Exploring the Self Efficacy of Family and Consumer Sciences Teachers Who Teach Food Science as a Science Credit
by
LaToya N. Johnson, B.S., M.Ed.
A Dissertation
In
Family and Consumer Sciences Education
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Approved
Karen L. Alexander, Ph.D. Chair of Committee
Cynthia L. Miller, Ph.D.
Weiwu Zhang, Ph.D.
Mark Sheridan Dean of the Graduate School
May, 2020
Copyright 2020, LaToya N. Johnson
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
“Being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.” ~ Philippians 1:6 (NIV). First, I would like to thank God for being with me and carrying me through this entire doctoral journey. None of what I have accomplished thus far would have been possible without me acknowledging your presence on a regular basis. I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that you heard my prayers, you listened to my prayers, and you answered my prayers.
To Dr. Karen L. Alexander, there are not enough words to describe the tremendous impact you've had on my life. Just saying thank you is not enough. You gave me opportunities that I could not even fathom when I first began this program. The experiences that you provided me as a doctoral student has truly made me a better professional. You pushed me to limits I didn’t even know I had. You were encouraging when I needed you to be, and you were tough with me when I needed it. You truly saw the best in me even when my vision was somewhat cloudy. For everything that you’ve done for me, I will be forever grateful.
To Dr. Weiwu Zhang and Dr. Cynthia Miller, thank you so much for accepting my request to serve on my committee. I know that at times it looked as if I would never finish, but you hung in there with me. Dr. Zhang, your knowledge on survey research is unmatched and I was very lucky to not only take your class, but also have you on my committee. Dr. Miller, you know why you are literally a superhero in my eyes. Your presence on my committee served as a reminder as to why I picked my research topic in the first place and why this will be my professional niche area.
ii
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
To Dr. Ethel G. Jones, Demetrius Chatman, and Gloria Pyles, thank you for believing in me and granting me full, financial support through Title III funding from
South Carolina State University. I hope that each of you feel you have gotten more than a full return on your investment.
To my parents, Wade Johnson Sr. & Peggy Johnson; my siblings, Wade Jr.,
Melanie, & Kniccoa; and finally, my nephew Alex, thank you for your encouragement and being there for me when I needed you the most. Each of you encouraged me in so many different ways and I could not ask for a better support system. I love all of you so much and hope that I’ve made you proud. To Uncle Joe, Aunt Chelsea, and my cousin
Peyton, thank you for opening up your home to me once a week, from August - October, each time I had to meet with my statistics tutor. You made sure I had everything I needed and I will never forget how you made me feel right at home.
To my South Carolina State University colleagues, thank you for your words of encouragement and support; asking me “is there anything I can do to help”, and making sure I left work in a timely manner so that I could focus on my writing.
To “The Chicas”, thank you for letting me vent my frustrations; telling me, “girl, just write”; forcing me to remember that I need a good work/life balance, and understanding why I couldn’t go to certain events. I’m proud to call you ladies my true friends.
Finally, to my fellow classmates from this doctoral program and the friends I made at Texas Tech, thank you for taking this journey with me. I truly think of you as my second family because you made the three years I lived in Lubbock so memorable. I was so blessed to meet each and everyone of you because you helped me to grow as a person.
iii
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... ii ABSTRACT ...... viii LIST OF TABLES ...... x INTRODUCTION...... 1 What is Family and Consumer Sciences ...... 1 Career and Technical Education ...... 2 Food Science and the Connection to CTE ...... 2 Why FCS Teachers are Qualified to Teach Food Science ...... 3 Teaching and Self-Efficacy ...... 4 Professional Development...... 5 Statement of the Problem ...... 6 Lack of Confidence in Effectively Teaching Food Science ...... 6 Limited Professional Development Opportunities in Food Science ...... 7 Purpose of the Study ...... 7 Research Questions ...... 8 Definition of Terms ...... 9 Assumptions ...... 12 REVIEW OF LITERATURE ...... 13 Family and Consumer Sciences as a Profession ...... 13 The Origination of Family and Consumer Sciences ...... 13 A Treatise on Domestic Economy...... 13 Ellen Swallow Richards...... 14 The Lake Placid Conferences...... 19 The Name of the Profession Changes...... 24 Key Legislation ...... 25 Hatch Act of 1887...... 26 Second Morrill Act of 1890...... 27 Smith-Lever Act of 1914 ...... 27 Smith Hughes-Act of 1917 ...... 28 Vocational Education Act (1963) ...... 29
iv
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act and Amendments ...... 31 Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act (1990) ...... 32 Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Improvement Act of 2006 ...... 33 Strengthening Career and Technical Education for the 21st Century Act (Perkins V) ...... 34 Family and Consumer Sciences and the Connection to Career and Technical Education ...... 35 Significance of CTE in the Classroom ...... 36 Career Clusters, Pathways, and Programs of Study (POS) ...... 37 CTE in Texas ...... 38 Theoretical Framework: Bandura’s Self-Efficacy Theory ...... 39 Albert Bandura’s Self-Efficacy Theory ...... 39 Performance Accomplishments ...... 40 Vicarious Experience ...... 40 Verbal Persuasion ...... 41 Emotional Arousal ...... 41 Teacher Self-Efficacy ...... 42 Educational Attainment ...... 44 Preparation Through Teacher Education Program ...... 45 Years of Teaching Experience ...... 46 Participation in Professional Development ...... 49 Characteristics of FCS Teachers and FCS Courses ...... 51 Description of FCS Teachers and Courses ...... 53 Teaching FCS in Texas...... 54 Food Science: Then and Now ...... 55 History of Food Science ...... 55 Defining Food Science ...... 55 Earliest Civilization ...... 56 The 18th Century ...... 56 The 19th Century ...... 57 The 20th Century ...... 59
v
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
How is Food Science Currently Viewed? ...... 63 Food Science Courses in Texas ...... 66 Developing the Food Science TEKS in Texas ...... 66 Professional Development and Teaching ...... 68 What is Professional Development? ...... 69 The Importance of Professional Development ...... 70 What Makes Professional Development Work? ...... 71 Professional Development for Family and Consumer Sciences Teachers ...... 73 Summary of the Review of Literature ...... 75 METHODOLOGY ...... 77 Overview of the Purpose ...... 77 Research Questions, Independent Variables, and Dependent Variables ...... 77 Research Design ...... 78 Instrumentation ...... 79 Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale Short Form ...... 79 Researcher Developed Items ...... 81 Institutional Review Board ...... 85 Pilot Study ...... 85 Data Collection ...... 89 Data Analysis ...... 91 Summary ...... 96 RESULTS ...... 98 Overview of the Purpose ...... 98 Results ...... 98 Self Efficacy of FCS Teachers ...... 99 Performance Accomplishments, Vicarious Experiences, Verbal Persuasion, and Emotional Arousal...... 105 Variables That Affect Levels of Self Efficacy of Teachers Who Teach Food Science...... 115 Professional Development of FCS Teachers ...... 118 Summary ...... 123
vi
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 127 Summary ...... 127 Findings and Discussion...... 133 Implications ...... 140 Limitations ...... 150 Recommendations for Future Research ...... 152 Recommendation #1: Expand This Study to Evaluate FCS Teachers Who Do Not Teach Food Science as a Science Credit...... 153 Recommendation #2: Conduct Additional Research Based on the Educational Credentials of FCS Teachers ...... 154 Recommendation #3: Complete an In-Depth Analysis of Teacher Education Programs ...... 154 Recommendation #4: Complete an In-Depth Review of the Effectiveness of Hands-On PD...... 155 Recommendation #5: Evaluate the FDA’s Professional Development Program in Food Science ...... 156 Recommendation #6: Complete Causal-Comparative Research on PD Delivery Method and Self Efficacy...... 157 Recommendation #7: Increase Collaborative Efforts with Food Science Adjacent Disciplines ...... 158 Recommendation #8: Continue to Develop Items Aligned With Bandura’s Self-Efficacy Theory to Ensure Reliability Analysis...... 159 Recommendation #9: Develop a Food Science Teaching Self Efficacy Scale ...... 159 REFERENCES ...... 161 APPENDICES ...... 169 APPENDIX A ...... 169 APPENDIX B ...... 170 APPENDIX C ...... 187 APPENDIX D ...... 189 APPENDIX E ...... 190 APPENDIX F ...... 191 APPENDIX G ...... 192
vii
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
ABSTRACT
Food Science is a Career and Technical Education (CTE) course that can be taught on the secondary level as an elective or science credit. Although identified as a popular course in Family and Consumer Sciences (FCS) classrooms (Werhan and Way,
2006), many FCS teachers feel that they lack the necessary credentials to effectively teach this course. This is due to the fact that an FCS teacher must be knowledgeable in science-focused content areas such as biology and chemistry. The purpose of this study was to explore the self efficacy of FCS teachers who taught food science as a science credit.
Two theoretical frameworks serve as the foundation of this research in determining the various factors that may affect a FCS teacher’s comfort level in teaching food science. Albert Bandura’s Self-Efficacy Theory is based on one’s belief about their ability to select appropriate actions to complete a given task (Bandura, 1977). Tschannen-
Moran, Woolfolk-Hoy, and Hoy’s (1998) Teacher Self Efficacy Theory is based on components from Bandura’s Self-Efficacy that is applied to a teacher’s ability to teach a specific subject in which students achieve academic success.
A quantitative approach was used to survey FCS teachers (n = 89) in Texas who taught Food Science during the 2018 – 2019 academic year. A variety of statistical methods were used to determine if self-efficacy levels were impacted by one’s overall view of their teaching, comfort in teaching food science specific content, educational attainment, years of teaching experience, and level and preferred method of participation in professional development opportunities. Results showed that FCS teachers have high levels of efficacy on their overall teaching. In addition, FCS teachers with a master’s
viii
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020 degree or more reported higher levels of self efficacy. Only minimal significant findings were found on teaching selected food science concepts and participating in professional development opportunities does not have any significance on levels of self efficacy.
The results from this study can serve as a guide for various entities on how to better assist and prepare FCS teachers to teach food science. Additional research should be completed on how one’s educational background impacts self efficacy and the role of teacher preparation programs in preparing individuals to teach food science should be evaluated.
ix
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
LIST OF TABLES
1.1 Offering of Food Science Courses on the Secondary Level ...... 3 2.1 Selected Articles from the Journal of Home Economics ...... 60 3.1 Factor Loadings for Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale ...... 81 3.2 Survey Questions Aligned with Bandura’s Self-Efficacy Theory ...... 82 3.3 Demographic Information on Participants as Percentages (N = 89)...... 89 3.4 Research Questions, Instrument Items, and Analysis Methods ...... 95 4.1 Response to Self-Efficacy Variables as Percentages, Means, and Standard Deviations (N = 89) ...... 100 4.2 Factor Loadings for Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale ...... 102 4.3 Reliability Analysis Summary of Self-Efficacy Factors ...... 102 4.4 Factor Loadings From Principal Component Factor Analysis for the Items of the Self-Efficacy Questionnaire...... 107 4.5 Factor Loadings From Principal Component Factor Analysis: Items of the Performance Accomplishments Variables Related to Best Practices in Teaching...... 108 4.6 Regression Analysis Summary for Performance Accomplishments Variables Predicting Overall Self Efficacy...... 109 4.7 Regression Analysis Summary for Teacher Preparation, Teaching Experience, Comfort With Teaching Food Science Specific Concepts, and Best Practices in Teaching Variables Predicting Overall Self Efficacy ...... 110 4.8 Regression Analysis Summary for Vicarious Experience Variables Predicting Overall Self Efficacy ...... 111 4.9 Regression Analysis Summary for Verbal Persuasion Variables Predicting Overall Self Efficacy ...... 111 4.10 Regression Analysis Summary for Emotional Arousal Variables Predicting Overall Self Efficacy ...... 112 4.11 Regression Analysis Summary for Performance Accomplishments, Vicarious Experiences, Verbal Persuasion, and Emotional Aroudal Variables Predicting Overall Self Efficacy ...... 114 4.12 Response to Teacher Preparation Variables as Percentages (n = 88) ...... 116 4.13 Response to Teacher Preparation Variables as Means and Standard Deviations ...... 116 4.14 Full Factorial Analysis of Variance Summary Table for the Effects of Education, Years Teaching Food Science, and Teacher Preparation on Self Efficacy (n = 88) ...... 117
x
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
4.15 Univariate Analysis of Variance Summary Table for the Main Effects of Education, Years Teachign Food Sciences, and Teacher Preparation with No Interactions on Self Efficacy (n = 88) ...... 117 4.16 Summary of Preferred Method of Professional Development from Most Preferred Method to Least Preferred Method ...... 119 4.17 Analysis of Variance Summary Tabel for the Main Effects and All 2-Way Interactions of the Top Three Preferred Professional Development Methods and Levels of Professional Development on Self Efficacy ...... 121 4.18 Analysis of Variance Summary Table for the Main Effects and All Way Interactions of the Most Preferred and Least Preferred Professional Development Methods and Levels of Professional Development on Self Efficacy ...... 122 4.19 Analysis of Variance Summary Table of the Main Effects and Interactions of the Most Preferred Professional Development Method and Levels of Professional Development on Self Efficacy ...... 122
xi
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
What is Family and Consumer Sciences
Family and Consumer Sciences (FCS) is a discipline of study that has a long- standing history of providing courses on the secondary and post-secondary level that deal specifically with helping individuals improve their overall quality of life. Professionals within this area are qualified to work in a variety of settings such as public and private schools, colleges, universities, governmental agencies, and businesses formed within the private sector. Formerly known as Home Economics, this field of study is interdisciplinary in nature based on the numerous disciplines that are studied within this profession. Individuals who complete courses found within this discipline are able to improve themselves, strengthen relationships with family members, enhance interactions with other members of society, and make responsible decisions as consumers. FCS is one of the few professions that have a major focus on people and families (Kato & Elias,
2015). As a result, many of the subject areas that are addressed include human development, personal and family finance, housing and interior design, food science, nutrition, and wellness, textiles and apparel, and consumer issues (AAFCS, 2019). The uniqueness of the topics that are addressed in these areas allows individuals to readily apply concepts learned to their everyday life.
Individuals who desire to teach FCS are encouraged to pursue collegiate studies in
FCS education or other related areas of study. In addition to learning the content matter through an approved FCS teacher education program, individuals also complete a series of requirements in order to gain teacher certification within their respective states.
1
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
Although each individual state establishes their own requirements, individuals who hold a degree and certification are able to teach a variety of subjects based on what is offered within a specific school district.
Career and Technical Education
Career and Technical Education (CTE) can be defined as an educational program that assists the nation in meeting the immediate challenges and needs of current society (Advance CTE, 2019). Course offerings are available nationwide among 16 different career clusters. Based on the availability of courses within a school district and state, students can select a program of study which is specifically tailored to their career goals and interests. As reported by the Association for Career and Technical Education
(ACTE), CTE serves approximately 94% of all high school students in the United States
(2019). In fact, during the 2013-2014 academic year, it was estimated that approximately
7,502,727 students on the secondary level took at least 1 credit of CTE (ACTE, 2019).
Food Science and the Connection to CTE
Food Science is a secondary-level course offered through CTE programs within a school district. The decision to offer Food Science during the academic year is at the discretion of the state and/or local governing bodies. In this course, students learn and apply the basic foundations of a variety of scientific disciplines such as physical science, biology, and chemistry as it relates to the planting, production, processing, preservation, and distribution of food items. According to Ward (2013), food science is the study of the nature of food, the causes of deterioration, the principles underlying food processing, and the improvement of foods for the consuming public. From an FCS perspective,
Food Science can be taught in a variety of formats. Due to the heavy foundation of
2
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020 science that is taught in this course, selected states offer Food Science as a science credit option for their students as opposed to an elective. Table 1.1 indicates states that offer
Food Science as an elective, as a science credit, or is not currently offered.
Table 1.1
Offerings of Food Science Courses on the Secondary Level
Counts as Science Credit or Counts as Counts as Elective, Science Science Based on Credit Counts as Credit and Local Not Only Elective Only Elective Decision Offered Unknown
Alabama Arkansas Georgia California Arizona Alaska Indiana Delaware Missouri Connecticut Hawaii Colorado Texas Kentucky North Idaho Kansas Florida Louisiana Carolina Illinois New Maine Maryland Tennessee Iowa Jersey Massachusetts Minnesota Wisconsin Michigan New Mississippi Nevada Nebraska Mexico Montana North Dakota Ohio Rhode South Dakota Oklahoma Oregon Island Washington Pennsylvania Vermont West Wyoming South Virginia Virginia Carolina Utah
For individuals who are qualified to teach this course, not only must they have an extensive background in food and nutrition but a solid foundation in science-related courses (e.g. biology, chemistry, organic chemistry, etc.) is also helpful in successfully teaching this course.
Why FCS Teachers are Qualified to Teach Food Science
Based on the variety of subjects that are studied within an FCS teacher preparation program, FCS teachers are qualified to teach Food Science. This is due to the
3
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020 fact that programs of study may require a student to complete specific science and nutrition-related courses. Many FCS teacher preparation programs require students to take a certain number of nutrition courses in addition to science-related courses such as biology, biochemistry, and organic chemistry. For example, at Illinois State University, students pursuing a career as an FCS teacher are required to take two inner core science courses, Fundamentals of Nutrition, and Principles of Food Preparation (Illinois State
University, 2020). When looking at teacher licensure requirements for FCS at Kansas
State University, students are required to take Chemistry, a Chemistry Lab, Basic
Nutrition, and Science of Food (Kansas State University, 2020). Students at Kansas State
University also have the option of taking Commercial Food Production.
The variety of courses that are offered among various FCS teacher preparation programs shows the depth of knowledge that individuals must obtain in order to successfully teach FCS related topics. A combination of required nutrition and advanced science courses from teacher preparation programs make FCS teachers ideal for teaching
Food Science courses.
Teaching and Self-Efficacy
As a result of FCS teachers being required to know a variety of disciplines in order to teach Food Science on the secondary level, it is important to know the confidence level that an FCS teacher has in their own ability to successfully teach the course. Albert Bandura’s Self-Efficacy Theory can be used as a guide to determine selected factors that can be considered in the confidence level that FCS teachers possess in teaching Food Science. According to the Self-Efficacy Theory, this involves a person’s beliefs about their ability to organize and exhibit the appropriate actions necessary to
4
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020 achieve a certain goal (Bandura, 1977). Based on Bandura’s theory, there have been several educators and researchers who have applied these concepts into various areas of the education profession. Specifically, the Self-Efficacy Theory has been directly applied to the teaching profession.
According to Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, and Hoy (1998), Teacher Efficacy is the teacher’s individual belief in their own capability to organize and carry out specific actions that are necessary to successfully accomplish a specific teaching task within a particular setting. As a result of the numerous areas of discipline that make up the components of a Food Science course, concepts from the Self-Efficacy Theory and
Teacher Efficacy can give insight into how confident FCS teachers are in teaching food science.
Professional Development
One important factor that can determine the self-efficacy of FCS teachers who teach food science is their participation in professional development (PD) opportunities.
Teachers, regardless of their background or content area, are often characterized as being life-long learners. One of the many ways that teachers stay abreast of the most current information on their subject matter and the most effective pedagogical strategies for classroom instruction is through participation in PD. In fact, based on the following quote from a report on the current state of professional development for secondary CTE teachers, the following statement was made in regard to the expectations of CTE educators continuing their professionalism:
If secondary CTE teachers are to respond to the expectations placed upon
them, they too must be continuous learners, acquire the ability to evaluate
5
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
and adopt approaches to improve student academic achievement and keep
up to date with technical content of their occupational areas while
supporting the career exploration and development of their students.
(National Research Center for Career and Technical Education, 2010, pg.
6)
For FCS teachers who teach Food Science, professional development opportunities are available at the national, state, and local levels. However, it takes the initiative of the individual teacher to pursue such opportunities.
Statement of the Problem
Lack of Confidence in Effectively Teaching Food Science
How confident a teacher feels in teaching a certain subject matter can play a critical role in how well that course is taught for the academic year. If a teacher is not comfortable teaching specific content, then students could possibly miss out on receiving the best possible instruction. When teaching food science, the comfort level in teaching specific concepts can be very low. This can be attributed to various factors such as not taking the appropriate courses in one’s teacher preparation program, not having a strong foundation in the “hard science” such as chemistry and biology, and knowing best practices in instructional strategies for selected food science concepts.
In interviews with high school teachers who taught food science, teachers reported that they were somewhat hesitant in teaching and implementing food science concepts. This was due to the fact that within their class, they were intimidated by the material and were not very confident in their teaching ability (Liceaga, Ballard, & Esters,
6
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
2014). In addition, the high school teachers also stated that they really were not familiar with the content and could not implement the curriculum effectively without guidance.
Despite these levels of discomfort, these teachers did state their interest to teach food science if they were given the appropriate instructional strategies that would meet the rigor of a junior and senior-level high school course (Liceaga et al, 2014).
Limited Professional Development Opportunities in Food Science
FCS teachers must look to various avenues to increase not only their knowledge in Food Science concepts but also the appropriate instructional methods that should be used when teaching this course. Various professional organizations such as the American
Association of Family and Consumer Sciences and the Association of Career and
Technical Education, offer opportunities for FCS teachers to gain additional training in a variety of subjects. However, workshops and sessions that are focused on food science may be very limited in numbers.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to determine the self efficacy of FCS teachers who teach food science as a science credit. Data, which will be self-reported by FCS teachers, will determine factors that may affect their ability in teaching food science on the secondary level. Secondly, this study will determine which food science-specific concepts FCS teachers are most comfortable teaching and least comfortable teaching.
Finally, the professional development needs of FCS teachers in regard to effectively teaching food science will be addressed. In addition, this will give professional organizations (i.e. AAFCS and ACTE) an insight into professional development sessions and workshops that should be offered at annual meetings and conferences.
