Introduction summaries Informal discussions with agricultural education

Informal discussions with agricultural education students at local, regional, state,

and national events seem to indicate that many students desire hands-on learning

experiences as part of their agricultural education courses. Informal discussions with

agricultural education teachers seem to indicate that the number of hands-on experiences

differ widely from teacher to teacher, with some focusing primarily on bookwork and

theory. Others incorporate only the supervised agricultural experience (SAE) as part of

the agricultural education courses. Some incorporate a significant amount of hands-on

experience by engaging students in shop projects; repair and maintenance of agricultural

equipment; production of greenhouse, raised beds, and field produce; involvement in

aquaponics; and a myriad of other types of hands-on experiences. Now, as in the past, the

degree to which students are involved in agricultural experiences beyond the traditional

classroom setting, seems to vary, despite the fact that opportunities to engage students in

hands-on agricultural experiences have been available to teachers for well over one

hundred years.

Rationale for Experiential Learning in Agricultural Education:

The Congressional District Schools were the forerunners of government supported

vocational agriculture schools. These schools included both elementary and secondary

schools. “Between 1901 and 1905, 33 public high schools included agriculture in their

curriculum” (Hillison, 1989, p. 7). “By 1915, 4,665 public high schools and 253 private

high schools incorporated agriculture as a part of their curricular offerings” (Hillison,

1989, p.7). The facilities at these schools were usually a main building, dormitories,

laboratories, and a school farm. There was an emphasis on hands-on learning through the

late 19th century and early 20th century. For example, “Alabama school students were

given laboratory work in soils, farm crops, and horticulture” (Hillison, 1989, p.8). “The

thirty-ninth annual report [of the U.S. Department of Education]of 1917 reported that

only about one-fifth of study and recitation time was spent on agricultural topics; in

reality, the course work was broad-based, crossing several disciplines and competencies”

(Hillison, 1989, p.10). The curriculum for the agricultural schools consisted of four years

of education in the following areas: English, mathematics, history, science, agriculture,

and farm mechanics. “The farm mechanics laboratory had instruction, for boys, in free-

hand drawing, wood working, forge work, mechanical drawing, and elementary

surveying” (Hillison, 1995, p. 11).

The Smith-Hughes Act of 1917 emphasized the importance of agricultural

education and stipulated the following purposes:

1. To provide for the promotion of vocational education,

2. To provide for cooperation with the states in the promotion of vocational

education in agriculture and industry,

3. To provide for cooperation with the states in the preparation of teachers of

vocational education,

4. To appropriate money and regulate its expenditures

(Early Congressional Efforts, an Early Philosophy of Agricultural Education,

2016 p. 1).

The act became law to provide an education to students for employment on a farm

or in a farm home. The education strategies centered on problem solving instruction and

hands-on learning. Students today also need the hands-on experiences to help them

decide on a career or to prepare for further training at a technical school or college (Early

Congressional Efforts, an Early Philosophy of Agricultural Education, 2016).

Research has established a link between experiential instruction strategies and

improvement in science skills. Ramsey and Edwards (2004) state that “Historically,

agricultural education has been an appealing and robust authentic context in which

students learned and then applied the scientific laws, concepts, and principles” (p. 87).

Agricultural education programs used a curriculum that is student centered and engages

students in hands-on learning. The Supervised Agricultural Experience promotes handson

application of concepts and theories learned in the classroom and agricultural shop

(National FFA Organization, 2014, p. 2). The SAE projects provide opportunities for real-

life problem solving. According to Burris and Garton (2007), “the problem based learning

(PBL) is a constructivist approach to instruction that revolves around real-world and ill-

structured problems” (p. 107).

SAE’s provide numerous opportunities for students to apply knowledge and skills

learned in the classroom through contextual learning and to make real-world connections

through experience-based activities (Ramsey & Edwards, 2004). The SAE provides real

world situations in which the students can apply agriculture, business, and scientific

knowledge to solving problems in informal settings. “Researchers have asserted that

enriched informal activities outside the classroom correspond to higher scientific

reasoning abilities among students” (Ramsey & Edwards, 2004, p. 89). Informal learning

experiences that can improve the students’ scientific reasoning ability include a wide

variety of activities in the school and community such as the SAE, 4-H, FFA, scouting,

and partnership activities with businesses, industries, museums, and agricultural and

natural resource organizations.

Ramsey and Edwards (2004) note, “Researchers in science education have

suggested that students’ informal learning experiences play a significant role in their

learning of science and in their science achievement” (p. 89). The SAE and involvement

in FFA promote the informal learning and application of scientific concepts and theories.

Many agricultural education programs have a wide variety of laboratories that

teachers can utilize to provide hands-on experiences to students. Shoulders and Meyers

(2012) state the following:

Trends in the agriculture industry signal a need for agricultural education to

teach scientific problem solving, spurring the United States Department of

Agriculture to recommend that students seeking future employment in the

agriculture industry have basic science skills and the ability to solve

problems with scientific applications. (p. 124)

Agricultural education is an area of studies in which students can learn scientific

principles through the agricultural curriculum. “Agriculture laboratories, which can

include mechanics laboratories, greenhouses, livestock facilities, land laboratories, and

aquaculture laboratories are currently understood [to be] a means for providing students

practice in the application of theories taught in the classroom” (Shoulders & Meyers,

2012, p. 124). Teachers should be utilizing a variety of laboratories that are available to

them to engage students in problem solving and scientific learning.

Hands-on learning experiences improve students’ interest in the subject and result

in better grades and higher retention rates. “People crave experiences requiring

engagement and promising challenging opportunities to used personal skills” (DeLay &

Swan, 2014, p. 106). Students need to be actively engaged in the application of

knowledge learned in the classroom setting through practical application. “The program

model for agricultural education provides students with integrated opportunities of

coursework, leadership development, and supervised experiences” (DeLay & Swan,

2014, p. 106). The three components of agricultural education--FFA, the SAE, and

classroom/laboratory learning-- tie together all of the theories learned in the classroom to

help students develop real world problem solving abilities. The students’ interests in class

material and motivation provided by the teacher increase the students’ chances for a better

grade. According to a study conducted by DeLay and Swan (2014), “students struggled

with the impersonal, purposeless, teacher-centered focus of the core academic programs

but felt they thrived in the personal, purposeful, student-centered focus of the agriculture

programs” (p. 115). Agriculture teachers must work to keep students in their classes

active and engaged.

One might ask whether teachers are effectively utilizing available laboratories and

hands-on activities to enhance the instruction in high school agriculture education classes.

Shoulders and Meyers (2012) state, “The presence and usage of agricultural laboratories

to some degree is included in the basic philosophy of secondary agricultural education”

(p. 125). The used of laboratories and hands-on learning are the basic principles of

agricultural education; “however, little research has been conducted on the current used

of agricultural laboratories” (Shoulders & Meyers, 2012, p. 126). “A strong agri-science

curriculum was listed as the fifth most effective strategy for retention” (Myers, Dyer, &

Breja, 2014, p. 13). The agricultural education curriculum should have a strong, active

laboratory program for practical learning to occur. The active used of the laboratories

allows the students to demonstrate what they have learned and to achieve success in class

and school. “Active strategies like the SAE, project based learning, whole class

discussion, and laboratories engage students in actions like exploration and discovery”

(DeLay & Swan, 2014, p. 107).

The agriculture teacher is an important component in experiential learning.

“Kolb’s Theory of Experiential Learning was a holistic integrative perspective on

learning that combines experience, perception, cognition and behavior” (Arnold, Warner,

& Osborne, 2006, p. 32). Kolb’s theory has four components for the learning cycle:

concrete experience, reflective observations, abstract conceptualization, and active

experimentation. The concrete experiences are the “here and now” experiences, which are

used to test and validate concepts and provide a main point for learning and testing

(Arnold et al., 2006, p. 32). “The reflective observations component encourages students

to critically examine a concrete experience” (Arnold et al., 2006, p. 32). The reflection

allows students to take ownership of their success or failure and to understand and apply

the concrete material. The third stage is abstract conceptualization, which allows the

students to generalize about their experiences and strive for improvement. “The fourth

stage is active experimentation, which requires the transfer and application of principles

to a new situation” (Arnold et al., 2006, p. 32). An agricultural education class should

utilize as many opportunities as possible to provide the students the information they

need to become actively engaged in learning.

Gilakjani and Ahmadi (2011) believe that “Students learn best by seeing the value

and importance of the information presented in the classroom” (p. 469). The SAE

component of agricultural education provides the experiential learning opportunity for

solving problems. Most students are capable of learning through a variety of styles or

preferences. The most common styles are visual, auditory, tactile, and kinesthetic. The

visual learners easily understand written material, and they will take notes. They will later

use these notes to complete assignments or tests. The auditory learners want to hear the

information and discuss new ideas to understand material. They will listen intently to

lectures and will attend conferences, but noise easily distracts this type of learner. Tactile

leaners prefer to touch objects to feel their shape or texture. These students prefer to work

with their hands and want to hold the objects. The kinesthetic learners learn best through

physical activity. They need to be moving around during lab activities, working in the

agricultural mechanics shop or greenhouse, or engaging in other activities that allow them

to get up and move around. The movement helps the student to process the information

more effectively.

Problem Statement

In Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Friere (1997) stated that education is “suffering

from narration sickness” (pp. 52-53) and that to change the system, the teacher must, in a

sense, become a student to help other students pursue inquiry. In Psychological

Foundations of Learning, Walls (1999) states that teachers should limit the amount of

time they lecture. He emphasizes that “People learn what they DO” (p. 36). “Doing” is

an integral part of agricultural education, and “doing to learn” is part of the FFA motto.

Why is it, then, that in some agricultural education classes, students are not engaged in

activities that help them learn? Listening to lectures, watching films, completing

worksheets, and focusing almost exclusively on theory is not “doing.” The extent to

which agricultural teachers engage students in experiential learning seems to vary across

the state of West Virginia. The following questions arise:

1. To what extent are West Virginia agricultural education students working

actively?

2. To what extent are West Virginia agricultural education students engaged in

agricultural laboratory settings?

3. To what extent are West Virginia agricultural education students developing the

skills needed to become problem solvers through inquiry and experiential learning

practices?

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the research study is to determine the method(s) agricultural

education teachers used to teach the content skill sets for the Introduction to Agriculture,

Food, and Natural Resources course in West Virginia. This study places special emphasis

on the extent to which laboratories (and hands-on learning activities) are utilized.

Limitations of the Study

The study is limited to agricultural education teachers employed in West Virginia

during the 2018-2019 school year. The number of teachers who respond to the survey, the

degree to which they are willing to share their teaching practices and the honesty of their

responses also limit the study.

CHAPTER II

Review of Literature

Agriculture education has always been a strong force behind the growth and

development of new ideas and ways to teach and learn the material. “Beginning in the

early 1880’s, strong support was increasing nationally for more agricultural instruction in

the educational system” (Hillison, 1989, p. 7). The Federal government was getting

involved in agricultural education with the passing of several acts that provided support

for agricultural education. “A central focus of these efforts was to include agricultural

instruction as part of the public school system in order to involve persons in the field at

an earlier age” (Hillison, 1989, p. 7). The acts proposed that both elementary and

secondary education attempt to incorporate agricultural education. In the late 1800s, only

19 public high schools had agriculture as part of the curricula. “Between 1901 and 1905,

33 public high schools included agriculture in their curricula, and in five years following,

413 more schools added agriculture to their curricula” (Hillison, 1989, p. 7). By 1915,

there were approximately 5,000 public high schools and 250 private schools that offered

agriculture as part of their school day offerings (Hillison, 1989, p. 10). “Instruction at that

time was for both sexes, 95,148 students of whom 40,892 were girls” (Hillison, 1989, p.

7). “In 1908, the Country Life Commission was appointed by President Roosevelt”

(Agricultural Education- Early Congressional Efforts, An Early Philosophy of

Agricultural Education, 2016, p. 6). The main goal of the commission was to make

educational improvements.

The original colleges in America taught the classics and modeled curricula on that

found in English Universities. The colleges designed curricula to educate the students in

the areas of religion, medicine, and law. Very few schools offered an agriculture program.

“The development of agricultural societies was the first systematic attempt to improve

agriculture” (Place, 2015, p. 5). These societies, established after the

Revolutionary War, grew to about 900 at the national level. “The first organized society

and one of the most notable was the Philadelphia Society for Promoting Agriculture,

established in 1785 by Benjamin Franklin” (Place, 2015, p. 5). The societies published

journals, had education programs, and offered rewards for agricultural innovations. The

societies provided a wealth of new information about crop and livestock production for

farmers, who were slow to accept the information. To promote changes needed to

improve America’s agricultural production, the societies pushed for colleges and

programs to educate students about agriculture.

Jonathan Turner and Thomas Clemson were two of the early supporters of

agriculture education. Turner was a Yale graduate who became a farmer, newspaper

editor, and professor at Illinois College. He developed a “Plan for a State University for

the Industrial Classes in 1850 that contained many of the ideas that became the Morrill

Act of 1862” (Place, 2015, p. 5). Clemson advocated for science and agriculture

education and helped to establish colleges along the eastern coast of the United States.

“The first school that was devoted to the study of agriculture was Gardiner

Lyceum in Maine, established in 1823” (Place, 2015, p. 5). After the establishment of the

school in Maine, other schools such as Kings College (Columbia University) and Harvard

College soon started programs in agriculture. Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Maryland

became the first states to establish schools, which taught agriculture and the mechanical

arts (Place, 2015, p. 5).

“Pennsylvania established the first agricultural high school in 1855, which in 1862

became the state’s Land-Grant College and eventually Pennsylvania State University”

(Place, 2015, p. 5). Evan Pugh, the first president, envisioned a school that would not

only train farmers but also research specialists and rural schoolteachers, who would be

professionally scientific in the combination of agriculture and mechanic arts. The

Michigan Agricultural Society pressured Michigan into opening the first college of

agriculture in 1855, while Maryland opened a college of agriculture in 1856 (Place, 2015,

p. 5).

Colleges developed agricultural education prior to the Smith- Hughes Act under

the Morrill Land Act of 1862, signed by President Abraham Lincoln. The act provided the

donation of public lands to several states to sell. The finances raised from the sales

provided for the endowment, support, and maintenance of one college, which should

teach scientific, classical studies, military tactics, agriculture, and mechanic arts. (The

125th Second Morrill Act Anniversary Celebration at North Carolina A&T State

University, 2016).

In 1887, the Hatch Act provided for federal funding for agricultural experiment

stations. Agricultural experiment stations conduct research that includes the difficulty and

improvements to food production and agricultural business. The stations work with

farmers, suppliers, processors, and teachers. The stations study how agriculture affects the

environment, society, and the economics of an area. The scientists research a variety of

issues such as crop varieties, different types of soil, livestock and animal technology. For

example, at the West Virginia University Research Station, “the first scientific study of

West Virginia insects was started, research into the oak wilt disease and a blight resistant

tomato was developed” (150th Anniversary Celebrating Research, 2017, p. 1). “The act

asserts that in any state with two land grant colleges, the funds must be split equally,

unless the legislature says otherwise” (The 125th Anniversary Celebration at North

Carolina A&T State University, 2016, p. 1).

Many farmers expressed interest in vocational education through the National

Grange, which strongly supported The Paige-Wilson Vocational Bill, one of the early

vocational bills, provided funding for agricultural education. The National Grange has

been supporting education since the early 1870s (Hillison, 1989). “The National Grange

encouraged every state Grange to assist with the enactment of the Paige-Wilson

Vocational Bill and to make [the Grange’s] influence rigorous and continuous” (Hillison,

1989, p.9).

The Association of American Agricultural Colleges and Experiment Stations

expressed two concerns about the federal funding of vocational education: “One concern

was with the location of experiment stations, which the organizations feared would be

attached to the Congressional District Agriculture Schools. The second concern had to do

with the merging of co-operative extension service and vocational education” (Hillison,

1989, p.9). The writers of the bill assured the Association of American Agricultural

Colleges and Experiment Stations that the experiment stations would be separate from

schools, nor would the extension service be part of vocational education in the Smith-

Levers Act of 1914, which was a forerunner of the Smith-Hughes Bill (Hillison, 1995).

“The Congressional district agricultural schools- because of how they were

established, their facilities, and their curricula—are, when taken together as a group, an

important early example of vocational agriculture” (Hillison, 1989, p.12). Public and

political influences of the time did have an impact on the agricultural education, but the

Congressional district schools helped to bring agricultural education into the public

schools through adaptation of the curricula, administrational procedures, and the types of

students in the schools. The increase in the growth in agricultural education was inspired

through high school curriculum in three states: Alabama, Georgia, and Virginia (Hillison,

1989).

“The Alabama legislature passed the first Congressional district school legislation

on February 28, 1889” (Hillison, 1989, p. 8). The act established two branch experiment

stations and agriculture schools. The Alabama State Grange and farmers were

instrumental in passage of the act. “The Alabama legislation called the schools

agricultural schools and appropriated six thousand dollars to be split evenly between two

locations in north Alabama and southeast Alabama” (Hillison, 1989, p. 8). The act also

authorized more funds and the purchase of lands for the schools.

“Georgia was the second state to establish Congressional district high schools,

which were conceived and patterned after the Alabama schools. In 1905, Governor

Joseph Terrell endorsed the concept of agricultural education in his address to the

General Assembly” (Hillison, 1989, p. 8). The Georgia legislature passed the law on

August 18, 1906, establishing and maintaining the schools of agriculture and mechanic

arts. The agriculture schools were to be branches of University of Georgia (Hillison,

1989).

Virginia was the third state to establish Congressional district schools. S.W.

Fletcher, Director of the Virginia Agriculture Experiment Station, encouraged the addition

of agricultural education in public schools. In 1908, Virginia passed a bill to permit the

inclusion of agricultural education in public schools. In 1910, the legislature expanded

the act to mandate at least one school in each congressional district, be selected by the

state board of education to offer a course in agriculture, domestic arts, sciences, and

manual training. The act also authorized the purchase, lease or acceptance through

donations of five acres of land to provide practical experience and demonstration of

agricultural science (Hillison, 1989).

The facilities of the Congressional district schools differed from each other, based

on legislative specification, local contributions and conditions. A basic school had a main

building, two dormitories, several laboratories, and a school farm. One school in Elk

Creek, Virginia had a three story brick building, eleven large classrooms, office, library,

two music rooms, auditorium, and three laboratories. Its purpose was “To emphasize the

importance of experiential learning, most schools contained several laboratories”

(Hillison, 1989, p. 9).

“The Thirty-ninth Annual Report of 1911 noted that the name agricultural school

was misleading because the schools taught broad-based coursework, crossing several

disciplines and competencies” (Hillison, 1989, p. 10). The schools in Georgia

recommended a curriculum of four years with courses in English, mathematics, history,

science, agriculture, farm mechanics, and domestic arts and science (Hillison, 1989).

In Alabama, the southern schools included botany, and practical work as part of

the curriculum. The school farm was a major part of the curriculum, and the students

were encouraged to do experiments and investigations on plots on the farm. They also

learned about farm mechanics, mechanical drawing and elementary surveying. The life

experiences helped to make the classroom theory more applicable to the real world for the

students (Hillison, 1989).

The Congressional District Schools existed in only three states for a limited

amount of time, but they proved that agricultural education could be taught in the high

schools as part of the curriculum. The Congressional District Schools set a precedent for

the passage of the Smith-Hughes Act of 1917. The schools demonstrated a curriculum

that included classical educational curriculum along with agricultural curriculum. The

schools, also, helped in the design of the facilities, administration, instructors, and

curriculum (Hillison, 1989).

The Hatch Act of 1887 provided an opportunity for young people who grew up in

rural areas to attend the land grant colleges. This did not happen as planned, so educators

designed other programs. The first was the establishment of the experimental stations by

the act. The second was the creation of the extension service by the Smith Levers Act of

1914. Third, the Smith-Hughes Act of 1917 created and funded vocational programs at

the secondary level (Agricultural Education- Early Congressional Efforts, An Early

Philosophy of Agricultural Education, 2016).

The Nelson Amendment to Agricultural Appropriations Bill in March of 1907

authorized the expenditure of federal funds to colleges of agriculture for courses in the

preparation of teachers in agriculture and mechanic arts. “By 1908, $25,000 was

appropriated annually to each state for such purposes” (Hillison, 1989, p. 2). This

amendment came as Georgia, Alabama, and Virginia developed the Congressional district

schools. The amendment gave a large boost to agricultural education for teachers.

During this time, the Department of Agriculture was also promoting training for

agriculture teachers and providing materials for the classes (Hillison, 1989).

Many organizations throughout the country supported The Smith-Hughes Act of

1917. The National Society for the Promotion of Industrial Education (NSPIE) was

founded to bring together the organizations interested in supporting the passage of federal

legislation supporting the vocational education bill. The members were men of affairs,

employers, representatives of labor, social students, and educators. The American

Federation of Labor (AFL) supported a vocational program that was in the public

education system and not private. The AFL wanted a system of education that would

provide skilled training for their children. The National Association of Manufactures

(NAM) was concerned with the quality and ability level of new employees graduating

from school. NAM and its members viewed vocational education as a way of educating

and training new employees to accomplish the skilled jobs (Hillison, 1989).

