervention was an ask an expert email resource to support workshop implementation of IBI methods. The dependent variables in the study were science integration in agriculture and IBI. This was a quantitative study that used a quasi experimental design. The study employ ed randomized subjects and post test only compari son groups. The population of the study consisted of the NATAA workshop participants from the 2012 National FFA and the National NAAE conventions. Teacher participants were assessed through online survey instruments teacher trainers were also assessed th r ough online survey instruments of the individual workshops. Teachers placed randomly into an experimental group received monthly reminders of the follow up support provided by the resear cher developed Ask an Expert NATAA email.

PAGE 97

97 Table 3 1. Internal validity threats and controls Threat Description Control Methods History Events occurring during the observation points in the study, in addition to the experimental variable. Used a comparis on group Random assignment Maturation Processes within the respondents operating as a function of the passage of time. Used a comparison group Random assignment Testing The effect of taking a test on the scores of a second test. Used a comparison group Lengthened time between test points Instrumentation Changes in calibration of measuring instrument or change in observers or scores that may produce changes in test measurement. Used a comparison group Standardized measurement procedure Regression to the Mean Selection of groups based on extreme scores. Used a comparison group Use of reliable measures Selection Biases influence the placement of respondents into the comparison groups. Used a comparison group Random assignment Mortality Loss of responden ts from the study. Used a comparison group Monitored instances of mortality Interaction effects Interactions of 2 or more of the threats due to multiple group design. Used a comparison group Random assignment Note. Identification and description of thre ats adapted from Campbell & Stanley (1963) Table 3 2. Data collection timeline NATAA Workshop Survey 1 Survey 2 Survey 3 Survey 4 Dates October & November 2012 Jan. 7 th 2013 May 6 th 2013 Sept. 3 rd 2013 Dec. 2 nd 2013 Instruments ISS, ITT, Demogra phics ISS, ITT ISS, ITT, SCS ISS, ITT, SCS,TAP, Demographics

PAGE 98

98 Table 3 3. Aligned research objectives with instrumentation and data analysis Research Objective Data Collection Data Analysis Method Objective 1: To describe the NATAA workshop participant term perceptions of science integration in agriculture after a t rainer led professional development workshop. ISS ITT Descriptive statistics Objective 2: To describe the NATAA term percep tions of inquiry based instruction (IBI) implementation after a t rainer led professional development workshop. ISS ITT Descriptive statistics Objective 3: To describe the NATAA ATAA follow up support after a t rai ner led professional development workshop. Ask an expert Email Descriptive Questions Descriptive statistics Frequencies Objective 4: To determine the effects of follow up on NATAA workshop participants perceptions of science integration in agricultur e and IBI. ISS ITT Follow up utilization ANOVA Objective 5: To determine the relationship perceptions of science integration in agriculture and IBI and selected elements of the high quality teacher professional devel opment model (teacher variables, workshop content and process variables, School culture and other professional development). ISS ITT SCS TAP Demographics Pearson product moment correlation coefficient Point biserial correlations Objective 6: To predict teacher perceptions of science integration in agriculture and IBI based on the elements of the high quality teacher professional development model. ISS ITT SCS TAP Multiple regression

PAGE 99

99 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS C hapter 1 establishe d the need for examining h igh quality professional development for secondary agriculture teachers. This study was designed to describe the influence of the train the trainer form of professional development on workshop science integration in agriculture and inquiry based instruction. The specific objectives of this research study were to: describe the National Agriscience Teacher Ambassador Academy ( NATAA ) term perceptions of science integration in agriculture fo llowing a Trainer led professional development workshop. term perceptions of inquiry based instruction (IBI) implementation following a Trainer led professional development workshop. d escribe the up support after a Trainer led professional development workshop. determine the effects of follow of science integration in agriculture and IBI. deter perceptions of science integration in agriculture and IBI and selected elements of the high quality teacher professional development model (teacher variables, professional development program varia bles, school culture and other professional development). determine the predictive variation of teacher perceptions of science integration in agriculture and IBI based on elements of the high quality teacher professional development model. Chapter 2 introd uced the model for the study of high quality teacher professional development that utilized a train the trainer model for professional development, which guided the study. The background for the conceptual framework was given and empirical evidence was pro vided to support the conceptual framework of this study. The review of literature contained a synthesis of research concerning the core facets for

PAGE 100

100 high quality teacher professional development, components of train the trainer models of professional develop ment, teacher knowledge and practice, educational policy, school culture and student learning outcomes in relation to teacher professional development. Chapter 3 provided the research methodology of this study, including a description of the research desi gn, population, instrumentation, data collection procedures and data analysis. Using a census of secondary agriculture teachers who attended NATAA workshop, the quasi experimental design utilized a questionnaire at four data collection points throughout th e year following the workshop to assess teacher perceptions of science integration and inquiry based instruction. Data analysis and bi point serial correlations, and regr ession. The dependent variables in this study science integration in agriculture and implementation of inquiry based instruction. The independent variables in this study were the core facets of high quality teacher profess ional development, school culture, and teacher variables. The treatment group received additional follow up support throughout the year following the NATAA workshop experience. Chapter 4 provides the results of the data analysis, which are listed by object ive. Response Rates The population of this study consisted of teachers who attended NATAA workshops presented by NATAA trainers at the 2012 National FFA convention and/or the 2012 NAAE Convention. The entire population was accessible, therefore making thi s a census of the population. A total of 242 participants attended the workshops (see Table 4 1). Chapter 3 outlined the research design and four data collection points

PAGE 101

101 throughout the study. Following the initial participation email, 14 participants from t he control group and 14 participants from the treatment group asked to be removed from the study leaving a total of 214 participants. Additionally, the database provided to the researcher contained incorrect contact information for 42 participants; 16 were members of the control group, 26 were members of the treatment group. The researcher attempted to utilize the Internet and state teacher databases to find correct contact information, but was unable to locate email or phone numbers for these participants. Additional participants were unable to be contacted for the third and fourth survey; 12 members of the control group and 12 members of the treatment group were removed at this time Only 21 responded to surveys at all four data collection points. Each ins trument used in the study was administered at separate times, and responses rates were reported for each instrument. The response rate varied from 16.89% to 30.81% (see Table 4 2). Nonresponse error can occur in studies with response rates less than 100% ( Miller & Smith, 1983). For the initial data collection point, a simple random sample, comprised of 15% of the non r esponde nts were contacted to compare their response to those of the initial responses (Lindner, Murphy, & Briers, 2001; Miller & Smith, 1983 ) However, only three individuals were reached and provided responses to the questionnaire. This method of dealing with non response was chosen by the researcher, as opposed to the comparison of early and late responders, because 30 is the minimum number of late respondents needed to conduct a comparison between early and late responders to address non response issues (Lindner, Murphy, & Briers, 2001). N on response does not greatly impact the study,

PAGE 102

102 because this study is a census and is not generalizable t o the general population ( Fowler 20 14 ) Post Hoc Reliability of Instruments hoc reliability of the instruments used in the study (Table 4 3). Ary, Jacobs, and Sorensen (2010) reported that modest reliabil ity coefficients, .50 .60, are acceptable for making decisions about groups and for research purposes. All of the reliability coefficients in this study fell above this acceptable range. The Integrative Science Survey (ISS) instrument developed, by Thomps on and Schumacher (1998), assessed teacher perceptions related to preparation for, barriers to, and support for integrating science into agriculture programs. The reliability coefficients for the ISS ranged from .89 to .96, over the four data collection po ints. The Inquiry based Teaching Techniques (ITT) instrument has been used to examine based teaching practices (Dunbar, 2002). The reliability coefficients for the ITT varied from .86 to .99 throughout the study. The School Culture Survey (SCS) developed by Gruenert and Valentine (19 9 8), included six factors: (a) collaborative leadership, (b) teacher collaboration, (c) professional development, (d) collegial support, (e) unity of purpose, and (f) learni ng partnerships. The overall SCS construct reliability ranged from .94, to .95 for the September and December data collection points, respectively. Previous literature reports an overall SCS reliability coefficient, as well as coefficients for the individu al constructs. The following represent ed the individual constructs and their reliability coefficients for the September and December data collection points, respectively.

PAGE 103

103 Collaborative leadership measures the degree to which school leaders establish and m aintain collaborative relationships with school staff (.88 and .85). Teacher collaboration measures teacher engagement in constructive dialogue that furthers the purpose and vision of the school (.79 and .81) Professional development measures the extent to which teachers valued continuous personal and professional development and school wide improvement (.79 and .76). Collegial support measures the degree to which teachers work together effectively (.78 and .69). Unity of purpose measures the level to which teachers work together towards a common mission for the school (.81 and .88). Learning partnerships measures the extent that teachers, parents and students work together for common student learning outcomes (.69 and .73). The Teacher Attitudes about Profe ssional Development (TAP) scale was developed by Torff, Sessions, and Brynes (2005) to assess how favorably teachers respond to professional development initiatives. The TAP scale was administered in the December data collection point and had a reliability coefficient of .75. Two additional scales related to the core facets of high quality professional development were utilized coherence and active participation. The reliabil ity coefficients for the Core Facet of Coherence (CF Co) were .91 and .84 in the final two data collection points, respectively. The reliability coefficients for the Core Facet of Active Participation (CF Ap) for the final two data collection points were 92 and .84, respectively. Description of the Population To describe the respondents a number of demographic and professional characteristics were analyzed Table 4 4 gives an overview of the descriptive statistics of the respondents A majority of respo ndents in this study were female (control =

PAGE 104

104 61.8%, treatment = 59.1%), and the mean age of respondents was 39 for the control group and 41 for the treatment group. The average number of years of teaching experience for the respondents was similar in both t he control group (15.03, SD = 9.76) and treatment groups (14.61, SD = 7.99). Both the control and treatment group reported the number of years they had been at their current school to be similar, 9.11 (SD = 7.13) and 9.67(SD = 7.13), respectively. Many of the respondents have previously attended an NATAA workshop (control 58.3%, treatment 43.5%) and a majority had attended other workshops focused on science integration in agriculture (control 54.1%, treatment 56.5%). Additionally, many respondents of both t he control group and treatment group reported conducting scientific research, 41.7% and 45%, respectively. Respondents had a variety of post secondary ed d octoral degree. Respondents completed the Teac Development (TAP) scale in December to assess their attitudes towards professional development (see Table 4 5). The scale included five questions, two of which were reverse coded to moderate response bias. The respondents responded to the statements on a 5 point Likert type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree). The grand mean for the TAP construct was 3.93 (SD = .45), indicating respondents had generally positive attitudes towards professional development. All of the respondents believed the professional development events they had attended enriched their teaching practice All of the control group respondents and a vast majority of the treatment group r espondents (81.3%) agreed that professional development helped teachers develop new teaching

PAGE 105

105 techniques. A majority of the respondents reported professional development has had an impact on their teaching (control = 68.2%, treatment = 75.1%), and professi onal development events were worth their time (control = 77.3%, treatment = 87.5%). However, only 18.1% of the control group and 43.8% of the treatment group disagreed with the statement if I did not attend inservice workshops they would not be able to im prove their teaching The School Culture Survey (SCS) was composed of 35 items, with 6 subscales: collaborative leadership (SCS CL), teacher collaboration (SCS TC), professional development (SCS PD), unity of purpose (SCS UoP), collegial support (SCS CS) and learning partnerships (SCS LP). Each item was reported on a five point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree). The mean score and standard deviation for the scale and each sub scale are shown in Table 4 6. The mean score of the overall SCS scale was 3.20 (SD = .57) in September and 3.31 (SD = .56) in December. In September, the mean score for each of the six subscales fell between 2.73 and 3.43. The subscale of professional deve lopment had the highest mean (3.43, SD = .72) indicating it was the most agreed with and the subscale of teacher collaboration had the lowest mean (2.73, SD = .67) indicating it was the most disagreed with. In December, the mean scores for each of the six subscales fell between 2.79 and 3.60. The subscale of collegial support had the highest mean (3.60, SD = .60) indicating that respondents agreed with it the most, while the subscale of teacher collaboration had the lowest mean (2.79, SD = .71), indicating that respondents disagreed with th is subscale of school culture more. It should be noted that only 3 subscales had a mean outside of neutral. In September, both the subscales of

PAGE 106

106 collaborative leadership and teacher collaboration were below neutral, while i n December only the scale of teacher collaboration was below neutral. Table 4 7 presents the SCS item frequencies for each statement for the September respondents A majority of both the control group and treatment group disagreed with teachers spend co nsiderable time planning together (control = 77.8%, treatment 66.7%), teachers take time to observe each other teaching (control = 66.6%, treatment = 66.7%), and teachers are generally aware of what others are teaching (control = 88.9%, treatment = 50 .0%). All of these statements are part of the teacher collaboration sub scale. Respondents from both groups agreed most with the statement teachers utilize professional networks to obtain information and resources for classroom instruction (control = 88. 9%, treatment = 100%), which is part of the professional development subscale. Table 4 8 presents the SCS item frequencies for each statement for the December respondents A majority of the control group disagreed with teachers are rewarded for experimen ting with new ideas and techniques (50.0%), and teachers take time to observe each other teaching (66.7%). A majority of the treatment group also disagreed with teachers take time to observe each other teaching (71.2%), in addition to teachers are ge nerally aware of what other teachers are teaching (64.2%). Respondents from both groups agreed most with the statements teachers utilize professional networks to obtain information and resources for classroom instruction (control = 80.0%, treatment = 86 .7%), the faculty values school improvement (control = 94.4%, treatment = 85.7%), and teachers support the mission of the school (control = 88.9%, treatment = 85.7%).

PAGE 107

107 A series of questions related to the core facets of high quality professional develop ment, such as duration, collective participation, coherence and active participation, w as also assessed in this study. of the NATAA workshops (see Table 4 9). In September, 77.8% of the control group and 83.3% of the treatment group reported the length of time spent in the workshop to be adequate for them to gain the knowledge and practices needed to implement the workshop content in their classrooms. In December, 59.1% of th e control group and 75% of the treatment group indicated the workshop was an adequate amount of time. participation during the NATAA workshops (see Table 4 10). In September, 1 00% of the control group and 83.3% of the treatment group reported that there were no teachers or administrators from their school who participated in the NATAA workshop with them. However, a majority of the respondents reported that a teacher or administr ator from their state participated in the NATAA workshop with them (control = 55.6%, treatment 66.7). In December, respondents also indicated that they attended the workshop with more teachers and/or administrators from their state (control = 41.7%, treat ment = 46.7%) th a n from their school or school district. workshops in terms of the extent to which the workshop was coherent with their individual beliefs, prior knowledge, an d educational policies and practices (see Table 4 11). The scale included 6 items which asked the respondents to indicate their level of agreement on a five point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither

PAGE 108

108 agree nor disagree, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree). The grand mean for the core facet of coherence (CF Co) in September was 3.61 (SD = .94), and in December it was 3.93 (SD = .43). In September, respondents reported the workshop aligned with their individual beliefs concerning science integration (control = 77.8%, treatment = 83.3%) and their prior knowledge about science integration (control = 88.9%, treatment = 83.4%). Only 44% of the control group reported that the workshop aligned with their teaching practices related to science int egration, while 83.3% of the treatment group reported workshop alignment. September respondents generally agreed that the NATAA workshop aligned with their school or school district policies (control = 44.4%, treatment = 66.7%) and state and national polic ies (control = 44.4%, treatment = 66.7%). Also in September, a majority of respondents agreed the workshops aligned with their previous professional development experiences (control = 55.5%, treatment = 83.3%). The December respondents agreed that the NATA A workshop aligned with their individual beliefs (control = 88.9%, treatment = 93.4%), prior knowledge (control = 94.3%, treatment = 73.4%), and teaching practices (control = 88.9%, treatment = 71.4%) related to science integration. Additionally, a majorit y of respondents agreed that the NATAA workshop aligned with both their school and school district policies (control = 85.7%, treatment = 66.7%) and the state and national policies (control = 71.4%, treatment = 66.7%). December respondents also agreed the workshop aligned with their previous professional development experiences (control = 83.4%, treatment = 78.6%).

PAGE 109

109 The final core facet examined in this study was the respondents active participation during the NATAA workshop (see Table 4 12) The respondents responded to eight statements on a five point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree), which indicated elements of active participation during the NATAA workshop. T he grand mean for the core facet of active participation (CF Ap) in September was 3.71 (SD = .89), while in December it was 3.92 (SD = .54), indicating that the teachers were generally active respondents of the NATAA workshops. In September, a vast majorit y of respondents agreed they had the opportunity to ask questions during the workshops (control = 87.5%, treatment = 100%), and complete the student activity/experiment provided by the workshop (control = 87.5%, treatment = 83.3%). The most distinguishable differences between the control and treatment group in September that concerned active participation related to the respondents with other agriculture teachers in planning for the implementation of the content; 62.5 % of the control group disagreed with the item that indicated they did not have the opportunity to work with others, while on ly 16.7% of the treatment group reported disagreeing with the same statement. A vast majority of the December respondents agreed t hey had the opportunity to ask questions during the workshops (control = 94.2%, treatment = 88.7%) and complete the student activity/experiment provided by the workshop (control = 88.2%, treatment = 92.9%). Additionally more December respondents indicated they had the opportunity to discuss the student activity/experiment provided by the workshop (control = 100%,

PAGE 110

110 treatment = 85.7%) and participate in activities that enhance their ability to teach the workshop content area in their own classrooms (control = 94.1%, treatment = 85.7%). Objective One Objective one was to describe the NATAA workshop participants long term perceptions of science integration in agriculture following a t rainer led professional development workshop. The Integrative Sc ience Survey (ISS) asked participants to complete subscales assessing their perceptions towards: integration of science, preparation to integrate science, support for integration, and the student impact of integration, barriers to integration, and their le vel of integration. The ISS was administered at all four data collection points and the grand means were as follows: January was 3.74 (SD = .37), May was 3.79 (SD = .27), September was 3.66 (SD = .30) and December 3.82 (SD = .39). The grand means indicate respondents tendencies to have favorable perceptions of science integration overall. Th science into agricultural programs. The participants responded to eleven statements on a five point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree). In January (see Table 4 13), 100% of the respondents from both the control group and the treatment group agreed that science co ncepts are easier for students to understand when science is integrated into an agricultural education program and that students are better prepared in science after they have complete a course in agriculture education that integrates science. Additionally most of the respondents also agreed that integrating science into agriculture classes increases the ease with which teachers can teach problem solving (control = 81.5%, treatment = 100%) and that student s are more aware of the

PAGE 111

111 connections between science and agriculture when science concepts are an integral part of their agricultural instruction (control = 81.5%, treatment = 82.4%). In January, many respondents indicated that less effort is required to integrate science in advanced courses as compared to introductory courses (control = 48.1%, treatment = 44.1%), and it is more appropriate to integrate science in advanced courses than into (contr ol = 44.4%, treatment = 64.7%). In May (see Table 4 14), nearly all of the respondent s agreed that students learn more about agriculture when science concepts are integrated (control = 88%, treatment = 96%), that science concepts become easier for students to understand when integrated into agricultural education programs (control = 88%, t reatment = 96%), and that students are better prepared in science after completing an agricultural course which integrated science (control = 84.0%, treatment = 96%). Similar to the January responses, many May respondents indicated less effort is required to integrate science in advance courses as compared to introductory courses (control = 48%, treatment = 36%), and it is more appropriate to integrate science in advanced courses than into introductory courses (control = 68%, treatment = 44%). In Septe mber (see Table 4 15), 100% of all responses agreed that science concepts are easier for students to understand when science is integrated into an agricultural program. Additionally, nearly all respondents agreed that students are better prepared in scienc e after completing an agricultural course that integrated science (control = 100%, treatment = 90%) and become more aware of the connection between scientific principles and agriculture when science is integrated into agricultural curriculum (control = 92. 3%, treatment = 90%). Similar to the initial data collection

PAGE 112

112 points, in September respondents indicated that less effort is required to integrate science in advanced courses as compared to introductory courses (control = 76.9%, treatment = 40%), and it is more appropriate to integrate science in advanced courses than into introductory courses (control = 69.2%, treatment = 60%). In December (see Table 4 16), 100% of all responses agreed that students are more aware of the connection between scientific p rinciples and agriculture when science is integrated into agricultural program. Additionally more than half of the respondents agree with nine out of the eleven items, which indicated positive perceptions towards the integration of science. Once again many respondents in September disagreed with less effort is required to integrate science in advanced courses as compared to introductory courses (control = 59.1%, treatment = 31.3%), and it is more appropriate to integrate science in advanced courses than into introductory course (control = 54.5%, treatment = 56.3%). preparation to integrate science into their curriculum assessing seven items on a five point Likert scale (1 = strongly di sagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree). In January (see Table 4 17), fewer respondents reported feeling prepared to teach integrated physical science concepts (control = 66.7%, treatment = 58.9%) than integrate d biological science concepts (control = 84.1%, treatment = 76.5%). A majority of respondents indicated teacher preparation programs in agricultural education should provide instruction on science integration (control = 81.5%, treatment = 94.1%) and expect the cooperating teachers of student teachers to model science integration (control = 77.7%, treatment = 76.5%). In January, 66.7% of

PAGE 113

113 control group respondents agreed that teacher preparation programs should require students to have early field experiences and conduct student teaching internships with agricultural teachers and programs that integrate science. However, only 47% of the treatment group agreed that students should be required to complete their early field experiences with teachers who integrate science, while 64.7% of them agreed that students should conduct student teaching internships with teachers who integrate science into the agricultural education program. In May (see Table 4 18), more than half of the respondents agreed with all five sta and experiences with science integration in agricultural programs, indicating respondents felt it was essential to prepare future teachers to integrate science. Also in May, fewer respondents reported feeling prepared to teach integrated physical science concepts (control = 60%, treatment = 72%) than integrated biological science concepts (control = 72%, treatment = 84%). In September (see Table 4 19), there differences in t agreement concerning requiring pre service students to conduct early field experiences (control = 30.8%, treatment = 90%) and student teaching internships (control = 38.5%, treatment = 80%) with teachers who integrated science into an agricultural education program. However, nearly all respondents agreed that t eacher preparation programs in agriculture should provide instruction for undergraduates on how to integrate science concepts/principles in agriculture (control = 92.3%, treatment = 100%) September also had fewer respondents who reported feeling prepared to teach integrated physical

PAGE 114

114 science concepts (control = 76.9%, treatment = 60%) than integrated biological science (control = 84.6%, treatment = 70%). December (see Table 4 20) r espondents once again indicated that they felt less prepared to teach integrated physical science concepts (control = 86.4%, treatment = 81.2%) than integrated biological science concepts (control = 90.9%, treatment = 93.7%). However 100% of the responden ts agreed that t eacher preparation programs in agriculture should provide instruction for undergraduates on how to integrate science concepts/principles in agriculture science integration has on student recruitment. Participants responded to how they thought integrating science into the agricultural education program would affect the enrollment of students from five different groups on a five point Likert scale (1 = strongly di sagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree). In January (see Table 4 21), almost all respondents indicated a perceived increase in program enrollment for all groups or neither an increase nor decrease in enrollment. The exception was that 37.5% of the treatment group indicated they perceived a decrease in the enrollment of low achieving students when science is integrated into an agricultural program. Nearly all of the respondents in the control group (95.2%) indicat ed a perceived increase in total program enrollment, as well as enrollment of average achieving students. May (see Table 4 22) respondents perceived a decrease in enrollment from low achieving students (control = 20.8%, treatment = 4.5%) and minority stud ents (control = 4.2%, treatment = 4.3%). More than two thirds of the respondents perceived an

PAGE 115

115 increase in enrollment from high achieving students (control = 70.8%, treatment = 78.2%), average achieving students (control = 75.0%, treatment = 72.7%), and for the total agricultural education program (control = 75.0%, treatment = 73.9%). In September (see Table 4 23), more than half of the respondents perceived an increase in enrollment for high achieving (control = 66.7%, treatment = 88.9%), average achieving (control = 75.0%, treatment = 77.8%), and low achieving students (control = 50%, treatment = 55.5%), as well as in the total program enrollment (control = 75.0%, treatment = 77.8%). Only 8.3% of the control group and 22.2% of the treatment group reported a perceived decrease in enrollment from low achieving students. In December (see Table 4 24) 31.8% of the control group and 6.7% of the treatment group perceived a decrease in enrollment of low achieving students when integrating science into agricultural programs. Additionally, 13.6% of the control group and 6.7% of the treatment group reported a perceived decrease in the enrollment of minority students. Nearly all of the respondents perceived an increase in high achieving students enrollment (control = 86 .4%, treatment = 100%) when integrating science into their agricultural program. The fourth subscale of the ISS gathered participant perceptions of the barriers to integrating science into agricultural curriculum using 17 items on a five point Likert scal e (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree). It should be noted that all items in this scale wer e reverse coded, so disagreement with the statement indicate d positive perceptions of science integra tion. In January (see Table 4 25), most respondents agreed with the notion that science integration is necessary (control = 66.6%, treatment = 47.1%), and there is a lack of