7
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
Research Questions
1. What is the level of self-efficacy of teachers who teach food science?
2. How do variables (i.e. education, teacher preparation, number of years teaching)
affect the level of self-efficacy of teachers who teach food science?
3. Does the level of participation in professional development opportunities and the type
effect overall self-efficacy levels in teachers who teach food science?
8
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
Definition of Terms
Special terms that will be used in this study will be defined as follow:
1. American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences - a professional
organization that provides leadership and support for professionals whose work
assists individuals, families, and communities in making informed decisions about
their well being, relationships, and resources to achieve optimal quality of life.
(http://www.aafcs.org/)
2. Association of Career and Technical Education - The Association for Career and
Technical Education is the largest national education association dedicated to the
advancement of education that prepares youth and adults for careers.
(https://acteonline.org/)
3. Career and Technical Education - a field of education that prepares youth and
adults for a wide range of high-wage, high-skill, high-demand careers.
(https://acteonline.org/)
4. Career Clusters - a national framework that provides a vital structure for organizing
and delivering quality Career and Technical Education programs through learning and
comprehensive programs of study (POS). There are 16 Career Clusters in the
National Career Clusters Framework, representing more than 79 Career Pathways to
help students navigate their way to greater success in college and career.
(http://www.careertech.org/)
5. Career Pathways - an alignment to the Career Clusters which shows students and
other individuals the potential careers that can be pursued through enrollment in
9
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
specific Career and Technical educational courses on the secondary level.
(http://www.careertech.org/)
6. Family and Consumer Sciences - a comprehensive body of skills, research, and
knowledge that helps people make informed decisions about their well being,
relationships, and resources to achieve optimal quality of life. The field represents
many areas, including human development, personal and family finance, housing and
interior design, food science, nutrition, and wellness, textiles and apparel, and
consumer issues. (http://www.aafcs.org/)
7. Food Science - the study of the nature of food, that cause of deteriorations, the
principles underlying good processing, and the improvement of foods for the
consuming public. (Ward, 2013)
8. Institute of Food Technologists – The Institute of Food Technologist is a
professional organization whose mission is to advance the science of food and its
applications across the global food system.
9. Professional Development - Professional development involves comprehensive,
sustained, and systematic learning experiences that are based on identified needs of
teachers and result in improved instructional effectiveness and increased student
achievement and performance outcomes. (NRCCTE, 2010, pg. 6)
10. Programs of Study - Sequences of academic and career technical education
coursework to help students obtain a postsecondary degree or industry-recognized
certificate or credential. In addition, the programs of study allow students to have a
successful transition from secondary to post-secondary education.
(http://www.careertech.org/)
10
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
11. Self Efficacy - a person’s belief about their ability to organize and implement a series
of actions that are necessary to achieve a certain behavior or goal. (Bandura, 1977)
12. Texas Education Agency - the Texas Education Agency is the administrative unit for
primary and secondary public education in the state of Texas.
(http://www.tea.state.tx.us/)
13. Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills - an establishment of standards and
measurable objectives that clearly outline what students should know and/or be able
to do once they successfully complete a content area in the primary and secondary
public school setting in the state of Texas. (http://www.tea.state.tx.us/)
11
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
Assumptions
The assumptions of this study are that:
1. Participants of this study will be informed that their participation is voluntary and
they may withdraw from the study at any point and time.
2. Participants are currently teaching or have taught Food Science as a science credit in
a secondary setting.
3. Participants have the appropriate educational credentials to teach Food Science.
12
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Family and Consumer Sciences as a Profession
Family and Consumer Sciences (FCS), formerly known as Home Economics, is a discipline of study that has been a part of American society for over 100 years. The main charge of this interdisciplinary profession is to improve the quality of life of individuals, families, consumers, and communities. Most commonly noted as enhancing the lives and well-being of the everyday individual, professionals with a background in FCS are able to serve in a variety of professions within the business, education, and governmental sectors. The uniqueness of this profession is that as changes occur in society, so does the emphasis on issues that need to be addressed (Kato & Elias, 2015). In order to determine the state that Food Science now serves in our educational setting, one must pay homage to pioneers in the profession who established beginning studies in this area.
The Origination of Family and Consumer Sciences
A Treatise on Domestic Economy. When delving into the history of FCS, one must revert to its former professional name of Home Economics. Many researchers within the field credit the beginning of Home Economics with Catherine Beecher’s book entitled A Treatise on Domestic Economy, for the use of Young Ladies at Home, and at
School. This was considered the first textbook for Home Economics in that it fully explained the inner workings of the household in the early 1800s (Weigley, 1974). When reviewing the content of this book, it is easy to see why it was considered the first textbook for the profession. The 371-page book consisted of 37 chapters which discussed a variety of topics such as the responsibilities and challenges that face American women;
13
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020 why Domestic Economy should be considered a separate discipline; proper health as it related to food selection and preservation, hygiene, overall cleanliness, childcare, and mental awareness; understanding the roles of various family members and developing a system that works; properly managing time and resources; the construction, maintenance, and upkeep of housing and the proper materials that should be used; and everyday household matters such as cleaning, cooking, gardening, and clothing construction
(Beecher, 1848).
Beecher was truly ahead of her time in that she believed that all females should be properly educated as it related to matters of the home (Michals, 2015). This feeling of educating women stemmed from the fact that Beecher believed that mothers and teachers were responsible for the education and moral being of society as a whole (Michals,
2015). If the home could function in an appropriate manner, then this could help to produce productive citizens who would make valuable contributions to society. This feat could only be accomplished by providing proper education to women whose sole responsibility at that time was to run the household. As a result, the book emphasized how the everyday functions of the home were an integral part of American society.
Although Beecher’s idea of properly educating women through formal education would not be seen during her lifetime, it would take another pioneer to lay the foundation in allowing women to have access to a proper education.
Ellen Swallow Richards. The profession of Home Economics would not be fully realized until almost 61 years after the publishing of A Treatise on Domestic Economy. A woman by the name of Ellen Swallow Richards had an extreme passion for scientific studies, a strong belief that the home was the most important source for social change,
14
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020 and a desire to further women’s position in education and obtainment of various careers
(Stage & Vincenti, 1997). She would challenge the status quo of how society thought women should be educated, break barriers among an elite post-secondary institution, and develop a profession that would give women the opportunity to make significant contributions to American society through education, research, and teaching.
Richards was raised during the mid-1800s in which the sole role of a woman was that of wife and mother. Although she was the only child, her parents deemed that it was necessary to teach her the importance of receiving an education regardless of her gender
(Kato & Elias, 2015). An avid learner, Richards went against the grain of what was deemed “appropriate” during her time. Many individuals during this time period did not see the importance or relevance of educating women. Despite this fact, Richards attended
Vassar College in 1868 where she would take a keen interest in astronomy and chemistry
(Kato & Elias, 2015; Miles, 2011). When she completed her studies at Vassar, she was encouraged to continue her education at the graduate level at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) (Kato & Elias, 2015; Miles, 2011). Gaining admittance to MIT would be one of many challenges that Richards would overcome as the sole male administration was very reluctant to allow her entry. However, her application was accepted, but she was classified as a “special student” (Miles, 2011). The justification given for admitting her as a “special student” was that in the event any of the faculty members or students complained of her being in the classroom, they could simply state that she was just observing and that her studies would not really count. Miles (2011) indicated that Richards did not fully comprehend the true meaning of her acceptance and had she been aware of the stipulation, she would not have accepted their offer. Richards
15
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020 would eventually graduate at the top of her class, but despite earning advanced degrees in
Chemistry she was never recognized or given her degree because of her gender (Kato &
Elias, 2015). Although this was a grave injustice, Richards would take the knowledge she had learned in order to later organize the Home Economics profession.
Richards studies allowed her to see that chemistry could be used as a practical application in enhancing the quality of life as it related to improving air, food, and water quality. According to White and White (2018), Richards’ early influence in chemistry can be credited to Justin von Liebig who was considered the father of modern nutrition.
Liebig began his work in organic chemistry regarding sanitation, water quality, and food science during the 1820s at the University of Giessen in Germany. In addition, Richards’ organic chemistry professor at MIT, James Mason Crafts may also have been an influence as he studied under Robert Bunsen who was a contemporary of Liebig (White
& White, 2018).
During this time period, sanitation practices were not ideal and many individuals could not see the direct relationship between cleanliness and many of the health issues that plagued society. According to Weigley (1974), Richards felt that applying and using the principles of science to everyday life could help to improve and maintain a better quality of life. The only way that this could be achieved was through education.
As a result of this thought process, Richards saw the need for women to have more formal education in science so that they would be able to teach others how science principles could be used to improve the overall quality of life for individuals (Miles,
2011). The problem that Richards discovered was that there were not many institutions where women could enroll to gain such knowledge. To address this issue, Richards
16
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020 helped to establish the first Women’s Laboratory at MIT in 1876 so that women could attend classes and gain knowledge in the application of science (Kato & Elias, 2015;
Miles 2011; Stage & Vincenti, 1997). The laboratory would eventually be torn down in
1883 when MIT granted women permission to enter the classroom with men (Stage &
Vincenti, 1997). Although short-lived, the establishment of this laboratory would be one of many milestones that Richards would put into place to position women into the professional world and away from the traditional roles of caring for the home.
Several projects that Richards undertook after the establishment of the Women’s
Laboratory would help to further define the profession. In the early 1890s, she was very instrumental in helping Boston, Massachusetts to establish the first school lunch program in the United States (Kato & Elias, 2015). Richards also participated in The World’s
Columbian Exposition of 1893 in which a model house, known as the Rumford Kitchen
Exhibit, was established that offered a variety of demonstrations that explained how the application of scientific principles could maintain the home (Kato & Elias, 2015; Stage &
Vincenti, 1997; Weigley, 1974). This model demonstrated how the average working man could successfully live on an income of $500 per year based on common resources available (Weigley, 1974). Other projects that were of interest to Richards included improving living conditions through the application of chemistry; studying the causes and effects of contamination in air, water, and food; testing home furnishings and foods for toxins; and designing a safe water and sewage system by allowing students from MIT to experiment in her own home (Kato & Elias, 2015).
Through her experiments, she realized that this knowledge needed to be disseminated to the masses. Richards also recognized that women needed to be placed
17
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020 into a position in which they could not only enter the workforce to break gender barriers
(especially in higher education) but also spread much-needed knowledge of how scientific principles could be used to improve the quality of life for individuals. Leading up to the Rumford Kitchen Exhibit, Weigley (1974) explained how cooking schools had become very popular in the Eastern part of the United States and many public and private schools began to offer Household Arts courses to their students. Although an official name for this new discipline had not yet been established, Home Economic departments appeared in approximately 30 colleges (e.g. as programs of study for women) (Weigley,
1974).
The issue of naming this much-needed discipline was not taken lightly by Ellen
Richards. Many of the initial terms that had been considered by Richards during her tenure at MIT included Okeology and Euthenics (Kato & Elias, 2015; Stage & Vincenti,
1997). However, these terms were never able to catch on. Another issue that had developed was a variety of names being used for this discipline in educational settings.
According to Weigley (1974), schools that offered various courses in Home Economics were using a variety of titles such as Domestic Science, Home Science, Household
Administration, Household Economics, Household Management, Domestic Economy, and many other content related titles. In addition, a clear purpose for this field was not understood, educational officials were unsure of its placement in the educational setting, and there was little opportunity for practicing professionals to come together to discuss their concerns (Weigley, 1974). The push for selecting an official name for the discipline may have come through the rejection of a proposed curriculum by Bryn Mawr at Bryn
Mawr College. When Richards made a proposal for this curriculum to be established on
18
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020 the collegiate level, the field was perceived in a manner that, “there are not enough elements of intellectual growth in cooking or housekeeping to furnish a very serious or profound course of training for really intelligent women” (Stage & Vincenti, 1997).
Richards then realized that the inconsistency of having an actual name for this field of study had to be addressed.
The Lake Placid Conferences. The research and study that was being completed by Richards were too important not to be recognized as an official discipline. Weigley
(1974) indicated that Richards and professionals of this time deemed it most appropriate for a group of leaders to discuss the problems, current progress, philosophy, and future progression of this developing discipline. During the Summer of 1898, Ellen Richard’s visit to the Lake Placid Club in New York to give a lecture on domestic service issues would lead to the development of a series of annual conferences to better define the discipline (Weigley, 1974).
Melvil Dewey and his wife Annie Godfrey Dewey played instrumental roles and served as important allies in helping Richards to establish these meetings. One of the most important roles that the Dewey’s played was providing a location for the first meeting by lending Richards their summer home at the Lake Placid Club (Weigley,
1974). According to Weigley (1974), invitations were sent to leaders within the field who were close enough to travel and had a vested interest in this undertaking. Those invited to participate in this meeting were asked for their suggestions on possible topics that should be discussed at this conference. The topics submitted would help to guide the direction of the conference. The first conference was held on September 18, 1899 at the Lake Placid
Club (Weigley, 1974). In addition to Richards, Melvil Dewey, and Annie Dewey, the
19
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020 following individuals were present in helping to fully name, shape, and define the profession (Stage & Vincenti, 1997; Weigley, 1974):
1. Maria Parloa – founder of the Boston Cooking School and leader in teaching
cookery
2. Maria Daniell – lecturer who gave food demonstrations and had an interest in
institutional administration
3. Emily Huntington – founder of the Kitchen Garden method which taught
housekeeping to children
4. Anna Barrows – writer on practical cookery and editor of the New England
Kitchen magazine
5. Alice Peloubet Norton – supervisor of Domestic Science in the public
schools of Brookline, Massachusetts
6. Louisa A. Nicholass – organizer of the first courses offered in Household Art
at the State Normal School in Framingham, Massachusetts
7. Mrs. William V. Kellen – wealthy philanthropist who helped to finance the
first school lunch program in Boston, Massachusetts
8. Mrs. William G. Shailer – representative from the National Household
Economics Association
Although there were few professionals in attendance, several individuals sent their regrets as a result of being unable to attend such as Mary Hinman Abel (close associate of Richards), Helen Kinne (professor of Domestic Science), Marion Talbot
(professor of Sanitary Science), Wilbur O. Atwater (professor of chemistry and founder
20
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020 of the Office of Experiment Stations of the United States Department of Agriculture)
(Weigley, 1974).
The eleven members who were in attendance at this first meeting were able to accomplish many tasks as it related to properly establishing the discipline. The main action that was accomplished was the selection of an appropriate name. Weigley (1974) stated that members felt the name of the discipline should be simple, but extensive enough to include sanitation, cookery and kindred household arts, and proper instruction in the art or living science from kindergarten to college. After much discussion, the name of Home Economics was selected. The thought process was that by including
“Economics” in the name, the discipline could be easily incorporated with the collegiate curriculum versus using the term “Household Arts” as the name of the discipline.
In addition to selecting a proper name for the profession, attendees also discussed how Home Economics could be publicized so that individuals would gain interest in the profession; how young women should be trained for leadership roles within the field; and developed an appropriate library classification for literature (Weigley, 1974). After a successful discussion on these various topics, it was realized that more meetings would need to be held. As a result, the group decided to meet again the following year at their current location. In addition, committees were established during this first meeting and the charge was given that follow-up reports would be made at the next annual conference in 1899. Members agreed that they would prepare and hear reports based on topics such as the teaching of Household Arts in public schools, how Domestic Science courses were structured on the high school level, how Home Economics was viewed on the collegiate
21
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020 level, how teachers of Home Economics were currently being trained, and simplified methods that had been implemented for housekeeping (Weigley, 1974).
The result of this first meeting was annual meetings being held each September over a ten-year span. These annual meetings would later be identified as the Lake Placid
Conferences. With each conference, attendance grew as professionals from Home
Economics and other disciplines such as nutrition, biology, chemistry, bacteriology, etc. actively participated in the meetings (Kato & Elias, 2015).
Many of the activities that took place at these conferences included paper presentations and round table discussions which focused on the most pressing needs of the profession. Weigley (1974) indicated that one of the most popular topics discussed at each of these conferences was the teaching of Home Economics on many educational levels. In addition to this significant topic, several noteworthy discussions were held at other conferences. For example, according to Weigley (1974), one of the events at the second conference resulted in an appeal to the National Education Association (NEA) to develop a Home Economics section within their organization. Members felt very strongly that Home Economics courses should be included in all schools and support from the
NEA could help to promote this cause. In addition, a heavy emphasis was placed on the necessity of future teachers receiving training through well-rounded college courses.
Additional noteworthy topics that were discussed at this conference included Maria
Parloa’s suggestion that cooking methods should be simplified within the home and that the interior of the home should be designed in such a manner that would reflect its intended use (Weigley, 1974).
22
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
Although a continued discussion of the place for the Home Economics curriculum occurred, the other conferences incorporated additional factors to consider. The fifth conference opened new dialogue as Mary H. Abel recommended that local businesses such as bakeries, laundry services, and cleaning services; and the development of a household labor bureau could offer a needed service to the everyday homemaker
(Weigley, 1974). The sixth conference resulted in a committee recommending that
Domestic Science courses taught on the high school level should be counted towards admission to college (Weigley, 1974). The thought process was that this action would encourage Home Economics to be better positioned on the collegiate level in order to prepare future teachers. Nutritional concepts would become a popular topic of interest in latter conferences as popular individuals such as C.F. Langworthy, John Harvey Kellogg, and Horace Fletcher shared their research and ideologies on nutrition (Weigley, 1974).
Many of the topics discussed and presented included the concept of proper diet and the direct effect of uric acid being cured by a low protein diet.
By the establishment of the tenth conference in 1909, it was realized that the culmination of these annual conferences had progressed in such a way that a solidified organization needed to be established in order to further promote the workings of the discipline (Weigley, 1974). As a result, a committee was organized to determine the steps that needed to be taken in order to structure a national organization. Weigley (1974) discussed how the committee developed five resolutions which recommended the need for a broader organization for individuals who were interested in Home Economics, encouraged groups to develop associations in each state in order for the organization to grow, would require members to pay annual dues and the organization to publish a
23
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020 journal for its members, suggested helping and recruiting as many teachers as possible who were interested in a variety of subjects that were directly related to Home
Economics, and endorsed naming the organization the American Home Economics
Association or the National Home Economics Association. A meeting was held from
December 31, 1908 – January 2, 1909, in which these resolutions were made. As a result, members accepted resolutions and the American Home Economics Association was established with Ellen S. Richards as its first organizational president (Weigley, 1974).
With the establishment of this organization, it helped to define standards and certification for training teachers and better define a philosophical and theoretical foundation for the
Home Economics profession (Kato & Elias, 2015).
The Name of the Profession Changes. During the 20th century, Home
Economics would see significant changes and educators would become knowledgeable experts in a variety of areas that reflected the needs of American society at a given point in time. However, a constant problem that the profession would deal with over the next century was a solidified and consistent identity. Although a name had been selected, there would still be numerous challenges that the profession would have to face. Researchers of this field offer several reasons as to why this became such an issue within the profession.
Stage & Vincenti (1997) explained that during the 1920s, even though Home
Economists were becoming more involved in legislation, male legislators were still defining the field. The 1930s-1950s saw a heavy shift in the curriculum in which a heavy emphasis was placed on cooking, sewing, and childcare. Unfortunately, this shift would develop a “stitching and stirring” stereotype that would plague the profession for years to come. Stage & Vincenti (1997) also highlighted that from the 1950s-1970s, numerous
24
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
Home Economics programs on the collegiate level were being eliminated, discontinued, or merged with other academic programs. In addition, the names of programs were changed to more gender-neutral titles such as Human Development and Human Ecology.
Several publications would be published, and evaluations of the entire profession would take place from the 1960s to the late 1980s to determine the future direction of the profession. It would not be until 1993 that a group of Home Economics professionals would meet during a conference in Scottsdale, Arizona to determine the direction of the profession for the 20th century. Kato & Elias (2015) explained how a new model was developed that would describe the mission, purpose, and future vision of Home
Economics. This model identified common trends and themes found within the profession. In addition, this group of professionals also decided that a new name was needed for the profession in order to better reflect what they were currently promoting in society and to try to dissuade common stereotypes that have been associated with Home
Economics (Kato & Elias, 2015). After much deliberation, debates, and discussions, in
1993, the name of the profession was changed to Family and Consumer Sciences (FCS) at the annual American Home Economics Association Convention in San Diego,
California. The name change helped to reflect the mission of the profession in working with individuals, families, consumers, and communities.
Key Legislation
Richards and numerous professionals who shared her passion for improving the quality of life for individuals through scientific principles undertook a tremendous task in establishing the groundwork for what we now know as FCS. Key pieces of legislation have directly and indirectly helped place FCS programs within the educational realm.
25
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
Commonly grouped under the title of vocational educational (which would later be classified as Career and Technical Education), selected legislated pieces have allowed
FCS programs a place within the school curriculum through course offerings and federal funding. Legislation that was put into place from 1862 to the present day, still greatly affects the profession within the educational system in today’s current time.
Morrill Act of 1862. The Morrill Act of 1862 allowed the establishment of land grant universities in each state. During this time period, education was only afforded to
White, males who were from elite families. Named after Representative Justin S. Morrill of Vermont, the purpose of this act was to provide a college education to farmers’ sons and other individuals who lacked the means to attend the colleges that existed at that time
(Duemer, 2007). The act enabled each senator and representative 30,000 acres of land to be set aside in their home state for educational opportunities in higher education as it related to the teaching of agricultural economy, industrial economy, domestic economy, and military tactics (Kato & Elias, 2015; Association of Public and Land-Grant
Universities, 2012). After the act was signed into law by President Abraham Lincoln in
1862, land grant universities were established. The significance that these land grant universities had within the profession is that these universities offered some of the first
FCS courses on the post-secondary level. This act helped to somewhat position FCS in selected colleges and universities, even though the actual field of study had not been fully established at the time.