The United States Chamber of Commerce was interested in having a prepared

workforce that would improve the efficiency of the industrial areas. In 1913, the

organization passed a resolution supporting vocational education, which emphasized the

following vocational areas: manufacturing, commerce, agriculture, and home economics.

In a survey of its members in 1916, the chamber determined that two-thirds of members,

who returned the surveys, supported vocational education. The National Democratic

Party supported the vocational act for agriculture. Party members at the 1912 and 1916

conventions passed a declaration for national grants for agricultural education, household

arts, and industrial training. Wallace’s Farmer, a prominent rural magazine, was part of an

influential form of media. The magazine was quoted as saying if the director could get the

teacher to lay down the book and present problems that might occur in real farming, then

a better farmer would be produced (Hillison, 1995). W. D. Hoard, a former governor of

Wisconsin and trustee of University of Wisconsin, in 1895, stated that in agriculture,

many farmers had not had any special training in the field, but they were guided by

providence (Hillison, 1995). No other business would permit this to happen, so there

should be a specialized field of study for them. Most of the farmers did not understand

the ideas of proteins, carbohydrates, or free nitrogen in the soil. A number of prominent

education advocates believed that farmers should be like craftsmen in other industries,

thoroughly trained in the aspects of their jobs and the needs of the livestock and crop

plants (Hillison, 1995).

“The National Grange claimed a degree of credit for the passage of the

SmithHughes Act when it stated that the Grange fathered legislation creating the Vo-Ag

programs and consistently supported advancement of the work since it was established”

(Hillison, 1995, p. 9). The Grange had been a supporter of education for rural America

since its conception and still fights for agricultural education.

The Smith-Hughes Act of 1914 required that agricultural education include the

directed or supervised practice of agriculture. The Act specified that students had to

participate in a work experience outside of the classroom. The experience had to focus on

livestock and crop projects. The Act provided federal money for the funding of the

agricultural programs along with matching state and local financing. The funding was to

provide for the training and salaries of teachers, supervisors, and directors of agriculture,

and for programs focusing on home economics, agricultural economics, and industrial

subjects. The states had to submit plans that detailed the used of the money for the

programs. The Smith-Hughes Act encouraged the students and schools to learn through

hands-on applications and experiential learning, using world problems (Agricultural

Education—Early Congressional Efforts, An Early Philosophy of Agricultural Education,

2016).

The report, “Transforming Agricultural Education for a Changing World” (2014),

published by The National Academies, states that “today’s global agricultural enterprise

stretches beyond the farm to encompass hundreds of entities involved in the production

and distribution of food and other agricultural products worldwide” (p. 4). “A link has

been established between experiential learning and improvement in science skills:

Historically, agricultural education has been an appealing and robust authentic context in

which students learned and applied the scientific laws, concepts, and principles” (Ramsey

& Edwards, 2004, p. 87). The agricultural education programs used a curriculum that is

student centered and engages students in hands-on learning. The Supervised Agricultural

Experience (SAE) promotes hands-on application of concepts and theories learned in the

classroom and agricultural shop (National FFA, 2004). According to “Experiential

Learning: Supervised Agricultural Experience Program,” the SAE involves more than the

student and the teacher:

The supervised agricultural experience is defined as programs that consist of

all practical agriculture activities of educational value, conducted by

students outside the classroom, and laboratory instructional time, or on

school-released time for which systematic instruction and supervision are

provided by teacher, parents, employers, and others (Missouri Program

Planning Handbook, 2003, p.5).

The SAE program should help students select and prepare for successful careers,

and to make informed life-long choices about their food, fiber, and natural resource

usage. The SAE programs are individual projects that involve the supervision from their

instructor and parents or others, depending the project. The major areas of study in the

SAE program are entrepreneurship, exploratory, placement, research/experimental, and

analytical. The SAE allows the students the ability to apply knowledge learned in class to

practical applications through the various phases of their project. The students have the

opportunity to apply their knowledge of scientific, agricultural, and business to solving

problems and issues occurring in their SAE. Research has shown that informal activities

outside the classroom help the students to develop stronger scientific reasoning abilities.

This informal education can be through an agricultural education programs SAE, 4-H,

scouting, or other types of partnerships within the community (Arnold et al., 2006, pp.

31-32).

The problem based learning (PBL) is a constructivist approach to instruction that

revolves around real-world issues (Burris & Garton, 2007). The used of this method

continues to allow the students the opportunities for practical application of concepts

learned in the classroom setting. PBL promotes the both acquisition of content knowledge

and the development of thinking skills and strategies” (Burris & Garton, 2007, p. 107).

The agricultural education programs should be promoting the used of PBL through

student completion of SAEs. In West Virginia, students are required to complete two

years of SAE credit before graduation to be vocational completers.

Many of the agricultural education programs have a wide variety of laboratory

and hands-on learning facilities for the student’s use. Laboratories are an important

component of the agricultural education program for providing the experiential

opportunity for the students (Saucier & McKim, 2011). The trends in today’s agriculture

industry from production to research indicate a need for more laboratory used in the

programs. The United States Department of Agriculture has recommended that students

seeking employment in the industry have the basic scientific skills and the ability to solve

problems with those skills. Agricultural education laboratories can include mechanics

shop, greenhouses, livestock facilities, land laboratories, and aquaculture for the students

to used as method of practical application of knowledge learned in the classroom. The

laboratory (shop) Content Standards Objectives of the West Virginia Department of

Education are a major part of the agriculture programs in secondary schools. The teachers

who are using these laboratories have a more positive prospective of student learning.

The used of the laboratories and agricultural education learning areas produce students

who have less apathy toward learning (www.wvde.gov, 2017).

Laboratories employ a wide variety of learning techniques and strategies from the

visual to hands-on learning. According to Gilakjani (2011), “students learn best by seeing

the value and importance of the information presented in the classroom.” (p. 469). The

agricultural education instructors have an opportunity to engage students in a wide variety

of activities from the shop and class laboratory to the SAE and community service

projects. The activities caused the student to develop the thinking skills needed to apply

theoretical knowledge to real world situations.

Kolb’s experiential learning theory “develops a holistic model of the experiential

learning process and multilinear model for adult development.” (Kolb & Kolb, 2005,

p.194). Experiential learning is the application of classroom knowledge to real problems.

The SAE, laboratory, and shop activities are the most useful for the application of the

knowledge.

The SAE allows the student the opportunity to apply their knowledge to a specific

project of interest, which can range from raising livestock for breeding, showing, or

marketing to placement and research. The activities allow the students to pursue areas of

interest based on their knowledge gained from classroom instruction. According to Kolb

and Kolb (2005), “learning styles describe the individual difference in learning based on

the learner’s preference to employing different phases of the learning cycle” (pp. 194-

195).

The learning cycle has two levels:

The first level is concrete experience and abstract conceptualization and

active experimentation and reflective observation. The second level is

broken down into four types of learning, which are as follow:

1. Diverger: Type 1

2. Assimilator: Type 2

3. Converger: Type 3

4. Accommodator: Type 4. (Felder & Brent, 2005, pp. 59-60).

Students who want the concrete experience or abstract conceptualization differ in

how they acquire new information. The active experimentation or reflective observations

differ in how the information is processed. At the second level, the divergers are concrete

and reflective learners. They want to know how the information will affect their

experience, interests, and future. They want to be able to apply the information to real

issues.

The assimilator is abstract and reflective. This type of student wants the

information in a well-organized and logical manner but needs time to reflect on how this

information will affect them.

The convergers are abstract and active learners who want the opportunity to

participate in well-defined tasks and learn from their mistakes. They want the opportunity

to prove an idea or theory and learn from their mistakes.

The accommodators are concrete and active in their learning style. This type of

learner wants to apply their knowledge to new situations to solve real issues and

problems. They want to discover things for themselves and work on problem solving

(Felder & Brent, 2005).

How teachers present information and how students receive information

determine the extent to which experiential learning benefits students. According to

Miller (2001), “there are three styles of learning; these are visual, auditory, and

kinesthetic” (p. 1). The visual and verbal learner processes the information better when

teachers present it visually and in a written format. This type of learner would rather read

and reflect at his/her leisure. The visual non-verbal learner assimilates the information

best when teachers present information in the form of a picture or design format. The

learner benefits from posters, charts, and videos. The more visual a presentation is, the

easier it will be for the students to process the information.

The auditory learner learns best when the material is presented verbally. These

students learn best in the classroom through lecture and group discussion, i.e. listening

and speaking formats work best (Miller, 2001).

The kinesthetic learner is hands-on and enjoys being physically active in the class.

These students benefit most and acquire information better through labs, shop projects,

and SAEs. They learn better by being physically active and manipulating the materials.

These students need to experience the material and stay actively engaged (Miller, 2001).

Summary

Agricultural education has a long history in our country. The programs started

before the civil war with agricultural societies providing instruction and research to

farmers.

For over a century, the federal government has provided funding for agricultural

programs. Passage of federal laws has helped to create schools for agricultural education,

hands-on learning and the practical application of theory learned in the classroom. One

might conclude that a combination of lectures, labs, shop, FFA and SAE’s in agricultural

education programs can provide learning experiences for all students.

Many organizations have provided support for the agricultural education

programs, and many still do. The organizations help to lobby for laws that provide the

materials needed for the hands-on learning and an educated agricultural labor force. As

time has changed, so have students, who do not all learn in the same manner. The

instructor must determine the best learning style or employ a variety of learning styles for

the students to encourage them to be active participants in learning. Students that are in

the agricultural programs work with problem-based learning, think critically and apply

their knowledge to real world problems.

Because agricultural education employs multiple methods of teaching and

learning, students are better able to solve problems. Experiential learning in agricultural

education programs contributes significantly to the success of those programs and the

success of students who complete those programs.

CHAPTER III

Methodology

Research Design

The researcher used an electronic descriptive survey to collect data from high

school agricultural education instructors in West Virginia. According to Ary, Jacobs,

Sorenson and Walker (2014), “Surveys permit the researcher to summarize the

characteristics of different groups to measure their attitudes and opinions toward some

issue” (p. 399). Each teacher survey will have the opportunity to explain hands-on

methods used and his or her philosophy of agricultural education.

Population of the Study

The population of the study was 104 agricultural education instructors employed

in West Virginia during the 2018-2019 school year. The population was determined using

the official directory maintained by the Agricultural and Extension Education Department

at West Virginia University. The researcher used a census because of the small target

population: therefore, the target and accessible populations were the same.

Instrumentation

The researcher developed a survey using the content skills sets approved for the

Introduction to Agriculture, Food, and Natural Resources course. The survey consisted of

two sections:

• Section 1 asked the respondents to indicate the way(s) each content skill

sets approved for the course was taught.

• Section 2 included demographic information about the participants,

including highest degree earned and years of experience.

Validity and Reliability

A panel of experts in the Davis College of Agriculture, Natural Resources, and

Design at West Virginia University reviewed the instrument to establish content and face

validity. The reliability of the instrument was found to be extensive (Robinson, Shaver, &

Wrightsman, 1991).

Data Collection

Dillman’s Total Design Survey Method procedures were used to guide the data

collection procedures. An introduction email (see Appendix A) was sent to all participants

introducing the survey and asking for their participation. On October 16, 2018 all

participants were emailed a cover letter (see Appendix B) explaining the research and a

link to the Qualtrics survey (see Appendix D). A deadline for completing the survey was

established. A follow-up letter (see Appendix C) was sent with the link to non-

respondents 10 days later and a second letter was sent seven days later. The last responses

were recorded on December 6, 2018 prior to the survey being closed. A personal phone

call to the non-responders and a phone interview was conducted.

Non-Response Error

Ary et al. (2014) state that if the “response rate remains below 75%, try to learn

something about the characteristics of the non-respondents” (p. 434). The group of

respondents were divided into two groups based on the time of their response. Individuals

who responded to the survey on or before the original deadline were considered as “early

respondents.” Because late respondents are most like non-respondents (Miller & Smith,

1983) the analysis provided an estimate of non-response error.

Data Analysis

Quantitative data was analyzed utilizing the SPSS 23.0 for Windows. The level of

significance was set a priori at α ≤ 0.05 for all statistical tests. Descriptive analyses

appropriate for the respective scales of measurement were performed on the data

including measures of central tendency (mean, median, or mode) and variability

(frequencies or standard deviation). The results were represented as frequencies and

percentages as well as mean, median, and mode in both table and narrative form.

Used of Findings

The findings/results will be published. The results may help agricultural education

teachers retain current students and increase enrollment of future students. Once West

Virginia agricultural education teachers receive results of the study and see the number

and types of laboratories, supervised practices, library and computer activities, field trips,

and classroom activities that are incorporated in introductory agricultural education

courses across the state, they may reinforce activities they are already using to engage

students; or teachers may decide to incorporate more practices used by their colleagues.

CHAPTER IV

Findings

The accessible population consisted of 104 secondary agricultural educators in

West Virginia. Thirty-one educators returned surveys (29.8%). Of the surveys returned,

fifteen could not be used for data collection because these respondents do not teach

introduction to agriculture, food, and natural resources. The final set of useable surveys

number sixteen.

Demographic Characteristics of Respondents

Gender

Respondents identified their gender. The mode for gender was male. Nine of the

respondents (56.25%) were male, while seven (43.75%) were female (see Table 1).

Sixteen of the respondents teach Introduction to Agriculture, Food, and Natural

Resources, while 15 do not teach the class.

Table 1

Gender of Respondents and Teaching of Introduction to Agriculture, Food, and Natural

Resources

Yes

Male

56.25

80.00

Female

43.75

20.00

Age of Respondents

Respondents indicated their age, using 10-year categories. The median age for

respondents that teach introduction to agriculture, food, and natural resources fell within

the 20-29 years of age category. Six respondents (37.50%) identified their age in the 2029

year category. Four respondents (25.00%) listed 30-39 years as their age category, and

another three respondents (18.75%) indicated their age was in the 40-49 year category.

The 50-59 year category included two (12.50%), and one (6.25%) indicated their age

category was 60-69 years (see Table 2).

Table 2

Age of Respondents Compared to Teaching the Introduction to Agriculture, Food and

Natural Resources (WVEIS 0101) Course

Yes

20 - 29 years

37.50

6.67

30 - 39 years

25.00

33.33

40 - 49 years

18.75

40.00

50 - 59 years

12.50

20.00

60 - 69 years

6.25

.00

70 years or older

.00

Years of Teaching Experience

Using five-year categories, the participants indicated their years of teaching

experience. The median level of experience was 5-10 years. Six participants (37.50%)

indicated teaching experience of 5-10 years. The 0-4 year category, 11-15 year category,

21-25 year category and the Over 30 year category each had two participants (12.50%),

while the 16-20 year category and 26-30 year each had one participant (6.25%) who

teaches Introduction to Agriculture, Food, and Natural Resources (see Table 3).

Table 3

Years of Teaching Experience Compared to Teaching the Introduction to Agriculture,

Food and Natural Resources (WVEIS 0101) Course

Do you teach the Introduction to Agriculture, Food and Natural

Resources (WVEIS 0101) course?

Yes No

0 - 4 years

12.50

.00

5 - 10 years

37.50

33.33

11 - 15 years

12.50

6.67

16 - 20 years

6.25

26.67

21 - 25 years

12.50

6.67

26 - 30 years

6.25

13.33

Over 30 years

12.50

13.33

Level of Education of Respondents

The participants indicated their level of education. The median level of education

for participants who teach Introduction to Agriculture was Master of Science/Arts. Nine

participants (56.25%) indicated that their education level was Master of Science/Arts,

while seven (43.75%) indicated that their level of education was Bachelor of

Science/Arts. None of the participants indicted that their level of education was Doctor of

Education or Doctor of Philosophy (see Table 4).

Table 4

Level of Education of Respondents

Yes

Bachelor of Science/Arts

(BS/BA)

43.75

33.33

Master of Science/Arts

(MS/MA) e

56.25

66.67

Doctor of Education (EdD)

.00

Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

.00

Methods Used to Teach Introduction to Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources.

Basic Finance – Personal Inventory, Net Worth, Income, and Expense

Fifty percent of the respondents (f = 13) used discussion to teach Basic Finance –

Personal Inventory, Net Worth, Income, and Expense. Twelve of the respondents

(46.15%) used project-based methods to teach Basic Finance – Personal Inventory, Net

Worth, Income, and Expense. Eleven respondents (42.31%) used the library and 11

respondents (42.31%) used a computer lab to teach the concept of basic finance. Nine of

the respondents (34.62%) used lecture to teach Basic Finance – Personal Inventory, Net

Worth, Income, and Expense. Seven of the respondents (26.92%) used inquiry while

another seven respondents (26.92%) used the greenhouse to teach the concept. Six of the

respondents (23.08%) used classroom demonstration and six other teachers (23.08%)

used textbooks and handouts. Three of the respondents (11.54%) used other methods in

the laboratory to teach the concept, while two of respondents (7.69%) used a meats

laboratory to teach the concept. One respondent (3.85%) used forestry, one used land

laboratory, and one used mechanics laboratory to teach the concept. None of the

respondents indicated the use of biotechnology laboratory or field trip to teach the

concept, and none indicated that they do not teach the concept (see Table 5).

Table 5

Methods Used to Teach Agribusiness CSS: Basic Finance - Personal Inventory, Net

Worth, Income, Expenses

Location

Delivery

Classroom

Discussion

50.00

Classroom

Project Based

46.15

Other

Library/ computer lab

42.31

Classroom

Lecture

34.62

Classroom

Inquiry

26.92

Laboratory

Greenhouse

26.92

Classroom

Demonstration

23.08

Classroom

Textbooks/ Handouts

23.08

Laboratory

Other

11.54

Laboratory

Meats laboratory

7.69

Laboratory

Forestry

3.85

Laboratory

Land laboratory

3.85

Laboratory

Mechanics laboratory

3.85

Laboratory

Biotechnology laboratory

0.00

Other

Do not Teach

0.00

Other

Field Trip

0.00

Create a Plan for Their Own Agricultural Enterprise.

Twenty-two respondents (84.62%) used project-based learning to teach Create a

Plan for Their Own Agricultural Enterprise. Eleven individuals (42.31%) used classroom

discussion and eleven respondents (42.31%) used library and computer labs to teach the

concept of creating a plan. Eight (30.77%) respondents used inquiry to teach the concept,

while six (23.08%) used classroom lecture. Five of the respondents (19.23%) used the

laboratory greenhouse to teach the concept. Four of the respondents (15.38%) used

textbooks and handouts to teach the concept. Three of the respondents (11.54%) used a

meats laboratory, and another three (11.54%) used mechanics laboratories to teach the

concept. Two of the respondents (7.69%) used demonstration, other, or field trips, while

one respondent (3.85%) used biotechnology laboratory to teach creating a plan. None of

the respondents used either forestry or land laboratory to teach the concept of creating a

plan for agricultural enterprises (see Table 6).

Table 6

Methods Used to Teach Agribusiness CSS: Create a Plan for Their Own Agricultural

Enterprises

Location

Delivery

Classroom

Project Based

84.62

Classroom

Discussion

42.31

Other

Library/computer lab

42.31

Classroom

Inquiry

30.77

Classroom

Lecture

23.08

Laboratory

Greenhouse

19.23

Table 6 (continued)

Methods Used to Teach Agribusiness CSS: Create a Plan for Their Own Agricultural

Enterprises

Location

Delivery

Classroom

Textbooks/Handouts

15.38

Laboratory

Meats laboratory

11.54

Laboratory

Mechanics laboratory

11.54

Classroom

Demonstration

7.69

Laboratory

Other

7.69

Other

Field Trip

7.69

Laboratory

Biotechnology laboratory

3.85

Laboratory

Forestry

0.00

Create an Advertisement for an Agricultural Product.

Nineteen respondents (73.08%) used project- based learning to teach Create an

Advertisement for an Agricultural Product. Nine individuals (34.62%) used the library or

computer lab to teach the concept. Eight respondents (30.77%) used one of the following

methods to teach the concept either discussion or greenhouse. Inquiry is the method of

teaching the concept for five of the respondents (19.23%). Four respondents (15.38%)

used demonstration, four (15.38%) used textbooks or handouts, and another four

(15.38%) used the meats laboratory. Three respondents used classroom lecture (11.54%),

and three respondents used the mechanics laboratory (11.54%) to teach the concept. Two

respondents (7.69%) used other laboratory methods to teach the concept, while one

respondent (3.85%) used forestry, and another one (3.85%) used land laboratory. None of

the respondents used biotechnology laboratory or do not teach the concept (see Table

7).

Table 7

Methods Used to Teach Agribusiness CSS: Create an Advertisement for an Agricultural

Product.