PAGE 116

116 administrative support for science integration (control = 74.1%, treatment = 47.0 %). The most agreed with statements were c oncerns about large class size (control = 44.4%, treatment = 53.0%), i nsufficient time and support to plan for implementation (control = 48.1%, treatment = 52.9%), and d (cont rol = 44.4%, treatment = 41.1 %), indicating these are barriers to science integration into agriculture courses. In May (see Table 4 26), a majority of the respondents from both groups respondents most May respondents disagreed with the notion that science integration is un necessary (control = 95.7%, treatment = 61.1%), and that there is a lack of administrative support for science integration (control = 66.6%, treatment = 72.2%). Compa red to other times during the year, May respondents agreed the most with the statements c oncerns about large class size (control = 41.6%, treatment = 31.6%), i nsufficient time and support to plan for implementation (control = 37.5%, treatment = 57.9%), and insufficient funding (control = 58.3%, treatment = 38.9%). In September (see Table 4 27), all respondents disagreed with the notion that science integration is un necessary. Additionally, more than half of the respondents disagreed that a lack of pa rent and community support, lack of support from the local science teacher, concerns about discipline, lack of integrated science curriculum in the courses indicating that these are not barriers to science integration. Although the lack of administrative support and an insufficient background in science content were identified as barriers to science integration. September respondents agreed the most with the statements i nsufficient time and support to plan for implementation (control =

PAGE 117

117 54.6%, treatment = 88.9%), insufficient funding (control = 36.4%, treatment = 66.7%), and (cont rol = 27.3%, treatment = 44.4%), indicat ing these were also barriers to science integration. December (see Table 4 28) respondents disagree d that concerns about discipline (control = 90.9%, treatment = 60.0%), the notion that science integration in necessary (control = 100%, treatment = 86.7%), the reluctance to diminish emphasis on agricultural production (control = 77.3%, treatment = 66.7%) doubts about students capacity to handle materials (control = 81.1%, treatment = 60.0%), and insufficient background in science content(control = 68.2%, treatment = 60.0%) were barriers to science integration into the agricultural curriculum. The most ag reed with statements in December were c oncerns about large class size (control = 51.4%, treatment = 40.1%), i nsufficient time and support to plan for implementation (control = 40.9%, treatment = 73.3%), insufficient funding (control = 31.8%, treatmen t = 46.7%), and d necessary materials (control = 40.9%, treatment = 33.3%), indicating these are perceived barriers to integrating science into agricultural programs. In the ISS, participants also indicated their perceived levels of science integration (see Table 4 29). A majority of respondents from both the control and treatment group reported they had integrated science into their agricultural education program (Jan. control = 84%, treatment = 100%; May control = 86.4%, treatment = 94.4%; Sept. control = 100%, treatment = 100%; Dec. control = 95.5%, treatment = 93.8%). The percentage of respondents who indicated they were content with the level to which they were currently integrating science varied between data collection point and group. In January, a majority of both the control and treatment group indicated that they were not

PAGE 118

118 content with their levels of science integration (control = 64%, treatment = 69.2). In May, 56.5% of the control group and 47.1% of the treatment group indicated t hat they were not content with their levels of science integration. In September, Only 9.1% of the control group reported that they were not content with their levels of science integration, while 66.7 of the treatment group indicated that they were not co ntent with their levels of science integration. Finally, in December, 45.5% of the control group and 63.5% of the treatment group indicated that they were not content with the levels to which they integrate science. Those respondents who indicated that th ey had integrated science into their agricultural programs were asked to indicate their perceptions of how integration integration had either no effect on enrollment or an inc rease in enrollment. The respondents from January and May control groups were the only ones to indicate any decrease in enrollment (Jan. 12%, May 10.5%). Respondents were also asked how about their future plans for the integration of science into their agr iculture programs. A majority of respondents indicated they planned to increase science integration in their agriculture programs, at all data collection points (ranging from 62.5% to 83.3%) Only 8.3% of the January control group indicated that they plann ed to decrease science integration into their programs. A range of respondents 16.7% to 37.5%, indicated they had no plans for changing their levels of science integration in the future. Objective Two Objective two was t o describe the NATAA workshop part long term perceptions of inquiry based instruction (IBI) implementation following a Trainer led professional development workshop. The Inquiry based Teaching

PAGE 119

119 Techniques (ITT) instruments asks participants to respond to item on two s ubscales assessing the frequency of IBI teacher practices and IBI student practices. The ITT was administered at all four data collection points and the grand sums were as follows, on a scale of 1 to 210: January was 99.66 (SD = 23.48), May was 95.91 (SD = 20.51), September was 111.88 (SD = 18.00), and December 99.67 (SD = 22.73). Because the two subscales had different selection scales, a grand mean could not be calculated. of the extent to which they use d different teaching methods and activities in general for all of their classes. There was a 7 point Likert scale (0 = Never, 1 = less than once a week, 2 = once a week, 3 = twice a week, 4 = three times a week, 5 = four times a week, and 6 = five times a week). It should be noted that two items were reverse coded. In January (see Table 4 32), the frequency of which the respondents implementing the different IBI techniques greatly varied. However, the respondents repo rted using a textbook as the primary method for studying agriscience the least; 32% of the control group and 23.5% of the treatment group reported never using a textbook, while 24% of the control group and 17.6% of the treatment group reported using a text book less than once a week. This item on the scale represented a non IBI method. Respondents also reported that they encouraged students to design and conduct exper iments l ess than once per week (control = 22.2%, treatment = 29.4%). In January, 80% of the control group and 70.6% of the treat ment group perceived using open ended questions that encouraged observation, investigation and scientific think ing most frequently, more than once a week. Additionally, more than half of the respondents from

PAGE 120

120 both the co ntrol group (51.8%) and the treatment group (53%) provided students with a wide variety of resource materials for scientific investigations more than once a week. In May (see Table 4 33), a number of respondents from both groups chose to omit or skip spec ific items in this scale. All respondents reported using each of the items at some point in their planning and instruction when implementing IBI. However, 32% of both the control and treatment group reported using a textbook as the primary method for study ing agriscience less than once per week. There was great variation in the rest of the responses in May. In September (see Table 4 34), 100% of the control group and 89.9% of the treatment group reported using a textbook as the primary method for studying agriscience less than once a week. Additionally, respondents perceived that they asked a question or conducted an activity that called for a single correct answer less than once a week (control = 63.7%, treatment = 55.5%). Nearly all respondents perceived having facilitated and encouraged student dialogues about science most frequently (control = 90.9%, treatment = 77.7%), as well as having used open ended questions that encouraged observation, investigations and scientific thinking (control = 81.9%, treatm ent = 88.8%). Additionally, more than half of the respondents encouraging students to initiate further investigation (control = 81.9%, treatment = 55.5%), encouraging students to defend the logic of statements or findings (control = 63.7%, treatm ent = 66.6%), and providing students with a wide variety of resources for scientific investigations (control = 63.7%, treatment = 77.8%) more than once a week. In December (see Table 4 35), the two most frequently implemented activities were using open en ded questions that encouraged scientific thinking (control = 81.8%,

PAGE 121

121 treatment = 75.1%) and providing students with a variety of resources for scientific investigations (control = 72.7 %, treatment = 68.9 %) Also in December, the respondents reported using a textbook as the primary method for studying agriscience (control = 86.4%, treatment = 75.0%) and asking questions or conducting an activity that calls for a single correct answer (control = 40.9%, treatment = 18.8%) less than once a week. The respondents were also asked to complete the initial subscale with one specific class in mind, as opposed to a general extent to which they use the different teaching methods and activities. When considering a specific class, the May respondents reported that they use d all nine teaching activities at some point (see Table 4 36). Respondents reported using a textbook as the primary method for studying agriscience less than once a week (control = 37.5%, treatment = 47.4%). Also in May, more than two thirds of all respon dents reported using the IBI related items more than once a week. However, in September (see Table 4 37), there was greater variance in the frequencies with which respondents September, 63.1% of the control grou p and 100% of the treatment group reported using a textbook less than once a week or never. Additionally, 45.5% of the control group and 44.4% of the treatment group reported using questions or activities that call for a single correct answer less than onc e a week. Overall, in September no respondents reported using any method more than four times a week. Similar to the earlier data collection points, December (see Table 4 38) respondents reported never using a textbook (control = 45.5%, treatment = 50.0%) or using it less than once per week (control = 36.4%, treatment = 31.3%). More than half of

PAGE 122

122 the respondents indicated using the IBI methods more than once a week, with the exception of encouraging students to design and conduct experiments (control = 40.9 %, treatment = 18.9%). frequency of student activities during their classroom instruction. The participants reported how often they asked students in their classroom to complete 1 2 different activities on a six point scale (0 = never, 1 = once a year, 2 = once a semester, 3 = once a month, 4 = once a week, 5 = once a day). In January (see Table 4 39), a majority of the responses indicated that most respondents perceived using the s tudent activities between once per day and once per month. About 59% of the respondents in the treatment group reported having students seek and recognize patterns once per week. Additionally, 55.6% of the control group reported using drawings, graphing, o r charting to convey new information from an agriscience activity. In May (see Table 4 40), all of the respondents reported using the each student activity at some point during the year, however most frequently selected response in May for this scale was o nce per day. In September (see Table 4 41), nearly all responses indicated that respondents were asking students to use all the items on the scale at least once a month. The only activity teachers reported never having a student do in their classrooms was memorize scientific facts or information separately from activities (control = 38.5%, treatment = 20.0%), while in December (see Table 4 42), 27.3% of the control group and 12.5% of the treatment group reported never having students memorize facts. The re spondents reported asking students once a day to offer explanations from previous experiences and from knowledge gained during investigations (control = 45.5%, treatment = 31.3%)

PAGE 123

123 and make connections to previously held ideas (control = 50.0%, treatment = 3 7.6%). However, the most frequently selected answer for this subscale in December indicated that respondents asked students to complete all activities once per week. Objective Three Objective three was to tion of NATAA follow up support after a Trainer led professional development workshop. To an expert email was recorded. Additional descriptive questions were asked in the May, September, and up support as they implemented what they learned in the NATAA workshops. Throughout the study only three participants (1 control group, 2 treatment group) ever contacted the Ask an ex pert email (see Table 4 43). Two of the emails were received in August and one was received in September. Each email was introductory in nature and confirming that they had attended the NATAA workshop and wanted to ensure they had the correct email address if they needed support. The researcher provided the confirmation for each participant within a day of receiving the email. an expert email again to seek support with science integration in agricult ure and implementing IBI. Respondents were asked to respond to a series of questions related to their support while implementing the NATAA workshop content (see Table 4 44). A majority of respondents reported seeking support for implementing the content o f the NATAA workshop. However, no respondents reported utilizing the Ask an Expert email support system. Additionally, majority of respondents reported that they the person they sought support from did not attend the NATAA workshop with them. When asked if there were

PAGE 124

124 other support structures that could be developed to help teachers implement NATAA workshop content, the respondents were split between wanting supports and not wanting supports. In December, r espondents were asked to explain why they had not u tilized the ask an expert email. The most frequent response indicated the respondent was unaware of the existence of the ask an expert follow up support (control = 5, treatment = 6). Other respondents indicated th ey an expert t o use it using the ask an expert (control = 4, treatment = 0) or they forgot about it (control = 2, treatment = 1). One respondent from the control group indicated they utilized a personal respondents ( control = 4, treatment = 2) indicated lack of time was the reason they did not utilize the ask an expert email support system. Objective Four Objective four was to determine the effects of follow up on NATAA workshop science integration in agriculture and IBI. Due to the lack of participation in experimental follow up, an analysis of the effects of the follow up coul d not be completed. Objective Five Objective five was to determine the relationship between NATAA workshop perceptions of agriscience integration and IBI and selected elements of the high quality teacher professional development model (teach er variables, professional development program variables, school culture and other professional development). To

PAGE 125

125 between the selected variables with continuous data and point biserial correlations were calculated for dichotomous data. As the previous objective found no significant difference between the control group and the treatment group, the correlations were calculated for the total respondents. The m agnitude s of the asso ciations among variables were which denotes zero as no association between variables and 1.00 as a perfect relationship Additionally, Davis noted that r elationships between .01 and .09 were reported to be negligi ble, those between .10 and .29 were low, those between .30 and .49 were moderate, and those greater than .50 were substantial Table 4 47 shows the matrix of the correlations in January, Table 4 48 shows the matrix for May, Table 4 49 shows the matrix for September and Table 4 50 shows the matrix for December. The two dependen t variables within this study, a griscience Integration (ISS scale) and IBI (ITT scale), were found to have moderate positive relationships at three of the data collection points (Jan. r = .35, Sept. r = .45, Dec. r = .43). Additionally, a low positive correlation was found between science integration in agriculture and IBI in May ( r = .21). dependent variab les and independent variables related to high quality professional development. In September and December, a positive substantial correlation existed between the ISS and the Core Facet of Coherence (Sept. r = .59, Dec. r = .68). In December, an additional positive substantial correlation was calculated between the ISS and respondents r = .65). Three negative substantial correlations were calculated in the September data, between

PAGE 126

126 the ISS and the core facet of time ( r = .50), the collaborative leadership construct of school culture ( r = .52), and the professional development construct of school culture ( r = .52). In January, moderate and low magnitude correlations were found when examining the rela tionship between the ISS and ITT, and the elements of high quality professional development (see Table 4 47). A positive moderate correlation was found between the ISS and the number of years respondents reported being a teacher ( r = .32). Also in January, a positive low relationship existed between the ISS and those respondents who were female ( r = .12) as well as between the ISS and the respondents r = .16). Additionally in January, negative low relationships were found between the ISS and respond ents who had formed collaborative relationships ( r = .28), respondents who had previously participated in an NATAA workshop ( r = .18), and respondents who reported they had conducted scientific research ( r = .10). There were also low positive and negati ve correlations found in relation to the respondents ITT. A low positive relationship was found between the ITT and respondents who had previously attended a NATAA workshop ( r = .10), respondents who were female ( r = .12), and respondents who had formed co llaborative relationships ( r = .15). A low negative relationship was found between ITT and respondents who had previously conducted scientific research ( r = .22). In May, two positive low correlations were found between the ISS and two independent variabl es; those who has sought support for science integration ( r = .14) and those who had integrated science into the curriculum ( r = .22) (see Table 4 48). In

PAGE 127

127 regards to relationships between ITT and the independent variables both moderate and low correlation s were found. There was a positive moderate correlation between the ITT and respondents who had integrated science into the curriculum ( r = .40) and those who were content with their levels of science integration ( r = .31). Two low positive relationships w ere identified between the ITT and those who had formed collaborative relationships ( r =.23) and those who had sought support for science integration ( r = .29). In September, three moderate correlations were found between the ISS and independent variables (see Table 4 49). A positive moderate correlation was found between the ISS and the core facet of active participation ( r = .40) as well as for respondents who had sought support for science integration ( r = .33). A negative moderate correlation as found between the ITT and the overall school culture survey ( r = .52). Additional low associations were identified in September in relation to the ISS. The ISS was found to have a positive relationship of low magnitude with the teacher collaboration construct o f school culture ( r = .21) and respondents who had formed collaborative relationships ( r = .26). A low negative association was identified between the ISS and unity of purpose of school culture ( r = .17) and collegial support in school culture ( r = .16). Additional associations were found between ITT and the independent variables of the study in September (see Table 4 49). The ITT was found to be moderately negatively associated with the constructs of the core facet element of time ( r = .35), the colla borative leadership element of school culture ( r = .45) and respondents who sought support for science integration ( r = .39). A positive moderate association existed between the ITT and the core facet of active participation ( r = .35). The ITT was also

PAGE 128

128 f ound to have positive low associations with the core facet of coherence ( r = .15) and the respondents r = .29). Negative low correlations were found between the ITT and their overall perceptions of school culture ( r = .21), perceptions of professional development in school culture ( r = .24), the unity of purpose in school culture ( r = .24), the collegial support in school culture ( r = .13), and those teachers who formed collaborative relationship s ( r = .19). In December, positive and negative low associations were found between the ISS and independent variables (see Table 4 science integration in agriculture were positively associated in low magnitude with the co re facet of active participation ( r = .14), respondents who had integrated science into their curriculum ( r = .26), and respondents who reported they had formed collaborative relationships ( r = .21). Additionally, low negative associations were found betwe en the ISS and teachers perceptions of school culture: overall school culture( r = .17), collaborative leadership in school culture ( r = .22), teacher collaboration in school culture ( r = .23), professional development in school culture ( r = .23) and le arning partnerships in school culture ( r = .12). use of IBI and various independent variables (see Table 4 50). The ITT was found to be moderately positively associated with teac hers who reported that they integrated science into their curriculum ( r = .30), formed collaborative relationships ( r = .40), and conducted scientific research ( r = .34). The ITT was also found to have a low positive wards professional development ( r = .13). The ITT

PAGE 129

129 culture: overall school culture ( r = .42), teacher collaboration in school culture ( r = .31), professional development in school culture ( r = .33), unity of purpose in school culture ( r = .33) and learning partnerships in school culture ( r = .31). Additional negative correlations of low magnitude were found between ITT and the core facet of coherence ( r = .15), and ac tive participation ( r = collaborative leadership in school culture ( r = .26), and collegial support in school culture ( r = .17). Objective Six Objective six was to predict teacher perceptions of science integra tion in agriculture and IBI based on the elements of the high quality teacher professional development model. Regression analyses were performed for each of the dependent variables to better explain the contributions of the independent variables. All regre ssion models used a variety of the independent variables Integrated Science Scale, Inquiry based Teaching Techniques, School Culture Survey, Core Facets of Coherence and Active Participation, and the Teacher Attitudes t owards Professional Development a t different data collection points throughout the study. science scores (ISS) as the dependent variable. Five models were discovered which provided significant predictors to science integration in agriculture as a dependent variable. In January, the regression model included only the ITT ( R 2 adj = .346, p < .05), which was found to be a significant predictor. In September, two models were found to be significant predictors of t he ISS. Model two included the ITT ( p = .002) and SCS ( p = .002) as significant predictors ( R 2 adj = 875 p < .0 1 ) while model three included ITT ( p = .015) SCS ( p = .003) core facet of coherence ( p = .441) and core facet of active

PAGE 130

130 participation ( p = .224) as significant predictors of the ISS ( R 2 adj = .940, p < .01) In December, two additional models were found to be significant. The portion of the ISS due to model three, which included the ITT ( p = 086 ) SCS ( p = .2 19 ) and the core facet of coheren ce ( p = 004) ( R 2 adj = .652, p < .01), was significant. Additionally, the portion of ISS due to model four, which included the ITT ( p = .080) SCS ( p = .197) core facet of coherence ( p = .004) and the TAP ( p = .410 ), was also found to be a significant pr edictor ( R 2 adj = .674, p < .01) Additional multiple regression analysis were conducted with the ITT as the dependent variable. Only 3 models were found to be significant predictors of the ITT throughout the duration of the study. In January, the ISS was found to be a significant predictor of the ITT ( R 2 adj = .346, p < .05). Additionally, in September, the second model, which included the ISS ( p = .002) and SCS ( p = .005) was found to be significant predictors of the ITT ( R 2 adj = .828, p < .01). Also in S eptember, the third model, which included the ISS ( p = .015), SCS ( p = .019) core facet of coherence ( p = .775) and core facet of active participation ( p = .317) was found to be a significant predictor ( R 2 adj = .877, p < .05).

PAGE 131

131 Table 4 1 Treatment grou p membership and participant totals Treatment Group # of Teachers Requested Removal Incomplete Contact Information in January Totals in January Incomplete Contact Information in September Totals in September Control Group 121 14 16 91 12 79 Experimental Group 121 14 26 81 12 69 Total 242 172 148 Table 4 2 Response rates for data collection components N n Response Rate January Data Collection 172 53 30.81% May Data Collection 172 50 29.06% September Data Collection 148 25 16.89% December Data Collection 148 38 25.67% T able 4 3 PostH oc reliability of instruments Reliability Coefficient ( ) Instrument January May September December ISS .96 .96 .86 .89 ITT .99 .90 .86 .92 SCS .94 .95 Collaborative Leadership .88 .85 Teacher Collaboration .79 .81 Professional Development .79 .76 Unity of Purpose .81 .88 Collegial Support .78 .69 Learning Partnerships .69 .73 Core Facets Coherence .91 .84 Active Participation .92 .84 TAP .75

PAGE 132

132 T able 4 4 Demographic profile of respondents Control Group Treatment Group Years of teaching experience M = 15.03 ( SD = 9.76) M = 14.61 (SD = 7.99) Years taught at current school M = 9.11 (SD = 7.13) M = 9.67 (SD = 7.12) Age M = 38.92 (SD = 12.29) M = 41.08 (SD = 10.32) Number of students who participate in the Agriscience Fair each year M = 13.71 (SD = 29.87) M = 25.212 (SD = 17.56) Gender Female 61.8% 59.1% Male 38.2% 40.9% Highest level of post secondary education 13.9% 8.3% 19.4% 29.2% 38.9% 37.5% dditional graduate courses 25% 12.5% 2.8% 8.3% Doctoral degree 0.0% 4.2% Previously attended an NATAA workshop 58.3% 43.5% Attended other Agriscience Integration workshops 54.1% 56.5% Conducted scientific research 41.7% 45.8% Not e. Control group n = 37, Treatment group n = 23.

PAGE 133

133 T able 4 5 December respondents a Percent SD b D N A SA O Professional development workshops often help teachers to develop new teaching techniques. 0.0 0.0 0.0 6 .3 0.0 6.3 40.9 50.0 40.9 31.3 18.2 6.3 If I did not have to attend inservice workshops I would not be able to improve my teaching. 4.5 6.3 13.6 37.5 9.1 0.0 27.3 31.3 22.7 12.5 22.7 12.5 Professional development events are worth the time they take. 13.6 6.3 4.5 6.3 4.5 0.0 45.5 37.5 31.8 50.0 0.0 0.0 I have been enriched by the teacher training events I have attended. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 55.6 46.7 44.4 53.3 0.0 0.0 Staff development initiatives have NOT had much impact on my teaching. c 27.3 31.3 40 .9 43.8 9.1 12.5 13.6 12.5 4.5 0.0 4.5 0.0 Note. a Control group data are presented on the first level within a row ( n = 22), Treatment group data are on the second level ( n = 16). b SD = Strongly Disagree, D = Disagree, N = Neither Disagree nor Agree, A = Agree, SA = Strongly Agree, O = Omitted. c Item is reverse coded. T able 4 6 Means for school culture survey September December Mean SD Mean SD Scale School Culture Survey 3.20 .57 3.31 .56 Subscale Collaborative Leadership 2.96 .62 3.36 .58 T eacher Collaboration 2.73 .67 2.79 .71 Professional Development 3.43 .72 3.48 .78 Unity of Purpose 3.23 .74 3.56 .69 Collegial Support 3.28 .82 3.59 .60 Learning Partnerships 3.15 .63 3.07 .75 Note. September n = 20 December n = 38

PAGE 134

134 T able 4 7 Septem ber respondents a Percent SD b D N A SA Collaborative Leadership 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 16.7 55.6 83.3 11.1 0.0 Leaders in this school trust the professional judgments of teachers. 11.1 0.0 1 1.1 0.0 22.2 33.3 44.4 50.0 11.1 16.7 Leaders take time to praise teachers that perform well. 11.1 16.7 11.1 33.3 11.1 33.3 66.7 16.7 0.0 0.0 Teachers are involved in the decision making process. 11.1 0.0 11.1 16.7 44.4 50.0 33.3 16.7 0.0 16.7 Leaders i n our school facilitate teachers working together. 11.1 0.0 11.1 40.0 22.2 40.0 55.6 20.0 0.0 0.0 Teachers are kept informed on current issues in the school. 11.1 16.7 33.3 50.0 11.1 0.0 44.4 33.3 0.0 0.0 My involvement in policy or decision making is t aken seriously. 11.1 16.7 11.1 0.0 33.3 33.3 44.4 50.0 0.0 0.0 Teachers are rewarded for experimenting with new ideas and techniques. 0.0 0.0 11.1 16.7 55.6 33.3 33.3 33.3 0.0 16.7 Leaders support risk taking and innovation in teaching. 0.0 0.0 33.3 50.0 11.1 0.0 55.6 50.0 0.0 0.0 Administrators protect instruction and planning time. 11.1 16.7 22.2 16.7 22.2 0.0 33.3 66.7 11.1 0.0 Teachers are encouraged to share ideas. 11.1 16.7 11.1 0.0 0.0 33.3 77.8 33.3 0.0 16.7 Teacher Collaboration Teachers have opportunities for dialogue and planning across grades and subjects. 0.0 0.0 11.1 16.7 33.3 16.7 33.3 33.3 22.2 33.3 Teachers spend considerable time planning together. 11.1 16.7 66.7 50.0 11.1 0.0 11.1 33.3 0.0 0.0 Teachers take time to observe each oth er teaching. 22.2 50.0 44.4 16.7 11.1 16.7 22.2 16.7 0.0 0.0 Teachers are generally aware of what other teachers are teaching. 0.0 0.0 88.9 50.0 11.1 16.7 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 Teachers work together to develop and evaluate programs and projects. 0.0 0.0 22.2 50.0 33.3 16.7 44.4 33.3 0.0 0.0 Teaching practice disagreements are voiced openly and discussed. 0.0 0.0 44.4 66.7 44.4 16.7 11.1 16.7 0.0 0.0

PAGE 135

135 T able 4 7 Continued Percent SD D N A SA Professional Development Teachers utilize professional netwo rks to obtain information and resources for classroom instruction. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 77.8 66.7 11.1 33.3 Teachers regularly seek ideas from seminars, colleagues, and conferences. 11.1 0.0 11.1 50.0 11.1 16.7 66.7 33.3 0.0 0.0 Professional developm ent is valued by the faculty. 11.1 16.7 33.3 0.0 0.0 50.0 55.6 33.3 0.0 0.0 Teachers maintain a current knowledge base about the learning process. 11.1 0.0 11.1 16.7 0.0 50.0 77.8 33.3 0.0 0.0 The faculty values school improvement. 0.0 16.7 11.1 16.7 11. 1 0.0 66.7 66.7 11.1 0.0 Unity of Purpose Teachers support the mission of the school. 0.0 16.7 22.2 13.3 22.2 16.7 55.6 16.7 0.0 16.7 The school mission provides a clear sense of direction for teachers. 11.1 0.0 22.2 16.7 11.1 33.3 55.6 50.0 0.0 0.0 Te achers understand the mission of the school. 0.0 0.0 33.3 33.3 22.2 16.7 44.4 50.0 0.0 0.0 The school mission statement reflects the values of the community. 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 22.2 16.7 44.4 83.3 0.0 0.0 Teaching performance reflects the mission of the sc hool. 0.0 16.7 22.2 16.7 0.0 33.3 77.8 33.3 0.0 0.0 Collegial Support Teachers trust each other. 0.0 0.0 22.2 33.3 11.1 0.0 55.6 50.0 11.1 16.7 Teachers are willing to help out whenever there is a problem. 0.0 0.0 22.2 33.3 11.1 16.7 55.6 33.3 11.1 16.7 11.1 0.0 11.1 50.0 0.0 0.0 77.8 33.3 0.0 16.7 Teachers work cooperatively in groups. 11.1 0.0 33.3 33.3 44.4 16.7 11.1 50.0 0.0 0.0 Learning Partnerships Teachers and parents have common expectations for s tudent performance. 0.0 0.0 22.2 33.3 22.2 33.3 44.4 33.3 11.1 0.0 11.1 33.3 22.2 33.3 44.4 16.7 22.2 16.7 0.0 0.0 Teachers and parents communicate frequently about student performance. 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.7 11. 1 33.3 88.9 16.7 0.0 33.3 Students generally accept responsibility for their schooling, for example they engage mentally in class and complete homework assignments. 0.0 16.7 33.3 16.7 22.2 33.3 44.4 33.3 0.0 0.0 Note. a Control group data are presented o n the first level within a row ( n = 13), Treatment group data are on the second level ( n = 6). b SD = Strongly Disagree, D = Disagree, N = Neither Disagree nor Agree, A = Agree, SA = Strongly Agree.