Hatch Act of 1887. The Hatch Act of 1887 was a component of the establishment of the land grant universities from the Morrill Act of 1862. Once the land grant universities were established, it was recognized that these universities had the unique
26
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020 opportunity to participate in scientific research initiatives as it related to the development of agriculture. According to the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities
(2012), the Hatch Act authorized federal funds to each state in order to develop agricultural experiment stations that were directly connected to their assigned land grant institution. In connection to FCS, many of the initial research of Home Economists stemmed from participation in the agricultural experiment stations. This collaboration was able to occur due to the working relationship that Richards had with Dr. Wilbur O.
Atwater who was the first director of the experimental stations.
Second Morrill Act of 1890. Although the Morrill Land Grant Act of 1862 was intended to make higher education more accessible to individuals, some individuals were denied access to selected land grant universities. Most notably in the South, Blacks were not admitted into several universities. As a result, the Second Morrill Act of 1890 was established in order to provide endowments for land grant universities, provided that they could prove that they did not base their admissions on race (Association of Public and
Land-Grant Universities, 2012). However, if these states established a separate institution for Blacks, then they were eligible to receive funding. This action would establish a cluster of institutions in the South known as 1890-Land Grant Institutions.
Smith-Lever Act of 1914. In 1914, Congress authorized President Woodrow
Wilson to develop a Commission to study the need for federal funding for vocational education (Hillison & Burge, 1988). Based on their findings, the Commission suggested that a bill should be developed that would pay the salaries of teachers, supervisors, directors of agricultural subjects, and teachers of trade and industrial subjects such as
FCS. The Smith-Lever Act of 1914 was very instrumental in the progression of FCS in
27
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020 that it helped to establish cooperative extension services and provided programs with federal funding through the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) (Stage &
Vincenti, 1997). These services were specifically designed to bring citizens the most current information in the subject areas of agriculture, FCS, and other related subjects
(Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities, 2012). The land grant universities were instrumental to the Smith-Lever Act in that it helped to develop educational programs that met the needs of agricultural and industrial classes, provided a location for programs to be offered, allowed individuals to complete research, and extended extension work off-campus to reach individuals in the community (Association of Public and Land-
Grant Universities, 2012). As a result of FCS positioned at land grant universities, individuals were given the opportunity to share their expertise and research with not only members of the community, but stakeholders and supporters of vocational education on the state and national level.
Smith Hughes-Act of 1917. According to Kato & Elias (2015), this act was the first of its kind that clearly distinguished vocational education from the regular high school curriculum. The Smith-Hughes Act (also known as the Vocational Education Act of 1917) would help to expand Home Economic programs on the high school and collegiate level and provide the adequate funding needed to support such programs
(Blakenship & Moerchen, 1979). This act was an agreement between the states and the federal government to provide appropriate funding for the salaries and training of teachers, supervisors, and directors of agricultural programs (Paulter, 1999). Blankenship
& Moerchen (1979) reported that states were required to match funds that were distributed by the federal government. In addition, provisions were also made to support
28
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020 teacher salaries and training in the disciplines of FCS, trade, and industrial education.
Accountability measures were also put in place as states were required to develop boards for vocational education that would prepare a plan explaining how vocational education programs would be operated within the state (American Vocational Association, 1998).
Vocational Education Act (1963). Researchers who have examined this act in- depth credit its development as a result of the numerous technological advancements and changing times in the United States (Paulter, 1999; Blankenship & Moerchen, 1979;). In
1961, a panel of consultants was developed by President John F. Kennedy to examine the status and relevance of vocational education in American Society (Paulter, 1999). After an evaluation of vocational education in the United States, the panel developed a listing of suggestions in 1962 which recommended that the following actions take place: expand vocational and technical training as it related to the needs of the current economic time; provide training for high school graduates who did not attend college; offer reinforcement skills to individuals so that they can maintain employment; and make educational opportunities available for all citizens regardless of their age.
Paulter (1999) explained that the authorization of this law greatly increased funding for vocational education. The act provided additional assistance to individuals who had previously been unsuccessful in vocational education because of their socioeconomic or academic status. Paulter (1999) also explained that all educational levels saw a significant increase in course enrollment. FCS courses were able to meet these needs as the content taught helped the everyday individual to find useful employment as a result of the occupational programs that were offered (Blankenship &
Moerchen, 1979). In addition to the traditional school settings, courses taught in FCS was
29
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020 valuable in a variety of other educational settings such as adult learning centers, community centers, and various after school programs. This is credited to the fact that during this time in history, individuals needed to retain, enhance, or learn a new skill in order to successfully enter the job market. The knowledge possessed by Home Economic teachers in life skills was able to fill this new demand.
Home Economic programs would be greatly affected by amendments to this act in the years to come which would influence the programs and courses they offered.
According to Blankenship & Moerchen (1979), amendments to this act in 1968 would bring about significant changes in that funding would be provided for special needs students who were handicapped or disadvantaged, vocational counseling would be recognized, stronger requirements were developed for evaluation and justification of programs, and FCS would have restored categorical funding. As a result of these changes,
Home Economic programs were required to respond accordingly.
Amendments to the Act in 1976 would force the profession to develop new programs or maintain existing programs (Blankenship & Moerchen, 1979). School systems began to look for new sources of funding and viewed courses related to vocational education as a possible area of expansion. Most importantly, a heavy emphasis shifted from college-transfer programs to vocational-technical programs (Blankenship &
Moerchen, 1979). Several actions from this amendment would greatly enhance the position of FCS. For example, this act allowed provisions to be made for daycare services to be provided to students who were enrolled in secondary and post-secondary programs
(Blankenship & Moerchen, 1979). The access to these day-care services allowed students to participate in vocational programs, gain additional training in childcare, and have
30
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020 access to laboratory experiences. Blankenship & Moerchen (1979) also explained that these additional requirements tried to increase male enrollment by requiring Home
Economic programs to develop curriculum that reflected new and changing occupational fields, individuals with special needs, nontraditional occupations, bilingual vocational training, and removal of sex bias and discrimination. With the many changes that were put in place by this act and amendments, Home Economic programs played an integral role in preparing individuals for these various new challenges.
Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act and
Amendments. Paulter (1999) reported that this act, first enacted in 1984, was an extension of the Vocational Education Act and accompanying amendments. The
American Vocational Association (1998) highlighted that this act focused on improving vocational education programs and developing strategies to better serve students from underrepresented populations. Based on the content found within FCS, educators found themselves once again developing effective strategies to meet these new requirements.
The act was developed to help each state expand, improve, update, and incorporate top- quality vocational education programs that would help educate members who would eventually enter the workforce in the future (Paulter, 1999). In addition, this act also encouraged vocational education program to make a stronger effort to provide quality education to women, minorities, and special needs populations; greater collaboration among the public and private sector; enhanced academic foundations for students; and stronger efforts in vocational education research (Paulter, 1999). The act also helped states to have access to certified counselors who assisted students in career planning,
31
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020 decision-making, and employability skills (Paulter, 1999); concepts that were already being taught in FCS programs.
Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act (1990).
This legislative piece would be reauthorized several times during the 1990s in order to provide an appropriate education for students. This first reauthorization occurred in 1990 when $1.6 billion was to be distributed each year to appropriate vocational programs over a five-year span (American Vocational Association, 1998). The reauthorization emphasized the importance of infusing vocational education with academic instruction.
The American Vocational Association (1998) felt that Congress believed that for vocational education to remain relevant and credible, students needed to be adequately prepared for careers in the future that would be heavily influenced by technological advances. In addition, this reauthorization implemented a new program entitled “Tech
Prep” which began to further ensure that academic core subjects were aligned with vocational education courses (American Vocational Association, 1998).
When the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act was up for reauthorization in 1995, it was clear that Congress had specific goals of the direction they wanted vocational education to take. According to the American
Vocational Association (1998), the first goal of the reauthorization of the Perkins Act was to consolidate the numerous programs that had been developed over the years to be more aligned and consistent. The second goal was to use block grants to allow the state government to determine how funds should be distributed to their vocational programs as they saw fit versus having significant involvement and requirements established from the federal government. A problem with this method identified by the American Vocational
32
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
Association (1998) was that in previous experience, programs that were block granted usually received less funding. As a result, the reauthorization was not passed, but the
Perkins Act was extended and funding was distributed until a new reauthorization could be developed.
Changes made to the Perkins Act based on the reauthorization in 1998 gave vocational education greater flexibility in how funds should be spent while keeping programs a separate entity. In addition, the reauthorization continued to require academic core courses to be heavily infused in vocational education (American Vocational
Association, 1998). This reauthorization also provided students with a wealth of experience in understanding all aspects of the industry (Gordon, 2008). During this decade, the establishment and reauthorization of the Perkins Act helped to streamline, simplify, and increase flexibility; establish greater accountability requirements for effectiveness of programs; eliminate the authorization for a state council on vocational education; increased technology use in the classroom, teacher training in technology, and distance learning; and gave states and recipients more flexibility with federal funds.
Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Improvement Act of 2006.
Up until this point in time, FCS courses had commonly been classified as vocational education courses. One of the most significant events of this act was the change in the terminology of vocational education to Career and Technical Education (CTE). The term
CTE had been used for quite a while, but this was the first time that legislation had used the title in federal documentation (Gordon, 2008; Threeton, 2007). In regard to funding, other significant actions of this act included maintaining the Tech Prep program as a separate entity for federal funding and maintaining state administrative funding at 5% of
33
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020 a state’s total allocated funding (Gordan, 2008). Gordon (2008) also reported that a greater emphasis was placed on establishing specific requirements for “programs of studies” that connected academic and technical content from the secondary to the post- secondary levels. Program accountability issues were also strengthened to ensure that
CTE programs would continue to improve.
A significant point to note is that the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical
Education Improvement Act (2006), directly stated complete support for FCS programs for permissible use of funds for leadership activities. In addition, this Act heavily promoted professional development for all CTE professionals which would include FCS educators (Threeton, 2007). In regard to FCS programs, this act provided and continues to provide the necessary funding needed in order for FCS programs to fully function from academic year to academic year.
Strengthening Career and Technical Education for the 21st Century Act
(Perkins V). Also known as Perkins V, this bill was signed into law on July 31, 2018, and amended the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Improvement Act of
2006 (H.R. 2353, 2018). According to the United States Department of Education (2018), this law will allow school districts to use federal funds for all students regardless if they are enrolled in CTE courses. In addition, these federal funds can also be used for improvements in career exploration activities for middle school students and provide additional comprehensive guidance and academic counseling to high school students.
More notably, the definition of “special populations” include students who are homeless, in foster care or have aged out of the system, and who has a parent who is on active duty in the armed services (United States Department of Education, 2018). Finally, this law
34
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020 increased the amount of money that states can spend on students who are incarcerated and more focus is placed on those who live in rural communities with evidence of disparities in academic performance.
Family and Consumer Sciences and the Connection to Career and Technical
Education
As previously discussed in the history of FCS, the origination of CTE programs can be traced back to the Smith-Hughes Act and the development of vocational education. Based on the numerous legislative pieces that have been discussed, these governmental actions helped to establish a foundation for what we now know as CTE.
From a governmental and federal funding standpoint, FCS related courses are classified under CTE. CTE courses prepare both youth and adults for a variety of careers and educational opportunities (ACTE, 2019). In many schools across the nation, especially on the secondary level, FCS courses are commonly grouped into a CTE program and share funding with other courses such as agriculture, business, engineering and technology, health science, guidance and career development, marketing; postsecondary, adult, and career education; and trade and industrial education (ACTE, 2019). The structure identified by the federal government in the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical
Education Improvement Act of 2006 positions FCS as one of the numerous content areas that fall under the umbrella of CTE. The placement of FCS has greatly assisted CTE programs by developing course offerings that help meet the need of preparing students to become productive citizens.
35
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
Significance of CTE in the Classroom
CTE courses such as FCS have made significant contributions to the American educational system and society as a whole. Bland (2008) stated that historically CTE has prepared thousands of students for various occupations after high school. She goes on further to state that in today’s present time, CTE courses enhance and reinforce the teaching of academic core courses such as math, science, and English through theoretical and conceptual knowledge that can be applied to real-world settings. This is further validated by Gordon (2008) in which he described CTE as more challenging, academic, and relevant in the 21st century. Bland (2008) also highlighted the fact that CTE courses prepare students to pursue academic and technical studies at the postsecondary level by helping them discover the connection between their current studies and the career they would like to further pursue. In fact, students enrolled in CTE courses indicated that they had developed problem-solving, project completion, research, math, college application, work-related, communication, time management, and critical thinking skills during their matriculation through high school (ACTE, 2019). In addition, CTE courses provide students with the opportunity to work side-by-side with practicing professionals in applicable activities that will enhance their employability skills in the future (Bland,
2008).
When looking at the impact of CTE from a statistical standpoint, various findings that have been reported show very positive results. The ACTE (2019) reported that students who participate in the CTE curriculum have an average graduation rate of 94% versus the national freshmen graduation rate at 80%. Furthermore, a ratio of one CTE class for every two academic classes minimized the risk of students dropping out of high
36
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020 school. The ACTE (2019) also reported that more than 91% of secondary students who concentrated in CTE related courses continued their education at a post-secondary institution immediately after high school. From the postsecondary level, a student with a
CTE-related associate degree or credential earns on average between $2,000-$11,000 more a year versus a student with a bachelor’s degree (ACTE, 2019).
Career Clusters, Pathways, and Programs of Study (POS)
Within CTE programs, students can select courses based on career and occupational interests. This grouping of selected courses is known as career clusters.
There are currently 16 career clusters, consisting of almost 79 specific career pathways of learning which are based on a set of common knowledge and skills that prepare learners for a variety of opportunities (ACTE, 2019; Advance CTE, 2019). Students select their career pathway and follow an established Programs of Study (POS) throughout their high school career. The career pathways are designed in such a way to help students to increase the likelihood of success in college and future careers. For example, the
Hospitality & Tourism career cluster consists of educational pathways in Restaurants and
Food/Beverage Services; Lodging; Travel & Tourism; and Recreation, Amusements, &
Attractions (Advance CTE, 2019).
Advance CTE also highlighted that the career clusters help to bridge the secondary curriculum with the post-secondary curriculum so that students are able to make real connections. The career cluster that students can choose is dependent upon what is offered at their assigned school. Although career clusters offered in each state may vary, the following list highlights the current clusters that are available (ACTE,
2019; Advance CTE, 2019): Agriculture, Food & Natural Resources; Architecture &
37
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
Construction; Arts. A/V Technology & Communications; Business Management &
Administration; Education & Training; Finance; Government & Public Administration;
Health Science; Hospitality & Tourism; Human Services; Information Technology; Law,
Public Safety, Corrections & Security; Manufacturing; Marketing; Science, Technology,
Engineering, & Mathematics; and Transportation, Distribution, & Logistics. Based on courses offered in each individual state, FCS related courses could easily fall within each of the 16 career clusters.
CTE in Texas
Texas has one of the most distinguished CTE programs in the nation. Data from the 2017-2018 academic year showed that 1,337,230 students were enrolled in CTE courses and 227,732 students were enrolled in CTE courses on the post-secondary level
(Advance CTE, 2019). In addition, 97% of CTE students graduated from high school and
69% of CTE concentrators go to college, advance their training, or join the military within 6 months of graduation. All 16 career clusters are offered within the state and students have the opportunity to participate in one of nine Career and Technical Student
Organizations (CTSOs) which can help to enhance educational and employability opportunities (Texas Education Agency, 2019). Dependent upon which courses are available within a school, the Texas Education Agency offers a wide variety of resources and professional development opportunities for CTE educators within the state.
38
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
Theoretical Framework: Bandura’s Self-Efficacy Theory
The characteristics of CTE courses and the role of FCS place teachers of this subject matter in a very unique situation. Secondary teachers who teach a core course may only be assigned to teach one specific subject matter from their discipline for the entire academic year. To paint a better illustration, this would be the 10th-grade math teacher who teaches Geometry for the entire year or the 11th-grade science teacher who teaches Chemistry for the entire year. However, a CTE educator, such as an FCS educator, must be prepared to teach several different subjects. As a result of so many career clusters, career pathways, and POS that are offered within CTE, an FCS educator must feel confident that they can successfully teach the course(s) that they have been assigned for the academic year. The Self-Efficacy Theory can be used as a theoretical framework to determine beliefs as it relates to overall teaching and confidence level in teaching a specific subject matter related to the FCS discipline such as Career
Preparation, Interior Design, Fashion Design, Human Growth and Development, Money
Matters, Child Development, Entrepreneurship, and Food Science just to name a few.
Albert Bandura’s Self-Efficacy Theory
Albert Bandura’s Self-Efficacy Theory is described as a person’s belief about their ability to organize and implement a series of actions that are necessary to achieve a certain behavior or goal (Bandura, 1977). Individuals with a strong sense of self-efficacy contain a considerable amount of self-confidence and are able to exhibit actions and behaviors with relative ease; regardless of how difficult the situation may be. If difficult circumstances occur, then these same individuals are able to use the appropriate tools and resources to accomplish their goals. Bandura (1977) believed that an individual’s view of
39
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020 their own self-efficacy is directly related to desired goals and accomplishments with influences from personal choice, motivation, and emotional reactions. He also felt that the stronger a person perceived their self-efficacy to be, the more effort they would put into obtaining the preferred behavior or action. In addition, Bandura (1977) also felt that self-efficacy was directly influenced by four main characteristics: performance accomplishments, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and emotional arousal.
Performance Accomplishments. The Self-Efficacy Theory identified that performance accomplishments are based on an individual mastering various experiences based on the previous successes or failures of that experience (Bandura, 1977). When an individual is able to excel in a certain behavior or action, this increases their self- confidence level and they have the feeling of being able to complete that same behavior or action repeatedly. In contrast, if an individual attempts a certain action or behavior repeatedly and is met with failure in each instance, then their personal self-efficacy is lowered. Bandura (1977) stated that this could be quite problematic if the failure occurs in the early stages of a particular event.
Vicarious Experience. Through modeling, vicarious experience allows an individual to observe another person carry out a behavior or task that they themselves deem dangerous or beyond their current knowledge to successfully complete (Bandura,
1977). By observing another individual perform a behavior or task, it serves no immediate threat to the individual completing the observation. The premise of this component of the theory is that by observing others, they will personally improve their actions if they work at it enough. In other words, a mentality of “if they can do it, then I
40
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020 can do it too” is adopted. Success, especially of a very difficult action, must be observed before an individual has the confidence to tackle the same behavior.
Verbal Persuasion. Verbal persuasion is a component of this theory in which an individual feels as though they can successfully accomplish a task or behavior based on suggestions from others, exhortation, or self-instruction (Bandura, 1977). In addition, encouragement from an external force leads an individual to believe that they can finally accomplish a task that has proved difficult and overwhelming in the past. Bandura (1977) warns that this component of the Self-Efficacy Theory has disadvantages in that expectations can be overrated in what one thinks they can accomplish versus what they can actually accomplish. However, verbal persuasion can still be a successful component as it can help to improve success through continuous performance and action of a particular behavior or task.
Emotional Arousal. In very stressful situations, it can be very difficult for an individual to successfully complete a behavior or task. Many factors can contribute to this problem such as one’s perceived lack of knowledge, availability to needed resources, or even doubt in actual capabilities. Emotional arousal allows an individual to recognize negative feelings such as fear, stress, and physical agitation as a component of unsuccessfully being able to complete a specific behavior or task (Bandura, 1977). In return, an individual can develop such uncertainty within their mind that levels of anxiety can be heightened and surpass the threatening situation of the behavior or task that actually needs to be completed. When an individual is able to identify selected stressors, then the appropriate coping skills can be developed so that a strategy can be implemented in how to successfully accomplish the task at hand. Bandura (1977) suggested that
41
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020 modeling behaviors can help to alleviate these fears and thus improve one’s self efficacy to successfully complete a behavior or task.
Teacher Self-Efficacy
Bandura’s Self-Efficacy Theory can be applied to the teaching profession as a whole. As mentioned earlier, FCS educators may be required to teach a variety of different subjects within an academic year. This can become quite overwhelming
(especially for a beginning FCS educator) if one feels a greater confidence level in teaching one subject matter versus another. Therefore, the teaching methods and approach that an FCS educator may adopt as it relates to teaching a specific subject matter could greatly vary.
Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk-Hoy, & Hoy (1998) described teacher efficacy as a teacher’s belief in their own capability to develop the appropriate course of action to successfully accomplish a specific teaching task as it related to a specific subject matter.
In addition, Tschannen-Moran & McMaster (2009) implied that teacher self-efficacy is also a teacher’s perceived capability to impart knowledge and to influence student behavior, even when students are unmotivated or quite challenging to teach. The origins of teacher self-efficacy are discussed in depth by Tschannen-Moran et al. (1998) literature as it related to earlier studies of efficacy such as the Rotter and RAND studies and Bandura’s Self-Efficacy & Social Cognitive theories. In addition, these researchers have identified several characteristics that define Teacher-Efficacy. Teacher self-efficacy is directly related to a teacher’s overall behavior in the classroom in relation to student achievement (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). In addition, it is associated with the amount of effort that one puts into teaching and the level of aspiration to succeed. Common
42
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020 characteristics of effective teachers such as a willingness to be open to new ideas, the ability to take risks, having effective planning and organizational skills, and displaying an overall enthusiasm and commitment to teaching are also identified as components of teacher self-efficacy (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998).