Location

Delivery

Classroom

Project Based

73.08

Other

Library/computer lab

34.62

Classroom

Discussion

30.77

Laboratory

Greenhouse

30.77

Classroom

Inquiry

19.23

Classroom

Demonstration

15.38

Classroom

Textbooks/handouts

15.38

Laboratory

Meats laboratory

15.38

Classroom

Lecture

11.54

Laboratory

Mechanics laboratory

11.54

Laboratory

Other

7.69

Laboratory

Forestry

3.85

Laboratory

Land laboratory

3.85

Laboratory

Biotechnology laboratory

0.00

Other

Do not Teach

0.00

Methods of Marketing Agricultural Commodities, Products, and Services in

the Domestic and International Markets.

Fifteen of the respondents (57.69%) used project-based learning to teach the

concept of Methods of Marketing Agricultural Commodities, Products, and Services in

the Domestic and International Markets. Eleven of the respondents used discussion

(42.31%), and eleven of the respondents (42.31%) used lecture to teach the concept.

Seven of the respondents (26.92%) used the library or computer lab to cover the concept,

while six of the respondents (23.08%) used inquiry, and another six respondents (23.08%)

used the greenhouse to teach the concept. Three of the respondents (11.54%) used

classroom demonstration, three (11.54%) used textbooks and handouts, and three

(11.54%) used meats laboratory to teach marketing in domestic and international markets.

Two of the respondents (7.69%) do not teach the concept. One respondent (3.85%) used

mechanics laboratory, one respondent (3.85%) used other, and one respondent (3.85%)

used field trips to teach the concept. None of the respondents used biotechnology

laboratory, forestry or land laboratory to teach the concept (see Table 8).

Table 8

Methods Used to Teach Agribusiness CSS: Methods of Marketing Agricultural

Commodities, Products, Services in Domestic and International Markets

Location

Delivery

Classroom

Project Based

57.69

Classroom

Discussion

42.31

Classroom

Lecture

42.31

Other

Library/computer lab

26.92

Classroom

Inquiry

23.08

Laboratory

Greenhouse

23.08

Classroom

Demonstration

11.54

Classroom

Textbooks/handouts

11.54

Laboratory

Meats laboratory

11.54

Other

Do not Teach

7.69

Laboratory

Mechanics laboratory

3.85

Laboratory

Other

3.85

Laboratory

Field Trip

3.85

Laboratory

Biotechnology laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Forestry

0.00

Laboratory

Land laboratory

0.00

Researching Local Supply and Demand of Agricultural Products.

Twelve respondents (46.15%) cover the concept of Researching Local Supply and

Demand of Agricultural Products using project-based methods. Nine of the respondents

(34.62%) used classroom discussion of the CSS for research local supply and demand of

agricultural products. Seven of the respondents (26.92%) used inquiry, and seven

respondents (26.92%) used the library or computer lab. Six respondents (23.08%) used

the greenhouse to teach the concept. Five respondents (19.23%) used classroom lecture.

Three respondents (11.54%) used textbooks and handouts, three (11.54%) used meats

laboratory, and three (11.54%) do not teach the concept. Two of the respondents (7.69%)

used classroom demonstration. One respondent (3.85%) used mechanics laboratory, one

(3.85%) used other methods, and one (3.85%) used field trips to teach the concept. None

of the respondents used biotechnology laboratory, forestry or land laboratory to teach the

concept (see Table 9).

Return on Investment.

Ten of the respondents (38.46%) used classroom discussion and another ten

(38.46%) used classroom lecture to cover the Return on Investment component of

agribusiness. Nine of the respondents (34.62%) used the project-based method for return

on investment. Six of the respondents (23.08%) used textbooks, six more respondents

(23.08%) used the laboratory greenhouse, and six others (23.08%) used the library or

computer lab as their preferred method. Five (19.23%) used classroom inquiry, and five

(19.23%) used classroom demonstration for their method. Three of the respondents

(11.54%) used the meats laboratory. Two respondents (7.69%) used the mechanics

laboratory, and two (7.69%) used field trips to cover return on investment. One (3.85%)

used forestry, one (3.85%) used land laboratory, and one (3.85%) used laboratory/other.

One (3.85%) did not teach the CSS. None of the respondents used biotechnology

laboratory to teach the standard (see Table 10).

Table 9

Methods Used to Teach Agribusiness CSS: Research Local Supply and Demand of

Agricultural Products

Location

Delivery

Classroom

Project Based

46.15

Classroom

Discussion

34.62

Classroom

Inquiry

26.92

Other

Library/computer lab

26.92

Laboratory

Greenhouse

23.08

Classroom

Lecture

19.23

Classroom

Textbooks/handouts

11.54

Laboratory

Meats laboratory

11.54

Other

Do not Teach

11.54

Classroom

Demonstration

7.69

Laboratory

Mechanics laboratory

3.85

Laboratory

Other

3.85

Other

Field Trip

3.85

Laboratory

Biotechnology laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Forestry

0.00

Laboratory

Land laboratory

0.00

Table 10

Methods Used to Teach Agribusiness CSS: Return on Investment

Location

Delivery

Classroom

Discussion

38.46

Classroom

Lecture

38.46

Classroom

Project Based

34.62

Classroom

Textbooks/handouts

23.08

Laboratory

Greenhouse

23.08

Other

Library/computer lab

23.08

Classroom

Inquiry

19.23

Classroom

Demonstration

19.23

Laboratory

Meats laboratory

11.54

Laboratory

Mechanics laboratory

7.69

Other

Field trip

7.69

Laboratory

Forestry

3.85

Laboratory

Land laboratory

3.85

Laboratory

Other

3.85

Other

Do not Teach

3.85

Laboratory

Biotechnology laboratory

0.00

Supervised Agricultural Experience (SAE).

Fourteen of the respondents (53.85%) used the project-based method to teach the

CSS: Supervised Agricultural Experience. Twelve (46.15%) used classroom discussion,

and 12 (46.15%) used laboratory greenhouse to teach the CSS. Twelve (46.15%) more

used the library or computer lab to teach SAE. Ten of the respondents (38.46%) used

classroom inquiry, while six (23.08%) used textbooks and/or handouts. Five respondents

(19.23%) used laboratory mechanics, and five (19.23%) used field trips to teach the CSS.

Four (15.38%) used the meats laboratory and four (15.38%) used other laboratory to

teach. Three (11.54%) used classroom demonstration, three (11.54%) used land

laboratory to teach the concept. Two respondents (7.69%) used forestry in the laboratory

to teach. One (3.85%) used laboratory biotechnology, and one (3.85%) does not teach the

CSS (see Table 11).

Table 11

Methods Used to Teach Agribusiness CSS: Supervised Agricultural Experience (SAE)

Location

Method

Classroom

Project Based

53.85

Classroom

Discussion

46.15

Laboratory

Greenhouse

46.15

Other

Library/computer lab

46.15

Classroom

Inquiry

38.46

Classroom

Textbooks/handouts

23.08

Laboratory

Mechanics laboratory

19.23

Other

Field trip

19.23

Laboratory

Meats laboratory

15.38

Laboratory

Other

15.38

Classroom

Demonstration

11.54

Laboratory

Land laboratory

11.54

Laboratory

Forestry

7.69

Laboratory

Biotechnology laboratory

3.85

Other

Do not Teach

3.85

Four Ps.

Thirteen of the respondents (50%) used the lecture method to teach the Four Ps,

while 12 of the respondents (46.15%) used project-based method to teach the CSS.

Eleven of the respondents (42.31%) used discussion method. Six (23.08%) used

laboratory greenhouse while six (23.08%) used classroom inquiry. Five (19.23%) used

classroom textbooks/handouts and five (19.23%) used library or computer lab. Three

(11.54%) used classroom demonstration, and three (11.54%) used mechanics laboratory

to teach the CSS. Two (7.69%) used a meats laboratory. One (3.85%) used

laboratory/other, and one (3.85%) does not teach the CSS. None of the respondents used

biotechnology laboratory, forestry, land laboratory or field trip to teach the CSS (see

Table 12).

Table 12

Methods Used to Teach Agribusiness CSS: The Four Ps (product, place, price, and

promotion)

Location

Method

Classroom

Lecture

Classroom

Project Based

46.15

Classroom

Discussion

42.31

Classroom

Inquiry

23.08

Laboratory

Greenhouse

23.08

Classroom

Textbooks/handouts

19.23

Other

Library/computer lab

19.23

Classroom

Demonstration

11.54

Laboratory

Mechanics laboratory

11.54

Table 12 (continued)

Methods Used to Teach Agribusiness CSS: The Four Ps (product, place, price, and

promotion)

Location

Method

Laboratory

Meats laboratory

7.69

Laboratory

Other

3.85

Other

Do not Teach

3.85

Laboratory

Biotechnology laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Forestry

0.00

Laboratory

Land laboratory

0.00

Other

Field Trip

0.00

Types of Agribusiness Ownership.

Seventeen of the respondents (65.38%) used project-based method of teaching to

cover the CSS Types of Agribusiness Ownership. Fifteen of the respondents (57.69%)

used classroom discussion, while 12 (46.15%) used classroom lecture. Nine of the

respondents (34.62%) used classroom textbooks/handouts. Eight (30.77%) used a

laboratory greenhouse, and eight (30.77%) used a library or computer lab to teach the

CSS. Seven of the respondents (26.92%) used classroom inquiry as their preferred

method, while six (23.08%) used classroom demonstration. Four respondents (15.38%)

used a meats laboratory, and four (15.38%) used a mechanics laboratory to teach the

concept of types of agribusiness ownership. Three (11.54%) used laboratory/other

methods, and three (11.54%) used field trips. Two respondents (7.69%) used

biotechnology laboratory, and two (7.69%) used forestry. One respondent (3.85%) used

laboratory land, and one respondent (3.85%) does not teach the concept of types of

agribusiness ownership (see Table 13).

Table 13

Methods Used to Teach Agribusiness CSS: Types of Agribusiness Ownership

Location

Method

Classroom

Project Based

65.38

Classroom

Discussion

57.69

Classroom

Lecture

46.15

Classroom

Textbooks/handouts

34.62

Laboratory

Greenhouse

30.77

Other

Library/computer lab

30.77

Classroom

Inquiry

26.92

Classroom

Demonstration

23.08

Laboratory

Meats laboratory

15.38

Laboratory

Mechanics laboratory

15.38

Laboratory

Other

11.54

Other

Field Trip

11.54

Laboratory

Biotechnology laboratory

7.69

Laboratory

Forestry

7.69

Laboratory

Land laboratory

3.85

Other

Do not Teach

3.85

Animal Cells.

Eight respondents (30.77%) used textbooks/handouts to teach the CSS for Animal

Cells. Seven of the respondents (26.92%) used lecture. Six of the respondents (23.06%)

used inquiry, while five (19.23%) used project-based learning experiences. Two of the

respondents (7.69%) used classroom demonstration for animal cells. One respondent

(3.85%) used Laboratory in a biotechnology laboratory, one (3.85%) used library or

computer lab, and one (3.85%) used Laboratory in a meats lab to teach the CSS. None of

the respondents identified used field trip, forestry, greenhouse, land laboratory, mechanics

laboratory or other methods to teach about animal cells (see Table 14).

Table 14

Methods Used to Teach Animal Systems CSS: Animal Cells

Location

Method

Classroom

Textbooks/handouts

30.77

Classroom

Lecture

26.92

Classroom

Inquiry

23.06

Classroom

Project Based

19.23

Classroom

Demonstration

7.69

Laboratory

Biotechnology laboratory

3.85

Other

Library/computer lab

3.85

Laboratory

Meats laboratory

3.85

Other

Do not Teach

0.00

Other

Field Trip

0.00

Laboratory

Forestry

0.00

Laboratory

Greenhouse

0.00

Laboratory

Land laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Mechanics laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Other

0.00

Animal Health Disorders.

Ten respondents (38.46%) used project-based methods to teach about Animal

Health Disorders. Nine of the respondents (34.62%) used textbooks and/or handouts.

Eight of the respondents (30.77%) used classroom discussion, and eight (30.77%) used

classroom lecture. Seven (26.92%) used classroom inquiry, while five (19.23%) used

library and/or computer lab. One respondent (3.85%) used classroom demonstration.

None of the respondents used biotechnology laboratory, field trip, forestry, greenhouse,

land laboratory, meats laboratory, mechanics laboratory, or other methods to teach about

animal health disorders (see Table 15).

Animal Welfare and Animal Rights.

Thirteen of the respondents (50%) used classroom discussion to teach about

Animal Welfare and Animal Rights. Eight (30.77%) used classroom lecture. Six of the

respondents (23.08%) used classroom inquiry, six (23.08%) used project-based learning,

and six (23.08%) used textbooks/handouts to teach the CSS. Two (7.69%) used

demonstration, and two (7.69%) used a meats laboratory to teach about animal welfare

and animal rights. One (3.85%) used field trips, and one (3.85%) used library and/or

computer lab. None of the respondents identified biotechnology laboratory, do not teach,

forestry, greenhouse, land laboratory, mechanics laboratory, or other methods to teach the

CSS about animal welfare and animal rights (see Table 16).

Table 15

Methods Used to Teach Animal Systems CSS: Animal Health Disorders

Location

Method

Classroom

Project Based

38.46

Classroom

Textbooks/handouts

34.62

Classroom

Discussion

30.77

Classroom

Lecture

30.77

Classroom

Inquiry

26.92

Other

Library/computer Lab

19.23

Classroom

Demonstration

3.85

Laboratory

Biotechnology laboratory

0.00

Other

Do not Teach

0.00

Other

Field Trip

0.00

Laboratory

Forestry

0.00

Laboratory

Greenhouse

0.00

Laboratory

Land laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Meats laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Mechanics laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Other

0.00

Table 16

Methods Used to Teach Animal Systems CSS: Animal Welfare and Animal Rights

Location

Method

Classroom

Discussion

Classroom

Lecture

30.77

Classroom

Inquiry

23.08

Classroom

Project Based

23.08

Classroom

Textbooks/handouts

23.08

Classroom

Demonstration

7.69

Laboratory

Meats laboratory

7.69

Other

Field Trip

3.85

Other

Library/computer lab

3.85

Laboratory

Biotechnology laboratory

0.00

Other

Do not Teach

0.00

Laboratory

Forestry

0.00

Laboratory

Greenhouse

0.00

Laboratory

Land laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Mechanics laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Other

0.00

Basic Anatomy of Animals.

Eight of the respondents (30.77%) used discussion to cover the Basic Anatomy of

Animals. Six respondents (23.08%) used inquiry, six (23.08) used lecture, six (23.08%)

used project-based assignments, and six (23.08%) used textbooks and/or handouts to

cover the CSS. Five respondents (19.23%) used demonstration, while four (15.38%) used

the meats lab. One respondent (3.85%) used field trips to cover basic anatomy of animals.

None of the respondents used the following methods to teach basic animal anatomy:

biotechnology laboratory, forestry, greenhouse, land laboratory, library and/or computer

lab, mechanics laboratory or other methods (see Table 17).

Table 17

Methods Used to Teach Animal Systems CSS: Basic Anatomy of Animals

Location

Method

Classroom

Discussion

30.77

Classroom

Inquiry

23.08

Classroom

Lecture

23.08

Classroom

Project Based

23.08

Classroom

Textbooks/handouts

23.08

Classroom

Demonstration

19.23

Laboratory

Meats laboratory

15.38

Other

Field Trip

3.85

Laboratory

Biotechnology laboratory

0.00

Other

Do not teach

0.00

Laboratory

Forestry

0.00

Laboratory

Greenhouse

0.00

Laboratory

Land laboratory

0.00

Other

Library/Computer Lab

0.00

Laboratory

Mechanics laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Other

0.00

Bio-Security in the Animal Industry.

Nine of the respondents (34.62%) used classroom lecture to cover Bio-Security in

the Animal Industry. Eight (30.77%) used discussion, and eight (30.77%) used textbooks

and/or handouts to meet the requirements of the CSS. Five (19.23%) used inquiry, while

four (15.38%) used project-based methods. Two (7.69%) used demonstration, and two

(7.69%) used library and/or computer lab. One (3.85%) used biotechnology laboratory,

one (3.85%) used a meats lab, and one (3.85%) used other laboratory methods. None of

the respondents used any of the following methods: field trip, forestry, greenhouse, land

laboratory, or mechanics laboratory (see Table 18).

Table 18

Methods Used to Teach Animal Systems CSS: Bio-security in the Animal Industry

Location

Method

Classroom

Lecture

34.62

Classroom

Discussion

30.77

Classroom

Textbooks/handouts

30.77

Classroom

Inquiry

19.23

Classroom

Project Based

15.38

Classroom

Demonstration

7.69

Other

Library/computer lab

7.69

Laboratory

Biotechnology laboratory

3.85

Laboratory

Meats laboratory

3.85

Laboratory

Other

3.85

Table 18 (continued)

Methods Used to Teach Animal Systems CSS: Bio-security in the Animal Industry

Location

Method

Other

Do not Teach

0.00

Other

Field Trip

0.00

Laboratory

Forestry

0.00

Laboratory

Greenhouse

0.00

Laboratory

Land laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Mechanics laboratory

0.00

Breeds of Livestock.

Ten of the respondents (38.46%) used discussion as their preferred method to

cover Breeds of Livestock. Nine (34.62%) used project based learning. Eight (30.77%)

used lecture, and eight others (30.77%) used textbooks and/or handouts for teaching

breeds of livestock. Seven respondents (26.92%) used library and/or computer lab. Six

(23.08%) used inquiry, while two (7.69%) used field trips. One (3.85%) used

demonstration, and one (3.85%) used a meats lab to teach the breeds of livestock. None

of the respondents used biotechnology laboratory, forestry, greenhouse, land laboratory,

mechanics laboratory, or other methods (see Table 19).

Table 19

Methods Used to Teach Animal Systems CSS: Breeds of Livestock

Location

Method

Classroom

Discussion

38.46

Classroom

Project Based

34.62

Classroom

Lecture

30.77

Classroom

Textbooks/handouts

30.77

Other

Library/computer lab

26.92

Classroom

Inquiry

23.08

Other

Field Trip

7.69

Classroom

Demonstration

3.85

Laboratory

Meats laboratory

3.85

Laboratory

Biotechnology laboratory

0.00

Other

Do not Teach

0.00

Laboratory

Forestry

0.00

Laboratory

Greenhouse

0.00

Laboratory

Land laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Mechanics laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Other

0.00

Common and Scientific Names of Major Animal Species.

Thirteen of the respondents (50%) used the lecture method to teach the Common

and Scientific Names of Major Animal Species. Eight (30.77%) used textbooks and/or

handouts. Six (23.08%) used discussion, while five (19.23%) used inquiry. Four

(15.38%) used project-based learning. Three (11.54%) used library and/or computer lab as

their method of instruction. One respondent (3.85%) does not teach common and scientific

names of major animal species and one (3.85%) used field trip. None of the respondents

used biotechnology laboratory, demonstration, forestry, greenhouse, meats laboratory,

mechanics laboratory, or other types of methods to teach common and scientific names (see

Table 20).

Table 20

Methods Used to Teach Animal Systems CSS: Common and Scientific Names of Major

Animal Species.

Location

Method

Classroom

Lecture

Classroom

Textbooks/handouts

30.77

Classroom

Discussion

23.08

Classroom

Inquiry

19.23

Classroom

Project Based

15.38

Other

Library/computer lab

11.54

Other

Do not Teach

3.85

Other

Field Trip

3.85

Laboratory

Biotechnology laboratory

0.00

Classroom

Demonstration

0.00

Laboratory

Forestry

0.00

Laboratory

Greenhouse

0.00

Laboratory

Meats laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Mechanics laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Other

0.00

Common Feedstuffs.

Nine of the respondents (34.62%) used lecture, nine (34.62%) used project-based

learning, and nine (34.62%) used textbooks and/or handouts to teach Common Feedstuffs.

Seven (26.92%) used discussion, and seven more (26.92%) used inquiry to teach the

CSS. Six of the respondents (23.08%) used demonstration. Two of the respondents

(7.69%) used library and/or computer lab, while one (3.85%) used a meats lab to teach

common types of feedstuffs. None of the respondents used biotechnology laboratory,

field trip, forestry, greenhouse, land laboratory, mechanics laboratory, or other methods

(see Table 21).

Issues of Animal Welfare and Animal Rights.

Thirteen of the respondents (50%) used classroom discussion to debate the Issues

of Animal Welfare and Animal Rights. Six of the respondents (23.08%) used classroom

project-based learning. Five (19.23%) used classroom inquiry, and five (19.23%) used

classroom textbooks and/or handouts. Four (15.38%) used classroom lecture. Three

(11.54%) used the library and/or computer lab. Two (7.69%) used classroom

demonstration. One respondent (3.85%) used laboratory biotechnology laboratory, and

one (3.85%) used a meats lab. One respondent (3.85%) does not teach the concept, and

one (3.85%) used the mechanics laboratory to teach. None of the respondents used field

trip, forestry, greenhouse, land laboratory, or other methods to teach animal welfare and

animal rights (see Table 22).