PAGE 136

136 T able 4 8 December respondents culture a Percent SD b D N A SA Collaborative Leadership 20.0 6.7 5.0 0.0 5.0 20.0 60.0 73.3 10.0 0.0 Leaders in this school trust the professional judgments of teachers. 13.6 6. 7 13.6 13.3 13.6 20.0 50.0 60.0 9.1 0.0 L eaders take time to praise teachers that perform well. 11.1 0.0 16.7 7.1 11.1 21.4 55.6 64.3 5.6 7.1 Teachers are involved in the decision making process. 5.6 0.0 22.2 14.3 16.7 28.6 55.6 57.1 0.0 0.0 Leaders in our school facilitate teachers working tog ether. 5.6 7.1 22.2 14.3 5.6 7.1 66.7 64.3 0.0 7.1 Teachers are kept informed on current issues in the school. 5.6 0.0 22.2 21.4 16.7 14.3 55.6 64.3 0.0 0.0 My involvement in policy or decision making is taken seriously. 0.0 0.0 16.7 14.3 38.9 21.4 44.4 64.3 0.0 0.0 Teachers are rewarded for experimenting with new ideas and techniques. 5.6 14.3 44.4 28.6 22.2 28.6 27.8 28.6 0.0 0.0 Leaders support risk taking and innovation in teaching. 5.6 0.0 27.8 28.6 22.2 14.3 44.4 57.1 0.0 0.0 Administrators prote ct instruction and planning time. 0.0 14.3 22.2 14.3 22.2 21.4 55.6 50.0 0.0 0.0 Teachers are encouraged to share ideas. 0.0 7.1 11.1 0.0 11.1 21.4 72.2 64.3 5.6 7.1 Teacher Collaboration Teachers have opportunities for dialogue and planning across grad es and subjects. 10.5 0.0 15.8 35.7 5.3 21.4 63.2 42.9 5.3 0.0 Teachers spend considerable time planning together. 10.0 26.7 30.0 26.7 30.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 10.0 6.7 Teachers take time to observe each other teaching. 16.7 21.4 50.0 50.0 16.7 7.1 16.7 21.4 0.0 0.0 Teachers are generally aware of what other teachers are teaching. 11.1 7.1 38.9 57.1 27.8 0.0 16.7 35.7 5.6 0.0 Teachers work together to develop and evaluate programs and projects. 5.6 14.3 16.7 21.4 16.7 28.6 55.6 35.7 5.6 0.0 Teaching practic e disagreements are voiced openly and discussed. 0.0 14.3 41.2 21.4 35.3 42.9 23.5 21.4 0.0 0.0

PAGE 137

137 Table 4 8. Continued Professional Development Teachers utilize professional networks to obtain information and resources for classroom instruction. 10.0 6.7 5.0 0.0 5.0 6.7 55.0 80.0 25.0 6.7 Teachers regularly seek ideas from seminars, colleagues, and conferences. 5.6 0.0 11.1 21.4 22.2 21.4 44.4 42.9 16.7 14.3 Professional development is valued by the faculty. 5.6 7.1 27.8 7.1 22.2 28.6 44.4 42.6 0.0 1 4.3 Teachers maintain a current knowledge base about the learning process. 0.0 7.1 5.6 14.3 22.2 0.0 66.7 71.4 0.0 7.1 The faculty values school improvement. 0.0 7.1 5.6 0.0 0.0 7.1 88.9 78.6 5.6 7.1 Unity of Purpose Teachers support the mission of the school. 0.0 0.0 5.6 0.0 5.6 14.3 83.3 85.7 5.6 0.0 The school mission provides a clear sense of direction for teachers. 11.1 0.0 5.6 21.4 16.7 21.4 61.1 50.0 5.6 7.1 Teachers understand the mission of the school. 11.1 0.0 11.1 0.0 11.1 28.6 61.1 71.4 5. 6 0.0 The school mission statement reflects the values of the community. 5.6 7.1 11.1 7.1 33.3 28.6 44.4 57.1 5.6 0.0 Teaching performance reflects the mission of the school. 0.0 7.1 0.0 7.1 38.9 14.3 55.6 71.4 5.6 0.0 Collegial Support Teachers trust each other. 19.0 6. 7 4. 8 6. 7 23.8 3 3 .3 42.9 4 6.7 9. 5 6. 7 Teachers are willing to help out whenever there is a problem. 9.1 6.7 9.1 13.3 22.7 6.7 45.5 60.0 13.6 13.3 5.6 0.0 0.0 7.1 11.1 21.4 77.8 71.4 5.6 0.0 Teachers work cooperatively in groups. 0.0 14.3 16.7 14.3 33.3 14.3 50.0 57.1 0.0 0.0 Learning Partnerships Teachers and parents have common expectations for student performance. 5.6 7.1 27.8 35.7 22.2 28.6 44.4 21.4 0.0 7.1 ofessional judgments. 11.1 7.1 11.1 21.4 33.3 35.7 44.4 35.7 0.0 0.0 Teachers and parents communicate frequently about student performance. 0.0 14.3 11.1 14.3 33.3 7.1 55.6 57.1 0.0 7.1 Students generally accept responsibility for their schooling, for ex ample they engage mentally in class and complete homework assignments. 0.0 21.4 38.9 21.4 27.8 21.4 27.8 35.7 5.6 0.0 Note. a Control group data are presented on the first level within a row ( n = 22), Treatment group data are on the second level ( n = 16). b SD = Strongly Disagree, D = Disagree, N = Neither Disagree nor Agree, A = Agree, SA = Strongly Agree.

PAGE 138

138 T able 4 9 Respondents duration during NATAA workshops a Percent Yes No September Le ngth of time was adequate for you to gain the knowledge and practices needed to implement content in my classroom 77.8 83.3 22.2 16.7 December Length of time was adequate for you to gain the knowledge and practices needed to implement content in my class room 59.1 7 4 9 40.9 25.1 Note: a Control group data are presented on the first level within a row, Treatment group data are on the second level. September: Control group n = 9, Treatment group n = 6. December: Control group n = 17 Treatment group n = 16. T able 4 10 Respondents collective participation during NATAA workshops a Percent Yes No September Teachers and/or administrators from my school participated in the workshop with me. 0.0 16.7 100 83.3 Teachers and/or administrators from my school district participated in the workshop with me. 0.0 33.3 100 66.7 Teachers and/or administrators from my state participated in the workshop with me. 55.6 66.7 44.4 33.3 December Teachers and/or administrators from my school participated in the workshop with me. 5.6 13.3 94.4 86.7 Teachers and/or administrators from my school district participated in the workshop with me. 5.6 13.3 94.4 86.7 Teachers and/or administrators from my state participa ted in the workshop with me. 41.7 46.7 58.3 53.3 Note: a Control group data is presented on the first level within a row, Treatment group data is on the second level. September: Control group n = 8, Treatment group n = 6. December: Control group n = 18, T reatment group n = 15.

PAGE 139

139 T able 4 11 September respondents development of coherence during NATAA workshops a Percent SD b D N A SA September The workshop aligned with my individual beliefs concerning scienc e integration in agriculture. 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 16.7 55.6 50.0 22.2 33.3 The workshop aligned with my prior knowledge about science integration in agriculture. 11.1 0.0 0.0 16.7 0.0 0.0 77.8 66.7 11.1 16.7 The workshop aligned with my teaching practi ces related to science integration in agriculture. 11.1 0.0 22.2 16.7 22.2 0.0 33.3 50.0 11.1 33.3 The workshop aligned with the policies or practices in my school or school district. 11.1 0.0 11.1 16.7 33.3 16.7 33.3 50.0 11.1 16.7 The workshop aligned with the policies or practices at the state or national level. 11.1 0.0 11.1 0.0 33.3 33.3 33.3 50. 0 11.1 16.7 The workshop aligned with m y previous professional development experiences. 11.1 16.7 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 44.4 50.0 11.1 33.3 December The worksh op aligned with my individual beliefs concerning science integration in agriculture. 0.0 0.0 5.6 0.0 5.6 6.7 77.8 66.7 11.1 26.7 The workshop aligned with my prior knowledge about science integration in agriculture. 0.0 0.0 5.6 6.7 0.0 20.0 77.8 46.7 16.7 26.7 The workshop aligned with my teaching practices related to science integration in agriculture. 0.0 0.0 5.6 7.1 5.6 21.4 72.2 57.1 16.7 14.3 The workshop aligned with the policies or practices in my school or school district. 0.0 0.0 4.8 13.3 9.5 20 .0 76.2 66.7 09.5 0.0 The workshop aligned with the policies or practices at the state or national level. 14.3 6.7 4.8 0.0 9.5 26.7 57.1 66.7 14.3 0.0 The workshop aligned with m y previous professional development experiences. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.7 21.4 7 7.8 64.3 5.6 14.3 Note: a Control group data are presented on the first level within a row, Treatment group data are on the second level. September : Control group n = 9, Treatment group n = 6; December: Control group n = 18, Treatment group n = 15. b SD = Strongly Disagree, D = Disagree, N = Neither Disagree nor Agree, A = Agree, SA = Strongly Agree.

PAGE 140

140 T able 4 12 December respondents development of active participation during NATAA workshops a Percent SD b D N A SA September I had the opportunity to witness modeling of inquiry based instructional strategies. 12.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.7 50.0 16.7 37.5 66.7 I had the opportunity to ask questions and have them answered. 12.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 62.5 33.3 25.0 66.7 I had the opportunity to discuss my concerns about implementation of workshop content in my own classrooms. 12.5 0.0 25.0 0.0 25.0 16.7 25.0 66.7 12.5 16.7 I had the opportunity to participate in activities that enhanced my ability to teach the con tent area in my own classroom. 12.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 62.5 50.0 25.0 50.0 I had the opportunity to discuss examples of 12.5 0.0 0.0 16.7 37.5 50.0 37.5 33.3 12.5 0.0 I had the opportunity to work with oth er agriculture teachers in planning for the implementation of the workshop content. 25.0 0.0 37.5 16.7 25.0 33.3 12.5 33.3 0.0 16.7 I had the opportunity to discuss the student activity/experiment provided by the workshop. 12.5 0.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 16.7 50.0 50.0 12.5 33.3 I had the opportunity to complete the student activity/experiment provided by the workshop. 12.5 0.0 0.0 16.7 0.0 0.0 62.5 50.0 25.0 33.3 December I had the opportunity to witness modeling of inquiry based instructional strategies. 19.0 0 .0 4.8 0.0 4.8 7.1 57.1 57.1 14.3 35.7 I had the opportunity to ask questions and have them answered. 0.0 0.0 5.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 82.4 76.9 11.8 11.8 I had the opportunity to discuss my concerns about implementation of workshop content in my own classrooms. 0.0 7.1 11.8 7.1 5.9 0.0 70.3 78.6 11.8 7.1 I had the opportunity to participate in activities that enhanced my ability to teach the content area in my own classroom. 0.0 0.0 5.9 0.0 0.0 14.3 70.6 50.0 23.5 35.7 I had the opportunity to discuss examples of 0.0 7.1 11.8 7.1 5.9 28.6 70.6 35.7 11.8 21.4 I had the opportunity to work with other agriculture teachers in planning for the implementation of the workshop content. 0.0 7.1 17.6 21.4 5.9 7.1 64.7 57.1 11.8 7.1 I had the opportunity to discuss the student activity/experiment provided by the workshop. 0.0 7.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.1 88.2 78.6 11.8 7.1 I had the opportunity to complete the student activity/experiment provided by the workshop. 0.0 0.0 5.9 7.1 5.9 0.0 70.6 78.6 17.6 14.3 Note: a Control group data are presented on the first level within a row, Treatment group data are on the second level. September: Control group n = 8, Treatment group n = 6; December: Control group n = 22, Treatment group n = 16. b SD = Strongly Disagree, D = Disagree, N = Neither Disagree nor Agree, A = Agree, SA = Strongly Agree.

PAGE 141

141 T able 4 13 January respondents a Percent SD b D N A SA Students learn more about agriculture when sc ience concepts are an integral part of their instruction. 18.5 5.9 3.7 0.0 3.7 0.0 29.6 47.1 44.4 47.1 Students are more motivated to learn when science is integrated into the agricultural education program. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.6 29.4 44.4 41.2 25.9 29.4 Agriculture concepts are easier for students to understand when science is integrated into the agricultural education program. 0.0 0.0 3.7 11.8 14.8 17.6 48.1 41.2 33.3 29.4 Science concepts are easier for students to understand when science is integrat ed into the agricultural education program. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.2 11.8 77.8 88.2 Integrating science into the agricultural education program requires more preparation time than teaching a more traditional agriculture curriculum. 0.0 0.0 3.7 11.8 14 .8 23.5 33.3 17.6 48.1 47.1 Less effort is required to integrate science in advanced courses as compared to introductory courses. 3.7 17.6 44.4 23.5 25.9 41.2 3.7 5.9 22.2 11.8 Integrating science into agriculture classes increases the ability to teach s tudents to solve problems. 3.7 0.0 11.1 0.0 3.7 0.0 25.9 47.1 55.6 52.9 Integrating science into the agricultural education curriculum more effectively meets the needs of special population students (i.e. learning disabled). 3.7 5.9 0.0 0.0 22.2 41.2 51 .9 17.6 22.2 29.4 It is more appropriate to integrate science in advanced courses than into introductory courses. 18.5 17.6 25.9 47.1 29.6 17.6 14.8 17.6 7.4 0.0 Students are more aware of the connection between scientific principles and agriculture when science concepts are an integral part of their instruction in agricultural education. 3.7 5.9 11.1 5.9 3.7 5.9 18.5 35.3 63.0 47.1 Students are better prepared in science after they completed a course in agricultural education that integrates science. 0. 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.5 29.4 81.5 70.6 Note: a Control group data are presented on the first level within a row ( n = 27), Treatment group data are on the second level ( n = 17). b SD = Strongly Disagree, D = Disagree, N = Neither Disagree nor Agree, A = Agree, SA = Strongly Agree.

PAGE 142

142 T able 4 14 May respondents a Percent SD b D N A SA O Students learn more about agriculture when science concepts are an integral part of their instruction. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 4.0 40.0 44.4 48.8 52.0 4.0 0.0 Students are more motivated to learn when science is integrated into the agricultural education program. 0.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 16.0 16.0 40.0 44.0 32.0 36.0 4.0 4.0 Agriculture concepts are easier for students to understand when science is integrated into the agricultural education program. 0.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 8.0 12.0 40.0 48.0 40.0 36.0 4.0 4.0 Science concepts are easier for students to understand when science is integrated into the agricultural education program. 0.0 0.0 0. 0 0.0 8.0 0.0 28.0 24.0 60.0 72.0 4.0 4.0 Integrating science into the agricultural education program requires more preparation time than teaching a more traditional agriculture curriculum. 4.0 0.0 8.0 12.0 8.0 20.0 40.0 28.0 36.0 40.0 4.0 0.0 Less effor t is required to integrate science in advanced courses as compared to introductory courses. 4.0 8.0 44.0 28.0 20.0 28.0 20.0 24.0 8.0 8.0 4.0 4.0 Integrating science into agriculture classes increases the ability to teach students to solve problems. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 15.0 48.0 40.0 40.0 48.0 8.0 0.0 Integrating science into the agricultural education curriculum more effectively meets the needs of special population students (i.e. learning disabled). 0.0 0.0 16.0 4.0 28.0 36.0 24.0 44.0 20.0 12.0 12.0 4.0 It is more appropriate to integrate science in advanced courses than into introductory courses. 16.0 4.0 52.0 40.0 24.0 32.0 0.0 16.0 0.0 8.0 8.0 0.0 Students are more aware of the connection between scientific principles and agriculture when science concepts are an integral part of their instruction in agricultural education. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 8.0 48.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 12.0 0.0 Students are better prepared in science after they completed a course in agricultural education that integrates science. 0. 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.0 4.0 24.0 32.0 60.0 64.0 4.0 0.0 Note: a Control group data are presented on the first level within a row ( n = 25), Treatment group data are on the second level ( n = 25). b SD = Strongly Disagree, D = Disagree, N = Neither Disagree nor A gree, A = Agree, SA = Strongly Agree, O = Omitted.

PAGE 143

143 T able 4 15 September respondents a Percent SD b D N A SA Students learn more about agriculture when science concepts are an integral part of their instru ction. 0.0 0.0 15.4 0.0 7.7 0.0 38.5 20.0 38.5 80.0 Students are more motivated to learn when science is integrated into the agricultural education program. 0.0 0.0 15.4 0.0 23.1 10.0 30.8 30.0 30.8 60.0 Agriculture concepts are easier for students to understand when science is integrated into the agricultural education program. 0.0 0.0 23.1 0.0 15.4 10.0 46.2 30.0 15.4 60.0 Science concepts are easier for students to understand when science is integrated into the agricultural education program. 0.0 0. 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.1 10.0 76.9 90.0 Integrating science into the agricultural education program requires more preparation time than teaching a more traditional agriculture curriculum. 0.0 0.0 53.8 10.0 0.0 60.0 7.7 10.0 38.5 20.0 Less effort is require d to integrate science in advanced courses as compared to introductory courses. 0.0 10.0 76.9 30.0 0.0 30.0 23.1 0.0 0.0 20.0 Integrating science into agriculture classes increases the ability to teach students to solve problems. 0.0 0.0 23.1 0.0 23.1 1 0.0 23.1 50.0 30.8 40.0 Integrating science into the agricultural education curriculum more effectively meets the needs of special population students (i.e. learning disabled). 0.0 0.0 38.5 0.0 7.7 10.0 30.8 60.0 23.1 30.0 It is more appropriate to integ rate science in advanced courses than into introductory courses. 7.7 20.0 61.5 40.0 30.8 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 20.0 Students are more aware of the connection between scientific principles and agriculture when science concepts are an integral part of their inst ruction in agricultural education. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.7 0.0 23.1 40.0 69.2 60.0 Students are better prepared in science after they completed a course in agricultural education that integrates science. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 7.7 0.0 92.3 90.0 Note: a Con trol group data are presented on the first level within a row ( n = 13), Treatment group data are on the second level ( n = 10). b SD = Strongly Disagree, D = Disagree, N = Neither Disagree nor Agree, A = Agree, SA = Strongly Agree.

PAGE 144

144 T able 4 16 December re spondents a Percent SD b D N A SA O Students learn more about agriculture when science concepts are an integral part of their instruction. 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 9.1 12.5 36.5 37.5 50.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 Students are more motivated to learn when science is integrated into the agricultural education program. 0.0 0.0 9.1 6.3 18.2 18.8 36.4 43.8 36.4 31.3 0.0 0.0 Agriculture concepts are easier for students to understand when science is integrated into the agricultural education program. 0.0 0.0 9.1 0.0 13.6 18.8 50.0 62.5 27.3 18.8 0.0 0.0 Science concepts are easier for students to understand when science is integrated into the agricultural education program. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.3 40.9 25.0 59.1 68.8 0.0 0.0 Integr ating science into the agricultural education program requires more preparation time than teaching a more traditional agriculture curriculum. 0.0 0.0 9.1 6.3 31.8 37.5 27.3 18.8 31.8 31.3 0.0 6.3 Less effort is required to integrate science in advanced co urses as compared to introductory courses. 9.1 6.3 50.0 25.0 18.2 25.0 18.2 25.0 4.5 18.8 0.0 0.0 Integrating science into agriculture classes increases the ability to teach students to solve problems. 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 13.6 0.0 50.0 50.0 31.8 50.0 0.0 0. 0 Integrating science into the agricultural education curriculum more effectively meets the needs of special population students (i.e. learning disabled). 0.0 0.0 13.6 0.0 18.2 43.8 36.4 50.0 31.8 6.3 0.0 0.0 It is more appropriate to integrate science i n advanced courses than into introductory courses. 4.5 12.5 50.0 43.8 22.7 6.3 18.2 25.0 4.5 12.5 0.0 0.0 Students are more aware of the connection between scientific principles and agriculture when science concepts are an integral part of their instructi on in agricultural education. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 59.1 31.3 40.9 68.8 0.0 0.0 Students are better prepared in science after they completed a course in agricultural education that integrates science. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 12.5 40.9 37.5 50.0 50.0 4.5 0.0 Note: a Control group data are presented on the first level within a row ( n = 22), Treatment group data are on the second level ( n = 16). b SD = Strongly Disagree, D = Disagree, N = Neither Disagree nor Agree, A = Agree, SA = Strongly Agree, O = Omitted

PAGE 145

145 T able 4 17 January respondents a Percent SD b D N A SA I feel prepared to teach integrated biological science concepts. 0.0 0.0 7.4 17.6 7.4 5.9 43.4 35.3 40.7 41.2 I feel prepared to teach integra ted physical science concepts. 0.0 0.0 14.8 29.4 18.5 11.8 51.9 47.1 14.8 11.8 Teacher preparation programs in agriculture should require students to take more science courses (biology, chemistry, physics, etc.). 0.0 0.0 14.8 23.5 25.9 29.4 40.7 29.4 18 .5 17.6 Teacher preparation programs in agriculture should provide instruction for undergraduates on how to integrate science concepts/principles in agriculture. 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.0 14.8 5.9 22.2 41.2 59.3 52.9 When placing student teachers, teacher prepar ation programs should expect cooperating teachers to model science integration. 3.7 0.0 3.7 0.0 14.8 23.5 37.0 41.2 40.7 35.3 Teacher preparation programs should require that students conduct their early field experience program prior to student teachin g with a teacher who integrates science into the agricultural education program. 0.0 0.0 14.8 5.9 18.5 47.1 37.0 17.6 29.6 29.4 Teacher preparation programs should require that students conduct student teaching internships with a teacher who integrates science into the agricultural education program. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 35.3 40.7 35.3 25.9 29.4 Note: a Control group data are presented on the first level within a row ( n = 27), Treatment group data are on the second level ( n = 17). b SD = Strongly Disagr ee, D = Disagree, N = Neither Disagree nor Agree, A = Agree, SA = Strongly Agree.

PAGE 146

146 T able 4 18 May respondents a Percent SD b D N A SA O I feel prepared to teach integrated biological science concepts. 0.0 0.0 8.0 4.0 16.0 12.0 52.0 68.0 20.0 16.0 4.0 0.0 I feel prepared to teach integrated physical science concepts. 0.0 0.0 12.0 8.0 20.0 20.0 56.0 64.0 4.0 8.0 8.0 0.0 Teacher preparation programs in agriculture should require students to take more s cience courses (biology, chemistry, physics, etc.). 0.0 0.0 12.0 12.0 36.0 20.0 32.0 56.0 16.0 12.0 4.0 0.0 Teacher preparation programs in agriculture should provide instruction for undergraduates on how to integrate science concepts/principles in agric ulture. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.0 36.0 48.0 60.0 40.0 4.0 0.0 When placing student teachers, teacher preparation programs should expect cooperating teachers to model science integration. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.0 16.0 44.0 80.0 36.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 Teacher pre paration programs should require that students conduct their early field experience program prior to student teaching with a teacher who integrates science into the agricultural education program. 0.0 0.0 8.0 8.0 32.0 28.0 28.0 52.0 28.0 12.0 4.0 0.0 Te acher preparation programs should require that students conduct student teaching internships with a teacher who integrates science into the agricultural education program. 0.0 0.0 8.0 4.0 32.0 28.0 28.0 48.0 28.0 16.0 4.0 4.0 Note: a Control group data ar e presented on the first level within a row ( n = 25), Treatment group data are on the second level ( n = 25). b SD = Strongly Disagree, D = Disagree, N = Neither Disagree nor Agree, A = Agree, SA = Strongly Agree, O = Omitted.