In connection to Bandura’s Self-Efficacy theory, a teacher’s ability to remain persistent when challenges arise and adjust to failures and setbacks is also highlighted in teacher self-efficacy (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). When this view is considered, it is suggested that overcoming obstacles can lead to greater self-efficacy. As stated by
Tschannen-Moran et al., (1998), greater self-efficacy leads to greater effort and persistence, which leads to better performance in the classroom, which then leads to greater efficacy in teaching the subject matter. Likewise, lower self-efficacy leads to less effort exhibited in the classroom and the likelihood of giving up. This, in turn, leads to poor teaching outcomes which will ultimately result in decreased self-efficacy of one’s ability to teach (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). Based on the information presented,
Tschannen-Moran et. al. (1998) developed a model (Appendix A) which highlighted the recurring nature of teacher self-efficacy.
Several studies have looked at the dynamics of teacher self-efficacy and its effects on overall teaching. Many of the studies have evaluated teacher self-efficacy in relation to classroom management, instructional strategies, satisfaction with teaching in general, student engagement, and support from administrative staff and colleagues. In addition, a variety of populations have been researched as it related to years of teaching experience, content taught, and participation in professional development (PD). In nearly all studies
43
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020 reviewed, there were several alignments made with Albert Bandura’s Self-Efficacy
Theory and other related theories.
Educational Attainment. One variable that could be a potential contributing factor to a teacher’s self-efficacy is the amount of education that has been obtained over the years. Teachers are often classified as life-long learners and as a result, may choose to continue their education beyond earning a bachelor’s degree. Although there are many advantages to pursuing studies beyond the bachelor’s degree, some individuals may feel anxiety, fear, and stress when contemplating going back to school. These levels may be greatly increased if a teacher had a negative experience during their undergraduate program and/or feel that they will still have to somehow balance working full time while attending graduate school. This highlights Bandura’s (1977) component of emotional arousal in that stressful situations can elicit various responses that could have an effect on one’s competency. Even though these stressors may be present, some individuals are able to power through by implementing various strategies to help them succeed.
Swackhamer, Koellner, Basile, and Kimbrough (2009) suggested that a teacher who furthers their education will fully enhance their content knowledge of the subject in which they teach. In return, this could potentially affect their level of self-efficacy.
Swackamer et al. (2009) also supported the fact that the content courses that teachers take that are designed to increase content knowledge and pedagogical techniques are also effective ways to increase levels of self efficacy.
A study completed by Hines (2012) on the role of FCS teachers in nutrition education showed that there was a positive correlation between educational attainment and self-efficacy levels. In this study of 197 FCS teachers in Texas, Hines (2012) found
44
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020 that FCS teachers who completed courses beyond a bachelor’s degree or had higher degrees beyond the bachelor’s degree had higher levels of self efficacy as it related to being able to present nutrition knowledge to other teachers in their respective school districts. In addition, when looking at teaching specific nutrition concepts, teachers with additional education or degrees beyond the bachelor’s degree were significantly more comfortable teaching disease prevention versus nutrition education, general nutrition, functions of nutrients, and nutrient metabolism.
Preparation Through Teacher Education Program. The preparation that a teacher receives from their teacher preparation program may have a direct effect on personal self-efficacy levels. If a teacher feels that they were adequately prepared through their traditional certification program or alternative teacher certification program, then they may feel quite confident in their teaching capabilities. During one’s teacher preparation program, an individual typically has the opportunity to observe teachers in a classroom setting and participate in a student teaching experience. The observation of teachers is an example of Bandura’s vicarious experience component. From this component, Bandura (1977) stated that these observations are less threatening in that an individual can view the actions of a desired behavior without consequences to one’s self.
By observing a teacher numerous times, one can feel that the action being portrayed can be accomplished. During the student teaching experience, the results of numerous observations combined with actions observed in the classroom, can allow an individual to feel comfortable teaching in the classroom.
In a study of measuring pre-service teachers' self-efficacy levels at the departure of their certification program, 509 students were surveyed on how prepared they were to
45
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020 enter the teaching profession (Jamil, Downer, & Pianta, 2012). Data were collected during their student teaching placement and the last semester of their program in which they completed exit surveys. Jamil et al. (2012) reported interesting findings from the results of this survey. They discovered that teachers with higher levels of self-efficacy about their teaching capabilities had more outgoing personalities and contained optimistic views of how children learn. This study also showed that preservice teachers who were more prone to pessimistic views and anxiety were not as confident in their role as a future educator. Finally, this study revealed that student teaching experience was not a sole, contributing factor to levels of self-efficacy (Jamil et al., 2012).
In a study conducted by Putman (2012) in which he evaluated teacher efficacy of preservice and in-service teachers, teacher preparation may have been a contributing factor to high levels of self-efficacy based on the rigor of the program. The teacher preparation program that was included in this study required students to complete six different field placement experiences, coursework in a declared emphasis area, 16 weeks’ worth of student teaching experience, and a senior capstone course that is a graduation requirement after the student teaching experience. Although previous research has generally supported the fact that teachers with more experience tend to have higher levels of self-efficacy, Putman (2012) found that his various groups of teachers within his study had similar efficacy beliefs…regardless of the number of years in teaching experience.
The studies highlighted in this section suggested that there may be a connection between teacher preparation programs and levels of self-efficacy.
Years of Teaching Experience. Years of teaching experience is an example that can be illustrated from the performance accomplishment of Bandura’s Self-Efficacy
46
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
Theory. According to Bandura (1977) if an individual has repeated successes in a behavior, then their levels of self efficacy can rise. However, if failures toward a certain behavior, then self-efficacy levels can be diminished. Due to the fact that many FCS teachers teach more than one subject, they may feel more competent teaching one subject versus another. In addition, the number of years that an FCS teacher teaches a subject matter may also determine how comfortable one feels teaching a specific subject. When an individual teaches a subject matter year after year, they are able to develop the appropriate instructional strategies and assessments that will allow students to achieve academic excellence. In addition, positive and constructive evaluations from administrators and peers can further aid in allowing a teacher to feel comfortable teaching a specific subject.
The actions that take place during the first through the third year of professional teachers could be vital in determining teacher self-efficacy. A study of the 2004 student- teacher cohort from The Ohio State University implied that when one enters the teaching profession, student engagement, instructional strategies, and classroom management are key components in determining teacher self-efficacy (Swan, Wolf, & Cano, 2011).
Results showed that teacher candidates who entered the teaching profession immediately after student teaching reported a higher sense of teacher self-efficacy versus those who delayed entering the teaching profession. The lowest level of overall teacher self-efficacy was reported at the end of the first year of teaching and highest at the end of the student teaching experience. In conjunction with this report, Swan et al. (2011) also stated that self-efficacy in relation to student engagement and instructional strategies were also reported at the lowest levels at the end of the first year of teaching and the highest levels
47
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020 at the end of the student teaching experience. In regard to classroom management, participants reported the lowest levels of teacher self-efficacy at the end of their third year of teaching and the highest at the end of student teaching. Swan et al. (2011) highlighted that the high self-efficacy scores reported at the end of the student teaching experience fall in alignment with Bandura’s theory of individuals developing a false sense of competency as a result of vicarious experiences. In other words, the support of the cooperating teacher during the student teaching experience can lead beginning teachers to believe that they are more effective in the classroom than they truly are.
Blackburn and Robinson (2008) also looked at self-efficacy through student engagement, instructional practices, and classroom management. Agriculture teachers who had six years of teaching experience or less were split into three separate groups (i.e.
Group 1 = 1-2 years of teaching experience; Group 2 = 3-4 years of teaching experience, and Group 3, 5-6 years of teaching experience). This descriptive correlation study used the Teachers Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES) to determine the highest and lowest level of teacher self-efficacy (Blackburn and Robinson, 2008).
The finding of this study showed that collectively, teachers reported being most successful in managing the classroom and least successful in engaging students. In addition, all groups were satisfied with teaching agriculture, but there was a decrease in the 3rd & 4th years. Blackburn and Robinson (2008) also discovered that teachers who reported the highest levels of self-efficacy as it related to student engagement and classroom management had the highest overall levels of job satisfaction. This could be directly related to the effectiveness of the content that was presented in the classroom and the teacher’s capability of establishing an environment conducive to learning. Therefore,
48
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020 one can conclude that high levels of self-efficacy can be attributed to a teacher feeling as though they have effective control over their classroom and that they observe that their students are actively engaged in the lesson that is presented.
Hines (2012) also discovered in her study that there was a positive correlation between age and self-efficacy levels, in addition to years of teaching experiences and self-efficacy. The conclusion was that as teachers become older and gain more teaching experience, their confidence levels will increase.
Participation in Professional Development. Finally, participation in PD that focuses on increasing content knowledge and pedagogical skills may also be a contributing factor in high levels of teacher self-efficacy. Bandura’s component of verbal persuasion can be aligned with one of the main reasons that FCS teachers participate in
PD opportunities. As an FCS teacher progresses through their career, they will more often than not be encouraged to participates in various forms of PD. This is due to the fact that PD requirements are typically included in one’s teaching contract and the universal thought in that PD can significantly improve one’s teaching (Kennedy, 2016).
Administrators not only provide PD opportunities, but they will also encourage their teachers to seek and participate in PD opportunities that are directly related to their subject area. Teachers may feel that the PD is helpful in that Bandura (1979) indicated that people are led to believe that they can successfully overcome challenges that may have hindered them in the past. The PD opportunities can be viewed as a corrective measure to improve one’s performance in the classroom.
Swackhamer et al. (2009) investigated whether in-service teachers’ level of personal efficacy and/or outcome efficacy would change as a result of completing courses
49
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020 in mathematics and/or science that was directly related to gaining new content to be incorporated with current pedagogical strategies. In addition, they also wanted to determine why these teachers selected these various content courses and if this information would help to identify certain characteristics of teachers with high levels of self-efficacy. Using the Science Teaching Efficacy Belief Instrument with modification,
88 participants completed this study as a result of participating in PD opportunities through a program developed by a grant from the National Science Foundation. The establishment of this program resulted in the development of 15 PD courses available to teachers within a Colorado school district over a four year period (Swackhamer et al.,
2009).
Overall, the results showed that teacher self-efficacy levels can be positively impacted by an increase in content-specific knowledge that contained a pedagogical emphasis through a PD setting (Swackhamer et. al., 2009). Self-efficacy results were higher in participants who had completed four or more math or science content courses.
In addition, self-efficacy was also higher as a result of an increase in content knowledge and demonstrating teaching methods that were most appropriate for presenting information to a diverse group of students. Teachers with the highest self-efficacy results also reported that they were more likely to enroll in PD courses due to intrinsic and personal motivation to become effective teachers as they genuinely valued education. In addition, they had an extreme appreciation for the PD courses that were offered as it allowed them to enhance their content knowledge and understanding of the material by focusing on new and innovative student-centered components that could be used immediately in the classroom (Swackhamer et al., 2009).
50
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
The overall consensus from these studies suggests that there are numerous factors that directly affect a teacher’s self-efficacy within the classroom. Furthermore, a teacher’s self-efficacy is developed over time based on their personal experiences inside and outside of the classroom.
Characteristics of FCS Teachers and FCS Courses
The Self Efficacy Theory has suggested that a high level of competence within one’s subject matter and confidence to teach is one of several components that must be exhibited to become a successful teacher. As stated by Bandura (1977), performance accomplishments, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and emotional arousal are all contributing factors that can determine an individual’s perception of how well they will teach in the classroom. For example, many are encouraged (verbal persuasion) to become
FCS teachers from a former FCS instructor. Once persuaded to enter the FCS profession, these individuals are given the tools needed to become effective instructors through their teacher education program. Classroom observations provided before and during the student teaching experience (vicarious experiences) allow these beginners to watch experts in action. In addition, Arnett and Freeburg (2008) stated that the more observations and hands-on experiences allowed, the greater the potential for increased confidence in teaching. As individuals transition from pre-service teacher to a professional teacher, experience is gained for every year that one remains in the classroom. With time, FCS teachers discover the most effective methods that will make their students successful (performance accomplishments). Although these effective methods must be applied to numerous content areas that may be taught within the
51
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020 discipline, Godbey and Johnson (2011) found that many FCS teachers thrive on teaching so many diverse topics in addition to finding the appropriate balance of managing FCS related student organizations and completing other non-instructional tasks. However, with the numerous demands of teaching more than one FCS subject, completing non- instructional duties, advising student organizations, and participating in various activities to maintain teaching credentials, the demands of being an FCS teacher can be overwhelming (emotional arousal). Not only must FCS teachers balance their work duties, but a fine balance must also be found in their personal life. Failure to find such a balance could lead to decreased teaching performance in the classroom, varying levels of stress, and teacher burnout. Teaching is both one of the most challenging and most rewarding professions that an individual can pursue. One teacher can have the power to shape a student’s entire life for the best or for the worst. With such demanding characteristics and responsibilities, one must analyze why an individual would still choose to become an FCS teacher.
In addition to the aforementioned characteristics, various researchers have reported common findings as to why individuals choose to become FCS teachers. In a study of 81 certified teachers, Arnett and Freeburg (2011) reported that these individuals chose FCS as a teaching career based on the variety of the FCS subject matter, the positive influence of a former teacher, the structure of a family-friendly schedule, and the enjoyment of working with children and students. In a similar study of 26 certified FCS teachers with less than six years of teaching experience, Godbey and Johnson (2011) reported the same findings in addition to showing a desire to help families, past involvement with the student organization Family, Community, and Career Leaders of
52
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
America (FCCLA) and other professional organizations, influence from family and friends, and encouragement from a high school guidance counselor. In addition to this finding, students on the collegiate level also reported desiring to become an FCS teacher as a result of already being an FCS major and having a family member who was or had been an FCS teacher (Godbey & Johnson, 2011). As a result of the FCS profession being classified as a helping profession, the results are not surprising. The mission statement as follow from the American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences Association
(AAFCS, 2019) further describes the reason as to why individuals enter this particular teaching profession in that “the mission of the AAFCS is to provide leadership for professionals whose work assists individuals, families, and communities in making informed decisions about their well-being, relationships, and resources to achieve optimal quality of life.
As mentioned previously, FCS teachers can teach a variety of courses from the 16 career clusters that are offered through CTE. Based on courses taken through FCS teacher preparation programs, FCS teachers develop an extensive knowledge base on a variety of subjects. The various subjects that they are able to teach set them apart from other traditional disciplines such as science, math, English, and social studies.
Description of FCS Teachers and Courses
Any class that helps to improve the quality of life of individuals, families, communities, and consumers could possibly be classified as an FCS course. Courses that have been traditionally taught within this discipline included cooking, child development, and clothing construction. However, with the advancement of society and technology within the past century, FCS teachers are now teaching courses that are relevant to
53
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020 student interest and meet the needs of various career demands. A national study of FCS programs conducted by Werhan and Way (2006) reported that there were approximately
37,500 FCS teachers and 5,517,976 students enrolled in FCS related courses. This study also indicated that on the secondary level, the most popular courses that were likely to be offered were personal finance/consumer economics, parenting, and life/skills independent living. Classes the included the highest student enrollments were culinary arts and early childhood education (Werhan and Way, 2006).
Teaching FCS in Texas
Texas has a well-established CTE program and astounding enrollments in FCS related courses. Currently, this state offers classes from each of the 16 career clusters in various school districts on the secondary level. In order to teach FCS in the state of
Texas, it is preferred that an individual graduate from an accredited teacher education preparation program but alternate methods of certification are available. However, potential FCS teachers must receive a passing score from a teacher certification exam administered from AAFCS. With a passing score on the certification exam and based on an individual’s program of study, personal interest, and work-related experience, one may earn one of the following certifications (AAFCS, 2019):
1. Composite Family and Consumer Sciences
2. Hospitality, Nutrition, and Food Science Concentration
3. Human Development and Family Studies Concentration
FCS courses are offered within the following career clusters: Architecture and
Construction; Arts, A/V Technology, and Communications; Education and Training;
54
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
Finance; Hospitality and Tourism; Human Services, Marketing; and Science,
Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM).
Food Science: Then and Now
FCS educators have the opportunity to teach a variety of courses as a result of the knowledge they possess in a variety of subjects. These courses are specifically designed in order to meet the demands of society as it relates to college and career opportunities.
Career clusters that have been established allow students to select a POS that is directly related to their personal interest as it relates to entering the workforce or continuing their education after graduating from high school. Although FCS courses such as early childhood education, food and nutrition, child development, and clothing construction have been traditionally popular courses among high school students, other courses such as family life education, consumer decisions, sports nutrition, and fashion design are gaining popularity (Werhan & Way, 2006). One course in particular that can also be accounted for within this group is Food Science.
History of Food Science
Defining Food Science. Ward (2013) best-defined food science as “the study of the nature of food, that cause of deteriorations, the principles underlying good processing, and the improvement of foods for the consuming public.” In addition, it is considered an interdisciplinary study as a result of pulling applicable concepts from disciplines such as agronomics, biology, biotechnology, chemistry computer science, culinary arts, economics, engineering, microbiology, nutrition, and physics (Ward, 2013; Floras et al.,
2010; Institute of Food Technologists). Although concepts related to Food Science such
55
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020 as enzymes, phytochemicals, additives, food safety, and preservation (just to name a few) has gained considerable attention over the last few decades, it is not a new concept of study among FCS educators. Research shows that FCS educators were concerned with these issues, even before the profession was clearly identified. A brief history of Food
Science shows that the early pioneers of FCS who studied food and nutrition in relation to basic scientific principles were well ahead of their time.
Earliest Civilization. Researchers seem to share the same opinions as it relates to how today’s Food Science related principles began. Floras et al. (2010) explained that food processing was developed nearly two million years ago when ancestors discovered how to cook and then transform food items so that it could be preserved and stored safely. Ward (2013) identified the first earliest stages of Food Science principles being practiced during early civilization. She explained how mankind had to discover various techniques to preserve foods during the long winter months. They discovered that drying grains would allow them to store such food products over the long winter months. As a result, individuals from the earliest civilizations discovered that salting and smoking certain food items would last longer (Ward, 2013). Ward (2013) also considered these techniques to be the earliest forms of food processing. These basic techniques allowed the earliest humans to overcome hunger and disease by harvesting food and processing it through various methods (Floras et al., 2010)
The 18th Century. As time progressed from early mankind until the 1700s, ways to preserve food were literally done through trial and error (Ward, 2013). The 18th century would bring about the development of tools and procedures in trying to understand why certain actions happened as it related to food. For example, Pucciarelli
56
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
(2009) explained how the works of Antoine Lavoisier made great advancements in chemistry. So much so that he was described as the “father of modern chemistry.”
Lavoisier had access to the most current laboratory equipment of that time such as balances, gasometers, and thermometers to assist in his experimentations (Pucciarelli,
2009). As a result of Lavoisier’s work, based on the following quote researched by
Pucciarelli (2009), the following three conclusions were identified from his work which would help begin the implementation of chemistry principles in food and nutrition:
“(1) For the first time the heat generated in a living animal was measured
by direct calorimetry; (2) more importantly, it was clearly shown that the
heat produced in respiration and during combustion resulted from the
same chemical process, both yielding carbon dioxide; (3) as indicated by
the investigators, it was demonstrated for the first time that heat
production in the animal body is a chemical and not a mechanical
process.” (Pucciarelli, 2009)
The 19th Century. The 19th century would see significant advancements and changes as it related to the development of Food Science. This era would also see the first glimpse of early Home Economics positioning a place in studying the scientific principles of food. Ward (2013) explained how during this time period, the microscope was improved and scientists were able to better understand how bacteria affected food spoilage and the overall health of individuals. In addition, farm machinery such as the thresher, reaper, and the steel plow were invented to assist with food processing. As a result of these new inventions, food processing companies such as Armour, Pillsbury, and
Campbell were founded during this time frame.
57
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
Early pioneers in Home Economics would begin to take their place in applying scientific principles to the study of food. In addition, Pucciarelli (2009) described how entrepreneurs realized that research laboratories with a concentration in agricultural studies could be a huge asset in helping to reduce production costs while increasing yield production. The Hatch Act of 1887 had allowed experimental stations to be created at specific post-secondary institutions that were established through the Morrill Land Grant
Acts. These experimental stations allowed extensive experiments and research to be conducted as it related to nutritional matters. Wilbur Atwater, an advocate of Home
Economics, was the director of several of these stations as a result of his expertise in researching human nutrition (Pucciarelli, 2009). His position would prove to be invaluable based on the professional relationship with the founder of FCS, Richards S.
Richards. The importance of Home Economics during this time frame and their relevance to the earliest studies of Food Science is highlighted in the following quote from Dr.
Albert C. True, Director of the Office of Experiment Stations and close colleague of Dr.
Wilbur Atwater:
“It is very important that the Department, interested as it is in agricultural
education, should make a closer study of the courses in instruction in
home economics or domestic science taught in schools and colleges,
especially the colleges of agriculture and mechanic arts, throughout the
country with a view to aiding teachers in their work to a greater degree
than at present. Satisfactory text-books on food and nutrition are not
available, and at present, a large proportion of the teachers depend on
Department publications to supply their place. There is a demand for more
58
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
nutrition publications, both technical and popular.” (Pucciarelli, 2009)
The 20th Century. The beginning of the 20th century would bring the United
States into the full thrust of the Industrial Revolution and governmental influence as it related to nutritional matters for the everyday American consumer. In addition, Home
Economics had already been established and made considerable contributions to the emerging field of what we now know as Food Science. Table 2.1 shows a listing of titles from the earliest issues of the Home Economics Journal that dealt directly with Food
Science related topics that are still being addressed today. Selected research of early
Home Economist as found in the Home Economics Archive of Research, Tradition, and
History (HEARTH) Database from Cornell University are listed by title, author, volume, number, and the year written.