Table 21

Methods Used to Teach Animal Systems CSS: Common Types of Feedstuffs

Location

Method

Classroom

Lecture

34.62

Classroom

Project Based

34.62

Classroom

Textbooks/handouts

34.62

Classroom

Discussion

26.92

Classroom

Inquiry

26.92

Classroom

Demonstration

23.08

Other

Library/computer lab

7.69

Laboratory

Meats laboratory

3.85

Laboratory

Biotechnology laboratory

0.00

Other

Do not Teach

0.00

Other

Field Trip

0.00

Laboratory

Forestry

0.00

Laboratory

Greenhouse

0.00

Laboratory

Land laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Mechanics laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Other

0.00

Table 22

Methods Used to Teach Animal Systems CSS: Debate the Issues Associated with Animal

Welfare and Animal Rights

Location

Method

Classroom

Discussion

Classroom

Project based

23.08

Classroom

Inquiry

19.23

Classroom

Textbooks/handouts

19.23

Classroom

Lecture

15.38

Other

Library/computer lab

11.54

Classroom

Demonstration

7.69

Laboratory

Biotechnology laboratory

3.85

Other

Do not Teach

3.85

Laboratory

Meats laboratory

3.85

Laboratory

Mechanics laboratory

3.85

Other

Field Trip

0.00

Laboratory

Forestry

0.00

Laboratory

Greenhouse

0.00

Laboratory

Land laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Other

0.00

Diagram the Typical Animal Cell.

Eleven of the respondents (42.31%) used classroom textbooks and/or handouts to

Diagram the Typical Animal Cell. Eight of the respondents (30.77%) used classroom

project-based learning. Six of the respondents (23.08%) used classroom lecture, five

(19.23%) used classroom inquiry, and four (15.38%) used classroom discussion to

diagram an animal cell. Two of the respondents (7.69%) do not teach the concept of

diagraming a typical animal cell. One respondent (3.85%) used classroom demonstration,

and one (3.85%) used library and/or computer lab. None of the respondents used

biotechnology laboratory, field trips, forestry, greenhouse, land laboratory, meats

laboratory, mechanics laboratory, or other methods to diagram the typical animal cell (see

Table 23).

Table 23

Methods Used to Teach Animal Systems CSS: Diagram a Typical Animal Cell and

Identify the Organelles.

Location

Method

Classroom

Textbooks/handouts

42.31

Classroom

Project Based

30.77

Classroom

Lecture

23.08

Classroom

Inquiry

19.23

Classroom

Discussion

15.38

Other

Do not Teach

7.69

Classroom

Demonstration

3.85

Other

Library/computer lab

3.85

Laboratory

Biotechnology laboratory

0.00

Other

Field Trip

0.00

Laboratory

Forestry

0.00

Laboratory

Greenhouse

0.00

Laboratory

Land laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Meats laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Mechanics laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Other

0.00

Effects of Animal Agriculture on the Environment.

Nine of the respondents (34.62%) used classroom discussion to teach the Effects

of Animal Agriculture on the Environment. Eight (30.77%) used classroom lecture, and

eight (30.77%) used classroom project-based learning. Six of the respondents (23.08%)

used classroom textbooks and/or handouts, while five (19.23%) used classroom inquiry.

Two (7.69%) used meats laboratory and one (3.85%) used classroom demonstration.

None of the respondents identified biotechnology laboratory, field trip, forestry,

greenhouse, land laboratory, library/computer lab, mechanics laboratory, or other

methods to teach the effects of animal agriculture on the environment (see Table 24).

Table 24

Methods of Teaching Animal Systems CSS: Effects of Animal Agriculture on the

Environment

Location

Method

Classroom

Discussion

34.62

Classroom

Lecture

30.77

Classroom

Project Based

30.77

Classroom

Textbooks/handouts

23.08

Classroom

Inquiry

19.23

Laboratory

Meats laboratory

7.69

Classroom

Demonstration

3.85

Laboratory

Biotechnology laboratory

0.00

Other

Do not Teach

0.00

Other

Field Trip

0.00

Table 24 (continued)

Methods of Teaching Animal Systems CSS: Effects of Animal Agriculture on the

Environment

Location

Method

Laboratory

Forestry

0.00

Laboratory

Greenhouse

0.00

Laboratory

Land laboratory

0.00

Other

Library/computer lab

0.00

Laboratory

Mechanics laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Other

0.00

Facilities Needed to House and Produce Animal Species Safely and

Efficiently.

Nine (34.62%) of the respondents used the classroom project-based learning

method to teach Facilities Needed to House and Produce Animal Species Safely and

Efficiently. Eight of the respondents (30.77%) used classroom lecture. Six (23.08%) of

the respondents used classroom discussion, and another six (23.08%) used classroom

textbooks and/or handouts. Five (19.23%) used classroom inquiry. Four respondents

(15.38%) used classroom demonstration while another four (15.38%) used field trips to

teach the CSS. One respondent (3.85%) does not teach the CSS, one (3.85%) used library

and/or computer lab, and one (3.85%) used a mechanics laboratory. None of the

respondents used biotechnology laboratory, forestry, greenhouse, land laboratory, meats

laboratory, or other methods to teach facilities needed to housed and produce animal

species safely and efficiently (see Table 25).

Table 25

Methods Used to Teach Animal Systems CSS: Facilities Needed to House and Produce

Animal Species Safely and Efficiently

Location

Method

Classroom

Project Based

34.62

Classroom

Lecture

30.77

Classroom

Discussion

23.08

Classroom

Textbooks/handouts

23.08

Classroom

Inquiry

19.23

Classroom

Demonstration

15.38

Other

Field Trip

15.38

Other

Do not Teach

3.85

Other

Library/computer lab

3.85

Laboratory

Mechanics laboratory

3.85

Laboratory

Biotechnology laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Forestry

0.00

Laboratory

Greenhouse

0.00

Laboratory

Land laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Meats laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Other

0.00

Livestock Terminology.

Eleven respondents (42.31%) used classroom lecture to teach Livestock

Terminology. Ten respondents (38.46%) used classroom discussion. Eight respondents

(30.77%) used classroom textbooks and/or handouts, while seven respondents (26.92%)

used classroom project-based learning. Four (15.38%) used classroom inquiry. One

(3.85%) used classroom demonstration, one (3.85%) used field trips, and one (3.85%) used

library and/or computer lab. None of the respondents identified biotechnology laboratory,

forestry, greenhouse, land laboratory, meats laboratory, mechanics laboratory, or other

methods to teach livestock terminology (see Table 26).

Table 26

Methods Used to Teach Animal Systems CSS: Livestock Terminology

Location

Method

Classroom

Lecture

42.31

Classroom

Discussion

38.46

Classroom

Textbooks/handouts

30.77

Classroom

Project Based

26.92

Classroom

Inquiry

15.38

Classroom

Demonstration

3.85

Other

Field Trip

3.85

Other

Library/computer lab

3.85

Laboratory

Biotechnology laboratory

0.00

Other

Do not Teach

0.00

Laboratory

Forestry

0.00

Laboratory

Greenhouse

0.00

Laboratory

Land laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Meats laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Mechanics laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Other

0.00

Perform a Basic Health Exam on a Live Animal.

Eight respondents (30.77%) used classroom demonstration to Perform a Basic

Health Exam on a Live Animal. Six respondents (23.08%) do not teach the basic health

exam. Five respondents (19.23) used classroom project-based learning, and five (19.23%)

used classroom textbooks and/or handouts. Four respondents (15.38%) used classroom

lecture, and three (11.54%) used classroom discussion. Two respondents (7.69%) used

field trips, and two (7.69%) used classroom inquiry. One respondent (3.85%) used library

and/or computer lab, one (3.85%) used mechanics laboratory, and one (3.85%) used other

laboratory methods. None of the respondents used biotechnology laboratory, forestry,

greenhouse, land laboratory or meats labs to perform basic health exam on live animal

(see Table 27).

Table 27

Methods Used to Teach Animal Systems CSS: Perform a Basic Health Exam on a Live

Animal

Location

Method

Classroom

Demonstration

30.77

Other

Do not Teach

23.08

Classroom

Project Based

19.23

Classroom

Textbooks/handouts

19.23

Classroom

Lecture

15.38

Classroom

Discussion

11.54

Other

Field Trip

7.69

Classroom

Inquiry

7.69

Table 27 (continued)

Methods Used to Teach Animal Systems CSS: Perform a Basic Health Exam on a Live

Animal

Location

Method

Other

Library/computer lab

3.85

Laboratory

Mechanics laboratory

3.85

Laboratory

Other

3.85

Laboratory

Biotechnology laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Forestry

0.00

Laboratory

Greenhouse

0.00

Laboratory

Land laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Meats laboratory

0.00

Practice Administering Injections.

Nine respondents (34.62%) used classroom project-based learning to Practice

Administering Injections. Six respondents (23.08%) used demonstration. Four

respondents (15.38%) do not teach administering injections, and four (15.38%) used

classroom textbooks and/or handouts. Three respondents (11.54%) used classroom

discussion, and three (11.54%) used classroom inquiry. Two respondents (7.69%) used

classroom lecture. One respondent (3.85%) used field trips, one (3.85%) used meats lab,

and one (3.85%) used other laboratory methods. None of the respondents used

biotechnology laboratory, forestry, greenhouse, land laboratory, library and/or computer

lab, or mechanics laboratory to practice administering injections (see Table 28).

Table 28

Methods Used to Teach Animal Systems CSS: Practice Administering Injections

Location

Method

Classroom

Project Based

34.62

Classroom

Demonstration

23.08

Other

Do not Teach

15.38

Classroom

Textbooks/handouts

15.38

Classroom

Discussion

11.54

Classroom

Inquiry

11.54

Classroom

Lecture

7.69

Other

Field Trip

3.85

Laboratory

Meats laboratory

3.85

Laboratory

Other

3.85

Laboratory

Biotechnology laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Forestry

0.00

Laboratory

Greenhouse

0.00

Laboratory

Land laboratory

0.00

Other

Library/computer lab

0.00

Laboratory

Mechanics laboratory

0.00

Origin, Significance, Distribution and Domestication of Animals.

Twelve respondents (46.15%) used classroom lecture to teach the Origin,

Significance, Distribution and Domestication of Animals. Nine respondents (34.62%)

used classroom discussion and nine (34.62%) used classroom project based learning. Six

respondents (23.08%) used classroom textbooks and/or handouts. Three respondents

(11.54%) used classroom inquiry. Two respondents (7.69%) used field trips and two

(7.69%) used library and/or computer lab. One respondent (3.85%) used the meats

laboratory. None of the respondents used biotechnology laboratory, demonstration, do not

teach, forestry, greenhouse, land laboratory, mechanics laboratory, or other methods to

teach the origin, significance, distribution, and domestication of animals (see Table 29).

Table 29

Methods Used to Teach Animal Systems CSS: The Origin, Significance, Distribution, and

Domestication of Animals

Location

Method

Classroom

Lecture

46.15

Classroom

Discussion

34.62

Classroom

Project Based

34.62

Classroom

Textbooks/handouts

23.08

Classroom

Inquiry

11.54

Other

Field Trip

7.69

Other

Library/computer lab

7.69

Laboratory

Meats laboratory

3.85

Laboratory

Biotechnology laboratory

0.00

Classroom

Demonstration

0.00

Other

Do not Teach

0.00

Laboratory

Forestry

0.00

Laboratory

Greenhouse

0.00

Laboratory

Land laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Mechanics laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Other

0.00

Agricultural Innovations in Agricultural Biotechnology.

Eight respondents (30.77%) used the discussion method in the classroom to teach

Agricultural Innovations in Agricultural Biotechnology. Seven (26.92%) used textbooks

and handouts. Five respondents (19.23%) used classroom inquiry, five (19.23%) used

classroom lecture, and five (19.23%) used classroom project-based learning. Four

(15.38%) used the library and/or computer lab to teach the CSS. Three (11.54%) used

biotechnology laboratory or supervised practice, while two respondents (7.69%) do not

teach the concept. One respondent (3.85%) used classroom demonstration, one (3.85%)

used the greenhouse laboratory, one (3.85%) used the meats laboratory and one (3.85%)

used other methods in the laboratory or supervised practice. None of the respondents used

field trips, forestry, land laboratory, or mechanics laboratory to teach the concept (see

Table 30).

Table 30

Methods Used to Teach Agriculture Innovations: Agricultural Biotechnology

Location

Method

Classroom

Discussion

30.77

Classroom

Textbooks/handouts

26.92

Classroom

Inquiry

19.23

Classroom

Lecture

19.23

Classroom

Project Based

19.23

Other

Library/computer lab

15.38

Laboratory

Biotechnology laboratory

11.54

Other

Do not Tech

7.69

Table 30 (continued)

Methods Used to Teach Agriculture Innovations: Agricultural Biotechnology

Location

Method

Classroom

Demonstration

3.85

Laboratory

Greenhouse

3.85

Laboratory

Meats laboratory

3.85

Laboratory

Other

3.85

Other

Field Trip

0.00

Laboratory

Forestry

0.00

Laboratory

Land laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Mechanics laboratory

0.00

Applications of Biotechnology in Agriculture.

Eleven respondents (42.31%) used classroom discussion to teach Applications of

Biotechnology in Agriculture. Five respondents (19.23%) used classroom textbooks

and/or handouts. Four respondents (15.38%) used classroom inquiry, four (15.38%) used

classroom lecture, and four (15.38%) used classroom project based learning. Three

respondents (11.54%) used laboratory and/or supervised practice in biotechnology and

three (11.54%) used library and/or computer lab. Two respondents (7.69%) do not teach

the concept and one respondent (3.85%) used classroom demonstration. None of the

respondents used forestry, field trip, greenhouse, land laboratory, meats laboratory,

mechanics laboratory or other Laboratory methods (see Table 31).

Table 31

Methods Used to Teach Agricultural Innovations: Applications of Biotechnology in

Agriculture

Location

Method

Classroom

Discussion

42.31

Classroom

Textbooks/handouts

19.23

Classroom

Inquiry

15.38

Classroom

Lecture

15.38

Classroom

Project Based

15.38

Laboratory

Biotechnology laboratory

11.54

Other

Library/computer lab

11.54

Other

Do not Teach

7.69

Classroom

Demonstration

3.85

Other

Field Trip

0.00

Laboratory

Forestry

0.00

Laboratory

Greenhouse

0.00

Laboratory

Land laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Meats laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Mechanics laboratory

0.00

Issues Associated with Biotechnology.

Thirteen respondents (50%) used classroom discussion to debate the Issues

Associated with Biotechnology. Six respondents (23.08%) used classroom textbooks

and/or handouts. Five respondents (19.23%) used classroom lecture. Three respondents

(11.54%) used classroom project based learning. Two respondents (7.69%) used

classroom demonstration, two (7.69%) do not have students debate issues associated with

biotechnology, and two (7.69%) used classroom inquiry. One respondent (3.85%) used

biotechnology in a laboratory and/or supervised practice, and one (3.85%) used the

library and/or computer lab to debate the issues associated with biotechnology. None of

the respondents used field trip, forestry, greenhouse, land laboratory, meats laboratory,

mechanics laboratory or other laboratory and/or supervised practice methods (see Table

32).

Table 32

Methods Used to Teach Agricultural Innovations CSS: Debate the Issues Associated with

Biotechnology

Location

Method

Classroom

Discussion

Classroom

Textbooks/handouts

23.08

Classroom

Lecture

19.23

Classroom

Project Based

11.54

Classroom

Demonstration

7.69

Other

Do not Teach

7.69

Classroom

Inquiry

7.69

Laboratory

Biotechnology laboratory

3.85

Other

Library/computer lab

3.85

Other

Field Trip

0.00

Laboratory

Forestry

0.00

Laboratory

Greenhouse

0.00

Laboratory

Land laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Meats laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Mechanics laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Other

0.00

Current Agricultural Products Impacted by Biotechnology Practices.

Six respondents (23.08%) used the library and/or computer lab, and six (23.08%)

used classroom project-based learning to research Current Agricultural Products

Impacted by Biotechnology Practices. Five respondents (19.23%) used classroom

discussion, and five (19.23%) used classroom textbooks and/or handouts. Four

respondents (15.38%) used classroom inquiry. Three respondents (11.54%) do not teach

how current agricultural practices are impacted by biotechnology practices, and three

(11.54%) used classroom lecture. One respondent (3.85%) used the greenhouse

laboratory and/or supervised practice to research current agricultural products impacted

by biotechnology practices. None of the respondents used biotechnology laboratory,

classroom demonstration, field trip, forestry, land laboratory, meats laboratory or

mechanics laboratory to teach the concept (see Table 33).

Table 33

Methods Used to Teach Agricultural Innovations CSS: Research Current Agricultural

Products Impacted by Biotechnology Practices

Location

Method

Other

Library/computer lab

23.08

Classroom

Project Based

23.08

Classroom

Discussion

19.23

Classroom

Textbooks/handouts

19.23

Classroom

Inquiry

15.38

Other

Do not teach

11.54

Classroom

Lecture

11.54

Laboratory

Greenhouse

3.85

Table 33 (continued)

Methods Used to Teach Agricultural Innovations CSS: Research Current Agricultural

Products Impacted by Biotechnology Practices

Location

Method

Laboratory

Biotechnology laboratory

0.00

Classroom

Demonstration

0.00

Other

Field Trip

0.00

Laboratory

Forestry

0.00

Laboratory

Land laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Meats laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Mechanics laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Other

0.00

History of Agricultural Innovation.

Ten respondents (38.46%) used classroom textbooks and/or handouts to teach the

History of Agricultural Innovation. Nine respondents (34.62%) used classroom

discussion. Eight respondents (30.77%) used classroom lecture. Four respondents

(15.38%) used classroom inquiry. Three respondents (11.54%) used classroom

projectbased learning, and three (11.54%) used library and/or computer lab. One

respondent (3.85%) used biotechnology in the laboratory and/or supervised practice, one

(3.85%) does not teach the history of agricultural innovation, one (3.85%) used

laboratory and/or supervised practice in the greenhouse, and one (3.85%) used the meats

lab. None of the respondents used classroom demonstration, field trip, forestry, land

laboratory, mechanics laboratory, other laboratory and/or supervised practice methods

(see Table

34).

Table 34

Methods Used to Teach Agricultural Innovations CSS: The History of Agriculture

Innovation

Location

Method

Classroom

Textbooks/handouts

38.46

Classroom

Discussion

34.62

Classroom

Lecture

30.77

Classroom

Inquiry

15.38

Other

Library/computer lab

11.54

Classroom

Project Based

11.54

Laboratory

Biotechnology laboratory

3.85

Other

Do not Teach

3.85

Laboratory

Greenhouse

3.85

Laboratory

Meats laboratory

3.85

Classroom

Demonstration

0.00

Other

Field Trip

0.00

Laboratory

Forestry

0.00

Laboratory

Land laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Mechanics laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Other

0.00

Major Agriculture Inventions and Their Impact on the Industry.

Eleven respondents (42.31%) used classroom discussion to teach Major

Agriculture Inventions and Their Impact on the Industry. Eight respondents (30.77%)

used classroom textbooks and/or handouts. Six respondents (23.08%) used classroom

lecture. Five respondents (19.23%) used classroom inquiry. Three respondents (11.54%)

used library and/or computer lab, and three (11.54%) used classroom project-based

learning. One respondent (3.85%) does not teach about inventions and their impact, and

one (3.85%) used the mechanics laboratory. None of the respondents used biotechnology

laboratory, demonstration, field trip, forestry, greenhouse, land laboratory, meats

laboratory or other laboratory methods.

Table 35

Methods Used to Teach Agriculture Innovations CSS: The Major Agriculture Inventions

and Their Impact on the Industry

Location

Method

Classroom

Discussion

42.31

Classroom

Textbooks/handouts

30.77

Classroom

Lecture

23.08

Classroom

Inquiry

19.23

Other

Library/computer lab

11.54

Classroom

Project Based

11.54

Other

Do not Teach

3.85

Laboratory

Mechanics laboratory

3.85

Laboratory

Biotechnology laboratory

0.00

Table 35 (continued)

Methods Used to Teach Agriculture Innovations CSS: The Major Agriculture Inventions

and Their Impact on the Industry

Location

Method

Classroom

Demonstration

0.00

Other

Field Trip

0.00

Laboratory

Forestry

0.00

Laboratory

Greenhouse

0.00

Laboratory

Land laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Meats laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Other

0.00

Agricultural Related Technology and Equipment.

Seven respondents (26.92%) used classroom discussion to teach about

Agricultural Related Technology and Equipment. Six respondents (23.08%) used

classroom project-based learning, and six (23.08%) used classroom textbooks and/or

handouts. Three respondents (11.54%) used classroom lecture and three (11.54%) used a

library and/or computer lab. Two respondents (7.69%) do not teach about agricultural

related technology and equipment, two (7.69%) used laboratory and/or supervised

practice in a greenhouse, two (7.69%) used classroom inquiry, and two (7.69%) used a

mechanics laboratory. One respondent (3.85%) used a biotechnology laboratory, one

(3.85%) used classroom demonstration, and one (3.85%) used field trip. None of the

respondents used forestry, land laboratory, or other laboratory and/or supervised practice

methods (see Table 36).