PAGE 147

147 T able 4 19 September respond ents a Percent SD b D N A SA I feel prepared to teach integrated biological science concepts. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.4 30.0 53.8 60.0 30.8 10.0 I feel prepared to teach integrated physical science concepts. 7.7 0.0 0.0 10.0 15.4 30.0 76.9 60.0 0.0 0.0 Teacher preparation programs in agriculture should require students to take more science courses (biology, chemistry, physics, etc.). 0.0 0.0 7.7 0.0 46.2 50.0 38.5 20.0 7.7 30.0 Teacher preparation program s in agriculture should provide instruction for undergraduates on how to integrate science concepts/principles in agriculture. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.7 0.0 46.2 30.0 46.2 70.0 When placing student teachers, teacher preparation programs should expect cooperat ing teachers to model science integration. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.4 20.0 46.2 40.0 38.5 40.0 Teacher preparation programs should require that students conduct their early field experience program prior to student teaching with a teacher who integrates scien ce into the agricultural education program. 0.0 0.0 15.4 0.0 53.8 10.0 15.4 60.0 15.4 30.0 Teacher preparation programs should require that students conduct student teaching internships with a teacher who integrates science into the agricultural educati on program. 0.0 0.0 23.1 0.0 38.5 20.0 23.1 60.0 15.4 20.0 Note: a Control group data are presented on the first level within a row ( n = 13), Treatment group data are on the second level ( n = 10). b SD = Strongly Disagree, D = Disagree, N = Neither Disagr ee nor Agree, A = Agree, SA = Strongly Agree.

PAGE 148

148 T able 4 20 December respondents a Percent SD b D N A SA I feel prepared to teach integrated biological science concepts. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.1 6.3 63.6 56.3 27.3 37.5 I feel prepared to teach integrated physical science concepts. 0.0 0.0 9.1 12.5 4.5 6.3 72.7 62.5 13.6 18.7 Teacher preparation programs in agriculture should require students to take more science courses (biology, chemistry, physics, etc.). 0.0 0.0 4.5 18 .7 31.8 43.8 54.5 18. 7 9.1 18. 7 Teacher preparation programs in agriculture should provide instruction for undergraduates on how to integrate science concepts/principles in agriculture. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 59.1 37.5 40.9 62.5 When pla cing student teachers, teacher preparation programs should expect cooperating teachers to model science integration. 0.0 0.0 4.5 6.3 9.1 12.5 54.5 50.0 31.8 31.3 Teacher preparation programs should require that students conduct their early field experie nce program prior to student teaching with a teacher who integrates science into the agricultural education program. 0.0 0.0 9.1 0.0 31.8 18. 7 40.9 50.0 18.2 31.3 Teacher preparation programs should require that students conduct student teaching interns hips with a teacher who integrates science into the agricultural education program. 0.0 0.0 9.1 0.0 27.3 31.3 40.9 50.0 22.7 18.7 Note: a Control group data are presented on the first level within a row ( n = 22), Treatment group data are on the second lev el ( n = 16). b SD = Strongly Disagree, D = Disagree, N = Neither Disagree nor Agree, A = Agree, SA = Strongly Agree.

PAGE 149

149 T able 4 21 January respondents student recruitment a Percent Greatly Decrease Decr ease Neither Increase Greatly Increase NA b High achieving students 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.2 18.8 30.8 43.8 46.2 37.5 3.8 0.0 Average achieving students 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.8 43.8 76.2 56.3 19.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Low achieving students 0.0 0.0 0.0 37.5 19.0 31.3 52 .4 18.8 28.6 12.5 0.0 0.0 Minority students 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.5 58.8 65.4 23.5 11.5 11.8 11.5 5.9 Total program enrollment 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.8 25.0 76.2 62.5 19.0 12.5 0.0 0.0 Note: a Control group data are presented on the first level within a row ( n = 26), Treatment group data are on the second level ( n = 16). b Not Applicable. T able 4 22 May respondents student recruitment a Percent Greatly Decrease Decrease Neither Increase Greatly Increase NA b High achieving students 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.2 21.7 45.8 39.1 25.0 39.1 0.0 0.0 Average achieving students 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 27.3 50.0 63.6 25 9.1 0.0 0.0 Low achieving students 0.0 0.0 20.8 4.5 25.0 50.0 33.3 40.9 20.8 9.1 0.0 0.0 Minority stude nts 4.2 0.0 0.0 4.3 54.2 65.2 25.0 21.7 8.3 4.3 8.3 4.3 Total program enrollment 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 26.1 66.7 69.6 8.3 4.3 0.0 0.0 Note: a Control group data are presented on the first level within a row ( n = 24), Treatment group data are on the secon d level ( n = 23). b Not Applicable.

PAGE 150

150 T able 4 23 September respondents student recruitment a Percent Greatly Decrease Decrease Neither Increase Greatly Increase NA b High achieving students 0.0 0.0 0. 0 0.0 33.3 11.1 41.7 55.6 25.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 Average achieving students 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 22.2 50.0 0.0 25.0 77.8 0.0 0.0 Low achieving students 0.0 0.0 8.3 22.2 41.7 22.2 33.3 11.1 16.7 44.4 0.0 0.0 Minority students 0.0 0.0 8.3 0.0 25.0 66.7 33.3 0. 0 8.3 30.0 25.0 0.0 Total program enrollment 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 22.2 66.7 55.6 8.3 22.2 0.0 0.0 Note: a Control group data are presented on the first level within a row ( n =12), Treatment group data are on the second level ( n = 9). b Not Applicable. T able 4 24 December respondents student recruitment a Percent Greatly Decrease Decrease Neither Increase Greatly Increase NA b High achieving students 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.6 0.0 77.3 66.7 9.1 33.3 0.0 0.0 Average achieving students 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 31.8 13.3 50.0 46.7 18.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 Low achieving students 0.0 0.0 31.8 6.7 27.3 33.3 22.7 40.0 18.2 20.0 0.0 0.0 Minority students 0.0 0.0 13.6 6.7 40.9 53.4 31.8 20.0 0.0 13.3 13.6 6.7 Total program en rollment 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 31.8 6.7 63.6 80.0 4.5 13.3 0.0 0.0 Note: a Control group data are presented on the first level within a row ( n = 22), Treatment group data are on the second level ( n = 15). b Not Applicable.

PAGE 151

151 T able 4 25 January respondents ceptions of barriers to science integration a b Percent SD c D N A SA O Reluctance to give up the role of primary source of classroom information 22.2 11.8 33.3 23.5 14.8 17.6 14.8 11.8 7.4 5.9 7.4 29.4 Lack of experience in science integration 7.4 11.8 37.0 23.5 18.5 5.9 14.8 29.4 14.8 0.0 7.4 29.4 Lack of parent and community support for science integration 11.1 17.6 33.3 17.6 25.9 29.4 14.8 0.0 3.7 0.0 11.1 35.3 Have tried it and it was unsuccessful 29.6 17.6 44.4 35.3 0.0 11.8 7.4 5.9 0.0 0.0 18.5 2 9.4 Lack of support from local science teacher(s) 22.2 11.8 14.8 35.3 14.8 5.9 25.9 11.8 11.1 0.0 11.1 35.3 Concerns about discipline 37.0 11.8 22.2 23.5 0.0 17.6 18.5 17.6 14.8 0.0 7.4 29.4 Concerns about large class size 3.7 0.0 22.2 5.9 18.5 5.9 22.2 47.1 22.2 5.9 11.1 35.3 Insufficient time and support to plan for implementation 0.0 5.9 25.9 11.8 14.8 0.0 29.6 29.4 18.5 23.5 11.1 29.4 Lack of integrated science curriculum in courses I teach 3.7 11.8 48.1 23.5 3.7 5.9 14.8 23.5 18.5 0.0 11.1 35.3 D isagreement with the notion that science integration is necessary 33.3 35.3 33.3 11.8 7.4 11.8 7.4 5.9 11.1 0.0 7.4 35.3 Reluctance to diminish emphasis on agricultural production 18.5 5.9 29.6 23.5 7.4 11.8 14.8 29.4 22.2 0.0 7.4 29.4 Doubts about stude handle material 14.8 17.6 25.9 23.5 29.6 5.9 14.8 11.8 0.0 5.9 14.8 35.3 Lack of administrative support for science integration 22.2 23.5 51.9 23.5 11.1 17.6 7.4 5.9 0.0 0.0 7.4 29.4 Insufficient funding 3.7 5.9 25.9 17.6 18.5 11.8 14.8 11.8 29.6 23.5 7.4 29.4 Insufficient background in science content 18.5 23.5 44.4 11.8 22.2 17.6 3.7 11.8 0.0 5.9 11.1 29.4 3.7 11.8 22.2 17.6 18.5 0.0 37.0 17.6 7.4 23.5 11.1 29.4 Lack of agriscience jobs in the local community 33.3 11.8 14.8 23.5 7.4 11.8 29.6 17.6 0.0 5.9 14.8 29.4 Note: a Control group data are presented on the first level within a row ( n = 27), Treatment group data are on the second level ( n = 17). b All items are reverse coded. c SD = Strongly Dis agree, D = Disagree, N = Neither Disagree nor Agree, A = Agree, SA = Strongly Agree, O = Omitted

PAGE 152

152 T able 4 26 May respondents a b Percent SD c D N A SA Reluctance to give up the role of primary source of cl assroom information 16.7 5.3 58.3 47.4 4.2 26.3 20.8 21.1 0.0 0.0 Lack of experience in science integration 4.2 4.0 54.2 47.4 29.2 26.3 8.3 21.1 4.2 0.0 Lack of parent and community support for science integration 12.5 4.0 54.2 44.0 12.5 16.0 16.7 8.0 4. 2 4.0 Have tried it and it was unsuccessful 20.8 21.1 45.8 42.1 25.0 36.8 8.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lack of support from local science teacher(s) 25.0 21.1 29.2 31.6 16.7 31.6 20.8 10.5 8.3 5.3 Concerns about discipline 29.2 26.3 41.7 26.3 4.2 42.1 25.0 5.3 0.0 0 .0 Concerns about large class size 8.3 15.8 33.3 21.1 16.7 31.6 33.3 26.3 8.3 5.3 Insufficient time and support to plan for implementation 8.3 0.0 41.7 21.1 12.5 21.1 25.0 36.8 12.5 21.1 Lack of integrated science curriculum in courses I teach 8.3 15.8 58.3 36.8 16.7 31.6 8.3 15.8 8.3 0.0 Disagreement with the notion that science integration is necessary 43.5 44.4 52.2 16.7 4.3 27.8 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 Reluctance to diminish emphasis on agricultural production 33.3 31.6 38.5 21.1 16.7 10.5 12.5 26.3 0.0 1 0.5 material 12.5 27.8 58.3 27.8 8.3 33.3 20.8 11.1 0.0 0.0 Lack of administrative support for science integration 20.8 33.3 45.8 38.9 25.0 16.7 0.0 5.6 8.3 5.6 Insufficient funding 8.3 11.1 12.5 22.2 20.8 27.8 20.8 22.2 37.5 16.7 Insufficient background in science content 20.8 5.6 50.0 50.0 12.5 22.2 16.7 22.2 0.0 0.0 4.2 5.6 29.2 33.3 8.3 44.4 41.7 11.1 16.7 5.6 Lack of agriscience jobs in the local community 16.7 27.8 50.0 38.9 12.5 22.2 8.3 5.6 12.5 5.6 Note: a Control group data are presented on the first level within a row ( n = 24), Treatment group data are on the second level ( n = 19). b All items are reverse coded. c SD = Strongly Disagree, D = Disagree, N = Neither D isagree nor Agree, A = Agree, SA = Strongly Agree, O = Omitted

PAGE 153

153 T able 4 27 September respondents a b Percent SD c D N A SA Reluctance to give up the role of primary source of classroom information 27.3 0. 0 63.6 33.3 0.0 66.7 9.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lack of experience in science integration 18.2 11.1 54.5 33.3 0.0 44.4 27.3 11.1 0.0 0.0 Lack of parent and community support for science integration 27.3 11.1 54.5 44.4 9.1 22.2 9.1 22.2 0.0 0.0 Have tried it and it was unsuccessful 27.3 33.3 0.0 33.3 72.7 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lack of support from local science teacher(s) 27.3 0.0 27.3 55.6 0.0 22.2 45.5 11.1 0.0 11.1 Concerns about discipline 36.4 44.4 63.6 11.1 0.0 22.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.2 Concerns about large clas s size 27.3 11.1 27.3 33.3 9.1 33.3 27.3 22.2 9.1 0.0 Insufficient time and support to plan for implementation 9.1 0.0 36.4 11.1 0.0 0.0 27.3 66.7 27.3 22.2 Lack of integrated science curriculum in courses I teach 45.5 11.1 36.4 55.6 9.1 11.1 9.1 22.2 0. 0 0.0 Disagreement with the notion that science integration is necessary 81.8 77.8 18.2 22.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Reluctance to diminish emphasis on agricultural production 27.3 0.0 36.4 44.4 9.1 33.3 18.2 22.2 9.1 0.0 to handle material 9.1 0.0 63.6 44.4 0.0 22.2 18.2 33.3 9.1 0.0 Lack of administrative support for science integration 45.5 11.1 45.5 66.7 0.0 11.1 9.1 11.1 0.0 0.0 Insufficient funding 18.2 0.0 45.5 11.1 0.0 22.2 27.3 55.6 9.1 11.1 Insufficient backgr ound in science content 63.6 0.0 9.1 66.7 0.0 33.3 27.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 36.4 33.3 36.4 22.2 9.1 22.2 18.2 22.2 Lack of agriscience jobs in the local community 18.2 0.0 45.5 44.4 9.1 11.1 27.3 44.4 0.0 0.0 Note: a C ontrol group data are presented on the first level within a row ( n = 11), Treatment group data are on the second level ( n = 9). b All items are reverse coded. c SD = Strongly Disagree, D = Disagree, N = Neither Disagree nor Agree, A = Agree, SA = Strongly A gree, O = Omitted

PAGE 154

154 T able 4 28 December respondents a b Percent SD c D N A SA Reluctance to give up the role of primary source of classroom information 22.7 6.7 54.5 13.3 18.2 53.3 4.5 26.7 0.0 0.0 Lack o f experience in science integration 18.2 20.0 50.0 20.0 13.6 20.0 18.2 40.0 0.0 0.0 Lack of parent and community support for science integration 22.7 13.3 50.0 20.0 13.6 20.0 18.2 40.0 0.0 0.0 Have tried it and it was unsuccessful 27.3 26.7 54.5 46.7 18. 2 20.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 Lack of support from local science teacher(s) 45.5 20.0 18.2 26.7 13.6 40.0 18.2 6.7 4.5 6.7 Concerns about discipline 40.9 33.3 50.0 26.7 13.6 40.0 18.2 6.7 4.5 6.7 Concerns about large class size 22.7 26.7 31.8 13.3 0.0 20.0 37. 8 26.7 13.6 13.3 Insufficient time and support to plan for implementation 18.2 0.0 40.9 6.7 0.0 20.0 27.3 60.0 13.6 13.3 Lack of integrated science curriculum in courses I teach 22.7 13.3 59.1 33.3 9.1 40.0 0.0 6.7 9.1 6.7 Disagreement with the notion t hat science integration is necessary 50.0 46.7 50.0 40.0 0.0 13.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Reluctance to diminish emphasis on agricultural production 31.8 20.0 45.5 46.7 13.6 13.3 9.1 20.0 0.0 0.0 material 27.3 20.0 54.5 40.0 4.5 20.0 13.6 20.0 0.0 0.0 Lack of administrative support for science integration 31.8 25.0 50.0 50.0 9.1 12.5 9.1 6.3 0.0 0.0 Insufficient funding 13.6 13.3 27.3 20.0 22.7 20.0 18.2 26.7 13.6 20.0 Insufficient background in science content 22.7 20 .0 45.5 40.0 18.2 33.3 4.5 6.7 9.1 0.0 4.5 15.3 31.8 26.7 18.2 26.7 40.9 20.0 0.0 13.3 Lack of agriscience jobs in the local community 18.2 6.7 45.5 60.0 18.2 20.0 13.6 6.7 0.0 6.7 Note: a Control group data are presen ted on the first level within a row ( n = 22), Treatment group data are on the second level ( n = 15). b All items are reverse coded. c SD = Strongly Disagree, D = Disagree, N = Neither Disagree nor Agree, A = Agree, SA = Strongly Agree, O = Omitted

PAGE 155

155 T able 4 29 Respondents a Percent Yes No January Have you integrated science into your agricultural education program 84.0 100.0 16.0 0.0 Are you content with the level to which you currently ingrate science 36.0 30.8 64.0 69. 2 May Have you integrated science into your agricultural education program 86.4 94.4 13.6 5.6 Are you content with the level to which you currently ingrate science 43.5 52.9 56.5 47.1 September Have you integrated science into your agricultural educat ion program 100 100 0.0 0.0 Are you content with the level to which you currently ingrate science 90.9 33.3 9.1 66.7 December Have you integrated science into your agricultural education program 95.5 93.8 4.5 6.3 Are you content with the level to which you currently ingrate science 54.5 37.5 45.5 62.5 Note: a Control group data are presented on the first level within a row, Treatment group data are on the second level. January: Control group n = 25, Treatment group n = 13. May: Control group n = 22, Tr eatment group n = 18. September: Control group n = 9, Treatment group n = 11.December: Control group n = 22, Treatment group n = 16.

PAGE 156

156 T able 4 30 Respondents a Percent Decrease No Affect Increase January 12.0 0.0 32.0 61.5 44.0 38.5 May 10.5 0.0 31.6 52.9 57.9 47.1 September 0.0 0.0 36.4 66.7 63.6 33.3 December 0.0 0.0 54.5 37.5 45.4 62.6 Note: a Control group data are presented on the first level within a row, Treatment group data are on the second level. January: Control group n = 25, Treatment group n = 13. May: Control group n = 22, Treatment group n = 18. September: Control group n = 11, Treatment group n = 9.December: Control group n = 22, Treatment group n = 16. T able 4 31 Respondents a Percent Decrease No Change Increase January 8.3 0.0 20.8 16.7 70.8 83.3 May 0.0 0.0 20.8 38.9 79.2 61.1 September 0.0 0.0 37.5 16.7 62.5 83.3 December 0.0 0.0 31.8 25.0 68.2 75.0 Note: a Control group da ta are presented on the first level within a row, Treatment group data are on the second level. January: Control group n = 25, Treatment group n = 13. May: Control group n = 22, Treatment group n = 18. September: Control group n = 11, Treatment group n = 9 .December: Control group n = 22, Treatment group n = 16.

PAGE 157

157 T able 4 32 January respondents implementing inquiry based instruction a Percent On average, to what extent do Never <1x per week 1x per week 2x per week 3x per week 4x per week 5x per week Use a textbook as the primary method for studying agriscience. 32.0 23.5 24.0 17.6 28.0 17.6 12.0 29.4 4.0 11.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Use open ended questions that encourage observation, investigations, and scientific thinking. 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.0 29.4 32.0 17.6 16.0 41.2 12.0 5.9 20.0 5.9 Identify agricultural situations/issues that can be investigated at varying levels of complexity. 0.0 0.0 12.0 11.8 24.0 52.9 36.0 23.5 20.0 5.9 4.0 5.9 4.0 0.0 Encourag e students to initiate further investigation. 12.0 5.9 16.0 29.4 12.0 23.5 20.0 11.8 28.0 11.8 8.0 11.8 4.0 0.0 Ask a question or conduct an activity that calls for a single correct answer. 7.4 5.9 14.8 17.6 14.8 29.4 11.1 11.8 18.5 5.9 11.1 11.8 14.8 17. 6 Facilitate and encourage student dialogue about science. 0.0 0.0 4.0 11.8 28.0 41.2 16.0 5.9 24.0 17.6 20.0 17.6 8.0 5.9 Encourage students to defend the adequacy or logic of statements and findings. 0.0 0.0 11.1 17.6 14.8 35.3 7.4 11.8 29.6 11.8 22.2 11.8 7.4 11.8 Make readily available to students a wide variety of resource materials for scientific investigations. 0.0 5.9 18.5 23.5 22.2 11.8 11.1 17.6 25.9 11.8 3.7 11.8 11.1 11.8 Encourage students to design and conduct experiments. 3.7 0.0 22.2 29. 4 25.9 29.4 14.8 5.9 18.5 17.6 3.7 11.8 3.7 5.9 Note: a Control group data are presented on the first level within a row ( n = 25), Treatment group data are on the second level ( n = 17).

PAGE 158

158 T able 4 33 May respondents planning when implementing inquiry based instruction a Percent On average, to what extent Never <1x per week 1x per week 2x per week 3x per week 4x per week 5x per week Omit Use a textbook as the primary method for studying agriscience. 0.0 0.0 3 2.0 32.0 28.0 24.0 20.0 20.0 8.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 8.0 20.0 Use open ended questions that encourage observation, investigations, and scientific thinking. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 8.0 20.0 12.0 20.0 16.0 32.0 12.0 20.0 32.0 4.0 20.0 Identify agricultural sit uations/issues that can be investigated at varying levels of complexity. 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 8.0 12.0 36.0 12.0 20.0 4.0 16.0 32.0 12.0 16.0 4.0 24.0 Encourage students to initiate further investigation. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 12.0 28.0 12.0 20.0 12.0 24.0 20.0 12.0 24.0 8.0 20.0 Ask a question or conduct an activity that calls for a single correct answer. 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 24.0 4.0 32.0 36.0 4.0 24.0 8.0 16.0 20.0 0.0 8.0 20.0 Facilitate and encourage student dialogue about science. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 8.0 28.0 20. 12.0 24.0 32.0 8.0 16.0 16.0 4.0 24.0 Encourage students to defend the adequacy or logic of statements and findings. 0.0 0.0 8.0 4.0 8.0 16.0 28.0 12.0 28.0 20.0 16.0 16.0 8.0 12.0 4.0 20.0 Make readily available to students a wide variety of resourc e materials for scientific investigations. 0.0 0.0 4.0 4.0 24.0 16.0 8.0 8.0 24.0 16.0 8.0 16.0 24.0 16.0 8.0 24.0 Encourage students to design and conduct experiments. 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 24.0 24.0 28.0 20. 20.0 32.0 8.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 8.0 24.0 Note: a Control group data are presented on the first level within a row ( n = 25), Treatment group data are on the second level ( n = 25).

PAGE 159

159 T able 4 34 September respondents when implementing inquiry based instruction a Perc ent On average, to what extent do Never <1x per week 1x per week 2x per week 3x per week 4x per week 5x per week Use a textbook as the primary method for studying agriscience. 72.7 77.8 27.3 9.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Use ope n ended questions that encourage observation, investigations, and scientific thinking. 0.0 0.0 9.1 11.1 9.1 0.0 45.5 22.2 18.2 44.4 18.2 22.2 0.0 0.0 Identify agricultural situations/issues that can be investigated at varying levels of complexity. 9.1 0.0 27.3 22.2 27.3 22.2 27.3 22.2 9.1 22.2 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 Encourage students to initiate further investigation. 9.1 0.0 9.1 44.4 0.0 11.1 45.5 22.2 36.4 11.1 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 Ask a question or conduct an activity that calls for a single correct answer. 18 .2 33.3 45.5 22.2 18.2 0.0 9.1 33.3 9.1 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Facilitate and encourage student dialogue about science. 9.1 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 11.1 54.5 33.3 18.2 22.2 18.2 22.2 0.0 0.0 Encourage students to defend the adequacy or logic of statements and fin dings. 18.2 11.1 0.0 11.1 18.2 11.1 36.4 33.3 18.2 22.2 9.1 11.1 0.0 0.0 Make readily available to students a wide variety of resource materials for scientific investigations. 9.1 0.0 18.2 11.1 9.1 11.1 0.0 0.0 27.3 22.2 36.4 55.6 0.0 0.0 Encourage stude nts to design and conduct experiments. 9.1 11.1 36.4 22.2 18.2 44.4 27.3 0.0 9.1 22.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Note: a Control group data are presented on the first level within a row ( n = 13), Treatment group data are on the second level ( n = 10).