59
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
Table 2.1
Selected Articles from the Journal of Home Economics
Title Author Volume Number Year Teaching Mary 1 1 1909 Chemistry in Converse Connection with Domestic Science On the Relation Ruth Aimee 2 1 1910 of Yeast to Wardall Flavor in Bread The Minna C. 2 3 1910 Pasteurization Denton of City Milk Supplies Buying, Storing, Annie Dewey 7 3 1910 and Handling Food Supplies For the Agnes Fay 13 5 1921 Homemaker: Morgan The Responsibility of the Consumer for Food Standards and Prices
In addition to the contributions of early Home Economic professionals, world events would also help to shape the progression of Food Science. The Institute of Food
Technologists (IFT) (2000) indicated that the most important food issues addressed from
1900-1929 in the following statement:
“The United States was developing its food systems, and three important
issues emerged: preserving food to break the ties of seasonality, dealing
60
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
with the concerns about economic and toxic adulteration, and building an
agronomic system that could provide food not only to Americans but also
to other countries.” (IFT, 2000).
The Great Depression, World War I, and World War II were significant events during this time frame. Americans had a desire for food that contained more meat, dairy, and sugar products although these items were in short supply (IFT, 2000). This shortage was a result of food products being rationed so that military forces abroad would have access to food. Home Economists played an active role during this timeframe in disseminating information to consumers on the best ways that they could probably utilize available food sources (Kato & Elias, 2015).
Convenience foods made their first appearance and were initially developed for the military. However, Ward (2013) explained that this concept was not very popular among American citizens as they felt that convenience food items were of lower nutritional quality. However, World War II would change these views as more women joined the workforce and demanded more convenient and time-efficient ways to prepare food items (Ward, 2013; IFT, 2000). In addition, the price of food items was of grave concern and took precedence over the importance of nutritional value. As a result, the demand for food scientists was at an all-time high (IFT, 2000).
After World War II, convenience foods had become a way of life. In fact, the term “convenience foods” was officially coined by Charles Mortimer who was CEO of the General Foods Company from 1954-1965 (Moss, 2013). The incorporation and acceptance of convenience foods could be credited to the invention of instant pudding in
1949 and Tang in 1958 by Al Causi who was a chemist for General Foods (Moss, 2013).
61
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
Moss (2013) also took an in-depth look at how the birth of convenience foods involved constant competition from big-name companies such as Post and Kellogg, the constant demand that Mortimer placed on his employees to produce innovative food items by branching out from traditional food items and beverages for breakfast, to even undermining the mission of Home Economic teachers of that time who encouraged students and consumers to avoid convenience foods in favor of home-cooked meals. The following quote from Mortimer highlighted at a dinner in 1955 exhibited the role that he felt convenience foods would play in American society:
“Convenience is the great additive which must be designed, built in, combined,
Blended, interwoven, injected, inserted, or otherwise added to or incorporated
In products or services if they are to satisfy today’s demanding public. It is the
new and controlling denominator of consumer acceptance or demand.”
(Moss, 2013, p. 60)
Even though convenience foods had gained staggering popularity after the 1950s, there were still issues and concerns that had to be addressed. So much so that several regulations were implemented by the federal government to protect consumers from unsafe, unhealthy, and dangerous practices from the food industry. Due to the fact that so many new techniques were formed, problems would arise that had to be addressed by the federal government (Ward, 2013). A better effort was made to try and understand the role of the consumer in the food selection practices which could be credited to the passage of the Fair Practices Labeling Act in 1969 (IFT, 2000). This promoted the first initial phases of proper nutrition labeling, changes in product standards, and a change in the thought process among the American public as it related to what was considered healthy and
62
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020 unhealthy food items. Several legislative pieces would pass such as the Food Additives
Amendment (1958), the Delaney Clause (1958), the Color Additives Amendment (1966), and the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act (1966).
The latter part of the 20th century would exhibit a high consumer demand for the selection of top-quality food products. Consumers wanted more information at their disposal as it related to the food products that they were purchasing for themselves and their loved ones. The IFT (2000) indicated that consumers wanted seasonal foods year- round and as a result, importing foods became a popular practice. Consumers also demanded that foods were made safe for consumption. Advancements in technology and extensive research from professionals would create new concepts in Food Science such as nutraceuticals and biotechnology (IFT, 2000). The advancements during this time frame were truly significant in that it would lead to the rapid development and importance of studying Food Science on the secondary and post-secondary levels.
How is Food Science Currently Viewed?
Food Science is becoming one of the fastest-growing and most popular fields of study in the United States. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2019), job growth for food scientists and technologists will increase in the years to come as a result of the demand for new food products and food safety measures. The Bureau also reported that there were approximately 29,200 individuals in the United States who were employed as food scientists with projected job growth of 6% by 2028. Food research is expected to increase based on the public’s awareness of the importance of nutrition, health, food safety, and the need to keep animals used for food products from becoming ill (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2019).
63
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
Individuals who study this field in depth should walk away with various skills such as making consumer choices about food, understanding food labels, analyzing new products, relating scientific principles to food items, and understanding basic guidelines for maintaining food quality and safety (Ward 2013). Food science courses are commonly taught in secondary and post-secondary levels. In fact, individuals who wish to pursue this career, at a minimum, need a bachelor’s degree. Advanced education may be needed as food scientists play an important role in maintaining the nation’s food supply through research and experimentation (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2019).
The relevance of Food Science in today’s time is described in detail by the following quote:
“Advances in agriculture and food science and technology have provided
reduction in nutrient deficiency-related diseases; enhanced food safety and
consistent quality; decreased home food-preparation time; a large variety
of delicious food choices, reduced food waste, lower household food costs
than ever before; food and meal convenience options; products
specifically formulated to meet the nutritional needs of specific
subpopulations; and efficient global food distribution, which can be
exploited in times of natural and man-made disasters.” (Floros et al.,
2010).
As it relates to Food Science being taught in classrooms across the United States, this is one of the fastest-growing courses being offered. As a result of the Science,
Technology Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Initiative, the importance of Food
Science is being promoted in secondary schools across the nation. One of the major
64
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020 purposes of the STEM Initiative is to promote teaching and learning on an educational level at the local, state, and national levels in order to produce a capable and productive workforce in the disciplines of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
(Schmidt, Bohn, Rasmussen, and Sutherland, 2012). Based on the nature of topics that are discussed in Food Science courses, numerous concepts promote higher levels of thinking. Schmidt et al. (2012) explained that Food Science is a great compliment to the
STEM Initiative based on the following components:
1. Students are already familiar with food items and can apply the appropriate
scientific principles.
2. There is currently a strong public interest in food and health practices in the
United States.
3. Food Science has an interdisciplinary focus and as a result of combining
several disciplines such as chemistry, microbiology, engineering, nutrition,
and sensory sciences offer a rigorous curriculum.
4. Students can consume products from the various labs and demonstrations that
are incorporated which in turn promotes kinesthetic learning.
Schmidt et al. (2012) also implied that students enrolled in Food Science courses are able to see the advantages that can be found in the food industry and career available within the discipline. This, in turn, could make students more interested in pursuing post- secondary education by selecting Food Science as a major and thus obtaining a career within this field.
65
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
Food Science Courses in Texas
The state of Texas has recognized the importance and relevance of Food Science as it is offered on the secondary level in many school districts. The official name for the course is Food Science and is categorized under the Career Cluster of Hospitality and
Tourism (TEA, 2017). In most states, Food Science is offered as an elective course.
However, TEA (2017) amended high school graduation requirements and at the start of the 2007-2008 academic year, Food Science was offered as a fourth science credit versus an elective. As a result of this change, Food Science courses have seen a steady increase in student enrollment.
One of the major reasons that Food Science was able to be offered as a science credit versus an elective was due to major revisions to the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) for this course.
Developing the Food Science TEKS in Texas. In an interview with Cynthia
Miller, Graduate Research Assistant in the Family and Consumer Sciences Education
Program at Texas Tech University (C. L. Miller, personal communication, August 27,
2013), offered a detailed account of how the Food Science TEKS were developed in
Texas.
C. L. Miller (personal communication, August 27, 2013) shared that the development of the Food Science TEKS consisted of four committee members who had volunteered to assist in making standard revisions during the 2007-2008 academic year.
The committee members consisted of an educator from the Hospitality and Tourism career cluster in Texas; a community college representative; a business representative who worked in the hotel industry; and Cynthia Miller who at the time served as the
66
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
Frenship CTE director at Frenship High School in Wolfforth, Texas. Surprisingly, there were no representatives from a post-secondary institution or FCS teacher who was teaching Food Science at the time who was a member of this four-team committee
(personal communication, August 27, 2013).
Once the magnitude of this task was realized, a representative from the Texas
Dietetic Association was included to share her views on the concepts that should be included. C. L. Miller (personal communication, August 27, 2013) indicated that although they did not review Food Science standards from other states, the committee did use the College and Career Readiness Standards, former TEKS from the Nutrition Food
Science course that was being taught at the time, and the Career Clusters as a guiding force for revamping the Food Science TEKS. The committee members soon realized that in order for Food Science to be credited as a fourth science credit versus an elective, the terminology would need to be similar to those found in the “hard sciences” courses such as biology, chemistry, and physics just to name a few.
Once a final product had been developed, C. L. Miller (personal communication,
August 27, 2013) submitted the final document to be reviewed by Dr. Leslie Thompson,
Department Chair of the Department of Animal and Food Sciences at Texas Tech
University. Dr. Thompson informed her that if these standards were what students would be learning at the high school level, it would be the equivalent of what was taught in an introductory food labs course at Texas Tech University within her department. Dr.
Thompson was amazed that such rigor would be taught in a Food Science course for high school students. After much correspondence from committee members and a seal of approval from a respected professional in the Dietetics and Food Science disciplines, 27
67
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
TEKS were developed that students should be able to successfully meet should they choose to enroll in Food Science and Technology within the state of Texas.
TEA (2017) described Food Science as a one-credit course that is recommended for students in the 11th and 12th grades. In addition, students must have completed three courses in science including chemistry and biology before enrolling in the course.
Although not required, it is also recommended that students complete the Principles of
Hospitality and Tourism course, provided that the course is offered at the selected school.
In addition, students must meet the 40% laboratory and fieldwork requirements.
Selected concepts that are required to be taught in the course have been established through TEA (2019) known as the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills
(TEKS). The TEKS for Food Science has been established in such a way that once an individual successfully completes the course, they should be able to demonstrate a variety of skill sets.
According to the Teacher FTE Counts and Course Enrollment Report (TEA,
2019), 16,182 students were enrolled in Food Science during the 2018-2019 academic year. In addition, there were approximately 117 certified FCS teachers who taught this course during the same academic year (K. Alexander, personal communication, August 9,
2019).
Professional Development and Teaching
The literature thus far has given an extensive overview of how FCS educators have played an important role in the American educational system and the teaching of
Food Science principles. FCS teachers and other related CTE educators must possess a
68
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020 wealth of knowledge that goes far beyond solely understanding food and nutrition.
Before FCS teachers are hired, employers take a gamble in hoping that their new employee possesses an extensive knowledge base and effective instructional strategies to successfully teach their assigned course(s). Once teachers begin teaching a course, they try to develop a system that works best for their classroom. Time and experience can help to shed light on strengths and weaknesses as an instructor. For strengths that need to be maintained and weaknesses that need to be improved upon, professional development
(PD) opportunities can assist in allowing teachers to continually grow as an educational professional.
What is Professional Development?
Teachers who try to improve their “craft” are always in search of the most current and innovative techniques that they can use in their classrooms. This search for new information is most often found in the format of PD. The National Research Center for
Career and Technical Education (NRCCTE) defined PD as follow:
“Professional development involves comprehensive, sustained, and
systematic learning experiences that are based on identified needs of
teachers and result in improved instructional effectiveness and increased
student achievement and performance outcomes.” (NRCCTE, 2010, pg. 6)
Mizell (2010) explained that PD can take place in a traditional, formal setting such as a conference, seminar, or workshop. Non-traditional formats were also described such as discussions among colleagues, reading independently, conducting research, or completing peer observations. Alternative names that are used to describe PD include
69
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020 staff development, in-service training, professional learning, or continuing education
(Mizell, 2010)
The Importance of Professional Development
Effective teachers in the classroom are often characterized as lifelong learners.
Teachers should have the mindset of wanting to improve their teaching from academic year to academic year. Drage (2010) reiterated the fact that the Career and Technical
Education Improvement Act of 2006 is very clear on the importance of PD for CTE educators. The following statements from the Act showed the relevance and importance of PD:
• provide in-service and pre-service training to career and technical teachers in the
integration and use of rigorous academics with technical subjects;
• provided jointly with academic teachers to the extent practical, and on the effective
use of scientifically based research and data to improve instruction;
• be high quality, sustained, intensive, and classroom-focused in order to have a
positive and lasting impact on classroom instruction and the teacher‘s performance in
the classroom,
• not be one-day or short-term workshops or conferences;
• help ensure teachers and personnel can effectively develop rigorous and challenging,
integrated academic and CTE education curricula jointly with academic teachers;
• develop a higher level of academic and industry knowledge and skills in CTE;
• ensure teachers can effectively use applied learning that contributes to the academic
and career and technical knowledge of the student (Drage, 2010, pg. 26)
70
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
Periodically during the school year, teachers take the initiative and/or are required by their supervisors to attend PD sessions in a variety of formats. In fact, a majority of states require that their educators earn a certain number of hours of PD within a certain number of years.
Participating in meaningful PD opportunities is instrumental to a teacher’s professional career. According to Schieb and Karabenick (2011), “PD is designed to increase teacher content knowledge and pedagogical content.” With the various subject matter that CTE educators (and FCS teachers) are capable of teaching, it is important that educators enhance their skill set through PD. The NRCCTE (2010) stated that in order for secondary CTE teachers to be able to meet the demands that are placed upon them, they must be continuous learners and stay abreast of the content of their discipline through
PD.
What Makes Professional Development Work?
Even though PD is encouraged, it does not necessarily mean that a teacher will be enthusiastic to attend. While some teachers are actively engaged in PD, there are those who are passive participants and count the minutes that the PD will conclude. As a result of these varying emotions that can be portrayed, one can ask the question as to why some teachers find PD very helpful and informative while others may find PD opportunities boring and a complete waste of time. Several researchers have looked into numerous characteristics in regard to what makes PD work or not work.
One of the many challenges faced when it comes to implementing PD is making the topics to be discussed attractive to teachers so that they will attend and actively participate (Schieb and Karabenick, 2011). For those teachers who do participate, their
71
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020 level of engagement can vary which may have a direct effect on how much they actually learn from the PD experience. A teacher’s lack of interest in PD sessions can be attributed to many factors.
A contributing factor that can be considered is the timeframe in which the PD is actually offered. Mizell (2010) suggested that PD is most effective when it happens during the actual workday. This statement can be directly correlated with the fact that teachers value their time and would not like it to be wasted on PD sessions that may be of no personal benefit to them. When looking at the actual length of the PD, it may be too short in which actual effectiveness can be determined. All too often PD is offered as a one-shot deal in which no actual assessment is properly implemented. The NRCCTE
(2010) reported that in order for PD to be effective, there must be learning activities ranging from 30-100 hours that are delivered over a 6-12 month timeframe. PD opportunities that followed this format reported a significant increase in teacher self- efficacy and improved student learning.
Another factor that should be considered in characteristics that limit the effectiveness of PD is the topics that are actually discussed. Unfortunately, teachers may participate in PD that is not relevant to their grade level and/or subject matter taught. In a study of CTE teachers in regard to their PD needs, Drage (2010) found that CTE teachers were very specific in the PD that they would and would not be likely to attend. FCS teachers from this study reported that they were more likely to attend PD that would help them to develop critical thinking and problem-solving skills in their students. However, they were less likely to attend PD that placed emphasis on collecting data, using basic statistics, and using database software (Drage, 2010). Allowing teachers to be actively
72
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020 involved in the planning process of PD experiences can allow administrators to determine what should be specifically offered (Compton, 2010).
A final factor that will be discussed that should be taken into consideration to develop effective PD is in the form of allowing educators the opportunity to collaborate with one another. Although information may be presented in an organized format, educators may have little or no time to discuss how the new knowledge learned can be successfully implemented in the classroom. In fact, Compton (2010) indicated that teachers reported feeling a sense of isolation when they were not able to share ideas with their colleagues. Several researchers have concluded that teachers find PD more meaningful when they are able to discuss ideas and strategies by collaborating and building learning communities with their colleagues (Schieb & Karabenick, 2011;
Compton, 2010; Drage, 2010; Mizell, 2010; and NRCCTE, 2010). Planners of PD opportunities should make a genuine effort to allow educators to collaborate with one another as much as possible. This particular action should be given consideration in that collaboration also allows teachers to analyze student achievement and identify problems, develop solutions, and quickly implement solutions that will help students succeed
(Mizell, 2010). Identifying problematic issues from the very start can help design effective and meaningful PD opportunities.
Professional Development for Family and Consumer Sciences Teachers
Based on the changing nature of the FCS profession, it is imperative for FCS teachers to stay abreast of information through participation in PD opportunities. As society changes, so do the content taught in FCS classes. FCS educators are often encouraged to participate in PD as it relates to their specialized content interest,
73
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020 pedagogical strategies, classroom management, and/or implementation of technology in the classroom. Even though state requirements connect the renewal of teacher certification with documented PD experiences, most FCS teaches will take the initiative to seek out PD opportunities in order to enhance their instructional capabilities. Most commonly, FCS educators have the opportunity to participate in PD experiences on the local, state, and/or national levels.
On the local level, FCS educators will usually participate in PD opportunities through their assigned school. In certain school districts, FCS teachers may be required to attend a district-wide PD which is strictly designated for CTE instructors. This gives FCS educators the opportunity to collaborate with other colleagues who teach similar subjects.
In addition, FCS teachers may have the opportunity to learn new information and instructional strategies that are solely designed for the FCS classroom. This could prove invaluable to FCS educators as they are not likely to be afforded such experiences in a regular PD that may be held at their designated school.
On the state level, FCS educators may take part in PD opportunities that are offered by an educational entity such as a state Department of Education or a neighboring college or university. On the national level, professional organizations such as the
American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences (AAFCS) and the Association of Career and Technical Education (ACTE) offer PD opportunities for FCS educators in the form of webinars, regional meetings, and annual conferences. The participation of PD on such a grand scale gives FCS educators the opportunity to network with professionals across the nation. In addition, FCS educators have direct access to the most up-to-date
74
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020 research, resources, and innovative instructional strategies that can be implemented in the classroom.
Summary of the Review of Literature
The literature review establishes a foundation to evaluate various factors that could possibly affect an FCS teacher’s levels of self efficacy. In an attempt to address the research questions of this study, the following was found.
When applying Bandura’s Self-Efficacy Theory (Bandura, 1977), levels can be affected based on four major components. Performance accomplishments is one of the components which is based on the successes and failures of mastering a behavior or task based on past experiences. From a teaching perspective, an example would be the ability teachers feel in successfully teaching more than the one content area year after year.
Unlike traditional disciplines such as science and math, FCS teachers may teach several content areas in a given academic year. In feeling prepared to teach a variety of subject areas, one can evaluate their teacher education program. Actions commonly found in these programs such as observing teachers during the matriculation of their program and completing a student teaching experience at the end of the program describes Bandura’s
(1977) second component as it relates to vicarious experiences. These experiences allow an individual to observe others and have a sense of feeling that they can successfully carry out the same behaviors.
Although typically known as a rewarding profession, teaching can be a very stressful career. Factors such as deciding to further one’s education by going to graduate school, maintaining appropriate licensing credentials, and successfully teaching students
75
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020 in an environment that is conducive to learning can bring about a wide range of emotions.
Addressing and identifying these emotions such as anxiety, fear, and stress highlights
Bandura’s third component of emotional arousal which can have a significant effect on self-efficacy levels. Despite levels of frustration that may occur, individuals may be able to overcome their challenges with the proper encouragement which is an aspect of
Bandura’s final component of verbal persuasion. Encouragement can come in a variety of forms (e.g. suggestion of others, persuasion, independent study) to assist teachers in reaching their full potential. When topics learned from PD opportunities yield effective and positive results in the classroom, levels of self efficacy can increase.
These four components in conjunction with accompanying factors set the stage for looking at a variety of influences that could possibly affect self-efficacy levels in FCS teachers.
76
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
Overview of the Purpose
The purpose of this study was to determine the self efficacy of family and consumer sciences teachers who teach food science as a science credit. Several characteristics and factors were evaluated in this study to determine how comfortable family and consumer sciences teachers feel regarding teaching food science. Factors that were taken into consideration included training through teacher preparation programs, years of teaching experience, and the level of participation in professional development opportunities. The results of this study set out to determine the needs (e.g. professional development and continuing education) of food science teachers so that they can become successful and more confident when teaching this content area on the secondary level.
Research Questions, Independent Variables, and Dependent Variables
The self-efficacy levels of family and consumer sciences teachers can be determined and evaluated by a variety of factors. The research questions that were addressed in this study were as follow:
1. What is the level of self-efficacy of teachers who teach food science?
2. How do variables (i.e. education, teacher preparation, and the number of years
teaching) affect the level of self efficacy of teachers who teach food science.
3. Does the level of participation in professional development opportunities and
the type effect self-efficacy levels in teachers who teach food science?
The dependent variable for each research question is the overall self-efficacy levels. In the second research question, level of education, teacher preparation, and
77
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020 number of years teaching served as independent variables to determine levels of self efficacy. Finally, the last research question used the level of participation in PD opportunities and the type of PD participation as the independent variables.
Research Design
This study was conducted in the form of an exploratory, descriptive, quantitative format. One justification for the selection of this format is that quantitative research is commonly used to describe current conditions, investigate relations, and study cause and effect (Mills & Gay, 2019). Surveys can measure many variables and data can be collected from many people relatively quickly.