Table 36

Methods Used to Teach Agriculture Innovations CSS: Used Agricultural Related

Technology and Equipment

Location

Method

Classroom

Discussion

26.92

Classroom

Project Based

23.08

Classroom

Textbooks/handouts

23.08

Classroom

Lecture

11.54

Classroom

Library/computer lab

11.54

Other

Do not Teach

7.69

Laboratory

Greenhouse

7.69

Classroom

Inquiry

7.69

Laboratory

Mechanics laboratory

7.69

Laboratory

Biotechnology laboratory

3.85

Classroom

Demonstration

3.85

Other

Field trip

3.85

Laboratory

Meats laboratory

3.85

Laboratory

Forestry

0.00

Laboratory

Land laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Other

0.00

Common Weights and Measures Used in the Food Products and Processing

Industry.

Eight respondents (30.77%) used classroom discussion and eight respondents

(30.77%) classroom lecture to teach the Common Weights and Measures Used in the

Food Products and Processing Industry. Six respondents (23.08%) used classroom

textbooks and/or handouts. Four respondents (15.38%) used classroom demonstration

while three respondents (11.54%) do not teach weights and measures. Two respondents

(7.69%) used classroom project based learning, two (7.69%) used classroom inquiry and

two (7.69%) used the meats laboratory and/or supervised practice. One respondent

(3.85%) used laboratory and/or supervised practice in the greenhouse, one respondent

(3.85%) used other laboratory and/or supervised practice using other methods, and one

(3.85%) used library and/or computer lab. None of the respondents used biotechnology

laboratory, forestry, land laboratory, mechanics laboratory, or field trips to teach common

weights and measures in the food products and processing industry (see Table 37).

Table 37

Methods Used to Teach Food Products and Processing CSS: Common Weights and

Measures in the Food Products and Processing Industry

Location

Method

Classroom

Discussion

30.77

Classroom

Lecture

30.77

Classroom

Textbooks/handouts

23.08

Classroom

Demonstration

15.38

Other

Do not Teach

11.54

Classroom

Project Based

7.69

Classroom

Inquiry

7.69

Laboratory

Meats laboratory

7.69

Laboratory

Greenhouse

3.85

Laboratory

Other

3.85

Table 37 (continued)

Methods Used to Teach Food Products and Processing CSS: Common Weights and

Measures in the Food Products and Processing Industry

Location

Method

Other

Library/computer lab

3.85

Laboratory

Biotechnology laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Forestry

0.00

Laboratory

Land laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Mechanics laboratory

0.00

Other

Field Trip

0.00

Compare and Contrast Various Food Labels.

Seven respondents (26.92%) used classroom discussion to Compare and Contrast

Various Food Labels. Four respondents (15.38%) used classroom project-based learning.

Four respondents (15.38%) used classroom inquiry. Four respondents (15.38%) used

classroom demonstration. Four respondents (15.38%) used classroom lecture. Four

respondents (15.38%) used classroom textbooks and/or handouts. Four respondents

(15.38%) used the meats laboratory and/or supervised practice. Three respondents

(11.54%) do not teach about food labels. One respondent (3.85%) used other methods in

the laboratory and/or supervised practice, and one respondent (3.85%) used the library

and/or computer lab. None of the respondents used mechanics laboratory, greenhouse,

biotechnology laboratory, land laboratory, forestry or field trip to compare and contrast

various food labels (see Table 38).

Table 38

Methods Used to Teach Food Products and Processing CSS: Compare and Contrast

Various Food Labels

Location

Method

Classroom

Discussion

26.92

Classroom

Project based

15.38

Classroom

Inquiry

15.38

Classroom

Demonstration

15.38

Classroom

Lecture

15.38

Classroom

Textbooks/handouts

15.38

Laboratory

Meats laboratory

15.38

Other

Do not Teach

11.54

Laboratory

Other

3.85

Other

Library/computer lab

3.85

Laboratory

Mechanics laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Greenhouse

0.00

Laboratory

Biotechnology laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Land laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Forestry

0.00

Other

Field Trip

0.00

Conducting a Food Preservation Experiment.

Eight respondents (30.77%) do not teach the concept of Conducting a Food

Preservation Experiment. Seven respondents (26.92%) used classroom project-based

learning. Two respondents (7.69%) used classroom demonstration. Two respondents

(7.69%) used classroom lecture. Two respondents (7.69%) used the meats laboratory

and/or supervised practice. One respondent (3.85%) used classroom inquiry. One

respondent (3.85%) used classroom discussion. One respondent (3.85%) used classroom

textbooks and/or handouts. One respondent (3.85%) used other laboratory methods and/or

supervised practice. None of the respondents used mechanics laboratory, greenhouse,

biotechnology laboratory, land laboratory, forestry, library and/or computer lab or field

trip to conduct a food preservation experiment (see Table 39).

Table 39

Methods Used to Teach Food Products and Processing CSS: Conduct a Food

Preservation Experiment

Location

Method

Other

Do not Teach

30.77

Classroom

Project Based

26.92

Classroom

Demonstration

7.69

Classroom

Lecture

7.69

Laboratory

Meats laboratory

7.69

Classroom

Inquiry

3.85

Classroom

Discussion

3.85

Classroom

Textbooks/handouts

3.85

Laboratory

Other

3.85

Laboratory

Mechanics laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Greenhouse

0.00

Laboratory

Biotechnology laboratory

0.00

Table 39 (continued)

Methods Used to Teach Food Products and Processing CSS: Conduct a Food

Preservation Experiment

Location

Method

Laboratory

Land laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Forestry

0.00

Other

Library/computer lab

0.00

Other

Field trip

0.00

Foods Derived from Meat, Egg, Poultry, Fish, and Dairy Products.

Nine respondents (34.62%) used classroom discussion to teach the concept of

Foods Derived from Meat, Egg, Poultry, Fish, and Dairy Products. Seven respondents

(26.92%) used classroom lecture, and seven (26.92%) used classroom textbooks and/or

handouts. Six respondents (23.08%) used classroom project based learning. Four

respondents (15.38%) used classroom inquiry. Three respondents (11.54%) used meats

laboratories and/or supervised practice. One respondent (3.85%) used classroom

demonstration. One respondent (3.85%) used other methods in the laboratory and/or

supervised practice. None of the respondents used mechanics laboratory, greenhouse,

biotechnology laboratory, land laboratory, forestry, library and/or computer lab (see

Table 40).

Table 40

Methods Used to Teach Food Products and Processing CSS: Foods Derived from Meat.

Egg, Poultry, Fish and Dairy Products

Location

Method

Classroom

Discussion

34.62

Classroom

Lecture

26.92

Classroom

Textbooks

26.92

Classroom

Project Based

23.08

Classroom

Inquiry

15.38

Laboratory

Meats laboratory

11.54

Classroom

Demonstration

3.85

Laboratory

Other

3.85

Laboratory

Mechanics laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Greenhouse

0.00

Laboratory

Biotechnology laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Land laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Forestry

0.00

Other

Library/computer lab

0.00

Other

Do not Teach

0.00

Methods of Food Preservations.

Eight respondents (30.77%) used classroom project-based learning and eight

(30.77%) used classroom lecture to teach Methods of Food Preservation. Five

respondents (19.23%) used classroom discussion. Five respondents (19.23%) used

classroom demonstration. Five respondents (19.23%) used the meats laboratory and/or

supervised practice. Three respondents (11.54%) used classroom inquiry. Three

respondents (11.54%) used classroom textbooks and/or handouts. Three respondents

(11.54%) do not teach methods of food preservation. One respondent (3.85%) used other

methods in the laboratory and/or supervised practice. None of the respondents used

mechanics laboratory, greenhouse, biotechnology laboratory, land laboratory, forestry,

library and/or computer lab, or field trip (see table 41).

Table 41

Methods Used to Teach Food Products and Processing CSS: Methods of Food

Preservation

Location

Methods

Classroom

Project Based

30.77

Classroom

Lecture

30.77

Classroom

Discussion

19.23

Classroom

Demonstration

19.23

Laboratory

Meats laboratory

19.23

Classroom

Inquiry

11.54

Classroom

Textbooks/handouts

11.54

Other

Do not Teach

11.54

Laboratory

Other

3.85

Laboratory

Mechanics laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Greenhouse

0.00

Laboratory

Biotechnology laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Land laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Forestry

0.00

Other

Library/computer lab

0.00

Other

Field Trip

0.00

Produce a Food Product Such As Cheese, Sausage, or Sauerkraut.

Ten respondents (38.46%) used classroom project-based learning to Produce a

Food Product such as Cheese, Sausage, or Sauerkraut. Seven respondents (26.92%) used

classroom demonstration. Six respondents (23.08%) used the meats laboratory and/or

supervised practice. Five respondents (19.23%) used classroom lecture. Four respondents

(15.38%) used classroom textbooks and/or handouts. Three respondents (11.54%) used

classroom discussion and three (11.54%) do not teach producing a food product. One

respondent (3.85%) used classroom inquiry. One respondent (3.85%) used other methods

in the laboratory and/or supervised practice. None of the respondents used mechanics

laboratory, greenhouse, biotechnology laboratory, land laboratory, forestry, library and/or

computer lab or field trips (see Table 42).

Table 42

Methods Used to Teach Food Products and Processing CSS: Produce a Food Product

(Cheese, Sausage, Sauerkraut, etc.)

Location

Method

Classroom

Project Based

38.46

Classroom

Demonstration

26.92

Laboratory

Meats laboratory

23.08

Classroom

Lecture

19.23

Classroom

Textbooks/handouts

15.38

Classroom

Discussion

11.54

Other

Do not Teach

11.54

Classroom

Inquiry

3.85

Laboratory

Other

3.85

Table 42 (continued)

Methods Used to Teach Food Products and Processing CSS: Produce a Food Product

(Cheese, Sausage, Sauerkraut, etc.)

Location

Method

Laboratory

Mechanics laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Greenhouse

0.00

Laboratory

Biotechnology laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Land laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Forestry

0.00

Other

Library/computer lab

0.00

Other

Field Trip

0.00

Products Derived From Fruits and Vegetables.

Ten respondents (38.46%) used classroom discussion to teach Products Derived

from Fruits and Vegetables. Nine respondents (34.62%) used classroom lecture. Seven

respondents (26.92%) used classroom textbooks and/or handouts. Five respondents

(19.23%) used classroom project based learning. Four respondents (15.38%) used

classroom inquiry. One respondent (3.85%) used classroom demonstration. One

respondent (3.85%) used the greenhouse laboratory and/or supervised practice. One

respondent (3.85%) used the meats laboratory and/or supervised practice. One respondent

(3.85%) used other methods in the laboratory and/or supervised practice. One respondent

(3.85%) used the library and/or computer lab. One respondent (3.85%) does not teach

about products derived from fruits and vegetables. None of the respondents used

mechanics laboratory, biotechnology laboratory, land laboratory, forestry, or field trip to

teach products derived from fruits and vegetables (see Table 43).

Table 43

Methods Used to Teach Food Products and Processing CSS: Products Derived from

Fruits and Vegetables

Location

Method

Classroom

Discussion

38.46

Classroom

Lecture

34.62

Classroom

Textbooks/handouts

26.92

Classroom

Project Based

19.23

Classroom

Inquiry

15.38

Classroom

Demonstration

3.85

Laboratory

Greenhouse

3.85

Laboratory

Meats laboratory

3.85

Laboratory

Other

3.85

Other

Library/computer lab

3.85

Other

Do not Teach

3.85

Laboratory

Mechanics laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Biotechnology laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Land laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Forestry

0.00

Other

Field Trip

0.00

Products Derived From Grains, Legumes, and Oilseeds.

Nine respondents (34.62%) used classroom lecture to teach Products Derived

from Grains, Legumes, and Oilseeds. Eight respondents (30.77%) used classroom

discussion. Seven respondents (26.92%) used classroom textbooks and/or handouts. Four

respondents (15.38%) used classroom project-based learning. Four respondents (15.38%)

used classroom inquiry. One respondent (3.85%) used classroom demonstration. One

respondent (3.85%) used classroom demonstration. One respondent (3.85%) used

greenhouse laboratory and/or supervised practice. One respondent (3.85%) used the

meats laboratory and/or supervised practice. One respondent (3.85%) used other methods

in the laboratory and/or supervised practice. One respondent (3.85%) does not teach

about products derived from grains, legumes, and oilseeds. None of the respondents used

mechanics laboratory, biotechnology laboratory, land laboratory, forestry, library and/or

computer lab or field trip to teach products derived from grains, legumes and oilseeds

(see Table 44).

Table 44

Methods Used to Teach Food Products and Processing CSS: Products Derived from

Grains, Legumes, and Oilseeds

Location

Method

Classroom

Lecture

34.62

Classroom

Discussion

30.77

Classroom

Textbooks/handouts

26.92

Classroom

Project Based

15.38

Classroom

Inquiry

15.38

Classroom

Demonstration

3.85

Laboratory

Greenhouse

3.85

Laboratory

Meats laboratory

3.85

Laboratory

Other

3.85

Other

Do not Teach

3.85

Laboratory

Mechanics laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Biotechnology laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Land laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Forestry

0.00

Other

Library/computer lab

0.00

Other

Field Trip

0.00

Quality and Yield Grades of Food Products.

Ten respondents (38.46%) used the classroom lecture to teach Quality and Yield

Grades of Food Products. Seven respondents (26.92%) used classroom discussion, and

seven respondents (26.92%) used classroom textbooks and/or handouts. Five respondents

(19.23%) used classroom project-based learning. Four respondents (15.38%) used the

meats laboratory and/or supervised practice. Three respondents (11.54%) used classroom

inquiry. Two respondents (7.69%) do not teach quality and yield grades of food products.

One respondent (3.85%) used other methods in the laboratory and/or supervised practice.

One respondent (3.85%) used library and/or computer lab. None of the respondents used

mechanics laboratory, greenhouse, biotechnology laboratory, land laboratory, forestry, or

field trip to teach quality and yield grades of food products (see Table 45).

Table 45

Methods Used to Teach Food Products and Processing CSS: Quality and Yield Grades of

Food Products

Location

Method

Classroom

Lecture

38.46

Classroom

Discussion

26.92

Classroom

Textbooks/handout

26.92

Classroom

Project Based

19.23

Classroom

Demonstration

15.38

Laboratory

Meats laboratory

15.38

Classroom

Inquiry

11.54

Other

Do not Teach

7.69

Laboratory

Other

3.85

Other

Library/computer lab

3.85

Laboratory

Mechanics laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Greenhouse

0.00

Laboratory

Biotechnology laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Land laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Forestry

0.00

Other

Field Trip

0.00

History of the Animal Processing Industry.

Ten respondents (38.46%) used classroom lecture to teach the History of the

Animal Processing Industry. Five respondents (19.23%) do not teach the history of

animal processing. Four respondents (15.38%) used classroom discussion. Four

respondents (19.23%) used the meats laboratory and/or supervised practice. Three

respondents used classroom textbooks and/or handouts. Two respondents (7.69%) used

classroom demonstration. One respondent (3.85%) used classroom project-based

learning. One respondent (3.85%) used classroom inquiry. One respondent (3.85%) used

other methods in the laboratory and/or supervised practice. None of the respondents used

mechanics laboratory, greenhouse, biotechnology laboratory, land laboratory, forestry,

library and/or computer lab, or field trip to teach the history of the animal processing

industry (see Table 46).

Table 46

Methods Used to Teach Food Products and Processing CSS: The History of the Animal

Processing Industry

Location

Method

Classroom

Lecture

38.46

Other

Do not Teach

19.23

Classroom

Discussion

15.38

Laboratory

Meats laboratory

15.38

Classroom

Textbooks/handouts

11.54

Classroom

Demonstration

7.69

Classroom

Project Based

3.85

Classroom

Inquiry

3.85

Table 46 (continued)

Methods Used to Teach Food Products and Processing CSS: The History of the Animal

Processing Industry

Location

Method

Laboratory

Other

3.85

Laboratory

Mechanics laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Greenhouse

0.00

Laboratory

Biotechnology laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Land laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Forestry

0.00

Other

Library/computer lab

0.00

Other

Field Trip

0.00

Importance of Food Labeling to the Consumer.

Ten respondents (38.46%) used classroom discussion to teach the Importance of

Food Labeling to the Consumer. Eight respondents (30.77%) used classroom discussion.

Four respondents (15.38%) used classroom inquiry. Three respondents (11.54%) used the

meats laboratory and/or supervised practice. Two respondents (7.69%) do not teach the

importance of food labeling. One respondent (3.85%) used classroom demonstration. One

respondent (3.85%) used other methods in the laboratory and/or supervised practice.

None of the respondents used project based learning, mechanics laboratory, greenhouse,

biotechnology laboratory, land laboratory, forestry, library and/or computer lab or field

trip to teach the importance of food labeling to the consumer (see Table 47).

Table 47

Methods Used to Teach Food Products and Processing: The Importance of Food

Labeling to the Consumer

Location

Method

Classroom

Discussion

38.46

Classroom

Lecture

30.77

Classroom

Inquiry

15.38

Classroom

Textbooks/handouts

11.54

Laboratory

Meats laboratory

11.54

Other

Do not Teach

7.69

Classroom

Demonstration

3.85

Laboratory

Other

3.85

Classroom

Project Based

0.00

Laboratory

Mechanics laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Greenhouse

0.00

Laboratory

Biotechnology laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Land laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Forestry

0.00

Other

Library/computer lab

0.00

Other

Field Trip

0.00

Ecosystems.

Ten respondents (38.46%) used the classroom discussion to teach Ecosystems.

Nine respondents (34.62%) used classroom lecture. Eight respondents (30.77%) used

classroom lecture. Four respondents (15.38%) used classroom inquiry. Three respondents

(11.54%) used classroom project-based learning. Two respondents (7.69%) used library

and/or computer lab. One respondent (3.85%) used field trip. None of the respondents

used demonstration, mechanics laboratory, greenhouse, meats laboratory, biotechnology

laboratory, land laboratory, forestry, or other laboratory methods; and none listed do not

teach for ecosystems (see Table 48).

Table 48

Methods Used to Teach Natural Resource CSS: Ecosystems

Location

Method

Classroom

Discussion

38.46

Classroom

Lecture

34.62

Classroom

Textbooks/handouts

30.77

Classroom

Inquiry

15.38

Classroom

Project Based

11.54

Other

Library/computer lab

7.69

Other

Field Trip

3.85

Classroom

Demonstration

0.00

Laboratory

Mechanics laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Greenhouse

0.00

Laboratory

Meats laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Biotechnology laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Land laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Forestry

0.00

Laboratory

Other

0.00

Other

Do not Teach

0.00

Identify Alternative Energy Sources.

Eleven respondents (42.31%) used classroom discussion to Identify Alternative

Energy Sources. Eight respondents (30.77%) used classroom lecture. Seven respondents

(26.92%) used classroom textbooks and/or handouts. Four respondents (15.38%) used

classroom project-based learning. Two respondents (7.69%) used library and/or computer

lab. Two respondents (7.69%) do not teach identity of alternative energy sources. One

respondent (3.85%) used classroom demonstration. One respondent (3.85%) used

laboratory and/or supervised practice with the greenhouse. None of the respondents used

mechanics laboratory, meats laboratory, biotechnology laboratory, land laboratory,

forestry, other laboratory and/or supervised practice methods, or field trips to identify

alternative energy sources (see Table 49).

Table 49

Methods Used to Natural Resources CSS: Identify Alternative Energy Sources

Location

Method

Classroom

Discussion

42.31

Classroom

Lecture

30.77

Classroom

Textbooks/handouts

26.92

Classroom

Inquiry

19.23

Classroom

Project Based

15.38

Other

Library/computer lab

7.69

Other

Do not Teach

7.69

Classroom

Demonstration

3.85

Laboratory

Greenhouse

3.85

Table 49 (continued)

Methods Used to Natural Resources CSS: Identify Alternative Energy Sources

Location

Method

Laboratory

Mechanics laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Meats laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Biotechnology laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Land laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Forestry

0.00

Laboratory

Other

0.00

Other

Field Trip

0..0

Identify Healthy Ecosystem Characteristics.

Ten respondents (38.46%) used the classroom discussion to Identify Healthy

Ecosystem Characteristics. Nine respondents (34.62%) used classroom textbooks and/or

handouts. Eight respondents (30.77%) used classroom lecture. Four respondents

(15.38%) used classroom inquiry. Two respondents (7.69%) used classroom projectbased

learning. Two respondents (7.69%) used a library and/or computer lab. One respondent

(3.85%) used land laboratory. One respondent (3.85%) used forestry. One respondent

(3.85%) does not teach identity of healthy ecosystem characteristics. None of the

respondents used demonstration, mechanics laboratory, greenhouse, meats laboratory,

biotechnology laboratory, other laboratory and/or supervised practice methods or field

trips to identify healthy ecosystem characteristics (see Table 50).