PAGE 160

160 T able 4 35 D ecember respondents implementing inquiry based instruction a Percent On average, to what extent do Never <1x per week 1x per week 2x per week 3x per week 4x per week 5x per week Use a textbook as the primary method for studying agriscience. 45.5 37.5 40.9 37.5 4.5 18.8 9.1 0.0 0.0 6.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Use open ended questions that encourage observation, investigations, and scientific thinking. 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.3 18.2 18.8 36.4 18.8 13.6 12.5 9.1 12.5 22.7 31.3 Identify agricultural situations/issues that can be investigated at varying levels of complexity. 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.5 40.9 25.0 22.7 12.5 22.7 18.8 4.5 12.5 9.1 18.8 Encourage students to initiate further investigation. 0.0 0.0 4.5 6.3 36.4 50.0 13.6 6.3 9.1 6.3 22.7 18.8 13.6 12.5 Ask a question or conduct an activity that calls for a single correct answer. 4.5 6.3 36.4 12.5 22.7 18.8 4.5 12.5 18.2 18.8 13.6 6.3 0.0 25.0 Facilitate and encourage student dialogue about science. 0.0 0.0 4.5 6.3 1 3.6 31.3 31.8 6.3 22.7 25.0 9.1 18.8 18.2 12.5 Encourage students to defend the adequacy or logic of statements and findings. 0.0 0.0 4.5 12.5 27.3 43.8 22.7 6.3 13.6 25.0 9.1 6.3 13.6 6.3 Make readily available to students a wide variety of resource mat erials for scientific investigations. 0.0 0.0 4.5 6.3 22.7 25.0 13.6 6.3 18.2 6.3 13.6 6.3 27.3 50.0 Encourage students to design and conduct experiments. 0.0 0.0 22.7 37.5 27.3 25.0 18.2 12.5 13.6 0.0 4.5 18.8 13.6 6.3 Note: a Control group data are pre sented on the first level within a row ( n = 22), Treatment group data are on the second level ( n = 16).

PAGE 161

161 T able 4 36. May respondents implementing inquiry based instruction in a specific class a Percen t Never <1x per week 1x per week 2x per week 3x per week 4x per week 5x per week Use a textbook as the primary method for studying agriscience. 0.0 0.0 37.5 47.4 29.2 26.3 20.8 21.1 4.2 0.0 8.3 0.0 0.0 5.3 Use op en ended questions that encourage observation, investigations, and scientific thinking. 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.0 4.2 5.3 12.5 21.1 16.7 15.8 33.3 21.1 29.2 36.9 Identify agricultural situations/issues that can be investigated at varying levels of complexity. 0.0 0 .0 0.0 0.0 8.3 0.0 25.0 33.3 29.2 22.2 12.5 27.8 25.0 16.6 Encourage students to initiate further investigation. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.5 5.6 33.3 38.9 12.5 27.8 20.8 11.1 20.9 16.7 Ask a question or conduct an activity that calls for a single correct answer 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.0 16.7 5.3 29.2 42.1 12.5 26.3 24.4 0.0 10.5 26.3 Facilitate and encourage student dialogue about science. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.5 0.0 12.5 21.1 12.5 21.1 41.7 42.1 20.8 15.8 Encourage students to defend the adequacy or logic of statements a nd findings. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.3 10.5 25.0 31.6 25.0 5.3 29.2 31.6 12.5 21.1 Make readily available to students a wide variety of resource materials for scientific investigations. 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.3 29.2 5.3 8.3 31.6 8.3 10.5 25.0 26.3 29.2 21.1 Encourage s tudents to design and conduct experiments. 0.0 0.0 8.3 0.0 20.8 21.1 29.2 31.6 12.5 21.1 16.6 21.1 12.5 5.3 Note: a Control group data are presented on the first level within a row ( n = 24), Treatment group data are on the second level ( n = 19).

PAGE 162

162 T able 4 37. September respondents when implementing inquiry based instruction in a specific class a Percent Never <1x per week 1x per week 2x per week 3x per week 4x per we ek 5x per week Use a textbook as the primary method for studying agriscience. 54.0 77.8 9.1 11.1 36.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Use open ended questions that encourage observation, investigations, and scientific thinking. 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 18. 2 22.2 36.4 22.2 27.3 22.2 18.2 22.2 0.0 0.0 Identify agricultural situations/issues that can be investigated at varying levels of complexity. 0.0 0.0 27.3 33.3 9.1 33.3 27.3 22.2 27.3 11.1 9.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Encourage students to initiate further investiga tion. 9.1 11.1 9.1 11.1 0.0 44.4 54.5 22.2 18.2 11.1 9.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ask a question or conduct an activity that calls for a single correct answer. 18.2 22.2 27.3 22.2 27.3 33.3 9.1 11.1 0.0 11.1 9.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Facilitate and encourage student dialogue a bout science. 0.0 0.0 9.1 11.1 9.1 0.0 45.5 44.4 0.0 33.3 36.4 11.1 0.0 0.0 Encourage students to defend the adequacy or logic of statements and findings. 9.1 11.1 18.2 11.1 0.0 33.3 36.4 33.3 27.3 11.1 9.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Make readily available to students a wide variety of resource materials for scientific investigations. 9.1 11.1 18.2 0.0 9.1 0.0 0.0 22.2 18.2 11.1 45.5 55.6 0.0 0.0 Encourage students to design and conduct experiments. 9.1 11.1 36.4 33.3 0.0 11.1 18.2 0.0 27.3 44.4 9.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Note: a Control group data are presented on the first level within a row ( n = 24), Treatment group data are on the second level ( n = 19).

PAGE 163

163 T able 4 38. December respondents when implementing inquiry based instruct ion in a specific class a Percent Never <1x per week 1x per week 2x per week 3x per week 4x per week 5x per week Use a textbook as the primary method for studying agriscience. 45.5 50.0 36.4 31.3 4.5 18.8 13.6 0. 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Use open ended questions that encourage observation, investigations, and scientific thinking. 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.5 18.2 25.0 27.3 12.5 22.7 63.0 9.1 6.3 22.7 37.5 Identify agricultural situations/issues that can be investigated at v arying levels of complexity. 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.8 36.4 25.0 27.3 12.5 22.7 12.5 0.0 18.8 13.6 12.5 Encourage students to initiate further investigation. 0.0 0.0 4.5 18.8 27.3 25.0 13.6 12.5 22.7 18.8 9.1 6.3 22.7 18.8 Ask a question or conduct an activity th at calls for a single correct answer. 4.5 6.3 27.3 6.3 27.3 25.0 4.5 18.8 27.3 18.8 4.5 0.0 4.5 25.0 Facilitate and encourage student dialogue about science. 0.0 0.0 4.5 6.3 13.6 37.5 18.2 0.0 27.3 31.3 13.6 6.3 22.7 18.8 Encourage students to defend the adequacy or logic of statements and findings. 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 27.3 18.8 22.7 18.8 27.3 12.5 9.1 6.3 13.6 18.8 Make readily available to students a wide variety of resource materials for scientific investigations. 0.0 0.0 4.5 18.8 22.7 18.8 18.2 12.5 18. 2 0.0 4.5 12.5 31.8 37.5 Encourage students to design and conduct experiments. 0.0 6.3 13.6 37.5 45.5 37.5 18.2 6.3 0.0 0.0 9.1 6.3 13.6 6.3 Note: a Control group data are presented on the first level within a row ( n = 22), Treatment group data are on th e second level ( n = 16).

PAGE 164

164 T able 4 39. January respondents instruction a Percent How often do you ask students in your classroom to: Never 1x per Year 1x per Semester 1x per Month 1x per Week 1x per Day Omit Memorize scientific facts or information separately from activities. 7.4 17.6 7.4 11.8 22.2 11.8 29.6 52.9 22.2 5.9 3.7 0.0 7.4 0.0 Use data to construct a reasonable explanation. 8.3 0.0 0.0 5.9 8.3 17.6 54.2 35.3 20.8 41.2 8.3 0.0 11.1 0.0 Se ek and recognize patterns (trends in the data or observations). 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.8 14.8 5.9 29.6 23.5 40.7 58.8 7.4 0.0 7.4 0.0 Follow a set series of steps to get the right answer to a question. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.4 5.9 18.5 47.1 40.7 35.3 25.9 11.8 7.4 0.0 Ask questions during investigations that lead to further ideas, questions, and investigations. 0.0 0.0 3.7 5.9 14.8 0.0 3.7 41.2 40.7 29.4 29.6 23.5 7.4 0.0 Wait to act until the teacher gives instructions for the next step in the investigation. 3.7 11. 8 7.4 17.6 7.4 0.0 29.6 41.2 22.2 11.8 22.2 17.6 7.4 0.0 Choose appropriate tools for an investigation. 3.7 5.9 3.7 0.0 7.4 17.6 22.2 35.3 33.3 29.4 22.2 11.8 7.4 0.0 Offer explanations from previous experiences and from knowledge gained during investiga tions. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.4 0.0 14.8 47.1 37.0 29.4 33.3 23.5 7.4 0.0 Make connections to previously held ideas (or revise previous conceptions/assumptions). 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.4 11.8 3.7 23.5 48.1 41.2 33.3 23.5 7.4 0.0 Communicate investigations and expl anations (purposes, procedures, and/or results of investigations) to others. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 17.6 14.8 29.4 48.1 41.2 25.9 5.9 7.4 0.0 Listen carefully to peers as they discuss scientific investigations. 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.9 18.5 17.6 18.5 47.1 29.6 17.6 2 2.2 5.9 11.1 0.0 Use drawing, graphing, or charting to convey new information from an agriscience activity. 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.0 14.8 17.6 18.5 29.4 55.8 35.3 55.6 11.8 7.4 0.0 Note: a Control group data are presented on the first level within a row ( n = 27), Treatment group data are on the second level ( n = 17).

PAGE 165

165 T able 4 40. May respondents instruction a Percent How often do you ask students in your classroom to: Never 1x per Year 1x per Semester 1x pe r Month 1x per Week 1x per Day Omit Memorize scientific facts or information separately from activities. 0.0 0.0 16.0 20.0 12.0 0.0 12.0 16.0 20.0 36.0 24.0 20.0 16.0 0.0 Use data to construct a reasonable explanation. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 20.0 48 .0 36.0 32.0 32.0 12.0 12.0 Seek and recognize patterns (trends in the data or observations). 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 20.0 12.0 24.0 48.0 40.0 32.0 12.0 8.0 Follow a set series of steps to get the right answer to a question. 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 .0 28.0 36.0 56.0 36.0 12.0 24.0 Ask questions during investigations that lead to further ideas, questions, and investigations. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.0 4.0 28.0 32.0 48.0 48.0 12.0 16.0 Wait to act until the teacher gives instructions for the next s tep in the investigation. 0.0 0.0 12.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 12.0 20.0 16.0 8.0 44.0 40.0 16.0 24.0 Choose appropriate tools for an investigation. 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 8.0 0.0 8.0 28.0 32.0 20.0 40.0 32.0 12.0 16.0 Offer explanations from previous experiences and from knowledge gained during investigations. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 32.0 48.0 44.0 36.0 24.0 16.0 Make connections to previously held ideas (or revise previous conceptions/assumptions). 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.0 32.0 44.0 36.0 32.0 24.0 8.0 8.0 Co mmunicate investigations and explanations (purposes, procedures, and/or results of investigations) to others. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 28.0 40.0 52.0 40.0 12.0 20.0 Listen carefully to peers as they discuss scientific investigations. 0.0 0.0 4.0 0. 0 12.5 4.0 8.3 12.0 33.3 52.0 41.7 20.0 4.0 12.0 Use drawing, graphing, or charting to convey new information from an agriscience activity. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 4.0 8.0 8.0 36.0 52.0 28.0 28.0 20. 8.0 Note: a Control group data are presented on the first level within a row ( n = 25), Treatment group data are on the second level ( n = 25).

PAGE 166

166 T able 4 41. September respondents instruction a Percent How often do you ask students in your classroom to: Never 1 x per Year 1x per Semester 1x per Month 1x per Week 1x per Day Omit Memorize scientific facts or information separately from activities. 38.5 20.0 0.0 0.0 15.4 20.0 30.8 40.0 7.7 20.0 0.0 0.0 7.7 0.0 Use data to construct a reasonable explanation. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.1 0.0 23.1 30.0 30.8 60.0 15.4 10.0 0.0 0.0 Seek and recognize patterns (trends in the data or observations). 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 61.5 50.0 30.8 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Follow a set series of steps to get the right answer to a question. 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.4 0.0 30.8 0.0 46.2 60.0 0.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 Ask questions during investigations that lead to further ideas, questions, and investigations. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.7 0.0 23.1 10.0 38.5 10.0 23.1 80.0 0.0 0.0 Wait to act until the teacher gives i nstructions for the next step in the investigation. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.1 10.0 30.8 50.0 38.5 40.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Choose appropriate tools for an investigation. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.7 10. 30.8 20.0 46.2 50.0 0.0 20.0 15.4 0.0 Offer explanations from previou s experiences and from knowledge gained during investigations. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 7.7 0.0 38.5 80.0 38.5 10.0 15.4 0.0 Make connections to previously held ideas (or revise previous conceptions/assumptions). 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.7 10.0 30.8 10.0 53.8 70.0 7.7 0.0 Communicate investigations and explanations (purposes, procedures, and/or results of investigations) to others. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.4 10.0 46.2 10.0 15.4 70.0 15.4 0.0 7.7 10.0 Listen carefully to peers as they discuss scientific invest igations. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.4 10.0 46.2 20.0 30.8 40.0 0.0 20.0 7.7 0.0 Use drawing, graphing, or charting to convey new information from an agriscience activity. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.7 10.0 38.5 70.0 38.5 10.0 7.7 0.0 7.7 10.0 Note: a Control group data a re presented on the first level within a row ( n =13), Treatment group data are on the second level ( n = 10).

PAGE 167

167 T able 4 42. December respondents instruction a Percent How often do you ask students in you r classroom to: Never 1x per Year 1x per Semester 1x per Month 1x per Week 1x per Day Memorize scientific facts or information separately from activities. 27.3 12.5 0.0 6.3 9.1 25.0 36.4 37.5 27.3 18.8 0.0 0.0 Use data to construct a reasonable explana tion. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.6 6.3 18.2 50.0 50.0 25.0 18.2 18.8 Seek and recognize patterns (trends in the data or observations). 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.1 12.5 31.8 56.3 45.5 25.0 9.1 6.3 Follow a set series of steps to get the right answer to a question. 0.0 6. 3 4.5 0.0 9.1 6.3 18.2 12.5 54.5 62.5 9.1 12.5 Ask questions during investigations that lead to further ideas, questions, and investigations. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 18.2 25.0 40.9 56.3 36.4 18.8 Wait to act until the teacher gives instructions for the n ext step in the investigation. 4.5 6.3 9.1 0.0 9.1 18.8 18.2 18.8 54.5 37.5 4.5 18.8 Choose appropriate tools for an investigation. 0.0 6.3 0.0 0.0 4.5 6.3 27.3 37.5 45.5 31.3 22.7 18.8 Offer explanations from previous experiences and from knowledge gain ed during investigations. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.3 9.1 18.8 45.5 43.8 45.5 31.3 Make connections to previously held ideas (or revise previous conceptions/assumptions). 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.1 31.3 40.9 31.3 50.0 37.6 Communicate investigations and exp lanations (purposes, procedures, and/or results of investigations) to others. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 12.5 13.6 18.8 50.0 43.8 31.8 18.8 Listen carefully to peers as they discuss scientific investigations. 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.5 22.7 12.5 22.7 31.3 40.9 37.5 13.6 0 .0 Use drawing, graphing, or charting to convey new information from an agriscience activity. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.6 6.3 18.2 50.0 50.0 31.3 18.2 6.3 Note: a Control group data are presented on the first level within a row ( n = 22), Treatment group data ar e on the second level ( n = 16).

PAGE 168

168 T able 4 43. Ask an expert email correspondence # of participants Month of Contact Nature of Email Control group 1 August Introductory Treatment group 2 August Introductory September Introductory T able 4 44 Par ticipants support for implementing IBI a Percent Yes No May Sought support 58.3 61.1 41.7 38.9 Have you used AskAnExpert email for support in implementing the NATAA workshop content 0.0 0.0 100 100 September Sought support 55.6 83.3 44.4 16.7 Did t he support person attend the same NATAA workshop 22.2 33.4 88.8 50.1 Have you used AskAnExpert email for support in implementing the NATAA workshop content 0.0 0.0 100 100 Are there other ways you could be supported in your efforts to incorporate the wo rkshop content 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 December Sought support 59.1 56.3 40.9 43.9 Did the support person attend the same NATAA workshop 38.5 33.3 61.5 66.7 Have you used AskAnExpert email for support in implementing the NATAA workshop content 0.0 0.0 100 100 Are there other ways you could be supported in your efforts to incorporate the workshop content 45.5 43.8 54.5 56.3 Note: May: Control group n = 34, Treatment group n = 18. September: Control group n = 9, Treatment group n = 6.December: Control grou p n = 22, Treatment group n = 16.

PAGE 169

169 T able 4 45. Participant explanation for non use of ask an expert follow up support Frequency Control Group Treatment Group Unaware of existence of Ask an Expert Follow up Support 5 6 sk an Expert 1 4 an Expert 4 0 Forgot about it 2 1 Used personal contacts or peer teachers 1 0 Lack of Time 4 2 1 0 Other 3 0 Note. n = 34.

PAGE 170

170 Table 4 4 6 Correlations between variables in January 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1. ISS -.35 .09 .00 .28 .18 .10 .12 .32 .16 2. ITT -.04 .02 .15 .10 .19 .22 .10 .02 3. IS into C -.57 .66 .51 .02 .10 .33 .65 4. C with I -.35 .82 .06 .54 .30 .64 5. Formed CR -.29 .08 .01 .42 .56 6. Prior NATAA Participation -.02 .68 .29 .62 7. CSR -.02 .13 .08 8. Gender -.41 .51 9. Years Teaching -.82 10. Age -Note. ISS = Integrative Science Scale; ITT = Inquiry Based Teaching Techniques Scale ; IS into C = Integrated Science into Curriculum; C with I = Content with levels of integration; Formed CR = Formed collaborative relationships; Prior NATAA Participation = had previously participated in a NATAA workshop; CSR = Conducted Scientific Researc h; Gender = Men were the baseline; Years Teac hing = Number of years teaching. n = 53. Table 4 47 Correlations between variables in May 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. ISS -.21 .07 .22 .07 .14 2. ITT -.40 .31 .23 .26 3. IS into C -.11 .01 .22 4. C wi th I -.06 .04 5. Formed CR -.29 6.SS for SI -Note. ISS = Integrative Science Scale; ITT = Inquiry Based Teaching Techniques Scale; IS into C = Integrated Science into Curriculum; C with I = Content with levels of integration; Formed CR = Formed collaborative relationships; SSforSI = Sought Support for Science Integration. n = 50.

PAGE 171

171 Table 4 4 8 Correlations between variables in September 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1. ISS -.45 .59 40 .50 .34 .52 .21 .25 .17 .1 6 .01 .02 .2 6 .33 2. ITT -.15 .3 5 .39 .21 .45 .2 9 .24 .24 .1 3 .03 .09 .1 9 .3 9 3. CF C -.80 .06 .56 .4 8 .4 4 .3 1 .41 .4 9 .38 .20 .01 .11 4. CF AP -.05 .5 7 .6 4 .2 3 .54 .34 .4 2 .0 9 .01 .14 .01 5. CF Time -.17 .12 .18 .21 .17 .03 .32 .0 8 .29 .35 6. SCS -.8 9 60 .7 5 .85 .9 3 .6 9 .12 .2 8 .05 7. SCS CL -.34 .77 .65 .71 .42 .1 4 .35 .07 8. SCS TC -.01 .4 5 .74 .49 .17 .06 .04 9. SCS PD -.58 .51 .1 9 .06 .2 6 .17 10. SCS UofP -.78 .69 .24 .1 9 .19 11. SCS CS -.6 9 .07 .0 5 .10 12. SCS LP -.21 .41 .23 13. C with I -.65 .11 14. Formed CR -.14 15. SS for SI -Note. ISS= Integrative Science S cale; ITT = Inquiry Based Teaching Techniques Scale; CF C = Coherence Core Facet; CF AP = Active Participation Core Facet; CF Time = Adequate amount of time in PD; SCS = School Culture Scale; SCS CL = Collaborative Leadership in SCS; SCS TC = Teacher Coll aboration in SCS; SCS PD = Professional Development in SCS; SCS UofP = Unity of Purpose in SCS; SCS CS = Collegial Support in SCS; SCS LP = Learning Partnership in SCS; C with I = Content with levels of integration; Formed CR = Formed Collaborative Relatio nships; SSforSI = Sought Support for Science Integration. n = 25.

PAGE 172

172 Table 4 49 Correlations between variables in December 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1. ISS -.43 .67 .14 .06 .17 .22 .23 .23 .02 .04 .12 .0 4 .26 .21 .04 .65 .08 2. ITT -.15 .17 .01 .42 .26 .31 .33 .33 .17 .31 09 .30 .40 .01 .34 .01 3. CF C -.27 .12 .15 .01 .01 .02 .34 .30 .00 20 .12 .08 .28 .14 .14 4. CF AP -.40 .18 .20 .17 .16 .10 .07 .14 .1 5 .11 .07 .05 .14 .01 5. CF Time -.03 .06 .09 .09 .07 .03 .03 .09 .08 .22 .28 .16 .08 6. SCS -.93 .84 .81 .92 .88 .63 .30 .05 .02 .15 .31 .25 7. SCS CL -.72 .67 .86 .79 .52 .26 05 .03 .05 .28 .17 8. SCS TC -.98 .67 .64 .42 20 .20 .08 .16 .20 .33 9. SCS PD -.66 .61 .40 20 .16 .04 .18 .24 .30 10. SCS UofP -.85 .49 33 .09 .08 .20 .31 .23 11. SCS CS -.48 32 .10 .08 .1 7 .28 .19 12. SCS LP -. 14 .23 .18 .06 .23 .13 13. TAP -.0 3 .1 1 .0 9 06 07 14. IS into C -.29 .19 .14 .11 15. FormedCR -.03 .08 .21 16. SSforSI -.06 .22 17. CSR -.13 18. YT -Note. ISS = Integrative Science Scale; ITT = Inquiry Based Teaching Techniques Scale; CF C = Coherence Core Facet; CF AP = Active Participation Core Facet; CF Time = Adequate amount of time in PD; SCS = S chool Culture Scale; SCS CL = Collaborative Leadership in SCS; SCS TC = Teacher Collaboration in SCS; SCS PD = Professional Development in SCS; SCS UofP = Unity of Purpose in SCS; SCS CS = Collegial Support in SCS; SCS LP = Learning Partnership in SCS; TA P =Teacher Attitudes towards Professional Development; IS into C = Integrated Science into Curriculum; Formed CR = Formed Collaborative Relationships; SSforSI = Sought Support for Science Integration. CSR = Conducted Scientific Research; YT = Number of yea rs teaching. n = 38.

PAGE 173

173 Table 4 5 0 January, May September and December B SE Beta t p R 2 adj January ISS ITT .014 .007 .346 2.017 .053 .346* May ISS ITT .027 .026 .206 1.050 .304 .042 September ISS ITT .011 .006 .548 1.736 .126 .301 ISS ITT .015 .003 .768 5.117 .002 SCS .668 .127 .789 5.260 .002 .87 5* ISS ITT .012 .003 .627 4.075 .015 SCS .686 .108 .810 6.323 .003 CF Co .101 .118 .141 .855 .441 CF Ap .137 .100 .195 1.365 .224 .940* December ISS ITT .007 .004 .431 1.789 .095 .186 ISS ITT .005 .004 .314 1.248 .234 SCS .226 .174 .328 1.303 .215 .280 ISS ITT .005 .003 .342 1.874 .086 SCS .164 .127 .238 1.296 .219 CF Co .647 .181 .615 3.580 .004 .652* ISS ITT .006 .003 .358 1.929 .080 SCS .177 .129 .257 1.373 .197 CF Co .656 .183 .624 3.584 .004 TAP .125 .146 .151 .857 .410 .674* Note. Model Significant at = .05. January n = 53, May n = 50, September n = 25, December n = 38.

PAGE 174

174 Table 4 5 1 inquiry based teaching techniques in January, May September and December B SE Beta t p R 2 adj January ITT ISS 8.294 4.113 .346 2.017 .053 .346* May ITT ISS 1.562 1.487 .206 1.050 .304 .042 September ITT ISS 27.529 15.862 .548 1.736 .126 .301 ITT ISS 53.194 10.396 1.060 5.117 .002 SCS 37.741 8.803 .888 4.287 .005 .828** ITT ISS 64.484 15.825 1.285 4.075 .015 SCS 45.667 12.075 1.075 3.782 .019 CF Co 2.789 9.106 .078 .306 .775 CF Ap 8.648 7.572 .246 1.142 .317 .877* December ITT ISS 27.328 15.275 .431 1.789 .095 .186 ITT ISS 21.568 17.277 .340 1.248 .234 SCS 9.017 11.907 .207 .757 .462 .220 ITT ISS 41.938 22.385 .662 1.874 .086 SCS 5.322 11.838 .122 .450 .661 CF Co 29.174 21.310 .438 1.369 .196 .326 ITT ISS 44.765 23.205 .707 1.929 .080 SCS 3.353 12.404 .077 .270 .792 CF Co 31.596 22.029 .474 1.434 .179 TAP 9.339 13.144 .177 .711 .492 .355 Note. Model Significant a t = .05. ** Model Significant at = 01. January n = 53, May n = 50, September n = 25, December n = 38.