This study investigated the family and consumer sciences teachers’ self-efficacy levels in teaching food science as a science credit based on their perceived level of self efficacy, level of education obtained, experiences in their teaching preparation program, number of years teaching food science, level of participation in PD, and type of PD.
Survey research is a common data collection method used in quantitative research in that it gives exact numerical data to test hypotheses or answer questions about the current status of participants in a study (Mills & Gay, 2019). For the purposes of this research, an additional advantage of using this method is that numerous studies have used survey research to evaluate self efficacy (McKim & Velez, 2017; Yangin & Sidekli,
2016; Yoo, 2016; Liceaga et al., 2014; Hines, 2012; Enochs & Riggs, 1990). These studies reported the validity and reliability of the instrument which served as a guide to selecting and developing the appropriate instrument for this study.
78
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
Instrumentation
This study combined an existing instrument with researcher developed items to explore the self efficacy of family and consumer sciences teachers who teach food science as a science credit. The Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale Short Form (Tschannen
– Moran & Hoy, 2001) and researcher-developed items were combined into one instrument. The instrument consisted of items that dealt specifically with teaching self- efficacy, comfort level in teaching food science, comfort level in teaching specific food science concepts, best practices in instructional strategies for food science, professional development, and demographic information.
During this study, modifications were made to the Teacher Sense of Efficacy
Scale Short form and the researcher developed items. The final instrument, which can be found in Appendix B, was distributed through the Qualtrics online program provided by the College of Human Sciences at Texas Tech University. The instrument included six sections regarding teaching self efficacy (12 questions), comfort in teaching food science overall (22 questions), comfort in teaching food science concepts (23 questions), best practices for instructional strategies in food science (13 questions), professional development (25 questions), and demographic information (13 questions). This instrument consisted of 104 questions.
Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale Short Form. The Teacher Sense of Efficacy
Scale Short Form is based on the works of Albert Bandura’s Self-Efficacy Theory.
Tscahnnen-Moran (n.d.) defined Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy as one’s belief in their capability to make a difference regarding student learning even when the student is difficult or unmotivated. In addition, this instrument evaluated instructional strategies,
79
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020 student engagement, and classroom management. This view is in alignment with
Bandura’s (1977) theory in that he stated changes within an individual go far beyond solely evaluating performance accomplishments and many of the behaviors that humans adapt are the results of modeling others. In addition, when behaviors are repeated, most individuals will make adjustments based on the feedback they receive on the displayed behavior (Bandura, 1977). The Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale evaluates teachers based on repeated behaviors they have used in relation to the instructional strategies they have implemented in the classroom, their engagement with students, and how well they are able to manage their classrooms. Feedback can be given to teachers from a variety of entities which include but are not limited to administrators, colleagues, and the students that they teach. As a result, the scale is developed in such a way that goes beyond solely evaluating a teacher’s performance and requires those who complete the scale to reflect on feedback received over time in relation to how they give instruction, the ways they have engaged with students, and the successful techniques that have been used to manage their classroom.
Based on the focus of this study, the items from this instrument were slightly modified into statements. For example, question #1 from the original study, “How much can you do to control disruptive behavior in the classroom?” was changed to “I can control disruptive behavior in my classroom.” This change was needed as a result of the researcher changing the wording of the Likert scale items from the original instrument in which “not at all”, “very little”, “some degree”, “quite a bit”, and a “great deal” was used to “strongly disagree”, “disagree”, “neither agree nor disagree”, “agree”, and “strongly agree”, respectively.
80
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
Although the Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale Short Form was modified, the instrument was reliable and valid as indicated by a Cronbach α = .938. Table 3.1 shows the factor loading from the original study in comparison to the current study.
Table 3.1
Factor Loadings for Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale
Teacher Current Sense of Study Efficacy Data Variable Scale1 Collection
Factor 1: Efficacy in Instructional Strategies 1. I can use a variety of assessment strategies. 0.73 0.68 2. I can provide an alternative explanation or example 0.75 0.85 when students are confused. 3. I can craft good questions for my students. 0.63 0.76 4. I can implement alternative strategies in my classroom. 0.73 0.62 Factor 2: Efficacy in Student Engagement 5. I can control disruptive behavior in my classroom. 0.83 0.82 6. I can get students to follow classroom rules. 0.66 0.83 7. I can calm a student who is disruptive and noisy. 0.63 0.75 8. I can establish a classroom management system with 0.61 0.76 my students. Factor 3: Efficacy in Classroom Management 9. I can get students to believe that they can do well in 0.75 0.42 school. 10. I can help students value learning. 0.69 0.52 11. I can motivate students who show little interest in their 0.64 0.31 school work. 12. I can assist families in helping their children do well in 0.62 0.82 school. (1 = Tschannen=Moran & Hoy, 2001).
Researcher Developed Items. The remaining instrument consisted of researcher- developed items in regard to comfort in teaching food science overall, comfort in teaching food science concepts, best practices for instructional strategies in food science,
81
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020 professional development, and demographic information. Items associated with teaching self efficacy, comfort in teaching food science overall and comfort in teaching food science-specific concepts, and best practices in instructional strategies for food science concepts all used a Likert-scale format. Additional instrument items regarding professional development used a ranking scale, frequency, and closed-ended responses.
Selected survey questions from these sections were aligned with one of the four components of Bandura’s Self-Efficacy Theory based on what the researcher felt would be a good measure. The development of this table was an effort to ensure that variables were accounted for and could be placed in one of the four components of Bandura’s Self-
Efficacy Theory. Table 3.2 highlights the survey items that were used and their placement in Bandura’s Self Efficacy Theory.
Table 3.2
Survey Items Aligned with Bandura’s Self-Efficacy Theory
Component of Survey Items That Predict This Bandura’s Self- Definition Component Efficacy Theory Performance Based on an individual Q28: I feel that my teacher preparation Accomplishments mastering various program fully prepared me to teach experiences based on the food science. previous successes or Q29: I taught food science during my failures of that student teaching experience in my experience teacher preparation program. Q35 – Q57: Comfort in Teaching Food Science Concepts Q58 – Q69: Best Practices in Instructional Strategies for Food Science Q100: How many years have you taught Food Science?
82
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
Table 3.2 (continued).
Component of Survey Items That Predict This Bandura’s Self- Definition Component Efficacy Theory Vicarious Allows an individual to Q28: I feel that my teacher preparation Experiences observe another person program fully prepared me to teach food carry out a behavior or science. task that they Q32: I took a course in food science as a themselves deem high school student that made me want dangerous beyond their to teach food science. current knowledge to Q33: I feel that taking a course in food successfully complete science in my teacher preparation program helped me to effectively teach food science. Verbal An individual feels as Q13: I was assigned/told I would be Persuasion though they can teaching food science. successfully accomplish Q14: I volunteered to teach food a task or behavior based science. on suggestions from Q16: I know the necessary steps to teach others, exhortation, or food science concepts effectively. self-instruction Q70: I receive encouragement from my administrators to attend professional development opportunities. Emotional Allows an individual to Q15: I teach food science as well as I do Arousal recognize negative other FCS subjects. feelings such as fear, Q16: I know the necessary steps to teach stress, and physical food science concepts effectively. agitation as a Q17: I am very effective in monitoring component of food science experiments. unsuccessfully being Q19: When a student has difficulty able to complete a understanding a food science concept, I specific behavior or am usually able to help the student task understand it. Q20: I can confidently explain to students why food science experiments work. Q22: I am able to generate student excitement for food science concepts. Q23: I have the necessary skills to teach food science. Q27: Given a choice, I would invite the principal to evaluate my food science teaching. Q34: I am generally effective in teaching food science.
83
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
Once the items were identified for each component of Bandura’s Self-Efficacy
Theory, a reliability analysis was conducted to determine if appropriate Cronbach Alpha values could establish reliability and validity. According to Taber (2018), alpha values are typically reported when developing scales that measure attitudes and feelings. The overall construct being measured for the purpose this study was self efficacy.
Traditionally, a value of 0.70 or greater is typically considered acceptable. As a result, a reliability analysis was completed on the items selected for the four components (i.e. performance accomplishments, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and emotional arousal) individually and collectively.
Items for performance accomplishments, which consisted of 38 items, showed high reliability and validity as indicated by a Cronbach α = .963. Items for emotional arousal, which consisted of nine items, also showed high reliability and validity as indicated by a Cronbach α = .928. The three items that were used for vicarious experiences to establish reliability and validity was somewhat high as indicated by a
Cronbach α = .688. Finally, the four items that were used for verbal persuasion to establish reliability and validity was low as indicated by a Cronbach α = .121.
Although three of the four components used to determine the reliability and validity of measuring specific components of self efficacy had acceptable values, Taber
(2018) found that there is no level that dictates what is deemed acceptable. In addition, instruments with a very low alpha value (as found among verbal persuasion in this study) can still be helpful in certain cases. Although verbal persuasion had a low alpha value, it does not invalidate the reliability and validity of all four components. When the items
84
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020 that were used for performance accomplishments, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and emotional arousal are combined, a Cronbach α = .966 was reported.
An open-ended question was provided at the end of the professional development section in which participants were asked to make comments and/or suggestions that they felt would help improve professional development opportunities for teachers who teach food science. Finally, demographic information appeared at the end of the instrument and included questions related to age, gender, ethnicity, the highest level of education obtained, current teaching assignment, teaching certifications held, number of years teaching, and if their food science course was offered as an elective, science credit, or college credit.
Institutional Review Board
Before the distribution of the instrument, this study was submitted to the Human
Research Protection Program at Texas Tech University and approved on October 28,
2018, which can be found in Appendix C. This study was classified as having minimal risks to participants and met at least one federal exemption. Initiation of the pilot study and collection of data began once approval was given.
Pilot Study
A pilot study was conducted during the fall of 2018 in order to determine the reliability and validity of the survey instrument. Before the distribution of the instrument in the pilot study, the instrument was e-mailed for content review to four individuals who were considered content experts in the field of food science (Appendix D). The purpose of this action was to ensure that the appropriate concepts were being addressed. Content experts reviewed the instrument prior to distribution held backgrounds and titles as an
85
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
Associate Professor of Animal Science, Special Project Director, Career and Technical
Education Coordinator, and a retired Family and Consumer Sciences professional. Some of the comments, recommendations, and suggestions from the content experts were as follow:
• “In reading the survey it seemed to me to come across as somewhat negative –
lots of negative questions. I understand you want a mix of positive and negative
questions, but I was almost discouraged from reading parts of the survey. For
instance, section 1 is very positive and affirming. Section two is a downer, lots of
I can’t statements. I realize that the teacher can disagree, but the general tone of
that section is depressing. Then section 3 is back to being positive again.”
• “I do not know if you are specifically looking at Texas curriculum, but I noticed
that the concepts you have chosen for this section were concepts that were chosen
in the original Food Science course, but were revised in 2015 to put into effect in
2017. You may want to check out the TEKS for that course. Or if you are
speaking in generalities. Just noticed the connection.”
• “I always learned it was better to state things in a positive statement as opposed to
don’ts, cant’s, etc. Also, when you say ‘other subjects’, are you talking about FCS
subjects or just the vast array of other subjects?”
Based on the feedback and recommendations from the content experts, changes were made accordingly.
The potential participants of this study were notified via e-mail through their respective listserv by state. As a result of the small population of food science teachers in
Texas and to avoid potential participants from completing the survey twice, teachers from
86
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020 the following states were recruited for the pilot study: Kentucky, South Carolina, and
Utah. These states were purposefully selected in that they offer Food Science on the secondary level. The FCS State Administrators were contacted to request that information be shared on their listserv. Once approval was gained, an e-mail was sent on the listserv indicating the purpose of the study, voluntary participation, and a link to complete the survey through Qualtrics (Appendix E).
Johnson and Brooks (2010) found that sample sizes for pilot studies between 10 and 30 have many practical advantages. However, even with an incentive of a $50.00
Visa Gift Card for completing the survey, the distribution of a reminder e-mail, and the pilot study being available for 30 days, only eight participants completed the pilot study.
One major factor that possibly accounted for the low response rate was that this pilot study was distributed right before the Christmas Break and many FCS teachers may not have checked their e-mail over the holidays. In addition, Utah’s FCS State Administrator position was vacant during this time frame. As a result, information about the pilot study was unable to be distributed on the listserv. Based on what was submitted and taking into account that content experts reviewed the instrument, feedback from the pilot study was used in making additional changes to the survey instrument.
Participants
In a national survey of FCS teachers, Werhan (2006) reported that there were
3,624 FCS teachers in Texas. The sample for this study included secondary, certified family and consumer sciences teachers in Texas who were assigned to teach Food
Science during the 2018 – 2019 academic year. During this academic year, 117 FCS teachers were assigned to teach food science during the 2018 – 2019 academic year (K.
87
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
Alexander, personal communication, August 9, 2019). A sample size calculator was used to determine the number of participants needed to ensure that results were generalized to the population being surveyed. Targeted sample size for data collection at a confidence interval of 10 and a confidence level of 95%, a minimum of 53 participants would need to complete the survey. Participants of this study had the appropriate teacher certification and credentials as outlined by TEA in order to teach food science on the secondary level.
TEA (2019) required that FCS teachers have the FCS – Hospitality, Nutrition, and Food
Science teaching credential.
The survey had 345 attempted responses. Due to the fact that several outlets were used in order to reach potential participants, 228 responses were eliminated as participants identified as teaching food science outside the state of Texas. As a result, 91 responses remained. However, two responses had to be eliminated from the set due to respondent error. The final responses that were used in this study included 89 certified
FCS teachers.
The demographic information of the participants consisted of 97% females and
3% males. In addition, 86% identified as White and 14% identified as Non-White. These figures are in alignment with the profession as a whole in that most FCS educators are female and white. Additional demographic information of the participants can be found in Table 3.3.
88
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
Table 3.3
Demographic Information on Participants as Percentages (N = 89)
Characteristic n % Gendera Female 85 96.6 Male 3 3.4 Age at time of survey (years) Less than 40 years old 29 32.6 40 years old – 60 years old 37 41.6 60 years old or older 23 25.8 Ethnicity Non – White 12 13.5 White 77 86.5 Years of teaching experience Less than 11 years 33 37.1 11 years – 20 years 26 29.2 20 years or more 30 33.7 Additional teaching certification No 39 47.0 Yes 44 53.0 Highest education level completed Bachelor’s degree 29 32.6 Bachelor’s degree with graduate work 19 21.3 Master’s degree or more 41 46.1 Note. an = 88.
Data Collection
This self-report survey was distributed via e-mail to FCS teachers in Texas who taught food science on the secondary level during the 2018 - 2019 academic year.
Information was obtained from social media outlets and educational entities in order to contact potential participants. Correspondence regarding this survey included the following information:
1. The purpose of the study
89
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
2. An invitation to participate in the study detailing anonymity, minimal risks,
voluntary participation, and contribution to the Family and Consumer
Sciences profession
3. A link to the survey
Qualtrics Survey Software was used for the development and collection of data.
In an attempt to maintain the integrity of the results, a “prevent ballot-box stuffing” option was selected so that participants could not take the survey more than once. If participants chose to complete the online survey, their identity was kept anonymous and they could stop at any time. Participants were asked to set aside 20 - 30 minutes of their time to complete the survey. To promote a high participation response, data was collected from January 28, 2019 - March 12, 2019. The following timeline is a description of how the online survey was distributed to reach participants:
1. January 28, 2019: A description, invitation, and link to participate in the
study were posted to the Family and Consumer Sciences Teachers Facebook
Group.
2. February 8, 2019: An e-mail was sent to the Executive Director of the
Family and Consumer Sciences Teachers Association of Texas (FCSTAT),
requesting that the description, invitation, and link to participate in this study
be distributed through the organization’s listserv (Appendix F).
3. February 9, 2019: A reminder to participate in the study was posted to the
Family and Consumer Sciences Teachers Facebook Group. In addition, new
invitations were posted on to the following Facebook Groups: Teacher
Educators of Family and Consumer Sciences; American Association of
90
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
Family and Consumer Sciences; Food and Consumer Science Professional;
The Curriculum Center for Family and Consumer Sciences; and the
Association of Career and Technical Education.
4. February 11, 2019: An e-mail was sent to the National Association of State
Administrators of Family and Consumer Sciences requesting that the
description, invitation, and link to participate in this study be distributed
through their respective state’s listserv.
5. February 16, 2019: A reminder to participate in the study was posted to all
Facebook Groups previously mentioned.
6. March 6, 2019: A description, invitation, and link to participate in the study
were posted to the FamilyandConsumerSciences.com Facebook Group.
To help increase the chances of participation, at the end of the survey, participants were redirected to a separate website in which they could enter their e-mail address to be entered in a drawing for a $100 electronic Visa gift card. E-mail addresses were entered into an online program (https://www.randomlists.com/name-picker) that randomly selected e-mail addresses that were entered. When e-mails were verified, winners were notified.
Data Analysis
Data analysis for this quantitative study incorporated the use of Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS Version 25 for Windows) in order to analyze responses. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to interpret results that were submitted by participants. Qualtrics Software offered features that kept all responses anonymous and allowed responses to be transferred and analyzed with SPSS software.
91
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
The first research question, “What is the level of self efficacy of teachers who teach food science?”, used descriptive statistics, Independent Sample t-tests, and
ANOVAs for statistical analysis. Descriptive statistics provide a basic understanding of the participants of a study based on specific characteristics and how they performed on a particular outcome (Mills & Gay, 2019). This analysis was most appropriate in identifying the overall self efficacy of FCS teachers based on Tschannen-Moran & Hoy’s
(2001) Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale Short Form. Reliability analysis was performed to ensure that the questions used measured an underlying, overall self-efficacy construct.
Two ways that this construct can be developed is by calculating the average of the 12 items for each case or using factor analysis to create one factor and using the factor to score each case (D. Wilt, personal communication, August 22, 2019). High scores should reflect high levels of self efficacy.
Next, the mean, median, quartiles, and standard deviation for each overall self- efficacy construct was calculated of the self-efficacy constructs to determine if a high positive relationship existed (D. Wilt, personal communication, August 22, 2019). This allowed the self-efficacy construct means to be compared by key demographics. An independent samples t-test was appropriate to use in that determines if the scores of two selected groups are significantly different from one another and ANOVAs are used to determine if significant differences can be found among three or more groups (Mills &
Gay, 2019).
With the development of the overall self-efficacy construct, the four components of Bandura’s Self Efficacy Theory could be evaluated in-depth. Variables were selected and placed with the component that best fit the description. An exploratory factor
92
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020 analysis was conducted on each of the four components using a principal component analysis with a Varimax rotation. The factor loadings allowed for multiple regressions to be conducted to see if each component had an effect on overall self efficacy. The selection of the multiple regression statistical analysis is appropriate because it identifies the degree to which predictor variables interact with each other and contribute to the variance of the dependent variable (Mills & Gay, 2019).
The second research question “How do variables (i.e. education, teacher preparation, and the number of years teaching) affect the level of self efficacy of teachers who teach food science?” used ANOVAs and Multiple Linear Regression statistical analyses. When evaluating education, teacher preparation, and the number of years teaching, variables had to be created to account for the sample size of this study.
Regarding teacher preparation, an overall teacher preparation construct was developed based on the average of five identified variables. A binned version of the overall teacher preparation construct had to be developed based on the sample size of this study. This allowed the binned version of the teacher preparation construct to serve as the independent variable and the self-efficacy construct to serve as the dependent variable
(D. Wilt, personal communication, August 22, 2019). With the establishment of the new variables, an ANOVA was conducted to test the 3 main effects (education, teacher preparation, and years teaching food science) on the dependent variable (self-efficacy construct).
The final research question, “Does the level of participation in professional development (PD) opportunities and the type of PD participation effect overall self- efficacy levels in teachers who teach food science?” also used the ANOVA and Multiple
93
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
Linear Regression statistical analyses. Descriptive statistics were used to report the most preferred and least preferred PD delivery methods. Participants ranked eight methods from the most preferred PD delivery method to the least preferred PD delivery method.
An ANOVA statistical analysis was conducted in which the overall self-efficacy average served as the dependent variable and the level of PD participation served as the independent variable. An ANOVA also allowed for main effects to be determined based on 2-way and interactions.
Finally, multiple linear regression statistical analyses were used to determine if the preferred PD delivery method had an impact on overall self efficacy. In this analysis, the overall self-efficacy average served as the dependent variable and the level of PD participation variables served as the independent variables. Table 3.4 illustrates how each research question was addressed, the instrument items that were selected, and the corresponding statistical analysis method.
94
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
Table 3.4
Research Questions, Instrument Items, and Analysis Methods
Analysis Research Question Instrument Item(s) Method 1. What is the level of self Q1 – Q12: Teaching Self Efficacy Descriptive efficacy of teachers who Q13 – Q 27: Comfort in Teaching Statistics, teach food science? Food Science Overall Independent Q35 – Q 57: Comfort in Teaching Samples T- Food Science Specific Concepts Test, Q58 – Q69: Best Practices in ANOVA, and Instructional Strategies for Food Multiple Science Linear Q70: I receive encouragement from Regression my administration to attend professional development opportunities. 2. How do variables (i.e. Q28: I feel that my teacher ANOVA education, teacher preparation program fully prepared preparation, and the me to teach food science. number of years teaching Q29: I taught food science as part of food science) affect the my teaching experience for my level of self efficacy of teacher preparation program. teachers who teach food Q30: I feel that I took an adequate science? number of nutrition courses in my teacher preparation program to effectively teach food sciences. Q31: I feel that I took an adequate number of science courses in my teacher preparation program to effectively teach food science. Q33: I feel that taking a course in food science in my teacher preparation program helped me to effectively teach food science. 3. Does the level of Q77: Preferred PD Delivery Method Descriptive participation in Q84: How many PD opportunities did Statistics, professional development you complete last year that related to ANOVA, and (PD) opportunities and food science-related topics? Multiple the type of PD Linear participation effect Regression overall self-efficacy levels in teachers who teach food science?