Table 50

Methods Used to Teach Natural Resource CSS: Identify Healthy Ecosystem

Characteristics

Location Method f %

Classroom Discussion 10 38.46

Classroom Textbooks 9 34.62

Classroom Lecture 8 30.77

Classroom Inquiry 4 15.38

Classroom Project Based 2 7.69

Other Library/computer lab 2 7.69

Laboratory Land laboratory 1 3.85

Laboratory Forestry 1 3.85

Other Do not Teach 1 3.85

Classroom Demonstration 0 0.00

Laboratory Mechanics laboratory 0 0.00

Laboratory Greenhouse 0 0.00

Laboratory Meats laboratory 0 0.00

Laboratory Biotechnology laboratory 0 0.00

Laboratory Other 0 0.00

Other Field Trip 0 0.00

Identify Nonrenewable Resources.

Ten respondents (38.46%) used classroom discussion to identify Nonrenewable

Resources. Seven respondents (26.92%) used classroom textbooks and/or handouts. Six

respondents (23.08%) used classroom lecture. Four respondents (15.38%) used classroom

inquiry. Three respondents (11.54) used classroom project-based learning. Three

respondents (11.54%) used library and/or computer lab. Two respondents (7.69%) do not

teach identity of nonrenewable resources. None of the respondents used demonstration,

mechanics laboratory, greenhouse, meats laboratory, biotechnology laboratory, land

laboratory, forestry, other laboratory methods or field trip to identify nonrenewable

resources (see Table 51).

Table 51

Methods Used to Teach Natural Resource CSS: Identify Nonrenewable Resources

Location Method f %

Classroom Discussion 10 38.46

Classroom Textbooks/handouts 7 26.92

Classroom Lecture 6 23.08

Classroom Inquiry 4 15.38

Classroom Project Based 3 11.54

Other Library/computer lab 3 11.54

Other Do not Teach 2 7.69

Classroom Demonstration 0 0.00

Laboratory Mechanics laboratory 0 0.00

Laboratory Greenhouse 0 0.00

Laboratory Meats laboratory 0 0.00

Laboratory Biotechnology laboratory 0 0.00

Laboratory Land laboratory 0 0.00

Laboratory Forestry 0 0.00

Laboratory Other 0 0.00

Other Field trip 0 0.00

Identify Renewable Resources.

Eleven respondents (42.31%) used classroom discussion to Identify Renewable

Resources. Eight respondents (30.77%) used classroom textbooks and/or handouts. Seven

respondents (26.92%) used classroom lecture. Five respondents (19.23%) used classroom

inquiry. Four respondents (15.38%) used classroom project based learning. One

respondent (3.85%) used classroom demonstration. One respondent (3.85%) used land

laboratory and/or supervised practice. One respondent (3.85%) used forestry laboratory

and/or supervised practice. One (3.85%) used library and/or supervised practice. One

individual (3.85%) does not teach identity of renewable resources. None of the

respondents used mechanics laboratory, greenhouse, meats laboratory, biotechnology

laboratory, other laboratory methods, or field trips to identify renewable resources (see

Table 52).

Table 52

Methods Used to Teach Natural Resource CSS: Identify Renewable Resources

Location

Method

Classroom

Discussion

42.31

Classroom

Textbooks/handouts

30.77

Classroom

Lecture

26.92

Classroom

Inquiry

19.23

Classroom

Project Based

15.38

Classroom

Demonstration

3.85

Laboratory

Land laboratory

3.85

Laboratory

Forestry

3.85

Table 52 (continued)

Methods Used to Teach Natural Resource CSS: Identify Renewable Resources

Location

Method

Other

Library/computer lab

3.85

Other

Do not Teach

3.85

Laboratory

Mechanics laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Greenhouse

0.00

Laboratory

Meats laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Biotechnology laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Other

0.00

Other

Field Trip

0.00

Natural Resources.

Twelve respondents (46.15%) used classroom lecture to teach Natural Resources.

Ten respondents (38.46%) used classroom discussion. Eight respondents (30.77%) used

classroom textbooks and/or handouts. Six respondents (23.08%) used classroom

projectbased learning. Four respondents (15.38%) used classroom inquiry. Three

respondents (11.54%) used a library and/or computer lab. One respondent (3.85%) used

classroom demonstration. One respondent (3.85%) used a greenhouse laboratory and/or

supervised practice. One respondent (3.85%) used a land laboratory and/or supervised

practice. One respondent (3.85%) used a forestry laboratory and/or supervised practice.

None of the respondents used mechanics laboratory, meats laboratory, biotechnology

laboratory, other laboratory methods, or field trip. None indicated that he or she does not

teach natural resources (see table 53).

Table 53

Methods Used to Teach Natural Resource CSS: Natural Resources

Location

Method

Classroom

Lecture

46.15

Classroom

Discussion

38.46

Classroom

Textbooks

30.77

Classroom

Project Based

23.08

Classroom

Inquiry

15.38

Other

Library/computer lab

11.54

Classroom

Demonstration

3.85

Laboratory

Greenhouse

3.85

Laboratory

Land laboratory

3.85

Laboratory

Forestry

3.85

Laboratory

Mechanics laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Meats laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Biotechnology laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Other

0.00

Other

Do not Teach

0.00

Other

Field Trip

0.00

Nonrenewable Resources.

Ten respondents (38.46%) used classroom discussion to teach Nonrenewable

Resources. Nine respondents (34.62%) used classroom textbooks and/or handouts. Eight

respondents (30.77%) used classroom lecture. Five respondents (19.23%) used classroom

project-based learning. Five respondents (19.23%) used classroom inquiry. Three

respondents (11.54%) used a library and/or computer lab. One respondent (3.85%) used

classroom demonstration. One respondent (3.85%) used a biotechnology laboratory

and/or supervised practice. One respondent (3.85%) does not teach the concept. None of

the respondents used mechanics laboratory, greenhouse, meats laboratory, land laboratory,

forestry, other laboratory methods or field trips (see Table 54).

Table 54

Methods Used to Teach Natural Resource CSS: Nonrenewable Resources

Location

Method

Classroom

Discussion

38.46

Classroom

Textbooks/handouts

34.62

Classroom

Lecture

30.77

Classroom

Project based

19.23

Classroom

Inquiry

19.23

Other

Library/computer lab

11.54

Classroom

Demonstration

3.85

Laboratory

Biotechnology laboratory

3.85

Other

Do not Teach

3.85

Laboratory

Mechanics laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Greenhouse

0.00

Laboratory

Meats laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Land laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Forestry

0.00

Laboratory

Other

0.00

Other

Field Trip

0.00

Renewable Resources.

Ten respondents (38.46%) used classroom discussion to teach Renewable

Resources. Ten respondents (38.46%) used classroom textbooks and/or handouts. Eight

respondents (30.77%) used classroom lecture. Four respondents (15.38%) used classroom

project-based learning. Four respondents (15.38%) used classroom inquiry. One

respondent (3.85%) used a greenhouse laboratory and/or supervised practice in the

greenhouse. One respondent (3.85%) used a biotechnology laboratory and/or supervised

practice. One respondent (3.85%) used the forestry laboratory and/or supervised practice.

One respondent (3.85%) used the library and/or computer lab. One respondent (3.85%)

does not teach renewable resources. None of the respondents used demonstration,

mechanics laboratory, meats laboratory, land laboratory, other laboratory methods, or

field trip (see Table 55).

Table 55

Methods Used to Teach Natural Resource CSS: Renewable Resources

Location

Method

Classroom

Discussion

38.46

Classroom

Textbooks/handouts

38.46

Classroom

Lecture

30.77

Classroom

Project Based

15.38

Classroom

Inquiry

15.38

Laboratory

Greenhouse

3.85

Laboratory

Biotechnology laboratory

3.85

Laboratory

Forestry

3.85

Other

Library/computer lab

3.85

Table 55 (continued)

Methods Used to Teach Natural Resource CSS: Renewable Resources

Location

Method

Other

Do not Teach

3.85

Classroom

Demonstration

0.00

Laboratory

Mechanics laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Meats laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Land laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Other

0.00

Other

Field trip

0.00

Basic Plant Nutrition.

Ten respondents (38.46%) used classroom lecture to teach Basic Plant Nutrition.

Nine respondents (34.62%) used classroom textbooks and/or handouts. Eight respondents

(30.77%) used classroom project-based learning. Eight respondents (30.77%) used the

laboratory and/or supervised practice in the greenhouse. Seven respondents (26.92%)

used classroom discussion. Four respondents (15.38%) used classroom inquiry. Three

respondents (11.54%) used classroom demonstration. Two respondents (7.69%) used a

biotechnology laboratory and/or supervised practice. None of the respondents used

mechanics laboratory, meats laboratory, land laboratory, forestry, other laboratory

methods, library and/or computer lab, or field trip. None indicated that he/she does not

teach basic plant nutrition (see Table 56).

Table 56

Methods Used to Teach Plant Systems CSS: Basic Plant Nutrition

Location

Method

Classroom

Lecture

38.46

Classroom

Textbooks/handouts

34.62

Classroom

Project Based

30.77

Laboratory

Greenhouse

30.77

Classroom

Discussion

26.92

Classroom

Inquiry

15.38

Classroom

Demonstration

11.54

Laboratory

Biotechnology laboratory

7.69

Laboratory

Mechanics laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Meats laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Land laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Forestry

0.00

Laboratory

Other

0.00

Other

Library/computer lab

0.00

Other

Field Trip

0.00

Other

Do not Teach

0.00

Basic Soil Science.

Eleven respondents (42.31%) used classroom textbooks and/or handouts to teach

Basic Soil Science. Nine respondents (34.62%) used classroom project based learning.

Nine respondents (34.62%) used classroom lecture. Six respondents (23.08%) used

classroom discussion. Six respondents (23.08%) used classroom demonstration. Five

respondents (19.23%) used greenhouse laboratory and/or supervised practice. Four

respondents (15.38%) used land laboratory and/or supervised practice. Three respondents

(11.54%) used classroom inquiry. Two respondents (7.69%) used a biotechnology

laboratory and/or supervised practice. None of the respondents used mechanics

laboratory, meats laboratory, forestry, other laboratory methods, field trip, or library

and/or computer lab to teach basic soil science; and none indicated that he/she does not

teach basic soil science (see Table 57).

Table 57

Methods Used to Teach Plant Systems CSS: Basic Soil Science

Location

Method

Classroom

Textbooks/handouts

42.31

Classroom

Project Based

34.62

Classroom

Lecture

34.62

Classroom

Discussion

23.08

Classroom

Demonstration

23.08

Laboratory

Greenhouse

19.23

Laboratory

Land laboratory

15.38

Classroom

Inquiry

11.54

Laboratory

Biotechnology laboratory

7.69

Laboratory

Mechanics laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Meats laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Forestry

0.00

Laboratory

Other

0.00

Other

Field Trip

0.00

Other

Do not Teach

0.00

Other

Library/computer lab

0.00

Conduct Soil Sampling and Testing.

Ten respondents (38.46%) used classroom project-based learning to Conduct Soil

Sampling and Testing. Seven respondents (26.92%) used greenhouse laboratory and/or

supervised practice. Six respondents (23.08%) used classroom textbooks and/or handouts.

Five respondents (19.23%) used classroom discussion. Five respondents (19.23%) used

classroom lecture. Four respondents (15.38%) used classroom demonstration. Four

respondents (15.38%) used land laboratory and/or supervised practice. Three respondents

(11.54%) used classroom inquiry. Two respondents (7.69%) used field trip. One

respondent (3.85%) used a biotechnology laboratory and/or supervised practice. None of

the respondents used mechanics laboratory, meats laboratory, forestry, other laboratory

methods, or library and/or computer lab; and none indicated that he/she does not teach

conducting soil sampling and testing (see Table 58).

Table 58

Methods Used to Teach Plant Systems CSS: Conduct Soil Sampling and Testing

Location

Method

Classroom

Project Based

38.46

Laboratory

Greenhouse

26.92

Classroom

Textbooks/handouts

23.08

Classroom

Discussion

19.23

Classroom

Lecture

19.23

Classroom

Demonstration

15.38

Laboratory

Land laboratory

15.38

Classroom

Inquiry

11.54

Other

Field Trip

7.69

Table 58 (continued)

Methods Used to Teach Plant Systems CSS: Conduct Soil Sampling and Testing

Location

Method

Laboratory

Biotechnology laboratory

3.85

Laboratory

Mechanics laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Meats laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Forestry

0.00

Laboratory

Other

0.00

Other

Library/computer lab

0.00

Other

Do not Teach

0.00

Diagram a Typical Plant Cell and Identify Cell Organelles and Their

Functions.

Nine respondents (34.62%) used classroom textbooks and/or handouts to Diagram

a Typical Plant Cell and Identify Cell Organelles and Their Functions. Eight respondents

(30.77%) used classroom lecture. Seven respondents (26.92%) used classroom

discussion. Seven respondents (26.92%) used greenhouse laboratory and/or supervised

practice. Four respondents (15.38%) used classroom project-based learning. Three

respondents (11.54%) used classroom inquiry. One respondent (3.85%) used a

biotechnology laboratory and/or supervised practice. One respondent (3.85%) used a

library and/or computer lab. None of the respondents used demonstration, mechanics

laboratory, meats laboratory, land laboratory, forestry, other laboratory methods, or field

trip; and none indicated that he/she does not teach students to diagram typical plant cells

and to identify cell organelles and their functions (see Table 59).

Table 59

Methods Used to Teach Plant Systems CSS: Diagram a Typical Plant Cell and Identify

Cell Organelles and their Functions

Location

Method

Classroom

Textbooks/handouts

34.62

Classroom

Lecture

30.77

Classroom

Discussion

26.92

Laboratory

Greenhouse

26.92

Classroom

Project Based

15.38

Classroom

Inquiry

11.54

Laboratory

Biotechnology laboratory

3.85

Other

Library/computer lab

3.85

Classroom

Demonstration

0.00

Laboratory

Mechanics laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Meats laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Land laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Forestry

0.00

Laboratory

Other

0.00

Other

Field Trip

0.00

Other

Do not Teach

0.00

Functions of Plant Parts.

Ten respondents (38.46%) used classroom textbooks and/or handouts to teach the

Functions of Plant Parts. Nine respondents (34.62%) used classroom lecture. Nine

respondents (34.62%) used greenhouse laboratory and/or supervised practice. Eight

respondents (30.77%) used classroom discussion. Six respondents (23.08%) used

classroom project-based learning. Three respondents (11.54%) used classroom

demonstration. Two respondents (7.69%) used classroom inquiry. One respondent

(3.85%) used a biotechnology laboratory and/or supervised practice. One respondent

(3.85%) used a land laboratory and/or supervised practice. One respondent (3.85%) used

a forestry laboratory and/or supervised practice. None of the respondents used mechanics

laboratory, meats laboratory, other laboratory methods, library and/or computer lab, or

field trip to teach the functions of plant parts; and none indicated that he/she does not

teach functions of plant parts (see Table 60).

Table 60

Methods Used to Teach Plant Systems CSS: Functions of Plant Parts

Location

Method

Classroom

Textbooks/handouts

38.46

Classroom

Lecture

34.62

Laboratory

Greenhouse

34.62

Classroom

Discussion

30.77

Classroom

Project Based

23.08

Classroom

Demonstration

11.54

Classroom

Inquiry

7.69

Laboratory

Biotechnology laboratory

3.85

Laboratory

Land laboratory

3.85

Laboratory

Forestry

3.85

Laboratory

Mechanics laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Meats laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Other

0.00

Other

Library/computer lab

0.00

Other

Field Trip

0.00

Identify Agriculturally Important Plants by Common Names.

Nine respondents (34.62%) used classroom project-based learning to Identify

Agriculturally Important Plants by Common Names. Eight respondents (30.77%) used

classroom discussion. Eight respondents (30.77%) used classroom lecture. Eight

respondents (30.77%) used classroom textbooks and/or handouts. Seven respondents

(26.92%) used a greenhouse laboratory and/or supervised practice. Three respondents

(11.54%) used classroom inquiry. Three respondents (11.54%) used a library and/or

computer lab. Two respondents (7.69%) used a land laboratory and/or supervised

practice. One respondent (3.85%) used a classroom demonstration. One respondent

(3.85%) used s a biotechnology laboratory and/or supervised practice. One respondent

(3.85%) used a forestry laboratory and/or supervised practice. One respondent (3.85%)

used field trip. One respondent (3.85%) does not teach students to identify agriculturally

important plants by common names. None of the respondents used mechanics laboratory,

meats laboratory or other laboratory and/or supervised practice to identify agriculturally

important plants by common names (see Table 61).

Table 61

Methods Used to Teach Plant Systems CSS: Identify Agriculturally Important Plants by

Common Names

Location

Method

Classroom

Project Based

34.62

Classroom

Discussion

30.77

Classroom

Lecture

30.77

Classroom

Textbooks/handouts

30.77

Laboratory

Greenhouse

26.92

Classroom

Inquiry

11.54

Other

Library/computer lab

11.54

Laboratory

Land laboratory

7.69

Classroom

Demonstration

3.85

Laboratory

Biotechnology laboratory

3.85

Laboratory

Forestry

3.85

Other

Field Trip

3.85

Other

Do not Teach

3.85

Laboratory

Mechanics laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Meats laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Other

0.00

Identify The Components and Functions of Plant Roots.

Ten respondents (38.46%) used classroom textbooks and/or handouts to Identify

The Components and Functions of Plant Roots. Nine respondents (34.62%) used

classroom lecture. Eight respondents (30.77%) used classroom discussion. Eight

respondents (30.77%) used greenhouse laboratory and/or supervised practice. Six

respondents (23.08%) used classroom project based learning. Three respondents (11.54%)

used classroom inquiry. Two respondents (7.69%) used biotechnology laboratory and/or

supervised practice. None of the respondents used demonstration, mechanics laboratory,

meats laboratory, land laboratory, forestry, other laboratory methods, library and/or

computer lab, or field trip; and none marked do not teach to identify the components and

functions of plant roots (see Table 62).

Table 62

Methods Used to Teach Plant System CSS: Identify the Components and Functions of

Plant Roots

Location

Method

Classroom

Textbooks/handouts

38.46

Classroom

Lecture

34.62

Classroom

Discussion

30.77

Laboratory

Greenhouse

30.77

Classroom

Project Based

23.08

Classroom

Inquiry

11.54

Laboratory

Biotechnology laboratory

7.69

Classroom

Demonstration

0.00

Laboratory

Mechanics laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Meats laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Land laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Forestry

0.00

Laboratory

Other

0.00

Other

Library/computer lab

0.00

Other

Field Trip

0.00

Other

Do not Teach

0.00

Components and Functions of Plant Flowers.

Ten respondents (38.46%) used classroom textbooks and/or handouts to identify

the Components and Functions of Plant Flowers. Eight respondents (30.77%) used

classroom discussion. Eight respondents (30.77%) used classroom lecture. Eight

(30.77%) used a greenhouse laboratory and/or supervised practice. Five respondents

(19.23%) used classroom project-based learning. Two respondents (7.69%) used

classroom inquiry. Two respondents (7.69%) used a biotechnology laboratory and/or

supervised practice. One respondent (3.85%) used classroom demonstration. One

respondent (3.85%) used a forestry laboratory and/or supervised practice. None of the

respondents used mechanics laboratory, meats laboratory, land laboratory, other

laboratory methods, library and/or computer lab, or field trip; nor does any indicate that

he/she does not teach students to identify the components and functions of plant flowers

(see Table 63).

Table 63

Methods Used to Teach Plant Systems CSS: Identify the Components and the Functions of

Plant Flowers

Location

Method

Classroom

Textbooks/handouts

38.46

Classroom

Discussion

30.77

Classroom

Lecture

30.77

Laboratory

Greenhouse

30.77

Classroom

Project Based

19.23

Classroom

Inquiry

7.69

Table 63 (continued)

Methods Used to Teach Plant Systems CSS: Identify the Components and the Functions of

Plant Flowers

Location

Method

Laboratory

Biotechnology laboratory

7.69

Classroom

Demonstration

3.85

Laboratory

Forestry

3.85

Laboratory

Mechanics laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Meats laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Land laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Other

0.00

Other

Library/computer lab

0.00

Other

Field Trip

0.00

Other

Do not Teach

0.00

Components and Functions of Plant Leaves.

Ten respondents (38.46%) used classroom textbooks and/or handouts to identify

the Components and Functions of Plant Leaves. Eight respondents (30.77%) used

classroom discussion. Eight respondents (30.77%) used greenhouse laboratory and/or

supervised practice. Seven respondents (26.92%) used classroom lecture. Six respondents

(23.08%) used classroom project-based learning. Three respondents (11.54%) used

classroom inquiry. Two respondents (7.69%) used a biotechnology laboratory and/or

supervised practice. One respondent (3.85%) used a forestry laboratory and/or supervised

practice. None of the respondents used demonstration, mechanics laboratory, meats

laboratory, land laboratory, other laboratory methods, library and/or computer lab, or field

trip; and all teach students to identify the components and functions of plant leaves

(see Table 64).