PAGE 175

175 CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS T he purpose of this study was to describe the influence of the train the trainer professional science integration in agriculture and inquiry based instruction, as well as the relationships between the components of high quality teacher professional development. The study implemented an experimental online follow up support system for the professional development. C hapter 1 established the importance of examining high quality professional development for secon dary agriculture teachers. The C hapter also offered an overview of the natio nal need to explore models of teacher professional development. Further, it provided the history and need for high quality teacher professional development and detailed the importance of research examining the impacts of professional development on teacher Chapter 2 provided the model of high quality teacher professional development that utilized a train the trainer form for professional development, which guided the which was described and supported by empirical evidence. The review of literature contained a synthesis of research concerning the core facets for high quality teacher professional development, the components of train the trainer models of professional d evelopment, as well as the role of teacher knowledge and practice, educational policy, school culture and student learning outcomes in teacher professional development. Chapter 3 provided the research methodology of this study, including a description of the research design, population, instrumentation, data collection

PAGE 176

176 procedures, and data analysis. The dependent variables in this study were the science integration in agriculture and implementation of inquiry based instruction. The independent variables were the core facets of high quality teacher professional development, school culture, and individual teacher variables. The treatment group received additional follow up support throughout the year following the NATAA workshop e xperience. Using a census of secondary agriculture teachers who attended National Agriscience Teacher Ambassador Academy (NATAA) workshops, the quasi experimental design utilized a questionnaire at four data collection points throughout the year following the workshop to assess teacher perceptions of science integration in agriculture and inquiry based instruction. Data analysis consisted of point serial correlations, and regres sion methods. Chapter 4 presented findings related to each of the six objectives. A full description of the results related to each objective was provided. Chapter 5 offers a summary of the study and provides conclusions grounded in ings. Additionally, the chapter presents recommendations for future research, teacher preservice education, professional development programs. Objectives This study was designed to describe the influence of the train the trainer professional development m science integration in agriculture and inquiry based instruction. The specific objectives guiding this research study were to: term perceptions of sc ience integration in agriculture following a t rainer led professional development workshop.

PAGE 177

177 term perceptions of inquiry based instruction (IBI) implementation following a t rainer led professional development workshop. d ATAA follow up support after a t rainer led professional development workshop. determine the effects of follow of science integra tion in agriculture and IBI. perceptions of science integration in agriculture and IBI and selected elements of the high quality teacher professional development model (teacher variables, pro fessional development program variables, school culture and other professional development). determine the predictive variation of teacher perceptions of science integration in agriculture and IBI based on elements of the high quality teacher professional development model. Methods This study utilized a quasi experimental, posttest only comparison group design science integration in agriculture and implementation of inquiry ba sed instruction (IBI). Independent variables included in this study were the core facets of high quality teacher professional development, school culture, and teacher variables. NATAA workshops at the 2012 National FFA Convention and the 2012 National Association of Agriculture Educators (NAAE) National Convention. This study was a census, so all member of the population were contacted to participate in the study. The primary event for this study was the workshops at the 2012 National FFA and NAAE conventions. An experimental intervention was created consisting of an email follow up support which provided participants with the opportunity to answer questions that arose as they implemente d the workshop content in their classrooms.

PAGE 178

178 The NATAA ask an expert email was created and staffed by a NATAA trainer to answer and assist participants in implementing the NATAA workshop content. Participants were informed to the support service offered by the ask the expert email at the conclusion of all NATAA workshops and were reminded of the NATAA ask an expert follow up support during the initial data collection point email. Participants randomly assigned to the experimental group received an initial e mail from the ask an expert email address that explained the follow up support program and encouraged participation in the follow up. For the first 5 months passive monthly emails were sent from the ask an expert to the experimental group to remind them th at the ask the expert support resource was available to them. These emails encouraged participants to use the email resources to assist with lesson planning and implementation. Beginning in June 2013 the email reminders were altered to include more active support of IBI implementation. The monthly emails for the duration of the study included two to three frequently asked question from the ask the expert, as well as mini lesson i deas, key components of IBI and strategies to support implementation of IBI. The survey instruments used in this study were based on previously implemented surveys. To assess the dependent variables the Integrative Science Survey (ISS) instrument and the Inquiry based Teaching Techniques (ITT) instrument were used. The ISS was developed was used to identify participant perceptions of integrating science and agriculture. The instrument used 5 point Likert type scales to assess teacher perceptions related to preparation for, barriers to, and support for

PAGE 179

179 integrating science into agriculture programs. The ITT instrument was used to examine based teaching practices by having teachers to report the frequency o f engagement in inquiry based instructional practices and their perceptions of IBI on student learning outcomes. A variety of surveys were utilized to assess the independent variables. Researcher erceptions of the core facets of teacher professional development of the NATAA workshops as well as the demographic information of the participants. The School Culture Survey (SCS) and the Teacher Attitudes about Professional Development (TAP) scale were a lso utilized. The SCS included 35 Likert type questions, from strongly disagree to strongly agree, that examined six factors related to school culture (Gruenert, 1998). The six factors were: (a) collaborative leadership, (b) teacher collaboration, (c) prof essional development, (d) collegial support, (e) unity of purpose, and (f) learning partnerships. The TAP scale used five Likert type questions to assess how favorably teachers respond to professional development initiatives. There were four data collectio n points within this study. The initial survey instrument included the ISS, ITT and demographic information questions in January. The second survey instrument completed by the participants included the ISS and ITT scales in May. The third data collection p oint used the ISS, ITT, and SCS to gather ITT, SCS, TAP, and additional survey questions related to the professional development experiences over the past year.

PAGE 180

180 Data w ere analyzed through SPSS version 20. Data corresponding to each objective were analyzed through the use of descriptive statistics, analysis of covariance, point serial correlations, as well as regression methods. Summary of Findings teachers who originally able to contacted and consented to participate in the study in January and May (control = 100, treatment = 90). Additional participants were unable to be contacted at the final two data collections points leading to 148 participants in September and December (control = 88, treatment = 78). It should be noted that the response rates for varied for each objective and data collection poin t, and only 21 p articipants responded at all four data collection points. Description of Population The population in this study consisted of secondary school based agricultural education teachers who attended an NATAA workshop at the 2012 National FFA Convention or the 2012 National Association. A majority of respondents in this study were female (control = 61.8%, treatment = 59.1%). The mean age (control = 39, treatment = 59.1) and average numbers of years teaching (control = 15.03, treatment = 14.61) were similar for b oth the control and treatment group. Additional data w ere of their attitude towards professional development, their perceptions of school culture, and the facets of high quality teacher profes sional development that occurred at the NATAA workshops.

PAGE 181

181 Respondents indicated generally positive attitudes towards professional development, and reported that professional development helped teachers develop new teaching techniques. All of the respondent s agreed t heir teaching had been enriched by professional development events. collaboration was the least agreed with, indicating that a majority of respondents felt that teach spend time planning together or observing each other teaching. The respondents agreed most with concept that teachers utilize professional networks to obtain information and resources f or classroom instruction, which was part of the professional development subscale. The two most agreed with subscales were professional development and collegial support. The respondents quality teacher professional deve lopment were assessed: duration, collective participation, coherence, and active participation. A majority of respondents reported the length of time spent in the workshop was adequate for them to gain the knowledge and practice need to implement the works hop content in their classrooms. A majority of respondents did not attend the NATAA workshop with any teachers or administrators from their school. However, almost half of all respondents indicated that they attended the workshop with teachers or administr ators from their state. A vast majority of respondents indicated that the workshop aligned with their individual beliefs concerning science integration and their prior knowledge about science integration and IBI. More than half of the r espondents indicated that the NATAA workshop aligned with their school or school district, state,

PAGE 182

182 and national policies. In regards to active participation in the NATAA workshop, a majority of respondents indicated that they had the opportunity to ask questions during the wor kshops and complete the student activity/experiment that was provided by the workshop. Objective One Objective one sought to and long term perceptions of science integration in agriculture following a t r ainer led professional development workshop. The results indicated that the respondents had favorable perceptions of science integration overall and most respondents indicated they planned to increase the levels of science integration in their agricultural programs. Nearly all respondents indicated they had integrated science into their agricultural education programs, though the percentage of respondents who indicated they were content with the level to which they currently integrate science varied between data collection point and group. The Integrative Science Survey (ISS) asked respondents to complete subscales assessing their perceptions towards: integration of science, preparation to integrate science, support for integration, and the student impact of integration, barriers to integration, and their level of integration. The first subscale of ISS assessed respondents science into agricultural programs. At all data collection points, a vast majority of respondents agre ed that science concepts are easier for students to understand when science is integrated into an agricultural education program and that students are better prepared in science after they have completed a course in agriculture education that integrates sc ience. Additionally, in September and December, a majority of respondents indicated that students are better able to make connections between scientific principles

PAGE 183

183 and agriculture when science is integrated into agricultural education programs. At all four data collection points respondents disagreed with the statements intr The second subscale of the ISS examined respondents preparation to integrate science into their curriculum. At all data collection points, fewer respondents reported feeling prepared to teach integrated physical science concepts than integrated biological science concepts. A vast majority of respondents at all data collection points indicated teacher preparation programs in agricultural education should provide instruction on science integration. Though there was support for providing preservice teachers with cooperating teachers who model science integration as well as early field experiences and student teaching internships with teachers and programs that integrate science, there was great variation in the level of agree ment over the four data collection points. The third subscale of the ISS examined respondents science integration has on student recruitment. At all data collection points, a majority of respondents reported a perceived increa se in total program enrollment. In May, September, and December, a majority of responses indicated a perceived increase in content. A perceived decrease in enrollment in ag ricultural programs when integrating science related to low achieving students was most commonly reported at all four data collection points.

PAGE 184

184 The fourth subscale of the ISS gathered respondents to integrating science into agri cultural classes and programs. It should be noted that all items in this scale are reverse coded, denoting that disagreement with the statement indicates positive perceptions of science integration. A vast majority of respondents from all data collection p oints disagreed with the notion that science integration is not necessary and there is a lack of administrative support for science integration. The most agreed with statements were related to concerns about insufficient time and support to plan implementa tion, lack of funding and necessary materials, as well as c oncerns about large class size s. Objective Two Objective two was t o describe the NATAA workshop respondents long term perceptions of inquiry based instruction (IBI) implementation f ollowing a t rainer led professional development workshop. The Inquiry based Teaching Techniques (ITT) instruments asked respondents respond to items on two subscales assessing the frequency of IBI teacher practices and student practices. The initial subsc ale assessed by the ITT examined the respondents of the extent to which they use different teaching methods and activities in general for all of their classes. Though the percentages changed at each data collection point, the teaching methods that respondents reported utilizing the least were using a textbook as the primary method for studying agriscience and asking a question or conducting an activity that calls for a single correct answer. At all data collection points, a majority of responde nts reported asking questions that encourage observation, investigation, and scientific thinking, as well as providing students with a wide variety of resource materials for scientific investigation more than once a week. Respondents were provided the

PAGE 185

185 same subscale and asked to complete it with one specific class in mind. These responses mirrored the respondents courses in general. The second subscale of the ITT assessed the respondents fr equency of student activities during their classroom instruction. In January, a majority of responses indicated that respondents perceived using the student activities between once per day and once per month. In May, all of the respondents reported using e ach student activity at some point during the year; however the most frequently selected response in May were one time per day. In September, nearly all responses indicated respondents were requiring students to use the items on the scale at least once a m onth. The only activity teachers reported never having a student do in their classroom was memorize scientific facts or information separately from activities. While in December, the most frequently selected answer for this subscale was once per week. Ob jective Three Objective three was to describe the NATAA workshop respondents NATAA follow up support after a Trainer led professional development workshop. Only three respondents (1 control group, 2 treatment group) contacted the ask an exp ert email throughout the duration of the study. Each email was introductory in nature, allowing respondents to confirm they had the correct email address if they needed support. This level of participation was corroborated through the survey instruments as none of the respondents reported utilizing the ask an expert email for support. A majority of respondents reported seeking support for implementing the content of the NATAA workshop and indicated the person they sought support from did not attend the NATA A workshop with them. When asked if there were other support structures that

PAGE 186

186 could be developed to help teachers implement NATAA workshop content, the respondents were split between wanting supports and not wanting supports. Objective Four Objective four sought to determine the effects of follow u p on NATAA workshop participant s perceptions of science integration in agriculture and IBI. Analysis could not be completed because participants did not utilize the experimental email follow up support Objective Five Objective five was to determine the relationship between NATAA workshop perceptions of science integration in agriculture and IBI and selected elements of the high quality teacher professional development model (teacher variables, prof essional development program variables, school culture and other professional development). The dependen t variables within this study, a griscience Integration (ISS scale) and IBI (ITT scale), were found to have moderate positive relationships at three of t he data collection points (Jan. r = .35, Sept. r = .45, Dec. r = .43), and low positive relationship ( r = .21) in May. Additionally in September and December, a positive substantial correlation existed between the ISS and the Core Facet of Coherence (Sept r = .59, Dec. r = .68). In December, an additional positive substantial correlation was found between the ISS and respondents who reported they had conducted scientific research ( r = .65). In January, a positive moderate correlation was found between t he ISS and the number of years respondents reported being a teacher ( r = .32). In May, there was also a positive moderate correlation between the ITT and respondents who had integrated

PAGE 187

187 science into the curriculum ( r = .40) and those who were content with their levels of science integration ( r = .31). In September, three moderate correlations were found between the ISS and independent variables. A positive moderate correlation was found between the ISS and the core facet of active participation ( r = .40) a s well as for respondents who had sought support for science integration ( r = .33). A negative moderate correlation was found between the ITT and the overall school culture survey ( r = .52). The ITT was found to be moderately negatively associated with th e constructs of the core facet element of time ( r = .35), the collaborative leadership element of school culture ( r = .45), and respondents who sought support for science integration ( r = .39). A positive moderate association existed between the ITT and the core facet of active participation ( r = .35). In December, the ITT was found to be moderately positively associated with teachers who reported they integrated science into their curriculum ( r = .30), formed collaborative relationships ( r = .40), and conducted scientific research ( r = .34). The ITT culture: overall school culture ( r = .42), teacher collaboration in school culture ( r = .31), professional development in school culture ( r = .33), unity of purpose in school culture ( r = .33), and learning partnerships in school culture ( r = .31). Additional positive and negative correlations of low magnitudes were found in great variation among the dependent and interd ependent variables at each data collection point. Objective Six Objective six was to predict teacher perceptions of science integration in agriculture and IBI based on the elements of the high quality teacher professional development model.

PAGE 188

188 First, regres sion analyses were conducted in relation to the teachers integrated science scores (ISS). Five models were discovered which provided significant predictors to science integration in agriculture as a dependent variable. In January, the regression model incl uded only the ITT ( R 2 adj = .346, p < .05), which was found to be a significant predictor. In September, model one included the ITT and SCS ( R 2 adj = 875 p < .0 1 ) as significant predictors, while model two included ITT, SCS, core facet of coherence and cor e facet of active participation ( R 2 adj = .940, p < .01) as significant predictors of the ISS. In December, the portion of the ISS due to model three, which included the ITT, SCS, and the core facet of coherence ( R 2 adj = .652, p < .01) and the portion of I SS due to model four, which included the ITT, SCS, core facet of coherence, and the TAP ( R 2 adj = .674, p < .01), was also found to be a significant predictor. Additional multiple regression analysis were conducted with the ITT as the dependent variable. O nly three models were found to be significant predictors of the ITT throughout the duration of the study. In January, the ISS was found to be a significant predictor of the ITT ( R 2 adj = .346, p < .05). Additionally, in September, a model using the ISS and SCS ( R 2 adj = .828, p < .01), and a second model which included the ISS, SCS, core facet of coherence, and core facet of active participation ( R 2 adj = .877, p < .05) were found to be a significant predictors of the ITT. C onclusions The findings are limited to the population of this study. With this limitation in mind, and based on the findings of this study, several conclusions can be drawn. 1. Respondents of this study have favorable attitudes towards integrating science into their programs. Respondents indi cate that integrating science into agriculture courses makes science concepts easier to understand for students and better prepares students in science. Additionally, respondents report that science integration is appropriate at all levels of an agricultur e program. These are supported

PAGE 189

189 by the grand means (3.74, 3.79, 3.66, 3.82), which are interpreted on a five point Likert scale. 2. Respondents in this study are more comfortable teaching biological science concepts than physical science concepts in agricultu ral programs. 3. Agriculture teachers recognize the need to have preservice teachers gain experiences, during early field experiences and student teaching internships, in agriculture programs that integrate science. 4. Respondents in the study indicate that whe n science integration in agriculture occurs, there is an increase in total program enrollment as well as an increase in enrollment of high achieving students, though some respondents indicate an enrollment decrease of low achieving students. 5. Respondents f eel that science integration into agriculture programs is positive, and indicated the biggest challenges to integrating science into programs are the amount of planning time and support needed while integrating science as well as a lack of funding. 6. All re spondents indicate utilizing the teaching methods exemplified by IBI. The teaching methods respondents indicate that they used least frequently are not methods associated with IBI teaching practice. 7. A majority of respondents indicate they had sought suppo rt as they integrated science and implemented IBI, though no respondents utilized the experimental ask the expert email support. Additionally, the majority of respondents did not seek support from someone who attended the NATAA workshop with them. 8. As resp positive, implementation of IBI increased. 9. ith their individual perceptions of active participation within the workshop increase, so their perceptions of science integration in agriculture becomes more positive. Res pondents who participated in scientific research and respondents who had sought support in integrating agriscience have increased perceptions of science integration in agriculture. Additional low and moderate correlations are identified, however they varie s greatly between data collection point. As the number of years respondents had been teaching increases, so do their perceptions of science integration in agriculture. 10. Respondents who had integrated science into the curriculum and those who were content w ith their levels of teaching implement IBI methods more frequently. Additionally, as the frequency with which respondents utilized IBI techniques

PAGE 190

190 increase. However, as resp school culture decrease. An examination of the subscales of school culture in teacher collaboration, professional development, unity of purpose and learning partnerships in school culture decrease. 11. perceptions of science integration in agriculture. Those m odels include a variety of independent variables, such as the ITT, overall school culture scores, core facet of coherence, core facet of active participation, and teacher attitudes towards ge of effect size (.21 to .77) in each of the significant models. Additionally, at one data collection point, overall school culture provided the strongest effect (.70 to .81) on the significant models. At a second data collection point the core facet of c oherence had the strongest effect (.62 to .63). 12. of IBI. Those models include a variety of independent variables, such as the ISS, overall school culture cores, the core fa cet of coherence, and the core facet of active participation. Implications from Findings Objective One: term perceptions of science integration in agriculture following a trainer led professiona l development workshop Conclusion: Respondents of this study have favorable attitudes towards integrating science into their programs. Respondents indicate that integrating science into agriculture courses makes science concepts easier to understand for st udents and better prepares students in science. Additionally, respondents report that science integration is appropriate at all levels of an agriculture program. These are supported by the grand means (3.74, 3.79, 3.66, 3.82), which are interpreted on a fi ve point Likert scale. This conclusion implies that integrating science into agriculture programs will produce more science society, which concurs with previous literature (Thompson & Balschwei d, 1999 ; Layfield et al., 2001, Myers & Washburn, 200 8 ; Myers, Thoron, & Thompson, 2009). Additional

PAGE 191

191 findings from this study found that respondents felt students would be better prepared in science after completing a course in agriculture that integrated science, and those students may learn more about agriculture when science is an integral part of their instruction. Science integration in agriculture may also help students make connections between science and agriculture concepts. Conclusion: Respondent s in this study are more comfortable teaching biological science concepts than physical science concepts in agricultural programs. This conclusion indicates that teachers may have higher levels of self efficacy in biological sciences and may have been bett er prepared to teach biological science then physical sciences. This conclusion aligns with previous literature, which found that teachers emphasized a greater understanding of biological sciences than physical sciences (Thompson & Balschweid, 1999 ). If sc ience integration is going to continue to emphasize in agricultural education programs it may be essential to conduct professional development that demonstrates the use of biological sciences and especially physical sciences in agriculture These professio nal development opportunities will help teachers to develop similar levels of comfort both science constructs. However, all respondents did not agree it was essential to require additional science coursework in preservice preparation programs. They did ind icate it was important for preservice teachers to be provided with instruction on how to integrate the science principles and concepts into agriculture courses. This may imply that the teachers think that the preservice teachers have the content knowledge, but need to know how to utilize it in the classroom setting. Teacher education programs should

PAGE 192

192 develop resources to focus on an integrated track for preservice teacher preparation, as well as continue to provide inservice professional development for scie nce integration. Conclusion: Agriculture teachers recognize the need to have preservice teachers gain experiences, during early field experiences and student teaching internships, in agriculture programs that integrate science. This indicates that responde nts see the need for preservice agriculture teacher preparation programs to provide preservice teachers with examples of agricultural teaching in secondary agriculture programs that strongly integrate science. It is essential that teacher preparation progr ams identify agriculture programs that integrate science into their programs at high levels and utilize these programs when placing preservice teachers for early field experiences and student teaching internships. Providing preservice teachers with exempla ry practicing teachers that integrate science will provide preservice teachers with examples of science integration in agricultural contexts, but also provide the opportunity to practice integrating science into agricultural curriculum under the guidance o f an experienced teacher. Conclusion: Respondents feel that science integration into agriculture programs is positive, and indicated the biggest challenges to integrating science into programs are the amount of planning time and support needed while integ rating science as well as a lack of funding. This implies that teachers who have already started to integrate science may have experienced an increase in total program enrollment because of science integration, as well as an increase in enrollment from hig h achieving students. However,

PAGE 193

193 programs that integrate science, causing a decrease in enrollment of low achieving students. Conclusion: Respondents feel that science i ntegration into agriculture programs is positive, and indicated the biggest challenges to integrating science into programs are the amount of planning time and support needed while integrating science as well as a lack of funding. These findings are simila r to previous findings that indicated insufficient time and planning support was the biggest barrier to integrating science into agricultural education curriculum (Balschweid & Thompson, 2002; Warnick & Thompson, 2007; Myers, Thoron, & Thompson, 2009). Thi s implies that there is a need for increased planning time for teachers as they implement science integration and that systems must be developed that will support teachers as they create changes in their classroom practices. Additionally, avenues of financ ial support that can provide agricultural teachers with the classroom supplies and professional development to implement science integration in agriculture must be developed. Objective Two: term perceptions of inquiry based instruction (IBI) implementation following a trainer led professional development workshop Conclusion: All respondents indicate utilizing the teaching methods exemplified by IBI. The teaching methods respondents indicate that they used least frequently are not methods associated with IBI teaching practice such as using a textbook as the primary means of studying agriscience and asking students questions or providing activities that have one correct answer. Though the frequency techniques changed based on the specific data collection points, these findings indicate that the frequency was slightly lower than frequencies reported by NATAA teacher trainers in previous studies (Myers, Thoron, & Thompson, 2009 ). This may indicate that

PAGE 194

194 the professional development provided for the NATAA trainers supports implementation of IBI techniques more adequately then the NATAA workshops provided by the trainers. It may also indicate predisposed differences between NATAA t rainers and the respondents of this study related to motivation levels, attitudes, and abilities to integrate science and agriculture. Objective Three: follow up support after a trainer led pr ofessional development workshop Conclusion: A majority of respondents indicate they had sought support as they integrated science and implemented IBI, though no respondents utilized the experimental ask the expert email support. Additionally, the majority of respondents did not seek support from someone who attended the NATAA workshop with them. This finding suggests that teachers may seek support for science integration and IBI implementation through personal contacts. It may also indicate that email supp orts are not deemed useful by secondary teachers or that teachers forget the online resources provided by professional development programs that may provide support for implementing professional development content. Objective Five: Determine the relations perceptions of science integration in agriculture and IBI and selected elements of the high quality teacher professional development model Conclusion: As respondents perceptions of science integration in agricultur e became more positive This moderate, or low, positive relationship indicates that positive perceptions of science integration in agriculture and implementation of IBI are closely related. It may indicate that te achers with positive perceptions of science integration are more willing to implement science teaching techniques such as IBI. It may also indicate that as teachers implement IBI,

PAGE 195

195 their perceptions of science integration into agricultural education become more use of IBI and support for science integration in to agricultural education programs. Conclusion: As respondents science integration in agriculture became more positive their perception of the NATAA workshops coherence with their individual beliefs, as well as state and national policy increased. Likewise, as respondents eptions of active participation within the workshop increased, so did thei r perceptions of science integration in agriculture A lso, respondents who participated in scientific research and respondents who had sought support in integrating agriscience had more positive perceptions of science integration in agriculture Additional low and moderate correlations were identified, however they varied greatly between data collection points. The great variety in the correlations between elements of high quality teacher science integr ation in agriculture provides support for further research examining the relationship between the variables. as coherence and active participation increased so did their per ceptions of science integration in agriculture This implies that when teachers deem professional development to be coherent with their individual beliefs, as well as the current state and national policies, they have more positive perceptions of science i ntegration in agriculture This may also indicate that they selected to attend the professional development because it aligned with their previous beliefs about science integration in

PAGE 196

196 agriculture The findings also support active respondents e in teacher professional development. There was not a significant relationship found between the core facet of coll ective participation science integration in agriculture A majority of respondents indicated that there we re no other teachers from their school or school district who participated in the NATAA workshop with them, however there were agriculture teachers from their state within the NATAA workshop. This may indicate that there was not a sense of collaboration cr eated within the workshops due to the distance between respondents Additionally these findings indicated that respondents who conducted scientific research had more favorable perceptions of science integration in agriculture and indicated that getting s econdary teachers involved with research influenced their perceptions of science in agriculture. Also, those teachers who sought support for integrating science had more positive perceptions of science integration into agriculture course. This indicates th implementation of science integration. Though the experimental supports provided in essential to explore other options of support, especially those that are founded in Conclusion: Respondents who had integrated science into the curriculum and those who were content with their levels of teaching had implemen ted IBI methods more frequently. Additionally, as IBI implementation increased the respondents of active participation within the workshop increased. However as respondents