95
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
Summary
The purpose of this study was to determine the self efficacy of family and consumer sciences teachers who teach food science as a science credit. The results of this study were to show how comfortable FCS teachers feel teaching food science, especially since it counts as a fourth science credit in Texas. To the knowledge of this researcher, this is the first study of its kind that focused solely on how comfortable teachers feel teaching food science in secondary classrooms. Factors taken into consideration included preparation from their teacher education program, perceived competence in teaching selected food science concepts, and participation in professional development opportunities.
This study consisted of three major research questions. The first research question focused on the overall self-efficacy levels of FCS teachers. Six hypotheses were tested in order to determine if there were any significant findings. The second research question evaluated how self-efficacy levels may be influenced by a participant’s education, teacher preparation program, and the number of years they have been teaching. The final research question regarded the level and type of professional development opportunities having an effect on self-efficacy levels.
The research design was constructed from an exploratory, descriptive, and quantitative perspective. The development of a survey was the instrument used for this study. There are several advantages when using a survey for quantitative research. In addition, many studies with a self-efficacy focus typically use the survey format.
The survey instrument used for this study combined two instruments. Tschannen-
Moran & Hoy’s (2001) Teacher Sense of Efficacy was combined with researcher-
96
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020 developed items. Slight modifications were made to the items of the original study, but reliability and validity were tested. The combination of these two formats was to capture a participant’s overall feelings on teaching self efficacy, comfort level in teaching food science, level of participation in professional development, preferred delivery method of professional development, and demographic information. The instrument was reviewed by food science content experts and a pilot study was conducted to ensure that questions were easy to comprehend and could answer the research questions.
There were 89 FCS teachers from Texas who participated in this study. Various outlets were used to make the public aware of the study. Data collected were analyzed using SPSS. Statistical analyses that were used to answer the research questions included descriptive statistics, independent samples t-tests, ANOVAs, and linear regressions.
In order to be qualified to teach Food Science as a science credit, each individual state sets specific criteria that must be met. At a minimum, FCS teachers must hold certification in a CTE related subject area. Selected states may require additional courses in science-specific courses and/or the completion of professional development geared specifically towards the teaching of Food Science.
97
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
Overview of the Purpose
The overall purpose of this study was to determine the self efficacy of Family and
Consumer Sciences teachers who teach food science as a science credit. It was hypothesized that a teachers’ self efficacy, teacher preparation program, and the level of participation in professional development were contributing factors that related to how comfortable they feel teaching food science on the secondary level. Food science focuses on improving how food is processed by incorporating science-related disciplines including but not limited to biology, chemical engineering, and biochemistry (Institute of
Food Technologist, n.d.). Because FCS teachers are expected to understand not only food and nutrition but also the incorporation of science principles, the comfort level in teaching this course may be greatly affected. With the numerous opportunities that are available in food science, it is important that FCS teachers feel adequately prepared to teach food science with the necessary rigor.
Results
The following section reviews each hypothesis as it relates to Exploring the Self
Efficacy of Family and Consumer Sciences Who Teach Food Science as a Science Credit.
Participants for this study were recruited from January 28, 2019, through March 12,
2019. A total of 345 attempted responses to the survey were recorded in the Qualtrics program during data collection. Of the attempts recorded, 228 were eliminated as they identified themselves as teaching in another state outside of Texas leaving 91 usable sets
98
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020 of data. Of the usable sets of data, two participants were eliminated from the study. The first participant eliminated from this study identified as a Science teacher and did not have certification in Family and Consumer Sciences/Home Economics. The second participant eliminated from this study did not have a current teaching assignment. As a result, the researcher could not determine if this participant was an FCS teacher.
Self Efficacy of FCS Teachers
This section refers to the research question “What is the level of self efficacy of teachers who teach food science?” This research question focused on participants self- reporting their levels of self efficacy as it related to their overall teaching ability. In addition, self-efficacy levels were also evaluated in relation to specifically teaching food science concepts.
To determine an FCS teachers’ general teaching self efficacy, Tschannen-Moran
& Hoy’s (2001) Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale Short Form was used. This instrument consisted of 12 Likert Scale type questions in which three factors were identified. The three factors from this instrument focused on efficacy for instructional strategies, efficacy for classroom management, and efficacy for student engagement. Table 4.1 highlights the responses in percentages in relation to self efficacy.
99
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
Table 4.1
Response to Self-Efficacy Items as Percentages, Means, and Standard Deviations (N = 89)
Item SD D NA/D A SA M SD I can control disruptive 1.1 2.2 1.1 39.3 56.2 4.47 .740 behavior in my classroom. I can motivate students who 1.1 4.5 3.4 58.4 32.6 4.17 .787 show little interest in schoolwork. I can calm a student who is 1.1 2.2 3.4 55.1 38.2 4.27 .735 disruptive and noisy. I can help students value 1.1 3.4 4.5 48.3 42.7 4.28 .798 learning. I can craft good questions 1.1 1.1 5.6 46.1 46.1 4.35 .740 for my students. I can get students to follow 1.1 2.2 1.1 41.6 53.9 4.45 .739 classroom rules. I can get a student to 1.1 1.1 2.2 52.8 42.7 4.35 .693 believe that they can do well in school. I can establish a classroom 1.1 1.1 1.1 31.5 65.2 4.58 .688 management system with my students. I can use a variety of 1.1 0.0 1.1 47.2 50.6 4.46 .641 assessment strategies. I can provide an alternative 1.1 0.0 2.2 47.2 49.4 4.44 .656 explanation or example when students are confused. I can assist families in 1.1 2.2 18.0 51.7 27.0 4.01 .805 helping their children do well in school. I can implement alternative 1.1 1.1 1.1 44.9 51.7 4.45 .691 strategies in my classroom. Note. SD = strongly disagree. D = disagree. NA/D = neither agree nor disagree. A = agree. SA = strongly agree. M = mean. SD = standard deviation.
100
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
The questions from the original study were modified to fit the purpose of the current study. Although the questions were slightly modified, the instrument used for the current study is valid and reliable as indicated by a Cronbach α = .938. This indicated that there is a reliable measure of self efficacy using the 12 underlying questions. The mean and standard deviation for each question is also displayed in Table 4.1 in which levels of self efficacy were high. To further prove reliability, Table 4.2 shows the factor loading from the original study in comparison to the current study, and Table 4.3 shows the mean, standard deviation, and alpha based on a reliability analysis completed on the three identified factors of self efficacy.
101
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
Table 4.2
Factor Loadings for Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale
Teacher Current Sense Study Variable of Data Efficacy Collection Scale1 Factor 1: Efficacy in Instructional Strategies 1. I can use a variety of assessment strategies. 0.73 0.68 2. I can provide an alternative explanation or example 0.75 0.85 when students are confused. 3. I can craft good questions for my students. 0.63 0.76 4. I can implement alternative strategies in my classroom. 0.73 0.62 Factor 2: Efficacy in Student Engagement 5. I can control disruptive behavior in my classroom. 0.83 0.82 6. I can get students to follow classroom rules. 0.66 0.83 7. I can calm a student who is disruptive and noisy. 0.63 0.75 8. I can establish a classroom management system with 0.61 0.76 my students. Factor 3: Efficacy in Classroom Management 9. I can get students to believe that they can do well in 0.75 0.42 school. 10. I can help students value learning. 0.69 0.52 11. I can motivate students who show little interest in their 0.64 0.31 school work. 12. I can assist families in helping their children do well in 0.62 0.82 school. (1 = Tschannen=Moran & Hoy, 2001).
Table 4.3
Reliability Analysis Summary of Self-Efficacy Factors
Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Current Study Scale1 α α Total Instrument 0.94 0.94 Factor 1: Efficacy in Instructional Strategies 0.91 0.87 Factor 2: Efficacy in Student Engagement 0.87 0.91 Factor 3: Efficacy in Classroom Management 0.90 0.84 (1 = Tschannen=Moran & Hoy, 2001).
102
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
Once the reliability of these items was established, an overall self-efficacy construct was developed. Two methods were used and correlated to one another in order to develop the self-efficacy construct. The first method included calculating the averages from the 12 items in which the M = 4.35 and the SD = .56. These figures corresponded with participants’ answers as reported in Table 4.1 which illustrated high levels of self efficacy.
The second method included conducting an exploratory factor analysis on the 12 self-efficacy items. Using principal component analysis, only one factor was extracted to measure the underlying construct of self efficacy. In addition, since only one factor was extracted, a rotation of factors was not required. The factor analysis revealed a Kaiser-
Meyer-Olkin (KMO) of .901 which also reflected data highly suited for factor analysis.
To ensure both the average and the factor were providing similar information, a Pearson
Correlation was conducted between the average of the 12 questions and factor analysis of the 12 questions. The results indicated that a perfect, positive correlation existed.
Therefore, due to the simplicity of the average, this measure was used over the factor analysis to determine the self-efficacy construct for each participant.
The self-efficacy construct was also used to determine if there were significant differences among demographic information. An independent samples t-test was conducted to compare self-efficacy averages in each of the following areas: 1) whether food science was taught as an elective or science credit; 2) ethnicity; and, 3) if the FCS teacher had an additional certification area outside of FCS/Home Economics.
The first alternative hypothesis tested was: H1 : μS-E: Elective ≠ μS-E: Science. The results indicated that there was no significant difference among S-E when food science is
103
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020 taught as an elective (M = 4.45, SD = .405) or science credit (M = 4.28, SD = .646); t (85)
= 1.38, p = 0.172. Therefore, there is no evidence to reject the null hypothesis of no difference in self-efficacy means of these two groups.
The second alternative hypothesis tested was: H2 : μS-E: White ≠ μS-E: Non-White. The results indicated there was no significant difference when the FCS teacher is Non-White
(M = 4.48, SD = .396) or White (M = 4.34, SD = .582), t (87) = .811, p = .420. Therefore, there is no evidence to reject the null hypothesis of no difference in self-efficacy means of these two groups.
The third alternative hypothesis tested was: H3 : μS-E: Certification ≠ μS-E: No Certification.
The results indicated there was no significant difference if a FCS teacher is only certified in FCS/Home Economics (M = 4.35, SD = .484) or has an additional certification (M =
4.36, SD = .646), t(81) = -.108, p = .914. Therefore, there is no evidence to reject the null hypothesis of no difference in self-efficacy means for these two groups.
A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine if there were significant differences in self efficacy and demographic information as it related to age, the number of years taught, and education level.
The first alternative hypothesis tested was: H4: Average self efficacy differs by age group. The group means being tested were: less than 40 years old (M = 4.19, SD =
.73), 40 less than 60 (M = 4.46, SD = .43), and 60 years or more (M = 4.41, SD = .47).
There was not a significant difference in self-efficacy means across the three age groups [
F (2, 86) = 2.06, p = .134]. Therefore, there is no evidence to reject the null hypothesis of no difference in self-efficacy means by age group.
104
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
The second alternative hypothesis tested was: H5: Average differs by the number of years taught. The group means being tested were: less than 11 (M = 4.20, SD = .75), 11 less than 20 (M = 4.46, SD = .35), and 20 or more (M = 4.44, SD = .43). There was not a significant difference in self-efficacy means based on the number of years taught [F (2,
86) = 2.12, p = .126]. Therefore, there is no evidence to reject the null hypothesis of no difference in self-efficacy means by years taught.
The third alternative hypothesis tested were: H6: Average differs by education level. The group means being tested were: bachelors (M = 4.12, SD = .74), bachelors with graduate work (M = 4.35, SD = .46), and masters or more (M = 4.53, SD = .38). There was a significant difference in self-efficacy means based on education level [ F (2, 86) =
4.89, p = .010]. Therefore, there was evidence to reject the null hypothesis of no difference in group self-efficacy means and conclude that at least one education group had a significantly different mean from at least one other group. Post hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean score for those with a bachelor’s degree was significantly less different than the mean for participants who had a master’s degree or more (D = 0.41, p = .007). No other differences in group means were found.
Performance Accomplishments, Vicarious Experiences, Verbal Persuasion, and Emotional Arousal. This section looked at the components of Bandura’s self efficacy in-depth based on performance accomplishments, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and emotional arousal. Appendix G shows the items that were selected for each of the four components. The first component of self efficacy analyzed was based on performance accomplishments. The items that were selected for performance accomplishments focused on how participants felt about their teacher preparation
105
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020 program, their experience teaching food science during their student teaching experience, how many years they have taught food science, their comfort level in teaching specific food science concepts, and comfort using best practices for instructional strategies in food science. The items that were selected to reflect performance accomplishments were valid and reliable as indicated by a Cronbach α = .963. Once reliability and validity had been established for the 38 items that were identified by the researcher as having an association with performance accomplishments, two exploratory factor analyses were conducted.
The first exploratory factor analysis conducted consisted of using 23 of the 38 items. These 23 items focused specifically on the participants’ comfort level in teaching food science-specific concepts. A principal component analysis with a Varimax rotation was used. The analysis yielded four factors that accounted for a total of 81.6% of the variance for the 23 variables; (60.0%, 9.2%, 7.3%, and 5.1%, for each factor, respectively). Table 4.4 highlights the factor loadings and percentage of the variance for items associated with performance accomplishments.
106
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
Table 4.4
Factor Loadings From Principal Component Factor Analysis for the Items of the Self Efficacy Questionnaire
Factor Item loading Factor 1: Factors That Affect Food Production 35. I feel comfortable teaching students how to use scientific methods and .80 equipment during investigations. 39. I feel comfortable teaching students chemical properties of food. .75 37. I feel comfortable teaching students the roles of acids and bases in food science. .73 45. I feel comfortable teaching students how to analyze the process of energy .73 production in food. 40. I feel comfortable teaching students how to analyze solutions, colloids, solids, .71 gels, foams, and emulsions. 41. I feel comfortable teaching students the functions of enzymes in food science. .71 51. I feel comfortable teaching students the food irradiation process. .58 42. I feel comfortable teaching students the role of fermentation in food .56 science. Factor 2: Food Processing Procedures 53. I feel comfortable teaching students the food canning process. .88 56. I feel comfortable teaching students food preservation processes. .86 54. I feel comfortable teaching students the food freezing process. .84 52. I feel comfortable teaching students the food dehydration process. .82 55. I feel comfortable teaching students the food pasteurization process. .74 44. I feel comfortable teaching students the role of food additives. .54 Factor 3: Nutrient Properties 49. I feel comfortable teaching students the properties of vitamins and .86 minerals and their effects on food production. 46. I feel comfortable teaching students the properties of carbohydrates and their .80 effects on food production. 47. I feel comfortable teaching students the properties of water and their effects on .79 food production. 50. I feel comfortable teaching students the properties of water and their effects on .77 food production. 48. I feel comfortable teaching students the properties of proteins and their effects on .76 food production. Factor 4: Research and Assessment Strategies 36. I feel comfortable teaching students how to research opportunities and .69 requirements for selected careers in food science. 43. I feel comfortable teaching students how to assess the reaction of .63 leavening agents in baked products. 38. I feel comfortable teaching students how to assess the reaction of .59 leavening agents in baked products. 57. I feel comfortable teaching students how to examine packaging and .56 labeling guidelines.
107
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
The second exploratory factor analysis that was conducted focused on the remaining 12 items for performance accomplishments. These items related to best practices for instructional strategies used to teach food science. This analysis consisted of using a principal component analysis with a Varimax rotation. The analysis yielded two factors accounting for 67.8% of the variance for the 12 variables highlighted in Table 4.5
Table 4.5
Factor Loadings From Principal Component Factor Analysis: Items of the Performance Accomplishments Variables Related to Best Practices in Teaching
Item Factor loading Factor 1: Student – Centered Instruction 68. Game-Based Learning .82 66. Cooperative Learning .79 67. Student Self-Assessments .78 65. Differentiated Instruction .71 63. Project – Based Learning .65 69. Multimedia Presentations .64 62. Inquiry – Based Learning .60 Factor 2: Teacher – Centered Instruction 59. Laboratory Experiments .87 60. Case Study Methods .85 58. Demonstrations .69 64. Research .65 61. Experiential Learning .62
Next, various multiple regressions were done to further look at the components of
Bandura’s self-efficacy theory. A multiple linear regression analysis was conducted to test if variables associated with performance accomplishments significantly predicted a participant’s overall self efficacy. A significant regression equation was found (F (9, 59)
= 5.29, p < .001) with an R² of .447. The results, which are highlighted in Table 4.6, indicated that factors associated with food processing procedures (t = 2.53, B = 0.17, p =
108
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
0.14) and factors associated with teaching students research and assessment strategies (t =
4.50, B = 0.27, p < .001) had a positive impact on overall self efficacy. None of the other variables associated with performance accomplishments significantly impacted overall self efficacy.
Table 4.6
Regression Analysis Summary for Performance Accomplishments Predicting Overall Self Efficacy
Variable B SE B β t p I feel that my teacher preparation program fully .099 .060 .21 1.65 .104 prepared me to teach food science. I taught food science as part of my teaching .023 .069 .04 .329 .743 experience for my teacher preparation program. Factors That Affect Food Production .029 .065 .05 .454 .651 Food Processing Procedure Factors .169 .067 .29 2.53 .014* Nutrient Property Factors .032 .071 .05 .456 .650 Research and Assessment Strategy Factors .266 .059 .46 4.50 .000* Student Centered Instruction Factors .029 .067 .04 .436 .664 Teacher Centered Instruction Factors .037 .091 .06 .406 .686 Years Teaching Food Science -.006 .010 -.06 -.605 .547 *p < .05.
A second multiple linear regression was also conducted in which the overall average from best practices, the overall average from food science concepts taught, teaching food science during teacher preparation program, and determining if the participant’s teacher preparation program fully prepared them to teach food science were used as independent variables. A significant regression equation was found (F (5, 73) =
4.54, p = .001) with an R² of .237. This analysis showed that only the food science concept average (t = 2.85, B = 0.31, p = .006) had a significant positive impact on overall self efficacy which is highlighted in Table 4.7.
109
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
Table 4.7
Regression Analysis Summary for Teacher Preparation, Teaching Experience, Comfort With Teaching Food Science Specific Concepts, and Best Practices in Teaching Variables Predicting Overall Self Efficacy
Variable B SE B β t p I feel that my teacher preparation program .015 .063 .034 .246 .807 fully prepared me to teach food science. I taught food science as part of my teaching .080 .069 .155 1.16 .251 experience for my teacher preparation program. Years teaching food science. .000 .011 .001 .012 .991 Food Science Concept Questions Average .311 .109 .432 2.85 .006* Best Practices Average -.007 .117 -.008 -.056 .955 *p < .05.
Two regressions were also done to test if the remaining components of self- efficacy (i.e. verbal persuasion, vicarious experiences, and emotional arousal) significantly impacted a participant’s overall self efficacy. For vicarious experiences, a regression was found in that (F (3, 83) = 2.23, p = .09) with an R² of .075, but was not significant. Therefore, items associated with vicarious experiences (i.e. feeling prepared to teach food science through teacher preparation program, taking a food science course during teacher preparation program, and taking a food science course during high school) did not have a significant effect on overall self-efficacy which is highlighted in Table 4.8.
110
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
Table 4.8
Regression Analysis Summary for Vicarious Experience Items Predicting Overall Self Efficacy
Item B SE B β t p I feel that my teacher preparation program fully .105 .053 .241 1.97 .052 prepared me to teach food science. I took a course in food science as a high school .061 .056 .129 1.08 .284 student that made me want to teach food science. I feel that taking a course in food science in my -.034 .055 -.078 -.612 .542 teacher preparation program helped me to effectively teach food science.
When analyzing verbal persuasion, a significant regression was found (F (4, 82) =
5.11, p = .001) with an R² of .199. Only one item, “I know the necessary steps to teach food science concepts effectively” (t = 4.19, B = 0.24, p < .001), had a significant impact on overall self-efficacy which is highlighted in Table 4.9.
Table 4.9
Regression Analysis Summary for Verbal Persuasion Items Predicting Overall Self Efficacy
Variable B SE B β t p I was assigned/told that I would be teaching food -.067 .041 -.165 -1.64 .105 science. I volunteered to teach food science. -.063 .041 -.165 -1.55 .124 I know the necessary steps to teach food science .237 .057 .444 4.19 .000* concepts effectively. I receive encouragement from my administration to -.017 .050 -.034 -.332 .741 attend professional development opportunities. *p < .05.
111
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
In another regression, items associated with emotional arousal had a significant regression equation in which (F (9, 77) = 4.97, p < .001) with an R² of .368. Table 4.10 showed that of the nine items that were entered, only three had significant values as it related to overall self efficacy---one of which had a negative impact. The three items were as follow: “I am very effective in monitoring food science experiments” (t = -2.54,
B = -0.21, p = .013); “I can confidently explain to students why food science experiments work” (t = 2.73, B = 0.31, p = .008); and “I am able to generate student excitement for food science concepts” (t = 3.76, B = 0.29, p < .001).
Table 4.10
Regression Analysis Summary for Emotional Arousal Items Predicting Overall Self Efficacy
Item B SE B β t p I teach food sciences as well as I do other FCS -.029 .045 -.078 -.648 .519 subjects. I know the necessary steps to teach food science .160 .109 .301 1.47 .147 concepts effectively. I am very effective in monitoring food science -.207 .082 -.382 -2.54 .013* experiments. When a student has difficulty understanding a -.085 .113 -.142 -.757 .452 food science concept, I am usually able to help the student understand it better. I can confidently explain to students why food .309 .113 .567 2.73 .008* science experiments work. I am able to generate student excitement for food .289 .077 .438 3.76 .000* science concepts. I have the necessary skills to teach food science. -.062 .089 -.130 -.699 .487 Given a choice, I would invite the principal to -.122 .067 -.287 -1.81 .074 evaluate my food science teaching. I am generally effective in teaching food science. .118 .097 .209 1.21 .229 *p < .05.