Table 64

Methods Used to Teach Plant System CSS: Identify the Components and the Functions of

Plant Leaves

Location

Method

Classroom

Textbooks/handouts

38.46

Classroom

Discussion

30.77

Laboratory

Greenhouse

30.77

Classroom

Lecture

26.92

Classroom

Project Based

23.08

Classroom

Inquiry

11.54

Laboratory

Biotechnology laboratory

7.69

Laboratory

Forestry

3.85

Classroom

Demonstration

0.00

Laboratory

Mechanics laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Meats laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Land laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Other

0.00

Other

Library/computer lab

0.00

Other

Field Trip

0.00

Other

Do not Teach

0.00

Identify the Components and Functions of Plant Stems.

Ten respondents (38.46%) used classroom textbooks and/or handouts to Identify

the Components and Functions of Plant Stems. Eight respondents (30.77%) used

classroom discussion. Eight respondents (30.77%) used classroom lecture. Seven

respondents (26.92%) used the greenhouse laboratory and/or supervised practice. Six

respondents (23.08%) used classroom project-based learning. Two respondents (7.69%)

used classroom inquiry. Two respondents (7.69%) used a biotechnology laboratory and/or

supervised practice. None of the respondents used demonstration, mechanics laboratory,

meats laboratory, land laboratory, forestry, other laboratory methods, library and/or

computer lab, or field trip. Every respondent teaches students to identify the components

and functions of plant stems (see Table 65).

Table 65

Methods Used to Teach Plant System CSS: Identify the Components and the Functions of

Plant Stems

Location

Method

Classroom

Textbooks/handouts

38.46

Classroom

Discussion

30.77

Classroom

Lecture

30.77

Laboratory

Greenhouse

26.92

Classroom

Project Based

23.08

Classroom

Inquiry

7.69

Laboratory

Biotechnology laboratory

7.69

Classroom

Demonstration

0.00

Laboratory

Mechanics laboratory

0.00

Table 65 (continued)

Methods Used to Teach Plant System CSS: Identify the Components and the Functions of

Plant Stems

Location

Method

Laboratory

Meats laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Land laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Forestry

0.00

Laboratory

Other

0.00

Other

Library/computer lab

0.00

Other

Field Trip

0.00

Other

Do not Teach

0.00

Interpret Soil Results to Determine Fertilizer Application Needs.

Nine respondents (34.62%) used the greenhouse laboratory and/or supervised

practice to Interpret Soil Results to Determine Fertilizer Application Needs. Seven

respondents (26.92%) used classroom project based learning. Seven respondents

(26.92%) used classroom discussion. Seven respondents (26.92%) used classroom

lecture. Six respondents (23.08%) used classroom textbooks and/or handouts. Four

respondents (15.38%) used classroom inquiry. Four respondents (15.38%) used classroom

demonstration. One respondent (3.85%) used biotechnology laboratory and/or supervised

practice. One respondent (3.85%) used a land laboratory and/or supervised practice. One

respondent (3.85%) used a library and/or computer lab. One respondent (3.85%) used

field trips. One respondent (3.85%) does not teach interpretation and application. None of

the respondents used mechanics laboratory, meats laboratory, forestry, or other laboratory

methods (see Table 66).

Table 66

Methods Used to Teach Plant System CSS: Interpret Soil Results to Determine Fertilizer

Application Needs

Location

Method

Laboratory

Greenhouse

34.62

Classroom

Project Based

26.92

Classroom

Discussion

26.92

Classroom

Lecture

26.92

Classroom

Textbooks/handouts

23.08

Classroom

Inquiry

15.38

Classroom

Demonstration

15.38

Laboratory

Biotechnology laboratory

3.85

Laboratory

Land laboratory

3.85

Other

Library/computer lab

3.85

Other

Field Trip

3.85

Other

Do not Teach

3.85

Laboratory

Mechanics laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Meats laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Forestry

0.00

Laboratory

Other

0.00

Parts of a Plant.

Ten respondents (38.46%) used classroom textbooks and/or handouts to teach

Parts of a Plant. Nine respondents (34.62%) used the greenhouse laboratory and/or

supervised practice. Seven respondents (26.92%) used classroom project-based learning.

Five respondents (19.23%) used classroom discussion. Five respondents (19.23%) used

classroom demonstration. Three respondents (11.54%) used classroom inquiry. One

respondent (3.85%) used a biotechnology laboratory and/or supervised practice. One

respondent (38.5%) used a forestry laboratory and/or supervised practice. None of the

respondents used mechanics laboratory, meats laboratory, land laboratory, other

laboratory methods, library and/or computer lab, or field trip. Everyone teaches students

to identify the parts of a plant (see Table 67).

Table 67

Methods Used to Teach Plant System CSS: Parts of a Plant

Location

Method

Classroom

Textbooks/handouts

38.46

Laboratory

Greenhouse

34.62

Classroom

Lecture

30.77

Classroom

Project Based

26.92

Classroom

Discussion

19.23

Classroom

Demonstration

19.23

Classroom

Inquiry

11.54

Laboratory

Biotechnology laboratory

3.85

Laboratory

Forestry

3.85

Laboratory

Mechanics laboratory

0.00

Table 67 (continued)

Methods Used to Teach Plant System CSS: Parts of a Plant

Location

Method

Laboratory

Meats laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Land laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Other

0.00

Other

Library/computer lab

0.00

Other

Field Trip

0.00

Other

Do not Teach

0.00

Plant Physiology – Photosynthesis, Reproduction, Respiration, and

Transpiration.

Eleven respondents (42.31%) used the classroom lecture to teach Plant

Physiology – Photosynthesis, Reproduction, Respiration, and Transpiration. Ten

respondents (38.46%) used classroom textbooks and/or handouts. Seven respondents

(26.92%) used classroom discussion. Six respondents (23.08%) used the greenhouse

laboratory and/or supervised practice. Five respondents (19.23%) used classroom

projectbased learning. Four respondents (15.38%) used classroom inquiry. Two

respondents

(7.69%) used a biotechnology laboratory and/or supervised practice. One respondent

(3.85%) used classroom demonstration. None of the respondents used mechanics

laboratory, meats laboratory, land laboratory, forestry, other laboratory methods, library

and/or computer lab, or field trip; and all teach plant physiology (see Table 68).

Table 68

Methods Used to Teach Plant System CSS: Plant Physiology – Photosynthesis,

Reproduction, Respiration, and Transpiration

Location

Method

Classroom

Lecture

42.31

Classroom

Textbooks/handouts

38.46

Classroom

Discussion

26.92

Laboratory

Greenhouse

23.08

Classroom

Project Based

19.23

Classroom

Inquiry

15.38

Laboratory

Biotechnology laboratory

7.69

Classroom

Demonstration

3.85

Laboratory

Mechanics laboratory

0.0

Laboratory

Meats laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Land laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Forestry

0.00

Laboratory

Other

0.00

Other

Library/computer lab

0.00

Other

Field Trip

0.00

Other

Do not Teach

0.00

Teach Adding, Subtracting, Multiplying, and Dividing Decimals.

Six respondents (23.08%) used classroom textbooks and/or handouts to Teach

Adding, Subtracting, Multiplying, and Dividing Decimals, with and without a calculator.

Six respondents (23.08%) used a mechanics laboratory and/or supervised practice. Five

respondents (19.23%) used classroom discussion. Five respondents (19.23%) used

classroom demonstration. Five respondents (19.23%) used classroom lecture. Three

respondents (11.54%) used classroom project-based learning. Three respondents

(11.54%) used classroom inquiry. Three respondents (11.54%) used the greenhouse

laboratory and/or supervised practice. Three respondents (11.54%) do not teach math

skills listed in table 69. One respondent (3.85%) used the meats laboratory and/or

supervised practice. None of the respondents used biotechnology laboratory, land

laboratory, forestry, other laboratory methods, library and/or computer lab or field trip to

teach adding, subtracting, multiplying, and dividing decimals, with and without a

calculator (see Table 69).

Table 69

Methods Used to Teach Power, Structural, and Technical CSS: Add, Subtract, Multiply,

and Divide Decimals, with and without a Calculator

Location

Method

Classroom

Textbooks/handouts

23.08

Laboratory

Mechanics laboratory

23.08

Classroom

Discussion

19.23

Classroom

Demonstration

19.23

Classroom

Lecture

19.23

Classroom

Project Based

11.54

Classroom

Inquiry

11.54

Laboratory

Greenhouse

11.54

Other

Do not Teach

11.54

Laboratory

Meats laboratory

3.85

Table 69 (continued)

Methods Used to Teach Power, Structural, and Technical CSS: Add, Subtract, Multiply,

and Divide Decimals, with and without a Calculator

Location

Method

Laboratory

Biotechnology laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Land laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Forestry

0.00

Laboratory

Other

0.00

Other

Library/computer lab

0.00

Other

Field Trip

0.00

Adding, Subtracting, Multiplying, and Dividing Fractions.

Six respondents (23.08%) used classroom textbooks and/or handouts to teach

Adding, Subtracting, Multiplying, and Dividing Fractions. Six respondents (23.08%)

used mechanics laboratory and/or supervised practice. Five respondents (19.23%) used

classroom discussion. Five respondents (19.23%) used classroom lecture. Four

respondents (15.38%) used classroom demonstration. Three respondents (11.54%) used

classroom project based learning. Three respondents (11.54%) used classroom inquiry.

Three respondents (11.54%) used the greenhouse laboratory and/or supervised practice.

Three respondents (11.54%) do not teach these math skills. One respondent (3.85%) used

the meats laboratory and/or supervised practice. None of the respondents used

biotechnology laboratory, land laboratory, forestry, other laboratory methods, library

and/or computer lab or field trip to teach adding, subtracting, multiplying, and dividing

fractions (see Table 70).

Table 70

Methods Used to Teach Power, Structural, and Technical CSS: Add, Subtract, Multiply,

and Divide Fractions

Location

Method

Classroom

Textbooks/handouts

23.08

Laboratory

Mechanics laboratory

23.08

Classroom

Discussion

19.23

Classroom

Lecture

19.23

Classroom

Demonstration

15.38

Classroom

Project Based

11.54

Classroom

Inquiry

11.54

Laboratory

Greenhouse

11.54

Other

Do not Teach

11.54

Laboratory

Meats laboratory

3.85

Laboratory

Biotechnology laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Land laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Forestry

0.00

Laboratory

Other

0.00

Other

Library/computer lab

0.00

Other

Field Trip

0.00

Adding, Subtracting, Multiplying, and Dividing Whole Numbers.

Eight respondents (30.77%) used classroom textbooks and/or handouts to teach

Adding, Subtracting, Multiplying, and Dividing Whole Numbers, with and without a

calculator. Six respondents (23.08%) used classroom lecture. Six respondents (23.08%)

used the mechanics laboratory and/or supervised practice. Five respondents (19.23%)

used classroom project-based learning. Five respondents (19.23%) used classroom

discussion. Five respondents (19.23%) classroom demonstration. Three respondents

(11.54%) used classroom inquiry. Two respondents (7.69%) used the greenhouse

laboratory and/or supervised practice. One respondent (3.85%) does not teach the math

skills. None of the respondents used biotechnology laboratory, land laboratory, forestry,

other laboratory methods, library and/or computer lab, or field trip to teach adding,

subtracting, multiplying, and dividing whole numbers, with and without a calculator (see

Table 71).

Table 71

Methods Used to Teach Power. Structural and Technical CSS: Add, Subtract, Multiply,

and Divide Whole Numbers, with and without a Calculator

Location

Method

Classroom

Textbooks/handouts

30.77

Classroom

Lecture

23.08

Laboratory

Mechanics laboratory

23.08

Classroom

Project Based

19.23

Classroom

Discussion

19.23

Classroom

Demonstration

19.23

Classroom

Inquiry

11.54

Laboratory

Greenhouse

7.69

Other

Do not Teach

3.85

Table 71 (continued)

Methods Used to Teach Power. Structural and Technical CSS: Add, Subtract, Multiply,

and Divide Whole Numbers, with and without a Calculator

Location

Method

Laboratory

Meats laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Biotechnology laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Land laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Forestry

0.00

Laboratory

Other

0.00

Other

Library/computer lab

0.00

Other

Field Trip

0.00

Basic Math Practices Used in the Power, Structural, and Technical Systems.

Seven respondents (26.92%) used classroom demonstration to teach Basic Math

Practices Used in the Power, Structural, and Technical Systems. Seven respondents

(26.92%) used classroom textbooks and/or handouts. Six respondents (23.08%) used

classroom lecture. Six respondents (23.08%) used mechanics laboratory and/or

supervised practice. Five respondents (19.23%) used classroom project-based learning.

Four respondents (15.38%) used classroom discussion. Two respondents (7.69%) used

classroom inquiry. One respondent (3.85%) used a greenhouse laboratory and/or

supervised practice. One respondent (3.85%) used a forestry laboratory and/or supervised

practice. One respondent (3.85%) used a library and/or computer lab. One respondent

(3.85%) did not teach math skills for Power and Tech. None of the respondents used

meats laboratory, biotechnology laboratory, land laboratory, other laboratory methods, or

field trip to teach basic math practices used in power, structural, and technical systems

(see Table 72).

Table 72

Methods Used to Teach Power, Structural, and Technical CSS: Basic Math Practices used

in Power, Structural, and Technical Systems

Location

Method

Classroom

Demonstration

26.92

Classroom

Textbooks/handouts

26.92

Classroom

Lecture

23.08

Laboratory

Mechanics laboratory

23.08

Classroom

Project Based

19.23

Classroom

Discussion

15.38

Classroom

Inquiry

7.69

Laboratory

Greenhouse

3.85

Laboratory

Forestry

3.85

Other

Library/computer lab

3.85

Other

Do not Teach

3.85

Laboratory

Meats laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Biotechnology laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Land laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Other

0.00

Other

Field Trip

0.00

Construct a Project Using Hand Tools.

Nine respondents (34.62%) used mechanics laboratory and/or supervised practice

to Construct a Project Using Hand Tools. Seven respondents (26.92%) used classroom

project-based learning. Seven respondents (26.92%) used classroom demonstration. Six

respondents (23.08%) used classroom discussion. Five respondents (19.23%) used

classroom lecture. Five respondents (19.23%) used classroom textbooks and/or handouts.

Four respondents (15.38%) used classroom inquiry. Three respondents (1154%) do not

teach students to construct a project using hand tools. Two respondents (7.69%) used a

greenhouse laboratory and/or supervised practice. One respondent (3.85%) used a

forestry laboratory and/or supervised practice. None of the respondents used meats

laboratory, biotechnology laboratory, land laboratory, other laboratory methods, library

and/or computer lab, or field trip to construct a project using hand tools (see Table 73).

Table 73

Methods Used to Teach Power, Structural, and Technical CSS: Construct a Project

Using Hand Tools

Location

Method

Laboratory

Mechanics laboratory

34.62

Classroom

Project Based

26.92

Classroom

Demonstration

26.92

Classroom

Discussion

23.08

Classroom

Lecture

19.23

Classroom

Textbooks/handouts

19.23

Classroom

Inquiry

15.38

Other

Do not Teach

11.54

Table 73 (continued)

Methods Used to Teach Power, Structural, and Technical CSS: Construct a Project

Using Hand Tools

Location

Method

Laboratory

Greenhouse

7.69

Laboratory

Forestry

3.85

Laboratory

Meats laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Biotechnology laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Land laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Other

0.00

Other

Library/computer lab

0.00

Other

Field Trip

0.00

Convert Decimals to Percentages and Percentages to Decimals.

Six respondents (23.08%) used classroom textbooks and/or handouts to Convert

Decimals to Percentages and Percentages to Decimals. Five respondents (19.23%) used

classroom discussion. Five respondents (19.23%) used classroom demonstration. Five

respondents (19.23%) used classroom lecture. Five respondents (19.23%) used a

mechanics laboratory and/or supervised practice. Three respondents (11.54%) used

classroom project-based learning. Three respondents (11.54%) used classroom inquiry.

Three respondents (11.54%) used a greenhouse laboratory and/or supervised practice.

Three respondents (11.54%) do not teach conversion of decimals and percentages. One

respondent (3.85%) used a meats laboratory and/or supervised practice. None of the

respondents used biotechnology laboratory, land laboratory, forestry, other laboratory

methods, library and/or computer lab, or field trip to convert decimals to percentages and

percentages to decimals (see Table 74).

Table 74

Methods Used to Teach Power, Structural, and Technical CSS: Convert Decimals to

Percentages and Percentages to Decimals.

Location

Method

Classroom

Textbooks/handouts

23.08

Classroom

Discussion

19.23

Classroom

Demonstration

19.23

Classroom

Lecture

19.23

Laboratory

Mechanics laboratory

19.23

Classroom

Project Based

11.54

Classroom

Inquiry

11.54

Laboratory

Greenhouse

11.54

Other

Do not Teach

11.54

Laboratory

Meats laboratory

3.85

Laboratory

Biotechnology laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Land laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Forestry

0.00

Laboratory

Other

0.00

Other

Library/computer lab

0.00

Other

Field Trip

0.00

Convert Fractions to Decimals and Decimals to Fractions.

Six respondents (23.08%) used classroom textbooks and/or handouts to Convert

Fractions to Decimals and Decimals to Fractions. Five respondents (19.23%) used

classroom lecture. Four respondents (15.38%) used classroom discussion. Four

respondents (15.38%) used mechanics laboratory and/or supervised practice. Four

respondents (15.38%) do not teach conversion of fractions and decimals. Three

respondents (11.54%) used classroom inquiry. Two respondents (7.69%) used classroom

project based learning. One respondent (3.85%) used a greenhouse laboratory and/or

supervised practice. None of the respondents used meats laboratory, biotechnology

laboratory, land laboratory, forestry, other laboratory methods, library and/or computer

lab, or field trip to convert fractions to decimals and decimals to fractions (see Table 75).

Table 75

Methods Used to Teach Power, Structural, and Technical CSS: Convert Fractions to

Decimals and Decimals to Fractions

Location

Method

Classroom

Textbooks/handouts

23.08

Classroom

Lecture

19.23

Classroom

Discussion

15.38

Laboratory

Mechanics laboratory

15.38

Other

Do not Teach

15.38

Classroom

Inquiry

11.54

Classroom

Project Based

7.69

Laboratory

Greenhouse

3.85

Table 75 (continued)

Methods Used to Teach Power, Structural, and Technical CSS: Convert Fractions to

Decimals and Decimals to Fractions

Location

Method

Laboratory

Meats laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Biotechnology laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Land laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Forestry

0.00

Laboratory

Other

0.00

Other

Library/computer lab

0.00

Other

Field Trip

0.00

Proper and Safe Use of Hand Tools.

Nine respondents (34.62%) used classroom discussion to teach Proper and Safe

Use of Hand tools. Nine respondents (34.62%) used classroom demonstration. Nine

respondents (34.62%) used mechanics laboratory and/or supervised practice. Six

respondents (23.08%) used classroom project-based learning. Five respondents (19.23%)

used classroom lecture. Five respondents (19.23%) used classroom textbooks and/or

handouts. Four respondents (15.38%) used classroom inquiry. Two respondents (7.69%)

used greenhouse laboratory and/or supervised practice. Two respondents (7.69%) do not

teach hand tool safety. One respondent (3.85%) used a forestry laboratory and/or

supervised practice. None of the respondents used meats laboratory, biotechnology

laboratory, land laboratory, other laboratory methods, library and/or computer lab or field

trip to teach proper and safe used of hand tools (see Table 76).

Table 76

Methods Used to Teach Power, Structural, and Technical CSS: Properly and Safely Used

Hand Tools

Location

Method

Classroom

Discussion

34.62

Classroom

Demonstration

34.62

Laboratory

Mechanics laboratory

34.62

Classroom

Project Based

23.08

Classroom

Lecture

19.23

Classroom

Textbooks/handouts

19.23

Classroom

Inquiry

15.38

Laboratory

Greenhouse

7.69

Other

Do not Teach

7.69

Laboratory

Forestry

3.85

Laboratory

Meats laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Biotechnology laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Land laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Other

0.00

Other

Library/computer lab

0.00

Other

Field Trip

0.00

Basic Hand Tools and Their Proper Use in an Agricultural Setting.

Eight respondents (30.77%) used a mechanics laboratory and/or supervised

practice to teach the Basic Hand Tools and Their Proper Use in an Agricultural Setting.

Six respondents (23.08%) used classroom discussion. Six respondents (23.08%) used

classroom demonstration. Six respondents (23.08%) used classroom textbooks and/or

handouts. Five respondents (19.23%) used classroom project-based learning. Five

respondents (19.23%) used classroom lecture. Three respondents (11.54%) used

classroom inquiry. One respondent (3.85%) used a greenhouse laboratory and/or

supervised practice. One respondent (3.85%) used a forestry laboratory and/or supervised

practice. One respondent (3.85%) does not teach basic hand tools and their proper use.

None of the respondents used meats laboratory, biotechnology laboratory, land laboratory,

other laboratory methods, or field trips to teach the basic hand tools and their proper use

in an agricultural setting (see Table 77).