PAGE 197

197 perceptions of IBI increased, their perceptions of school culture de creased. An indicated that as respondents utilized IBI more frequently, respondents teacher collaboration, professional development, unity of purpose and lea rning partnerships in school culture decreased. This indicates that the implementation of IBI and the school culture, as well as the individual subscales, may be closely related and may have negatively impacted each other. The variation in the remaining r elationships between ISS and ITT and the perceptions of science integration in agriculture and implementation of IBI. Though additional low positive and negative correlations were found, it is important to recognize the element of time in each of these correlations. Objective Six: Determine the predictive variation of teacher perceptions of science integration in agriculture and IBI based on elements of the high quality teach er professional development model Conclusion: A variety of models were found to be significant predictors of respondents science integration in agriculture Those models included a variety of independent variables, the ITT, overall school c ulture scores, core facet of coherence, core facet of active participation, and teacher attitudes towards professional development. The respondents each of the significant models. Additionally, at one data collection point, overall school culture provided the strongest effect (.70 to .81) on the significant models. At a second data collection point the core facet of coherence had the strongest effect (.62 to .63). The regression models supported t he relationships identified in objective five. When combined, ITT, SCS, and the core facets of coherence and active participation

PAGE 198

198 September. In December, the combination of ITT, SCS, and the core facet of coherence science integration but that they c an be use d to predict the frequency with which teachers implement IBI, their perceptions of their school culture, and the level of coherence of professional development with their individual beliefs to predict how they perceive science integration. This i mplies that manipulating these variables professional science integration into agriculture programs. Conclusion: Three models were found to be significant predictors of re spondents implementation of IBI. Those models included a variety of independent variables, such as the ISS, overall school culture cores, the core facet of coherence, and the core facet ceptions of ISS, SCS, and core facets of coherence and active participation accounted for 88% of the variation in the frequency of which they utilize IBI techniques. This implies that by manipulating these variables, professional development can create an increase in the frequency with which agriculture teachers utilize IBI practices. Though both of these conclusions are significant it is important to recognize that the high effect sizes may not be a realistic representation of the variation in respondents perceptions of science integration into agricultural education and their implementation of IBI teaching techniques. Other variables related to the teachers formative experiences, teaching experience, motivation as well as personal attitudes,

PAGE 199

199 values and b eliefs may also influence their perceptions. Until further research is conducted to evaluate and support these high, the strength of these effect sizes should be referenced with caution. Discussion This study offers findings that indicate secondary agricu lture teachers understand the importance of integrating science into agriculture coursework and utilizing inquiry high quality teacher professional development model imp science integration in agriculture and implementation of IBI. Additionally, it supports the use of the train the trainer form for professional development. However, the respondents science integration in agric ulture and IBI may be influenced by numerous factors beyond the scope of professional development model. Relationship between Science integration in agriculture and Implementation of IBI nce (Thompson & Balschweid, 2000; Layfield et al., 2001, Myers & Washburn, 200 8 ; Myers, Thoron, & Thompson, 2009). However, no previous literature exists that examines the relationship between the two. This study explored that relationship and found that a integration and the frequency of which they use IBI techniques. Though these findi ngs are significant, it is essential that additional research be conducted to more deeply understand the relationship and how teacher educators can utilize that relationship to hown to

PAGE 200

200 advance student achievement, scientific reasoning, and argumentation (Thoron, 2010), frequency with which teachers utilize IBI, it would in turn influence stu dent learning outcomes. High Quality Teacher Professional Development The core facets of high quality teacher professional development (duration, collaboration, coherence, active participation, content and form) have gained consensus, yet little is known about their implementation as well as their impacts on teacher knowledge and practice. This study differs from previous studies based on the explore the relationships be implementation of the professional development content, and 2) it used a quasi experimental design to explore the core facet of duration by creating a follow up support. ns of a professional development experience is the first level of evaluating professional development, it is essential to move beyond that and evaluate the respondents learning and development of knowledge and skill (Gusky, 2000). Through the examination o science integration and IBI over the course of the year, this study moved the research to teaching practice and the impact of their practices is a starting point for examining their actual teaching practice. The relationships and predictive variability identified in this study should be utilized to guide future research on teacher professional development.

PAGE 201

201 A common criticism of teacher professi onal development experiences is that they are too short and do not offer follow up support for teachers as they implement the professional development content in their own classrooms (Penuel, Fishman, Yamaguchi, & Gallagher, 2007). This study implemented e xperimental email reminders as well as a ask the expert email system which teachers who attended the NATAA professional development could send questions to as they implementing IBI and science integration within their classrooms. The hope was to expand the duration of the professional development experience to support teachers for a year following the workshop. However, the respondents reported they felt the duration of the NATAA workshop (60 to 90 minutes) provided them with the knowledge and skill necessa ry to implement the specific content of the workshop in their own classrooms. Additionally, no respondents utilized the ask the expert email to support their implementation. This indicates that email follow up support may not be deemed useful by teachers o r teachers may not remember to use it at the appropriate times. Additionally, it may indicate that respondents utilize peers for support instead of professional development supports. Designing Studies Accessing Teachers over Time The procedures of this s tudy called for surveying teachers over the course of a year, which did not align with the school year, and created challenges in contacting all members of the population for the duration of the study. The researcher expected to be able to reach the popula tion because the participants had provided the contact information within a month of the beginning of the study. However, the contact information provided by numerous teachers was incorrect and attempts to use the

PAGE 202

202 provided information to locate correct inf ormation was unsuccessful. There is a need for more accurate database for teacher contact information. Teachers were made aware of the expectations and duration of the study through initial contact before any surveys were distributed. Many teachers asked to be removed from the study after that initial contact. Those that remained in the study did not complete surveys on a consistent basis or did not complete surveys at all. Out of 178 participants, only 21 responded to surveys at all four data collection p oints. While the methods of this study aligned with suggested research practices, this study was challenged to have a higher level of consistent participation from the participants. Research that utilizes surveys to gather information from teachers require s a balance between rigorous research methods and methods which are practical in given ate in survey research. Recommendations for Future Research Numerous follow up studies could help the profession understand the impacts of high perceptions and practices. Additio nally, research should be conducted examining science integration in agriculture and implementation of IBI techniques. Recommendations R elated to Teacher Professional Development This study provides evidence of the relationships between elements of high q

PAGE 203

203 practices. Based upon the findings of this study related to teacher professional development, the following recommendations for further research were made: 1. More studies are needed in agricultural education, as well as teacher education in general, investigating the best methods of teacher professional development. Replication of this study involving different groups of teachers and different professional development will add to the body of knowledge for the profession. 2. The interaction between high utilizing a pre post research method to cont 3. Replication of this study comparing the train the trainer form of professional development with other forms of professional development is essential to providing insight as to how the core facets of professional dev elopment can influence teacher practice. 4. Increased evaluation is needed to assess the effectiveness of train the trainers form of professional development, and should especially be focused on the second ledge and abilities. 5. Though previous literature suggests that short, one shot workshops do not provide the duration needed to impact teaching practice, the respondents in this study indicated that the NATAA workshops, which ranged for 60 to 90 minutes prov ided enough time for them to understand the content and implement it in their classrooms. More research must be conducted to examine the core facet of duration in relation to the content foci of professional development experiences. 6. This study was conduct ed over the course of a year. Other studies that investigate the effects professional development over extended periods of time should be conducted. It is also important to develop methods for increasing teacher participation at all data collection points. 7. Further investigation is warranted to determine methods of follow up support for teachers as they implement what they learn in professional development programs. 8. science integration in ag riculture and implementation of IBI in relation to various independent variables. Given the variation in the magnitudes of the relationships, it is important to investigate these independent variables in multiples studies, as well as explore the effects on other dependent variables. 9. This study only gathered data on respondents professional development. Further research should be conducted that determines the actual implementation of the core facets within a professional d evelopment experience and the impact they have on teacher knowledge and practice.

PAGE 204

204 10. professional development or their self efficacy in relation to the professional development cont ent. Future research should be conducted to assess the impact these factors have on effects of the professional development. 11. The professional development programs that are utilized in research studies should be better explained how the core facets of high quality teacher professional development impacts the research can be better understood. Additionally this will allow for professional development designers to utilize the core facets most effectively in impacting teacher knowledge and practice. 12. Specifical ly the core facet of collaboration should be further examined in professional development programs for secondary agricultural teachers. Because most agriculture teachers do not attend professional development with teachers from the same school or school di strict, it is important to develop ways for secondary agriculture teachers to develop collaborative relationships when implementing professional development content in their classrooms. Recommendations R elated to Science Integration in A griculture and Inq uiry B ased Instruction This study provides evidence supporting science integration in agriculture and the use of IBI in secondary agriculture classroooms. Based upon the findings of this study related to science integration in agriculture and implementatio n of IBI, the following recommendations for further research were made: 1. science integration in agriculture and the frequency with which they utilize IBI techniques in their classrooms should be further expl ored. Numerous studies have found that secondary agriculture teachers deem science integration into agriculture courses important to students and program development, as well as the impact that IBI techniques can have on student learning. However, the rela tionship between the two has not yet been fully explored. 2. Increased evaluation is needed to assess the effectiveness of the NATAA professional development series, especially focused on the second generation of workshops, on developing agriculture teachers science integration and IBI. 3. techniques should be further explored. 4. Further studies should move beyond gathering teacher perceptions of total program enrollment based on science integration and should focus on the impact that

PAGE 205

205 integrating science has on the number and ability level of student enrolling in agriculture programs over time. 5. More experimental studies that examine science integration and implementation of IBI are needed. Teacher self efficacy, motivation, perceptions of agriscience and IBI should be grouping variables examined in future studies to provide for their role in how science and IBI are utilized in secondary agricultural prog rams. 6. Studies that utilize a time series or examine science integration and IBI over an extended period of time should be implemented to further understand how agriculture teachers adapt to these teaching practices. Recommendations for Teacher Professiona l Development This study found that elements of high quality teacher professional development content. These findings and implications yield several recommendations for individuals responsible for teacher professional development activities. 1. When planning teacher professional development experiences, the core facets of professional development should be considered. The coherence of the professional development with respo ndents role in their implementation of the professional development program content. Additionally, active participation at professional development programs is important. 2. The train the trainer model of professional development must develop a support structure for participants who attend workshops presented by the trainers. Though the email reminders and ask the expert support in the study did not work, it is essential that support be offered to teachers. 3. Though previous literature suggests that short one shot workshops do not provide the duration needed to impact teaching practice, the participants in this study indicated that the NATAA workshops, which ranged for 60 to 90 minutes, provided enough time f or them to understand the content and implement it in their classrooms. Professional development programs should examine the time needed in relation to the content of the professional development. 4. Professional development opportunities focused on content k nowledge development should utilize experts from the field to assist teachers in building their knowledge. Recommendations for Agricultural Education science integration in agriculture a nd implementing IBI were positive. Teachers integrating

PAGE 206

206 agriculture and science and implementing IBI can be assisted through recommendations for preservice education and professional development programs. 1. Based on the findings of this study, science integ ration and IBI should be utilized in secondary agriculture classrooms, though it may take time for teachers and students to adjust to the new teaching practices. 2. Additional professional development opportunities should be developed at the state and nationa l level to increase the number of agricultural teachers who develop positive perceptions of science integration and utilize IBI techniques more frequently. As NATAA workshops occur at national conferences, a portion of agriculture teachers are not able to attend the NATAA professional development opportunities with this content focus. 3. Teacher education programs should develop coursework that demonstrates the use of agricultural contexts to integrate science. This instruction should include developing cont ent knowledge in biological and physical sciences as well as the pedagogical knowledge needed to integrate these concepts and principles into an agricultural context. 4. Inquiry based instructional techniques should be introduced to preservice teachers in tea ching methods course. Though IBI techniques take time for teachers to develop a comfort level with its implementation, the techniques can be implemented slowly over time. 5. Mentoring programs should be developed that allow agriculture teachers with experien ce and practice with science integration and IBI to provide feedback, support and clarity for teachers beginning the process of integration and implementation. 6. Preservice teachers should be provided with early field experiences and student teaching experi ences with teachers who have high levels of science integration in agricultural courses. 7. Teacher preparation programs should develop resources, materials, and funding initiatives for preservice and inservice teacher professional development that supports science integration and the implementation of IBI. 8. A griculture teachers should be provided the opportunity to engage with content area experts in areas of scientific research and during professional development experiences to increase scientific content k nowledge.

PAGE 207

207 Summary conclusions stemming from the findings. Chapter 5 also provided recommendations for further research, teacher professional development and agricultural education. science integration in agriculture and the use of inquiry based instruction are perceived by teachers to have a positive impact on student learning. Additionally, the findings indicate complex relationships between eleme nts of high science integration in agriculture and the frequency with which they implement IBI in their classrooms. These findings, combined with previous research, provided recommendation s for preservice and inservice professional development for teachers, school based agricultural education, and research seeking to further expand on the effects of professional development on teaching practice.

PAGE 208

208 APPENDIX A RESOURCE REMINDER Subject: NAT AA workshop follow up: Do you have questions Dear ___________________, This email to remind you of the support service provided following your participation at the __________ convention to help you implement what you learned in your own classroom. Fee l free to contact AskAnExpert.NATAA@gmail.com any time with questions, concerns or issues that may arise as you try to put what you learned at the NATAA workshop to use in your classroom. Your questions wi ll be answered in a timely manner by a past NATAA Ambassador with years of experience integrative science concepts and using inquiry in their own classroom. Hope to hear from you soon! The Expert behind Ask an Expert

PAGE 209

209 APPENDIX B CONTENT REMINDERS July Co ntent Reminder Dear ____________, Last fall you participated in a NATAA workshop at the ___________ Convention. It was focused on science integration and implementing inquiry based instruction in agricultural classrooms. Because of your participation you are receiving this email to support you as you try to implement these concepts in your classroom. AskAnExpert.NATAA@gmail.com contact any time wi th questions, concerns or issues that may arise as you try to put what you learned at the NATAA workshop to use in your classroom. Your questions will be answered in a timely manner by a past NATAA Ambassador with years of experience integrative science co ncepts and using inquiry in their own classroom. As you gear up for a new year and beginning planning your classes for the fall he re is some helpful information about inquiry based instruction. Frequently Asked Questions Question: What is inquiry base d instruction? Inquiry based instruction is any instruction that requires students to gain knowledge through the process of inquiry. This is when students seek s information or knowledge by actively engaging in the questioning process. The re are 5 essential features of classroom i nquiry (Inquiry in the National Science Education Standards, 2000): 1. Learners are engaged by scientifically oriented questions. 2. Learners give priority to evidence, which allows them to develop and evaluate explanations that address s cientifically oriented questions. 3. Learners formulate explanations from evidence to address scientifically oriented questions. 4. Learners evaluate their explanations in light of alternative explanations, particularly those reflecting scientific understanding. 5. Learners communicate and justify their proposed explanations. Question: Should I try to teach everything using inquiry based instruction? up to you to determine the best methods for your classroom, however keep in mind that teaching agriculture r equires a variety of approaches and strategies. Teaching everything using inquiry would probably be ineffective, and become boring for the students. However you can change what essential features of inquiry you utilize during different lessons. Check out the chart at the bottom of the email for more information. The chart takes the 5 essential features and puts them on a scale of more student centered to less student centered. It shows how you can use some elements of inquiry without using all element of inquiry. Hope this helped, Happy Planning! The Expert AskAnExpert.NATAA@gmail.com

PAGE 210

210 Essential Features of Classroom Inquiry & Their Variations Feature of Inquiry Less Student Self Direction More More Direction from Teacher Less Learner engages in scientifically oriented questions Learner engages in questio ns provided by teacher, materials or other source Learner sharpens or clarifies questions provided by teacher, materials or other source Learner selects among questions poses new questions Learner poses a question Learner gives priority to evidence in res ponding to questions Learner is given data and told how to analyze Learner is given data and asked to analyze Learner is directed to collect certain data Learner determines what constitutes evidence and collects it Learner formulates explanations form evi dence Learner is provided with evidence Learner is given possible ways to use evidence to formulate explanation Learner is guided in process of formulating explanations from evidence Learner formulates explanation after summarizing evidence Learner connec ts explanations to scientific knowledge Learner is given all connections Learner is given possible connections Learner is directed towards areas and sources of scientific knowledge Learner independently examines other resources and forms links to explanati ons Leaner communicates and justifies explanations Learner is given steps and procedures for communication Learner is provided Broad guidelines to use to Sharpen communication Learner coached in development of communication Learner forms reasonable and lo gical argument to communicate explanations A dopted from the: National Research Council, 2000. Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A guide for Teaching and Learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

PAGE 211

211 APPENDIX C INTEGRATIVE SCIENCE SURVEY Section I: Perception toward integration of science Directions: Using the scale below, please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statements by circling the appropriate number. Please answer each question. 1 = St rongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Neither agree or disagree 4 = Agree 5 = Strongly Agree x = Not Applicable Example: I enjoy teaching agriscience SD 1 D 2 N 3 A 4 SA 5 NA x SD D N A SA NA 1. Students learn more about agriculture when science con cepts are an integral part of their instruction. 1 2 3 4 5 x 2. Students are more motivated to learn when science is integrated into the agricultural education program. 1 2 3 4 5 x 3. Agriculture concepts are easier for students to understand when scie nce is integrated into the agricultural education program. 1 2 3 4 5 x 4. Science concepts are easier for students to understand when science is integrated into the agricultural education program. 1 2 3 4 5 x 5. Integrating science into the agricultural education program requires more preparation time than teaching a more traditional agriculture curriculum. 1 2 3 4 5 x 6. Less effort is required to integrate science in advanced courses as compared to introductory courses. 1 2 3 4 5 x 7. Integrating scie nce into agriculture classes increases the ability to teach students to solve problems. 1 2 3 4 5 x 8. Integrating science into the agricultural education curriculum more effectively meets the needs of special population students (i.e. learning disabled ). 1 2 3 4 5 x 9. It is more appropriate to integrate science in advanced courses than into introductory courses. 1 2 3 4 5 X

PAGE 212

212 10. Students are more aware of the connection between scientific principles and agriculture when science concepts are an integra l part of their instruction in agricultural education. 1 2 3 4 5 X 11. Students are better prepared in science after they completed a course in agricultural education that integrates science. 1 2 3 4 5 X Section II: Preparation to integrate science Dir ections: Using the scale below, please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statements by circling the appropriate number. Please answer each question. SD D N A SA NA 1. I feel prepared to teach integrated biological s cience concepts. 1 2 3 4 5 x 2. I feel prepared to teach integrated physical science concepts. 1 2 3 4 5 x 3. Teacher preparation programs in agriculture should require students to take more science courses (biology, chemistry, physics, etc.). 1 2 3 4 5 x 4. Teacher preparation programs in agriculture should provide instruction for undergraduates on how to integrate science concepts/principles in agriculture. 1 2 3 4 5 x 5. When placing student teachers, teacher preparation programs should expect cooperating teachers to model science integration. 1 2 3 4 5 x 6. Teacher preparation programs should require that students conduct their early field experience program prior to student teaching with a teacher who integrates science into the agricultura l education program. 1 2 3 4 5 x Section III: Support for integration Directions: Using the scale below, please circle the appropriate number to indicate how you feel integrating science into your agricultural education program would (or does) increas e or decrease the support you receive from the following groups by circling the appropriate number. 1 = Greatly Decrease 2 = Decrease 3 = No Change Example: Local administrators GD 1 D 2 N 3 I 4 GI 5 NA x

PAGE 213

213 4 = Increase 5 = Greatly Increase x = Not Applicable Section IV: Impact of integration on recruitment How would/does integrating science into the agricultural education program affect enrollment of the following student groups: GD D N I GI NA 1. High achieving students 1 2 3 4 5 x 2 Average achieving students 1 2 3 4 5 x 3. Low achieving students 1 2 3 4 5 x 4. Minority students 1 2 3 4 5 x 5. 1 2 3 4 5 x 6. Total program enrollment 1 2 3 4 5 x Section VII: Barriers to inte gration Directions: Using the scale below, please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following items being barriers to integrating science into your curriculum. Please answer each question. 1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Neither agree or disagree 4 = Agree 5 = Strongly Agree x = Not Applicable Example: Lack of experience in science integration SD 1 D 2 N 3 A 4 SA 5 NA x SD D N A SA NA 1. Reluctance to give up the role of primary source of classroom information 1 2 3 4 5 x 2. Lack of experience in science integration 1 2 3 4 5 x 3. Lack of parent and community support for science integration 1 2 3 4 5 x 4. Have tried it and it was unsuccessful 1 2 3 4 5 x 5. Lack of support from local science teacher(s) 1 2 3 4 5 x 6. Concerns about discipline 1 2 3 4 5 x

PAGE 214

214 7. Concerns about large class size 1 2 3 4 5 x 8. Insufficient time and support to plan for implementation 1 2 3 4 5 x 9. Lack of integrated science curriculum in courses I teach 1 2 3 4 5 X 10. Disagre ement with the notion that science integration is necessary 1 2 3 4 5 X 11. Reluctance to diminish emphasis on agricultural production 1 2 3 4 5 X 12. 1 2 3 4 5 X 13. Lack of administrative support for science integration 1 2 3 4 5 X 14. Insufficient funding 1 2 3 4 5 X 15. Insufficient background in science content 1 2 3 4 5 X 16. 1 2 3 4 5 X 17. Lack of agriscience jobs in the local community 1 2 3 4 5 X Section IX: Level of Integration 1. Have you integrated science into your agricultural education program? Yes No Increase Decrease No Affect 2. Are you content with the level to which you cur rently integrate science? Yes No 3. Which phrase best describes your future plans to integrate science into your curriculum? I plan to increase the amount of science integration in my curriculum I plan to decrease the amount of science inte gration in my curriculum I plan no change in the amount of science integration in my curriculum 4. How many agriscience integration workshops have you attended? ____________ 4a. What agency/organization sponsored the integration workshops? 5. Identif y the most significant factor(s) that caused you or will cause you to integrate science into your program. 6 Have you formed collaborative relationships with an individual(s)/organization(s) that have assisted you with integration? Yes No If y es, who have you collaboration with and in what ways?

PAGE 215

215 APPENDIX D INQUIRY BASED TEACHING TECHNIQUES Section V: Teacher Inquiry scale Directions: Please answer the following questions about what happens during lessons in your classroom. Answer based on ac tual events in your classroom. Respond to all questions by clearly marking one of the answers. On average, to what extent do you: Never <1x per week 1x per week 2x per week 3x per week 4x per week 5x per week 1. Use a textbook as the primary method fo r studying agriscience. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 2. Use open ended questions that encourage observation, investigations, and scientific thinking. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 3. Identify agricultural situations/issues that can be investigated at varying levels of complexity. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 4. Encourage students to initiate further investigation. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 5. Ask a question or conduct an activity that calls for a single correct answer. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 6. Facilitate and encourage student dialogue about science. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. Encourage students to defend the adequacy or logic of statements and findings. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 8. Make readily available to students a wide variety of resource materials for scientific investigations. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 9. Encourage students to design and cond uct experiments. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Section VI: Student Inquiry scale Directions: Please answer the following questions about what happens during lessons in your classroom. Answer based on actual events in your classroom. Respond to all questions by clearl y marking one of the answers. How often do you ask students Never 1x per 1x per 1x per 1x per 1x per

PAGE 216

216 in your classroom to: year semeste r month week day 1. Memorize scientific facts or information separately from activities. 0 1 2 3 4 5 2. Use data to construct a reasonable explanation. 0 1 2 3 4 5 3. Seek and recognize patterns (trends in the data or observations). 0 1 2 3 4 5 4. Follow a set series of steps to get the right answer to a question. 0 1 2 3 4 5 5. Ask questions during investigations th at lead to further ideas, questions, and investigations. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6. Wait to act until the teacher gives instructions for the next step in the investigation. 0 1 2 3 4 5 7. Choose appropriate tools for an investigation. 0 1 2 3 4 5 8. Wait for the te explanation before expressing an observation or conclusion. 0 1 2 3 4 5 9. Offer explanations from previous experiences and from knowledge gained during investigations. 0 1 2 3 4 5 10. Make connections to previously held ideas (or revise previous conceptions/assumptions). 0 1 2 3 4 5 11. Communicate investigations and explanations (purposes, procedures, and/or results of investigations) to others. 0 1 2 3 4 5 12. Use investigations to satisfy their own questions. 0 1 2 3 4 5 13. Listen carefull y to peers as they discuss scientific investigations. 0 1 2 3 4 5 14. Use drawing, graphing, or charting to convey new information from an agriscience activity. 0 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 217

217 A PPENDIX E SCHOOL CULTURE SURVEY School Culture Survey Factor and Items 1=Strong ly Disagree 2=Disagree 3=Neutral 4=Agree 5=Strongly Agree Collaborative Leadership 7. Leaders in this school trust the professional judgments of teachers. 11. Leaders take time to praise teachers that perform well. 14. T eachers are involved in the decision making process. 18. Leaders in our school facilitate teachers working together. 20. Teachers are kept informed on current issues in the school. 22. My involvement in policy or decision making is taken seriously. 26. Tea chers are rewarded for experimenting with new ideas and techniques. 28. Leaders support risk taking and innovation in teaching. 32. Administrators protect instruction and planning time. 34. Teachers are encouraged to share ideas. Teacher Collaboration 3. Teachers have opportunities for dialogue and planning across grades and subjects. 8. Teachers spend considerable time planning together. 15. Teachers take time to observe each other teaching. 23. Teachers are generally aware of what other teachers are teac hing. 29. Teachers work together to develop and evaluate programs and projects. 33. Teaching practice disagreements are voiced openly and discussed. Professional Development 1. Teachers utilize professional networks to obtain information and resources for classroom instruction. 9. Teachers regularly seek ideas from seminars, colleagues, and conferences. 16. Professional development is valued by the faculty. 24. Teachers maintain a current knowledge base about the learning process. 30. The faculty values sc hool improvement. Unity of Purpose 5. Teachers support the mission of the school. 12. The school mission provides a clear sense of direction for teachers. 19. Teachers understand the mission of the school. 27. The school mission statement reflects the val ues of the community. 31. Teaching performance reflects the mission of the school. Collegial Support 4. Teachers trust each other. 10. Teachers are willing to help out whenever there is a problem. 25. Teac hers work cooperatively in groups.

PAGE 218

218 Learning Partnership 6. Teachers and parents have common expectations for student performance. 21. Teachers and parents communicate frequently about student performance. 35. Students generally accept responsibility for their schooling, for example they engage mentally in class and complete homework assignments.

PAGE 219

219 APPENDIX F TEACHER ATTITUDES TOWARDS PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT Directions : Using the scale below, please give y our opinion about each statement below by circling the appropriate number which indicate s the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statements Please answer each question. 1 = S trongly D isagree 2 = D isagree 3 = N either agree or disagre e 4 = A gree 5 = S trongly A gree x = N ot A pplicable Example: I enjoy teaching agriscience SD 1 D 2 N 3 A 4 SA 5 NA x SD D N A SA NA 1. Professional development workshops often help teachers to develop new teaching techniques. 1 2 3 4 5 x 2. If I did not have to attend inservice workshops I would not be able to improve my teaching. 1 2 3 4 5 x 3. Professional development events are worth the time they take. 1 2 3 4 5 x 4. I have been enriched by the teacher training events I have attended. 1 2 3 4 5 x 5. Staff development initiatives have NOT had much impact on my teaching. 1 2 3 4 5 x

PAGE 220

220 APPENDIX G CORE FACETS OF PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT QUESTIONS Duration 1. Do you think that you had enough time to gain the knowledge and practice needed to impleme nt the workshop content in your own classroom? Y N a. Why not? 2. What amount of time would you suggest for a workshop on a similar topic? Coherence Using the scale below, please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statem ents by choosing the appropriate number. Please answer each question. 1=Strongly Disagree 2=Disagree 3=Neutral 4=Agree 5=Strongly Agree The NATAA workshop was coherent with My individual beliefs concerning science integration in agriculture My prior kno wledge about science integration in agriculture My teaching practices related to science integration in agriculture The policies or practices in my school and/or my school district The policies or practices at the state or national level. My previous profe ssional development experiences Collective Participation 1. Did any people from the following places participate in the workshop with you? i. Your school y n ii. Your school district y n iii. Your state y n Active Participation Using the scale below, please in dicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statements by choosing the appropriate number. Please answer each question. 1=Strongly Disagree 2=Disagree 3=Neutral 4=Agree 5=Strongly Agree witness modeling of inquiry based instructional strategies. ask questions and have them answered. discuss my concerns about implementation of workshop content in my own classrooms. participate in activities that enhanced my ability to teach the content area in my own class room. work with other agriculture teachers in planning for the implementation of the workshop content. discuss the student activity/experiment provided by the workshop. complete the studen t activity/experiment provided by the workshop.

PAGE 221

221 APPENDIX H IRB, INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE EMAIL, AND CONSENT EMAIL

PAGE 222

222

PAGE 223

223 Invitation Email Dear __________ ______ As a participant of 2012 NATAA convention workshop, you are invited to participate in a res earch study to method after attending professional development training. The hope is to help teachers secure support for attendance and funding to travel to the NAAE and FFA conventions. At four points throughout the following year (January, May, September and December) you will be asked to complete the short survey (10 20 minutes) At each point your participation is needed you will receive an email asking you to complete the survey by completing on the link. You will be asked to give your perceptions related to inquiry based instruction and science i ntegration into agriculture programs as well as your thoughts on teacher professional development. Your identity and responses will be kept confidential to the extent allowed by law. Your participation is voluntary and you are free to withdraw at any tim e without giving a reason. There are no known risks or immediate benefits to you. If you have any questions, or if you need further information, please contact me at jmblythe@ufl.edu opr Dr. Brian Myers at bmyers@ufl.edu If you have any questions regarding your rights in this study you may contact the UFIRB Office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611 2250; phone: (352) 392 0433 (Approved by UFIRB Protocol # 2012 U 1050). Thank you for your anticipated help in this effort. As a teacher, I know that you are very busy but your participation is important and greatly appreciated! Jessica M. Blythe Graduate Teaching and Research Assistant Agricultural Education a nd Communication University of Florida 411 Rolfs Hall Phone: 352 273 3425 jmblythe@ufl.edu Consent Email Dear _________________ As a participant of 2012 NATAA convention workshop, you were invited to partici pate in a research study method after attending professional development training. The hope is to help teachers secure support for attendance and funding to travel to the NAAE and FFA conventions. To complete the short survey (10 15 minutes), please select the link below (you may need to copy the li nk and paste it into your web browser). Your identity and responses will be kept confidential to the extent allowed by law. Your participation is voluntary and you are free to withdraw at any time without giving a reason. There are no known risks or immedi ate benefits to you.

PAGE 224

224 By clicking on the following links, I acknowledge that I accept the terms and conditions of this informed consent and understand that my participation in the study is strictly voluntary. Individual S urvey L ink If you have any questions, or if you need further information, please contact me at jmblythe@ufl.edu If you have any questions regarding your rights in this study you may contact the UFIRB Office, Box 112250, Univer sity of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611 2250; phone: (352) 392 0433 (Approved by UFIRB Protocol # 2012 U 1050). Thank you for your anticipated help in this effort. As a teacher, I know that you are very busy but your participation is important and greatly a ppreciated! Thank you again for your time and effort! Jessica M. Blythe Ph.D. Candidate Agricultural Education and Communication University of Florida 411 Rolfs Hall Phone: 352 273 3425 jmblythe@ufl.edu

PAGE 225

225 LIST OF REFERENCES Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Sorensen, C. (2010). Introduction to research in education CA: Cengage Learning. Ashdown, J., & Hummel professional lives. In Beijaard, D., Meeiger, P. C ., Morine Dershimer, G. & Tillema, H.(Eds.), Teacher professional development in changing conditions (p.213 229). Netherlands: Springer. Balschweid, M. A., & Thompson, G. W. (2002). Integrating science in agricultural education: Attitudes of Indiana agricu ltural science and business teachers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 43 (2), 1 10. doi:10.5032/jae.2002.02001 Barrick, R. K., Ladewig, H. W., & Hedges, L. E. (1983). Development of a systematic approach to identifying technical in service needs of teach ers. Journal of the American Association of Teacher Educators in Agriculture, 24 (1), 13 19. doi:10.5032/jaatea.1983.01013 Barrow, L. J. (2006). A brief history of inquiry: From Dewey to standards. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17 (3), 265 278. Barth R. S. (2002). The culture builder. Educational Leadership, 59 (8), 6 11. Birkenholds, R. J., & Harbstreit, S. R. (1986). Analysis of the inservice needs of beginning vocational agriculture teachers. Journal of the American Association of Teacher Educato rs in Agriculture, 28 (1), 41 49. doi:10.5032/jaatea.1987.10041 Birman, B. F., Desimone, L., Porter, A. C., & Garet, M. S. (2000). Designing professional development that works. Educational Leadership, 57 (8), 28 33. Borko, H. (2004). Professional developme nt and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33 (8), 3 15. doi:10.3102/0013189X033008003 Borko, H., Elliott, E., & Uchiyama, K. (2002). Professional development: Akey to Teaching and Teacher Edu cation, 18, 969 987. Borko, H., Jacobs, J., & Koeliner K. (2010). Contemporary approaches to teacher professional development. Brooks, G. J., & Brooks, G. M. (1993). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Asso ciation for Supervision and Curriculum. Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi experimental designs for research. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

PAGE 226

226 Cohen, D. K., McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (1993). Teaching for understanding: Challenges for policy and practice. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Craft, A. (2000). Continuing professional development : A practical guide for teachers and schools (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge. Crandall, D. P., Loucks Horsley, S., Bauchner, J. E., Schmid t, W. B., Eiseman, J. W., Cox, P. L., & Taylor, J. A. (1982). People, policies, and practices: Examining the chain of school improvement. Andover, MA: The Network. Croft A., Coggshall, J. G., Dolan, M., Powers, E. & Killion, J. (2010). Job embedded profe ssional development: What it is, who is responsible, and how to get it done well. Retrieved from http://www.gtlcenter.org/sites/ /JEPDIssueBrief.pdf Darling Hammond, L. & Bransford, J. (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world San Francisco, CA: Jos sey Bass. Darling Hammond, L., Wei, R. C., Andree, A., Richardson, N. & Orphanos, S. (2009) Professional learning in the learning profession; A status report on teacher development in the United States and abroad The National Staff Development Council. Re trieved from http://www.nsdc.org/news/NSDCstudy2009.pdf Darling Hammond, L. & McLaughlin, M. (2011). Policies that support professional development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappon 92(6), 81 92. Dede, C. (2006). Online professional development for te achers: Emerging models and methods Cambridge, Mass: Harvard Education Press Day, C., & Sachs, J. (2004). International handbook on the continuing professional development of teachers. London, Great Britain: Open University Press. Desimone, L. (2009). Imp Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher 38 (3), 181 199. doi:10.3102/0013189X0833114 Desimone, L. M., Porter, A. C., Garet, M. S., Yoon, K. S., & Birman, B. F. (2002 ). three year longitudinal study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24 (2), 81 112. Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2009). Internet, mail, and mixed mod e surveys: The tailored design method. Hoboken. Doerfert, D. L. (2011). National research agenda: American Association for Agricultural 2015 Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University, Department of Agricultural Educat ion and Communications.

PAGE 227

227 Doolittle, P. E., & Camp, W. G. (1No9). Constructivism: The career and technical education perspective. Journal of Vocational and Technical Education, 16 (1). Retrieved from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JVTE/v16n1/doolittle.ht ml Dooley, L., Metcalf, T., & Martinez, A. (1999). a study of the adoption of computer technology by teachers. Educational Technology & Society, 2 (4) 107 115. Dunbar, T. F. (2002). Development and use of an instrument to measure scientific inquiry and rel ated factors (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM. Dunkin, M. J., & Biddle, B. J. (1974). The study of teaching Washington, DC: University Press of America, Inc. Fennema, E., Carpenter, T. P., Franke, M. L., Levi, L., Jacobs, V. R., & Empson, S. B. instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27 (4), 403 434. Fosnot, C. T. (2005). Constructivism : Theory, perspectives, and practice (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press. Fosnot, C. T., & Perry, R. S. (2005). Constructivism: A psychological theory of learning. In Fosnot, C. T. (Eds), Constructivism: Theory, perspectives and practice (p. 8 38). New York, Teachers Col lege Press. Fowler, F. J (2014). Survey research methods 5 th Edition Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Fraley, C. A. (2007). School cultures and their correlations with student achievement: An analysis of schools that have improved. (Doctoral Dissertation) retrie ved from ProQuest Fullan, M., & Hargraves, A. (1996). New York: Teachers College Press. Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective ? Analysis of a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38 915 945. doi: 10.3102/00028312038004915 Good, J. A. (2007). A modified train the trainer professional development program designed to deliver spreadsheet skills to elem entary teachers and students. (University of Delaware, Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. Greiman, B. (2010). Continuing Professional Development. In R. Torres, T. Kitchel, & A. Ball (Eds.), Preparing and advancing t eachers in agricultural education (pp.181 200). Columbus, OH: Curriculum Materials Service at The Ohio State University.

PAGE 228

228 Gruenert, S. (1998). Development of a school culture survey (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. Gruenert, S. & Valentine, J. (1998). School culture survey. Columbia, MO: Middle Level Leadership Center,University of Missouri. Gu, Q. (2007). Teacher development. New York, NY : Continuum Gurney, B. (1989). Constructivism and professional dev elopment: A stereoscopic view A paper presented at the 62 nd Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. San Francisco, CA. Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating Professional Development Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc. Gu skey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 8 (3/4). doi: 10.1080/1354060021000051 2 Guskey, T. R., & Sparks, D. (1991). Complexities in evaluating the effects of staff development programs. P aper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Guskey, T. R., & Sparks, D. (1996). Exploring the relationship between staff development and improvements in student learning. Journal of Staff Development, 17 34 38. G uskey, T. R., & Yoon, K. S. (2009). What works in professional development? Phi Delta Kappan, 90 (7), 495 500. Harkreader, S., & Weathersby, J. (1998). Staff development and student achievement: Making the connection in Georgia schools. Atlanta, GA: Counci l for School Performance. Available: http://archweb.gsu.edu/csp framing a model of outcomes. Journal of In service Education, 23 (1), 71 84. doi: 10.1080/13674589700200005 Ha rris, C. R. (2008). Career development event participation and professional development needs of Kansas agricultural education teachers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 49 (2), 131 138. doi: 10.5032/jae.2008.02130 Herndon, B. C. (2007). An analysis of t he relationships between servant leadership, school culture, and student achievement (Doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri -Columbia). Retrieved from ProQuest. Huffman, D., Thomas, K., & Lawrenz, F. (2003). Relationship between professional develo pment, teachers instructional practices and the achievement of students in science and mathematics. School Science and Mathematics 103 (8), 378 387.

PAGE 229

229 Ingersoll, R. M. (2003). Why Schools Have Difficulty Staffing Their Classrooms with Qualified Teachers?. Ed ucational Leadership, 60 (8), 30 33. Joyce, J. A. (2007). A modified train the trainer professional development program designed to deliver spreadsheet skills to elementary teachers and students. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Delaware). Jupp, V. (2 006). The SAGE dictionary of social and cultural research methods London: SAGE Teaching and Teacher Education, 10 (2), 157 167. Labaree, D. F. (2008). The winning ways of a losing str ategy: Educationalizing social problems in the United States. Educational Theory, 58 (4), 447 460. Layfield, K. D., Minor, V. C., & Waldvogel, J. A. (2001). Integrating science into agricultural education: A survey of South Carolina teachers' perceptions. P receedings of the 28th Annual National Agricultural Education Research Conference, New Orleans, LA. Le Ferve, D., & Richardson, V. (2002). Staff development in early reading intervention programs: The facilitator. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 483 5 00. doi: 10.1016/So742 051X(02)00011 2 Lieberman, A., & Wood, D. (2003). Inside the national writing project. New York: Teachers College press. Loucks Horsley, S., & Matsumoto, C. (1999). Research on professional development for teachers of mathematics an d science: the state of the scene. School Science and mathematics 99(5), 258 271. Loucks Horsley, S., Stiles, K. E., Mundry, S., Love, N., & Hewson, P. W. (2010). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, C A: Corwin Press. Lydon, S., & King, C. (2009). Can a single, short continuing professional development workhop cause change in the classroom. Professional Development in Education, 35 (1), 63 82. doi: 10.1080/13674580802264746 McLaughlin, M.W. (1993). What Little & M.W. McLaughlin (Eds.), contexts (pp. 79 103). New York: Teachers College Press. Mewborn, D. S. (2003). Teaching, teachers, knowledge, and their prof essional development. In J. Kilpatrick, W. G. Martin, & D. Schifter, (Eds.). A research companion to principals and standardsfor school mathematics (pp. 45 52). Reston, VA: The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

PAGE 230

230 Mitchell, B. D. (2008). A quantit ative study on positive school culture and student achievement on a criterion referenced competency test (Doctoral dissertation) University of Phoenix. Mizell, H. (2010). Why professional development matters Oxford, OH: Learning Forward. Myers, B. E., Dye r, J. E., & Washburn, S. G. (2005). Problems facing beginning agriculture teachers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 46 (3), 47 55. Myers, B. E., Thoron, A. C., & Thompson, G. W. (2009). Perceptions of the National Agriscience Teacher Ambassador Academy toward integrating science into school based agricultural education curriculum. Journal of Agricultural Education, 50 (4), 120 133. doi: 10.5032/jae.2009.04120 Myers, B. E., & Thompson, G. W. (2009). Integrating academics into agricultural programs: A Delp hi study to determine perceptions of the national agriscience teacher ambassador academy participants. Journal of Agricultural Education 50(2), 75 86. doi:10.5032/jae.2009.02075 Myers, B. E., & Washburn, S. G. (2008). Integrating science in the agricultur e curriculum: Agriculture teacher perceptions of the opportunities, barriers, and impact on student enrollment. Journal of Agricultural Education, 49 (2), 27 38. doi: 10.5032/jae.2008.02007 NAAE.org (2013). The National Association of Agricultural Educators : Dupont National Agriscience Teacher Ambassador Academy. www.naae.org/prodev/nataa.html Team up for 21 st century teaching and learning: what research and practice reveal about profession al learning. Person Foundation; Washington D.C. National Research Council (1988) Understanding agriculture: New directions for education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Wash ington, D.C.: National Academy Press. National Research Council (1998). 12 Education Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. National Research Council (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A guide for te aching and learning. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. National Research Council (2009). science. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

PAGE 231

231 Osborne, E. W. (Ed.) (n.d.). National research agenda: Agricultural education and communication 2007 2010. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida, Department of Agricultural Education and Communication. Osborne, J., & Waters, E. (2001). Four assumptions of multiple regression that researchers should always te st. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation 8 (2). Pals, D. A., & Crawford, H. R. (1980). Roles and responsibilities of selected agencies and groups in providing in service education for vocational agriculture instructors in Iowa. J ournal of the Amer ican Association of Teacher Educators in Agriculture, 21 (1), 26 33. doi:10.503/jaatea.1980.01026 Patton, K., Parker, M., & Neutzling, M. M. (2012). Tennis shoes required: The role of the facilitator in professional development. Research Quarterly for Exerc ise & Sport, 83 (4), 522 532. Doi: 10.1080/02701367.2012.10599141 Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B. J., Yamaguchi, R., & Gallagher, L. P. (2007). What makes professional development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum implementation. American Educational Research Journa l, 44 (4), 921 958). doi: 10.3102/0002831207308221 Pollnow, M. (2012). Implementing a K -12 train the trainer professional development model through the school improvement grant. (Doctoral Dissertation. Arizona State University). Retrieved f rom ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. Porter, A. C., Garet, M. S., Desimone, L., Yoon, K. S., & Birman, B. F. (2000). Does professional development change teaching practice? Results from a three year study. American Institutes for Research in the Behavior Science Washington DC. Ramsdell, R., Rose, R. and Kedera, M. (2006). PBS Teacherline and concord development program. In Dede, C. (Eds.) Online professional development for teachers: emerging models and methods pp. 69 88. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Roberts, T. G., Kitchel, T. (2010). Designing professional knowledge curriculum and instruction. In R. M. Torres, T. Kitchel, & A. L. Ball (Eds.), Preparing and advancing teach ers in agricultural education (pp. 100 111). Columbus, OH: Curriculum Materials Service. Rosenholtz, S. J. (1991). Teachers' workplace: The social organization of schools. New York: Teachers College Press. Rovengno, I., & Dolly, J. P. (2006). Constructivis t perspectives on learning. In D. Kirk, The handbook of physical education (p. 242 261). London, Sage.

PAGE 232

232 Rutherford, F. J., & Ahlgren, A. (1989). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press. Shunk, D.H. (2008). Learning Theories: An educational perspective (6 th edition). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc. Scribner, J. P. (1999). Professional development: untangling the influence of work context on teacher learning. Educational Administration Quarterly 35, 238 266. doi:10.1177/0013161X99352004 Shields, P. M., Marsh, J. A., & Adelman, N. E. (1998). Menlo Park, CA: SRI. Shoulders, C. W., & Myers, B. E (2011A). An analysis of National Agriscience Teacher based instruction. Journal of Agricultural Education 52 (2) 58 70. doi:10.5032/jae.2011.02058 Sigel, I. E. (1978). Constructivism and teacher education The Elementary School Journal, 78 (5), 332 338. Smith, C. Hofer, J. Gillespie, M., Solomon, M. & Rowe, K. (2003). How teachers change: a study of professional development in adult education (Report #25). Retrieved from National Center for the Study of Ad ult Learning and Literacy website: http://www.ncsall.net/index.html@id=29.html Sullivan, L. J. (2010). The influence of school culture, school goals, and teacher (Doctoral di ssertation, George Mason University). Supovitz, J. A., & Turner, H. M. (2000). The effects of professional development on science teaching practices and classroom culture. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37 (9), 963 980. St. John, M., Hirabayashi, J., & Stokes, L. (2004). The National Writing Project: An Inverness, CA: Inverness Research Associates. profes sional development. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 65 (5), 820 830. Thomas, G. (2010). Facilitator, teacher, or leader? Managing conflicting roles in outdoor education. Journal of Experiential Education, 32 239 254. Thompson, G. W., & Balschwei d, M. M. (1999). Attitudes of Oregon agricultural science and technology teachers toward integrating science. Journal of Agricultural Education, 40 (3), 21 29.

PAGE 233

233 Thompson, G. W., & Schumacher, L. G. (1998). Selected characteristics of the national FFA organiz agriscience programs. Journal of Agricultural Education 39(2),50 60. Thoron, A. C. (2010). Effects of inquiry based agriscience instruction on student argumentation skills, scientific reasoni ng, and student achievement (Doctoral dissertation). University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. Thoron, A. C., Myers, B. E., & Abrams, K. (2011). Inquiry based instruction: how is it utilized, accepted, and assessed in schools with national agriscience teache r ambassadors? J ournal of Agricultural Education 52 (1), 96 106. doi:10.5032/jae.2011.01096 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (1999).Teacher quality. A report on the preparation and qualifications of public school teac hers (NCES 1999 080). Washington, DC. Warnick, B. K., & Thompson, G. W. (2007). Barriers, support, and collaboration: a integration of science into the agriculture education curriculum Journal of Agricultural Education 48 (1), 75 85. Doi: 10.5032/jae.2007.01075 Webster Wright, A. (2000). Reframing professional development through understanding authentic professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 79 702 739 doi: 10.3102/0034 654308330970 Weiss, I. R., Montgomery, D. L., Ridgway. C. J., & Bond, S. L. (1998). Local systemic change through teacher enhancement: Year three cross site report. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research. Weiss, I. R., & Pasley, J. D. (2004). What is high quali ty instruction? Educational Leadership, 61 (5), 224 228. Weiss, I. R., Pasley, J. D., Smith, P. S., Banilower, E. R., & Heck, D. J. (2003). Looking inside the classroom: A study of K 12 mathematics and science education in the United States. Chapel Hill, NC : Horizon Research. Wilson, S.M. & Berne, J. (1999). Teacher learning and the acquisition of professional knowledge: Am examination of research on contemporary professional development. Review of Research in Education, 24 173 209. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1167270?origin=JSTOR pdf Yoon, K. S., Duncan, T., Lee, S. W., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K. L. (2007). Reviewing the evidence on how teacher professional development affe cts student achievement. National Center for Educational Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education.

PAGE 234

234 B IOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Jessica Marie Blythe was born and raised in Connecticut. Her interest in agricul ture was instilled in her by her family at a young age. Playing in the garden, driving around the farm, and enjoying the natural areas around the state started a lifelong passion for agriculture and natural resources. Her interest and experience in agricu ltural education continued when she was accepted to the Suffield Agriscience Center for high school and was an active member of the FFA chapter. In 2005, she earned her Bachelor of Science at the University of Connecticut in ornamental horticulture. To pur sue her interests in agricultural education and becoming a secondary agriculture teacher, Jessica moved to Florida to complete a degree in Agricultural Education from the University of Florida. Upon graduation in 2007, Jessica accepted a position as an agriculture teacher at Baker County High School in northern Florida. While at Baker County High school, she developed the horticulture pathway and taught four different courses. During her years as a secondary teacher, she strived to increase the re levance of content in her duties as an agriscience teacher, Ms. Blythe also served as the co advisor to the FFA chapter and became an active member of the local commu nity. Ms. Blythe was presented the National Association for Agricultural Educators Teacher Turn the Key award, and with her co teacher was awarded Outstanding Middle/High School Program by the Florida Association for Agricultural Education. She was also an active member of the Florida Association for Agricultural Education and served as the Reporter as well as a member of the professional development committee.

PAGE 235

235 After four years of teaching, in August of 2011, she returned to the graduate program at the Uni Department under the advisement of Dr. Brian E. Myers. Through her assistantship responsibilities, Ms. Blythe has provided professional development programs for agriscience teachers across the c ountry and taught numerous undergraduate courses in the department, including supervising student teachers. She also served as a lead instructor for a college wi de undergraduate course, overseeing the learning of 250 students and 4 teaching assistants. Ms. Blythe has continually conducted meaningful research related to the integration of STEM in agricultural education and teacher professional development. It is he r dream to continue her passion for agricultural education by preparing the next generation of secondary agriculture teachers and proving meaningful research that can enhance student learning across the nation.