Table 77

Methods Used to Teach Power, Structural, and Technical CSS: The Basic Hand Tools and

their Proper Used in an Agricultural Setting

Location

Method

Laboratory

Mechanics laboratory

30.77

Classroom

Discussion

23.08

Classroom

Demonstration

23.08

Classroom

Textbooks/handouts

23.08

Classroom

Project Based

19.23

Classroom

Lecture

19.23

Classroom

Inquiry

11.54

Laboratory

Greenhouse

3.85

Laboratory

Forestry

3.85

Other

Do not Teach

3.85

Table 77 (continued)

Methods Used to Teach Power, Structural, and Technical CSS: The Basic Hand Tools and

their Proper Used in an Agricultural Setting

Location

Method

Laboratory

Meats laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Biotechnology laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Land laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Other

0.00

Other

Library/computer lab

0.00

Other

Field Trip

0.00

Units of Weight, Volume, and Temperature.

Six respondents (23.08%) used classroom lecture to teach Units of weight,

volume, and temperature. Six respondents (23.08%) used classroom textbooks and/or

handouts. Five respondents (19.23%) used classroom discussion. Five respondents

(19.23%) used a mechanics laboratory and/or supervised practice. Four respondents

(15.38%) used classroom project-based learning. Three respondents (11.54%) do not

teach units of weight, volume, and temperature. Two respondents (7.69%) used classroom

inquiry. Two respondents (7.69%) used classroom demonstration. One respondent

(3.85%) used a meats laboratory and/or supervised practice. One respondent (3.85%)

used a biotechnology laboratory and/or supervised practice. None of the respondents

used greenhouse, land laboratory, forestry, other laboratory methods, library and/or

computer lab or field trip to teach units of weight, volume, and temperature (see

Table 78).

Table 78

Methods Used to Teach Power, Structural, and Technical CSS: Units of Weight, Volume,

and Temperature

Location

Method

Classroom

Lecture

23.08

Classroom

Textbooks/handouts

23.08

Classroom

Discussion

19.23

Laboratory

Mechanics laboratory

19.23

Classroom

Project Based

15.38

Other

Do not Teach

11.54

Classroom

Inquiry

7.69

Classroom

Demonstration

7.69

Laboratory

Meats laboratory

3.85

Laboratory

Biotechnology

laboratory

3.85

Laboratory

Greenhouse

0.00

Laboratory

Land laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Forestry

0.00

Laboratory

Other

0.00

Other

Library/computer lab

0.00

Other

Field Trip

0.00

Use of a Ruler, a Metric Ruler, and a Measuring Tape to Measure.

Eight respondents (30.77%) used classroom demonstration to the Use of a Ruler, a

Metric Ruler, and a Measuring Tape to Measure. Seven respondents (26.92%) used a

mechanics laboratory and/or supervised practice. Six respondents (23.08%) used

classroom project-based learning. Six respondents (23.08%) used classroom discussion.

Six respondents (23.08%) used classroom lecture. Six respondents (23.08%) classroom

textbooks and/or handouts. Three respondents (11.54%) used classroom inquiry. Two

respondents (7.69%) used greenhouse laboratory and/or supervised practice. One

respondent (3.85%) used a meats laboratory and/or supervised practice. One respondent

(3.85%) used a forestry laboratory and/or supervised practice. One respondent (3.85%)

does not teach used of a ruler and measuring tape. None of the respondents used

biotechnology laboratory, land laboratory, other laboratory methods, library and/or

computer lab or field trip to teach the use of a ruler, a metric ruler, and a measuring tape

to measure (see Table 79).

Table 79

Methods Used to Teach Power, Structural, and Technical CSS: Used a Ruler, a Metric

Ruler, and a Measuring Tape to Measure

Location

Method

Classroom

Demonstration

30.77

Laboratory

Mechanics laboratory

26.92

Classroom

Project Based

23.08

Classroom

Discussion

23.08

Classroom

Lecture

23.08

Classroom

Textbooks/handouts

23.08

Classroom

Inquiry

11.54

Laboratory

Greenhouse

7.69

Laboratory

Meats laboratory

3.85

Table 79 (continued)

Methods Used to Teach Power, Structural, and Technical CSS: Used a Ruler, a Metric

Ruler, and a Measuring Tape to Measure

Location

Method

Laboratory

Forestry

3.85

Other

Do not Teach

3.85

Laboratory

Biotechnology laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Land laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Other

0.00

Other

Library/computer lab

0.00

Other

Field Trip

0.00

Recite the FFA Creed.

Twelve respondents (46.15%) used the classroom project-based learning to Recite

the FFA Creed. Eight respondents (30.77%) used classroom discussion. Seven

respondents (26.92%) used classroom lecture. Six respondents (23.08%) used classroom

demonstration. Six respondents (23.08%) used classroom demonstration. Two

respondents (7.69%) used classroom inquiry. One respondent (3.85%) used a library

and/or computer lab. One respondent (3.85%) used field trip. None of the respondents

used mechanics laboratory, greenhouse, meats laboratory, biotechnology laboratory, land

laboratory, forestry, or other laboratory methods. All respondents teach recitation of the

FFA Creed (see Table 80).

Table 80

Methods Used to Teach Leadership CSS: Recite the FFA Creed

Location Method f %

Classroom Project Based 12 46.15

Classroom Discussion 8 30.77

Classroom Lecture 7 26.92

Classroom Demonstration 6 23.08

Classroom Textbooks/handouts 6 23.08

Classroom Inquiry 2 7.69

Other Library/computer lab 1 3.85

Other Field Trip 1 3.85

Laboratory Mechanics laboratory 0 0.00

Laboratory Greenhouse 0 0.00

Laboratory Meats laboratory 0 0.00

Laboratory Biotechnology laboratory 0 0.00

Laboratory Land laboratory 0 0.00

Laboratory Forestry 0 0.00

Laboratory Other 0 0.00

Other Do not Teach 0 0.00

Recite the FFA Motto.

Twelve respondents (46.15%) used classroom project based learning to Recite the

FFA Motto. Eight respondents (30.77%) used classroom lecture. Seven respondents

(26.92%) used classroom discussion. Six respondents (23.08%) used classroom

demonstration. Five respondents (19.23%) used classroom inquiry. One respondent

(3.85%) used a library and/or computer lab. None of the respondents used mechanics

laboratory, greenhouse, meats laboratory, biotechnology laboratory, land laboratory,

forestry, other laboratory methods, or field trip. All respondents teach students to recite

the FFA Motto (see Table 81).

Table 81

Methods Used to Teach Leadership CSS: Recite the FFA Moto

Location

Method

Classroom

Project Based

46.15

Classroom

Lecture

30.77

Classroom

Discussion

26.92

Classroom

Demonstration

23.08

Classroom

Textbooks/handouts

19.23

Classroom

Inquiry

7.69

Other

Library/computer lab

3.85

Laboratory

Mechanics laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Greenhouse

0.00

Laboratory

Meats laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Biotechnology laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Land laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Forestry

0.00

Laboratory

Other

0.00

Other

Field Trip

0.00

Other

Do not Teach

0.00

Research the Important Dates and Events in the History of FFA and

Agricultural Education.

Ten respondents (38.46%) used classroom project based learning to Research the

Important Dates and Events in the History of FFA and Agricultural Education. Eight

respondents (30.77%) used classroom discussion. Eight respondents (30.77%) used

classroom lecture. Six respondents (23.08%) used classroom textbooks and/or handouts.

Five respondents (19.23%) used classroom inquiry. Three respondents (11.54%) used

library and/or computer lab. None of the respondents used mechanics laboratory,

greenhouse, meats laboratory, biotechnology laboratory, land laboratory, forestry, other

laboratory methods, or field trip; and none indicated that he/she does not teach important

dates and events in FFA and agricultural education history (see Table 82).

Table 82

Methods Used to Teach Leadership CSS: Research the Important Dates and Events in the

History of FFA and Agricultural Education

Location

Method

Classroom

Project Based

38.46

Classroom

Discussion

30.77

Classroom

Lecture

30.77

Classroom

Textbooks/handouts

23.08

Classroom

Inquiry

19.23

Other

Library/computer lab

11.54

Laboratory

Mechanics laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Greenhouse

0.00

Laboratory

Meats laboratory

0.00

Table 82 (continued)

Methods Used to Teach Leadership CSS: Research the Important Dates and Events in the

History of FFA and Agricultural Education

Location

Method

Laboratory

Biotechnology laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Land laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Forestry

0.00

Laboratory

Other

0.00

Other

Field Trip

0.00

Other

Do not Teach

0.00

Demonstrate Knowledge of FFA History, Code of Ethics, and Official Dress.

Eleven respondents (42.31%) used classroom lecture to Demonstrate Knowledge

of FFA history, Code of Ethics, and Official Dress. Ten respondents (38.46%) used

classroom discussion. Nine respondents (34.62%) used classroom project-based learning.

Nine respondents (34.62%) used classroom textbooks and/or handouts. Five respondents

(19.23%) used classroom demonstration. One respondent (3.85%) used classroom

inquiry. One respondent (3.85%) used other laboratory and/or supervised practice. One

respondent (3.85%) used a library and/or computer lab. One respondent (3.85%) used

field trip. None of the respondents used mechanics laboratory, greenhouse, meats

laboratory, biotechnology laboratory, land laboratory, or forestry; and none indicates that

he/she does not teach FFA history, Code of Ethics, and official dress (see Table 83).

Table 83

Methods Used to Teach Leadership CSS: Students will Demonstrate Knowledge of FFA

History, Code of Ethics, and Official Dress.

Location

Methods

Classroom

Lecture

42.31

Classroom

Discussion

38.46

Classroom

Project Based

34.62

Classroom

Textbooks/handouts

34.62

Classroom

Demonstration

19.23

Classroom

Inquiry

3.85

Laboratory

Other

3.85

Other

Library/computer lab

3.85

Other

Field Trip

3.85

Laboratory

Mechanics laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Greenhouse

0.00

Laboratory

Meats laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Biotechnology laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Land laboratory

0.00

Laboratory

Forestry

0.00

Other

Do not Teach

0.00

Percentage of Teachers Using Various Teaching Strategies

The percentage of respondents using each teaching strategy on individual content

skill sets was reported in the previous narrative and tables. In an attempt to determine the

overall use of each teaching strategy by the respondents an overall average was

calculated. The average percentage of respondents using the strategy, as well as the range

of percentages are reported.

Project based learning had an average percentage of respondents using the

strategy of 26.53% (SD = 15.93) with a range of use between 0.00% and 84.62%. The

average percentage of respondents using inquiry based instruction was 15.33% (SD =

6.65) with a range of use between 3.85% and 38.46%. The use of discussions as a

teaching technique ranged from 3.85% to 57.69% with an average of 30.48 (SD = 10.84).

Demonstrations had an average percentage of respondents using the strategy of 10.91%

(SD = 9.31) with a range of use between 0.00% and 34.62%. The average percentage of

respondents using lecture was 28.43% (SD = 9.80) with a range of use between 7.69%

and 50.00%. The use of textbooks/handouts as a teaching technique ranged from 3.85%

to 42.31% with an average of 26.10 (SD = 8.35).

Mechanics laboratory had an average percentage of respondents using the strategy

of 4.87% (SD = 9.15) with a range of use between 0.00% and 34.62%. The average

percentage of respondents using a greenhouse was 9.40% (SD = 12.57) with a range of

use between 0.00% and 12.57%. The use of a meats laboratory as a teaching technique

ranged from 0.00% to 23.08% with an average of 4.19% (SD = 5.75). Biotechnology

laboratory had an average percentage of respondents using the strategy of 1.90% (SD =

3.01) with a range of use between 0.00% and 11.54%. The average percentage of

respondents using a land laboratory was 1.07% (SD = 3.01) with a range of use between

0.00% and 15.38%. The use of a forestry laboratory as a teaching technique ranged from

0.00% to 7.69% with an average of 1.02% (SD = 1.92). Other laboratory had an average

percentage of respondents using the strategy of 1.66% (SD = 3.00) with a range of use

between 0.00% and 15.38%.

Library/computer laboratory had an average percentage of respondents using the

strategy of 7.89% (SD = 10.89) with a range of use between 0.00% and 46.15%. The

average percentage of respondents using field trips was 1.80% (SD = 3.63) with a range

of use between 0.00% and 19.23%. The percentage of respondents who did not teach the

content skill set ranged from 0.00% to 30.77% with an average of 5.02% (SD = 5.95).

The data shows that some agricultural education teachers are incorporating some

experiential learning into their classes with laboratories and project-based learning. Some

teachers are still using classroom lecture, worksheets, and handouts to teach some aspects

of agricultural education, such as the majority of the CSS for Introduction to Agriculture,

Food and Natural Resources. The students must be able to tie theory to practical

application. A classroom discussion about hand tool safety is not the same as the students’

actually using the tools to learn the feel of them and their proper uses in agriculture. From

the time it was first taught in public schools, agricultural education was intended to be a

hands-on learning experience Teachers who are actively teaching, using the facilities

available, are more likely to encourage students to become active learners and problem

solvers.

Table 84

Percentage of Teachers Using Various Teaching Strategies Across All CSSs

Percent Used

Min

Max

Project Based

26.53

15.93

.00

84.62

Inquiry

15.33

6.65

3.85

38.46

Discussion

30.48

10.84

3.85

57.69

Demonstration

10.91

9.31

.00

34.62

Lecture

28.43

9.80

7.69

50.00

Textbooks Handouts

26.10

8.35

3.85

42.31

Mechanics

4.87

9.15

.00

34.62

Greenhouse

9.40

12.57

.00

46.15

Meats

4.19

5.75

.00

23.08

Biotechnology

1.90

3.01

.00

11.54

Land

1.07

3.01

.00

15.38

Forestry

1.02

1.92

.00

7.69

Other

1.66

3.00

.00

15.38

Library computer lab

7.89

10.89

.00

46.15

Field Trip

1.80

3.63

.00

19.23

Do not Teach

5.02

5.95

.00

30.77

CHAPTER V

Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations

Summary

Survey results show that respondents seem to employ a variety of hands-on

experiences for students, as well as continuing to make use of traditional techniques such

as lecture, library research, and work sheets, as indicated in a number of responses to the

survey conducted for this thesis. The most worrisome response to the survey, however, is

the number of times that “Do Not Teach” was marked as an answer to a question. This

response seems to indicate that, far too often, state mandated CSS’s are not being taught.

Why? Is it because teachers do not have time, because they feel ill-prepared to teach all

CSS’s, or because they choose not to teach all CSS’s?

While the number of surveys returned for this research project was smaller than

the researcher had expected, informal discussions with agricultural educators at regional

and state meetings lead the researcher to believe that answers provided by respondents

are representative of many teachers in the state. For example, many tend to talk about

projects their students complete in greenhouses and agricultural mechanics shops; and

many help their students prepare for competitions in public speaking, parliamentary

procedure, tractor driving, and FFA Creed. Some state that agricultural biotechnology

allows for in-depth learning of scientific principles; and others note that team building, a

critical component of scientific problem solving, is an integral part of agricultural

education and of agri-business. Agricultural educators seem to indicate that students have

opportunities to develop skills in many of these areas, and respondents’ answers to

questions asked on the survey seem to support such impressions. It is important to

emphasize that respondents could mark multiple answers, indicating that they use

multiple approaches to teaching CSS’s; so someone who utilizes lecture or the textbook

part of the time might also use multiple types of hands-on approaches to learning.

For example, to teach agribusiness, nearly 59% of agricultural education

respondents used project based learning, 26% used inquiry, almost 44% employed

discussion, nearly 28% made use of a greenhouse, and about 33% used the library, while

nearly 35% still made use of classroom lecture. To teach animal systems, about 27% used

project-based learning and 29% used classroom discussion while just over 29% used

lecture and 27% used textbooks and handouts. Teachers used discussion (35.17%) to

teach agriculture innovation, almost 26% used textbooks and handouts, and a little more

than 14% used inquiry. To teach about food products and processing, agriculture teachers

used classroom lecture (27.97%), classroom discussion (25.17%), and textbooks/handouts

(18.18%), but only 12.24% used the meats laboratory.

Teachers used classroom discussion (39.42%) to instruct about natural resources,

while approximately 31% used classroom lecture and textbooks/handouts. To teach the

plant systems, about 35% used textbooks/handouts, 28% of the teachers used the

greenhouse laboratory, and about 27% used classroom discussion. Nearly 24% of

teachers used a mechanics laboratory to teach the power, structural, and technical CSS’s;

23.43% used classroom textbooks/handouts; and 20.63% used classroom lecture as a

preferred method of instruction. 41.35% used project-based learning to teach leadership,

32.69% used classroom lecture, and 31.73% used classroom discussion (see Appendix F).

Conclusions

Greenhouses, crop fields, raised beds, agricultural mechanics projects that utilize

wood and metal, equipment repair, meat labs, grounds maintenance, biotechnology

learning, and many other types of educational experiences occur in agricultural education

programs in middle and high schools across West Virginia. The degree to which

experiential learning opportunities are made available to students and the types of

learning opportunities vary from teacher to teacher, as shown in survey responses. The

number of respondents with 5 to 10 years’ teaching experience was 33.33%, and the

number with 16 to 20 years’ experience was 26.67%; therefore, the majority of

respondents should have an impressive number of experiential opportunities to offer

students. Returns on the study indicated that about half of the respondents did not teach

introduction to agriculture, food, and natural resources, which might lead one to ask, “To

what degree is there consistency in course offerings and in agricultural programs in West

Virginia? Should there be? Or are the needs of students, community, and the agricultural

industry in Randolph County so different from those in Wood County or Kanawha

County that there is no need for consistency?”

Responses to the survey may also indicate indirectly that facilities vary widely

from county to county, thereby affecting teachers’ abilities to offer as many experiential

learning opportunities as they might otherwise offer. The survey did not include questions

about facilities, but perhaps it should have. Every school may not have a greenhouse or

high tunnel. Every school may not have a shop with tools that are safe to use. Every

school does not have a meat lab or equipment for biotechnology studies.

Every school may not have a library as some librarians have gotten rid of books in favor

of technology, and librarians have been replaced by directors of technology. Every school

does not have access to tractors, land, and harvesting equipment to be used for growing

crops. There seems to be no consistency in what courses are offered or in how courses are

taught because there is no consistency in facilities or curriculum; however, regardless of

limitations and challenges, agricultural educators seem to be finding ways to make their

courses interesting and challenging, as indicated by answers provided by survey

respondents.

The frequency with which teachers employ problem-based learning or any variety

of types of hands-on learning versus lecture, worksheets, or textbook might be another

question to explore in a more complex study that could employ multiple classroom

observations. If anything, this study has illustrated the need for additional research to

further explore the types, frequency, and effectiveness of hands-on learning in agricultural

education classrooms.

Recommendations

More research is needed in how the CSS's in the agricultural education program

are taught. Ideally, faculty and graduate students from universities, mentor teachers, and

school administrators, could conduct multiple observations in agricultural education

classrooms. A doctoral student and/or the College of Agriculture at West Virginia

University could conduct such a study, not necessarily at every high school in the state,

but at select schools. Key questions for the study might include, “Are the students

actively learning about real world situations? If so, how? What are students doing, and

what is the classroom teacher doing?” The response “Do Not Teach” should be addressed

by the WVDE. If CSS’s are not being taught, why not? In some cases, there might be a

need for an additional agricultural education teacher. If the Introduction to Agriculture,

Food, and Natural Resource Course is not being taught, why? Has the school moved to a

CASE curriculum (Curriculum for Agricultural Science Education)? If so, are CSS’s still

being incorporated? Are there other reasons the course is not being taught?

Other questions might be, “Describe the facilities and equipment. If facilities and

equipment seem inadequate, what makes them inadequate? How are the teachers and

students compensating for inadequate facilities and equipment?” Feedback from trained

observers on such questions could provide more valid information when coupled with

feedback from teachers themselves.

The West Virginia Department of Education (WVDE) should make sure that all

programs have the facilities to permit teachers to actively engage students, and make sure

that facilities are kept up to date. Every school should have a library and a trained

librarian to ensure that students and teachers have access to resources, print and nonprint,

to research information about developments in professional, technical, and career fields.

The WVDE should offer professional development programs to help the teachers develop

curriculums and lessons that allow students “hands-on” learning that can be applied to

real world situations. The current simulated workplace program is a good start, but should

be expanded.

As answers to survey questions show, teachers used project-based learning more

often than any other teaching approach. Teachers in the agricultural education programs

were engaging the students. Teachers should find more ways to actively engage the

students and to avoid too much reliance on textbook/handouts and classroom lectures.

This researcher has become aware of some agricultural education teachers who are new

to their positions, have gotten rid of facilities or equipment because they did not wish to

teach a particular component of the agricultural education curriculum. A teacher should

never be permitted to get rid of a greenhouse, a high tunnel, aqua-culture equipment, shop

equipment, scientific research equipment, or any facility or equipment that can be used to

actively engage students. If such equipment and facilities are available at a school, they

should be incorporated into teaching the CSS's. Every school and county administration

should be pro-active in securing and caring for needed equipment and facilities, and in

accounting for equipment and facilities from year to year in order to benefit not only

current students and teachers, but future students and teachers as well.

Introduction summaries Informal discussions with agricultural education

Students also viewed