112
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
Then a comprehensive regression was conducted to determine if all four components collectively (i.e. performance accomplishments, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and emotional arousal) had an overall impact on self-efficacy. Table
4.10 highlights the 19 variables that were used to determine significance on overall self- efficacy. These 19 variables accounted for 42% of the variance in overall self efficacy.
The regression equation was significant (F (19, 56) = 3.89, p < .001). Of the 21 variables that were entered, only five variables had significant values as it related to overall self efficacy which is highlighted in bold in Table 4.11.
Finally, a multiple linear regression using the forward selection method was conducted. As with the prior comprehensive regression, the average of the 23 variables for food science concepts (t = 2.21, B = .307 , p = .031), being effective in monitoring food science experiments (t = -1.08, B = -.602, p = .002), being able to confidently explain to students why food science experiments work (t = 2.87, B = .390, p = .006), being able to generate student excitement for food science concepts (t = 3.51, B = .296 , p
= .001 ), having the necessary skills to teach food science (t = -2.40, B = -.251, p = .020) had significant findings to overall self efficacy. One new variable that was not significant from the enter method but was significant in the forward method was teaching food science as part of the teaching experience during the teacher preparation program (t =
2.57, B = .130, p = .012).
113
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
Table 4.11
Regression Analysis Summary for Performance Accomplishments, Vicarious Experiences, Verbal Persuasion, and Emotional Arousal Variables Predicting Overall Self Efficacy
Variable B SE B β t p I feel that my teacher preparation program fully .029 .061 .064 .471 .640 prepared me to teach food science. I taught food science as part of my teaching .103 .067 .194 1.53 .480 experience for my teacher preparation program. Years Teaching Food Science .005 .011 .054 .491 .625 Averages of 23 Variables for Food Science .307 .139 .427 2.21 .031* Concepts Questions Average of 12 Variables for Best Practices .058 .122 .072 .471 .639 I took a course in food science as a high school .077 .053 .152 1.44 .155 student that made me want to teach food science. I feel that taking a course in food science in my -.054 .060 -.122 -.899 .372 teacher preparation program helped me to effectively teach food science. I was assigned/told that I would be teaching -.070 .046 -.165 -1.54 .130 food science. I volunteered to teach food science. -.009 .053 -0.22 -.167 .868 I know the necessary steps to teach food science .133 .121 .242 1.10 .278 concepts effectively. I receive encouragement from my .014 .061 .025 .221 .826 administration to attend professional development opportunities. I teach food science as well as I do other FCS -.010 .053 -.026 -.190 .850 subjects. I am very effective in monitoring food science -.333 .104 -.602 -3.20 .002* experiments. When a student has difficulty understanding a -.129 .119 -.213 -1.08 .283 food science concept, I am usually able to help the student understand it better. I can confidently explain to students why food .390 .136 .693 2.87 .006* science experiments work. I am able to generate student excitement for .296 .084 .439 3.51 .001* food science concepts. I have the necessary skills to teach food science. -.251 .105 -.503 -2.40 .020* Given a choice, I would invite the principal to -.148 .082 -.339 -1.81 .075 evaluate my food science teaching. I am generally effective in teaching food .155 .116 .268 1.33 .189 science. *p < .05.
114
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
Variables That Affect Levels of Self Efficacy of Teachers Who Teach Food
Science. This section refers to the research question “How do variables (i.e. education, teacher preparation, and the number of years teaching food science) affect the level of self efficacy of teachers who teach food science. This section looked at specific factors that may have a direct relation to how comfortable teachers feel teaching food science based on their education level, experience in their teacher preparation program, and the number of years that they have taught food science.
Table 4.12 shows the five items that were selected to determine if teacher preparation programs had a significant effect on self efficacy. In addition, this table also showed one missing response from four items, and two missing responses from one variable. The five items that were selected were valid and reliable as indicated by a Cronbach α = .816. This indicated that there is a reliable measure of teacher preparation using the five underlying items.
115
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
Table 4.12
Response to Teacher Preparation Items as Percentages (n = 88)
Item SD D NA/D A SA I feel that my teacher preparation program 27.0 25.8 20.2 18.0 7.9 fully prepared me to teach food science. I taught food science as part of my teaching 47.2 31.5 9.0 7.9 3.4 experience for my teacher preparation program. I feel that I took an adequate number of 21.3 16.9 15.7 28.1 16.9 nutrition courses in my teacher preparation program to effectively teach food science. I feel that I took an adequate number of 23.6 18.0 18.0 19.1 20.2 sciences courses in my teacher preparation program to effectively teach food science. I feel that taking a course in food science in 34.8 23.6 21.3 7.9 10.1 my teacher preparation program helped me to effectively teach food sciences.a Note. an = 87. SD = strongly disagree. D = disagree. NA/D = neither agree nor disagree. A = agree. SA = strongly agree.
The mean and standard deviation for each item is displayed in Table 4.13
Table 4.13
Response to Teacher Preparation Items as Means and Standard Deviations (n = 87)
Item M SD I feel that my teacher preparation program fully prepared me to 2.53 1.29 teach food science. I taught food science as part of my teaching experience for my 1.86 1.09 teacher preparation program. I feel that I took an adequate number of nutrition courses in my 3.01 1.43 teacher preparation program to effectively teach food science. I feel that I took an adequate number of sciences courses in my 2.95 1.18 teacher preparation program to effectively teach food science. I feel that taking a course in food science in my teacher 2.33 1.32 preparation program helped me to effectively teach food sciences.
116
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
Once the reliability of the items was established, a teacher preparation construct was developed based on the average of the five items (M = 2.54, SD = 1.00). The overall average and the results in Tables 4.12 and 4.13 indicated that teachers tend to disagree that they are prepared to teach food science based on their teacher preparation program.
With the development of the teacher preparation construct, a full factorial
Univariate ANOVA was conducted to determine if teacher preparation had a significant impact on self efficacy when controlling for education and the number of years teaching food science. This analysis showed that there was no significant impact on self efficacy between subjects as highlighted in Table 4.14. However, when doing an ANOVA with just the main effects of education, years teaching food science, and teacher preparation
(i.e. no interactions), education showed a significant impact (p = .035) on self-efficacy levels which is highlighted in Table 4.15 and again, teacher preparation was not significant when controlling for the other two main effects.
Table 4.14
Full Factorial Analysis of Variance Summary Table for the Effects of Education, Years Teaching Food Science, and Teacher Preparation on Self Efficacy (n = 88)
Variable df SS MS F p η2 Education 2 1.42 .711 1.94 .155 .078 Years Teaching Food Science 3 .882 .294 .802 .499 .050 Teacher Preparation 2 .963 .481 1.31 .279 .054 Education x Years Teaching 6 .977 .163 .444 .845 .055 Food Science Education x Teacher 4 .306 .076 .208 .935 .018 Preparation Years Teaching Food Science 6 1.82 .303 .827 .555 .097 x Teacher Preparation Education x Years Teaching 9 2.03 .225 .614 .778 .107 Food Science x Teacher Preparation Table 4.15
117
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
Univariate Analysis of Variance Summary Table for the Main Effects of Education, Years Teaching Food Science, and Teacher Preparation with No Interactions on Self Efficacy (n = 88)
Variable df SS MS F p η2 Education 2 2.19 1.10 3.51 .035* .090 Years Teaching Food Science 3 .610 .203 .651 .585 .027 Teacher Preparation 2 1.07 .533 1.71 .189 .046 *p < .05.
Professional Development of FCS Teachers
This section refers to the research questions “Does the level of participation in professional development (PD) opportunities and the type of PD participation effect overall self-efficacy levels in teachers who teach food science?” The researcher developed 25 items that dealt specifically with participants’ PD opportunities in terms of participation, preference, support, membership in professional organizations, and suggestions for improvement.
Of the participants in the study (n = 88), 50.0% participated in 0 opportunities,
38.6% participate in 1-2 opportunities, and 11.4% participated in 3 or more PD opportunities within the last year. An ANOVA was used to determine if there were significant differences in self efficacy as it related to participation in PD opportunities.
The first alternative tested was H7: Level of PD participation has a significant positive impact on self-efficacy levels. The group means being tested were as follow: 0 opportunities (M = 4.30, SD = 0.65); 1-2 opportunities (M = 4.35, SD = 0.46); and 3 or more opportunities (M = 4.62, SD = 0.41). There was not a significant difference in self efficacy across the level of participation groups [F (2,85) = 1.29 = p =.280]. Therefore, there is no evidence to reject the null hypothesis of no difference in self-efficacy means by the level of participation groups.
118
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
The second alternative hypothesis tested was H8: Type of PD participation has a significant impact on self-efficacy levels. This hypothesis focused on the preferred method of receiving PD opportunities from most preferred to least preferred. Based on responses given from 82 of the 89 participants as it relates to their 1st preferred method of
PD, overwhelmingly 84.1% preferred hands-on workshops, 13.4% preferred online, and
2.4% preferred traditional lecture. Table 4.16 highlights the more preferred method for
PD to the least preferred method for PD by percentage. The percentages reflected in
Table 4.16 do not add to 100% because each participant was asked to indicate their 1st through last preferred method, so each participant had eight separate responses tracked in separate variables. The percentages in Table 4.16 represent the most preferred method for each preference. For example, although participants had different choices for 1st preferred method, “hands-on workshop” was the 1st preference for 77.5% of all participants.
Table 4.16
Summary of Preferred Method of Professional Development from Most Preferred Method to Least Preferred Method (N = 82)
Response % 1st preferred method: hands – on workshop 77.5 2nd preferred method: online 27.0 3rd preferred method: videos 31.5 4th preferred method: videos 20.2 5th preferred method: video conferences 22.5 6th preferred method: webcasts 30.3 7th preferred method: webinars 32.6 8th preferred method: traditional lecture 36.0
To test H8, a multiple linear regression was conducted to determine if the preferred method of PD had a significant impact on overall self efficacy. From descriptive statistics, results indicated that hands – on workshops (M = 1.29) were the
119
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020 most preferred PD method and webinars (M = 6.15) were the least preferred PD method.
The regression equation showed that no significance was found based on the overall
ANOVA value of (F (7,74) = .829, p = .566) with an R2 of .073. As a result, there was no evidence to reject the null hypothesis that the type of PD preferred had no significant impact on overall self efficacy.
The final hypothesis tested was H9: The interaction of level and type of PD participation has a significant impact on self-efficacy levels. To test this hypothesis, several Univariate ANOVAs were conducted to determine the interactions between the level and type of PD.
First, a full factorial ANOVA was attempted with the top three preferred PD methods (i.e. hands – on workshops, online, and videos) and the level of PD as the main effects. However, many of the potential 3-way interactions and 4-way interactions could not be done because of zero counts in the cells.
Second, an ANOVA was done with the same main effects and all possible 2-way interactions. This analysis showed that there were no significant 2-way interactions or main effects as highlighted in Table 4.17.
120
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
Table 4.17
Analysis of Variance Summary Table for the Main Effects and All 2-Way Interactions of the Top Three Preferred Professional Development Methods and Levels of Professional Development on Self Efficacy (N = 82)
Variable df SS MS F P η2 # of PD Opportunities 2 .257 .128 .441 .646 .020 PD 1st Preference 1 .163 .163 .561 .458 .013 PD 2nd Preference 3 .431 .144 .494 .689 .033 PD 3rd Preference 4 .774 .193 .664 .620 .058 # of PD Opportunities x PD 1st 2 .715 .358 1.23 .303 .054 Preference # of PD Opportunities x PD 6 1.75 .291 1.00 .437 .123 2nd Preference # of PD Opportunities x PD 3rd 6 3.23 .538 1.85 .112 .205 Preference PD 1st Preference x PD 2nd 1 .044 .044 .150 .701 .003 Preference PD 1st Preference x PD 3rd 3 .966 .322 1.11 .357 .072 Preference PD 2nd Preference x PD 3rd 8 2.51 .313 1.08 .397 .167 Preference
Next, an ANOVA was conducted using the most preferred and least preferred PD methods and the number of PD opportunities as main effects. This analysis showed that there were no significant findings among all possible 2-way interactions and main effects as highlighted in Table 4.18.
121
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
Table 4.18
Analysis of Variance Summary Table for the Main Effects and All 2-Way Interactions of the Most Preferred and Least Preferred Professional Development Methods and Levels of Professional Development on Self Efficacy (N = 82)
Variable df SS MS F P η2 # of PD Opportunities 2 .804 .402 1.24 .296 .039 PD Most Preferred 1 .077 .077 .238 .628 .004 PD Least Preferred 3 .349 .116 .359 .783 .017 # of PD Opportunities x PD 2 1.04 .522 1.61 .208 .050 Most Preferred # of PD Opportunities x PD 6 1.67 .279 .861 .529 .078 Least Preferred PD Most Preferred x PD Least 3 .351 .117 .361 .781 .017 Preferred # of PD Opportunities x PD 2 .250 .125 .386 .682 .012 Most Preferred x PD Least Preferred
Finally, an ANOVA was done to look at the top preferred PD method and the number of PD opportunities as the main effects, along with their interaction. Table 4.19 shows that neither main effect nor their interaction had a significant impact on overall self efficacy.
Table 4.19
Analysis of Variance Summary Table of the Main Effects and Interactions of the Most Preferred Professional Development Method and Levels of Professional Development on Self Efficacy (N = 82)
Variable df SS MS F p η2 # of PD Opportunities 2 1.25 .624 2.03 .138 .051 PD Most Preferred 1 .088 .088 .288 .593 .004 # of PD Opportunities x PD 2 1.07 .532 1.73 .184 .044 Most Preferred
122
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
Based on the results of these four ANOVAs, there is no evidence to reject the null hypothesis of no significant PD level by PD type interaction on overall self efficacy.
Summary
Statistical analysis was used to determine if a teachers’ self efficacy, teacher preparation program, and the level of participation in professional development were contributing factors that related to how comfortable they feel teaching food science on the secondary level. Three research questions were developed and eight hypotheses were tested.
The first research question focused on determining the level of self efficacy of teachers who teach food science. The average of 12 Likert Scale items was used to determine participants self efficacy when looking at teaching in general. Participants reported high levels of self efficacy based on their overall teaching (M = 4.35, SD = .56).
As a result of the 12 questions having validity and reliability, a self-efficacy construct was developed to test six hypotheses.
With the development of the self-efficacy construct, an independent samples t-test was used to compare self-efficacy averages with key demographic variables. The results showed that there was no significant difference of self-efficacy levels based on whether food science is taught as a science credit or elective; whether the FCS teacher is White or
Non – White; or whether the FCS teacher only has teaching certification in FCS/Home
Economics or additional certification.
An ANOVA was used to determine if there were significant differences in self efficacy and demographic information as it related to a participants’ age, the number of
123
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020 years taught, and the education level obtained. The only significance found was related to education level [F (2, 86) = 4.898, p = .010] in which participants with a master’s degree or higher reported the highest level of self efficacy (M = 4.53, SD = 0.38). A Tukey HSD test showed that the mean score for participants having a bachelor’s degree was significantly less different that participants who had a master’s degree or more (D = 0.41, p = .007).
Multiple regressions were used to determine if the four components of Bandura’s self efficacy (i.e. performance accomplishments, verbal persuasion, vicarious experiences, and emotional arousal) individually and collectively had a significant impact on participants’ level of self efficacy. Of the 23 items that were identified as being associated with performance accomplishments, only “factors associated with teaching food processing procedures” (t = 2.53, B = 0.17, p < 0.14), “factors associated with teaching students research and assessment strategies” (t = 4.50, B = 0.27, p < .001), and
“the food science concepts average” (t = 2.85, B = 0.31, p =.006) had a significant impact on overall self efficacy.
The three items associated with vicarious experiences did not show any significance on overall self efficacy.
Of the four items associated with verbal persuasion, only the variable “I know the necessary steps to teach food science concepts effectively” (t = 4.19, B = 0.24, p < .001) had a significant impact on overall self efficacy.
The last component, emotional arousal, has significant values from three of the eight identified items. “I am very effective in monitoring food science experiments” (t = -
2.54, B = -0.21, p = .013); “I can confidently explain to students why food science
124
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020 experiments work” (t = 2.73, B = 0.31, p = .008); and “I am able to generate student excitement for food science concepts” (t = 3.76, B = 0.29, p < .001) had significant impacts on levels of self efficacy.
Finally, a comprehensive regression of all four components (i.e. performance accomplishments, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and emotional arousal) showed that of all the items entered, only six items had significant impacts on overall self efficacy. The six items with significant findings were participants’ responses to “the averages of 23 variables for food science concepts questions” (t = 2.21, B = .307, p
=.031); “I am very effective in monitoring food science experiments” (t = -3.20, B = -
.333, p = .002); “I can confidently explain to students why food experiments work” (t =
2.87, B = .390, p = .006); “I am able to generate student excitement for food science concepts” (t = 3.51, B = .296, p < .001); “I have the necessary skills to teach food science” (t = -2.40, B = -2.51, p < .020); and “I taught food science as part of the teaching experience for my teacher preparation program” (t = 2.57, B = .130, p < .012). These results indicated that the four major components of self efficacy when viewed individually and collectively do not have a significant impact on participants' overall levels of self efficacy. Only selected variables highlighted had a significant impact on overall levels of self efficacy.
The second research question determined if variables such as education, teacher preparation, and the number of years teaching food science affect the level of self efficacy of teachers who teach food science. In reference to a participant’s views of their teacher preparation program, the average of five selected variables indicated that teachers
125
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020 tend to disagree that they are prepared to teach food science based on their teacher preparation program (M = 2.54, SD = 1.00).
A full factorial Univariate ANOVA was conducted and showed that a participants’ teacher preparation program had no significant impact when controlling for education and the number of years teaching food science. However, and ANOVA showed that when accounting for the main effects with not interactions, education (p = .035) showed a significant impact on self efficacy levels.
The final research question of this study determined if the level of participation in
PD opportunities and the method of PD participation effected the overall levels of self efficacy in teachers who teach food science. An ANOVA determined that the number of
PD opportunities that a participant attended did not have a significant impact on overall levels of self efficacy.
The preferred methods of PD based on participants' responses were hands – on workshops (84.1%), online (13.4%), and traditional lecture (2.4%). Multiple linear regression showed that hands – on workshops (M = 1.29) was the most preferred method of PD and webinars (M = 6.15) were the least preferred method of PD. However, these results also showed that the method of PD had no significant impact on overall levels of self efficacy.
Several Univariate ANOVAs were conducted to determine if the interactions between the level and method of PD had a significant impact on overall levels of self efficacy. ANOVAs consisting of 2-way interactions, 3-way interactions, and 4-way interactions did not garner any significant findings. As a result, interactions between PD levels by PD methods do not have a significant impact on overall levels of self efficacy.
126
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter provides a summary of this research study which includes the discussion of findings, implications for practice, limitations of the study, and recommendations for future research.
Summary
The profession of FCS is extensive and covers many well-known disciplines. For over 100 years, the profession has worked diligently to help improve the lives of individuals, families, and communities through scientific principles, research, and practice. AAFCS best defines the profession as “a field of study focused on the science and the art of living and working in our complex world” (AAFCS, 2019). This definition is a direct reflection of the origination of the profession in the 1800s. Although originally called Home Economics, from then until now, the profession has always had a solid foundation in helping others to achieve an optimal quality of life through science-based teaching, research, and practice.
The profession’s foundation in the sciences can be traced back to the educational background of the founder, Ellen Swallow Richards. By earning advanced degrees in
Chemistry from the notable institutions of Vassar College and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, this allowed Richards to lay the groundwork for a women-oriented profession grounded in scientific principles. Richards felt that scientific principles could be and should be fully incorporated and applied to everyday living (Weigley, 1974).
Through her career, the experiments that she conducted and projects she oversaw,
127
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020 positioned her to be able to share her information and knowledge with the masses, provide meaningful employment opportunities for women, and to begin the foundation for identifying a new field of study.
From 1899-1909, the Lake Placid Conferences was a gathering of Richards and like-minded professionals who understood the importance and necessity of organizing a new field of study. These meetings allowed for the development of Home Economics to come into fruition and to be established in various educational settings. These meetings also ensured that the Home Economics curriculum was being properly integrated into secondary and post-secondary institutions (Weigley, 1974). A heavy emphasis was also placed on ensuring that teachers of Home Economics were properly trained on the collegiate level. With all that had been accomplished to further expand the Home
Economics profession, the development of a professional organization and state associations was a culminating project of the Lake Placid Conferences. Attendees agreed that a national organization would help to further the works of Home Economics and encourage professionals of adjacent disciplines to participate in the advancement of the profession (Weigley, 1974).
Before, during, and after the Lake Placid Conferences, several important legislative pieces and world events would have a significant impact on the Home
Economics profession. The establishment of land grant universities as a result of the passage of the Morrill Act of 1862 and 1890 would play an integral role in opportunities for teaching, research, practice, and community outreach for Home Economists. The
Hatch Act of 1887 provided federal funding for agricultural experimental stations to be established at land grant universities. This, in turn, would allow Home Economists the
128
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020 opportunity to participate in scientific research and share their findings with the community (Association of Public and Land Grant Universities, 2012).
The Smith-Lever Act of 1914 further expanded employment opportunities for
Home Economists in the role of extension agents. This is due to the fact that federal funding was given to provide services and programs to members of the community which helped establish cooperative extension agencies (Association of Public and Land-Grant
Universities, 2012). The Smith-Hughes Act of 1917 was significant in that it clearly defined vocational education-related courses as separate from the regular high school curriculum. Because Home Economics was classified under vocational education, federal funding was earmarked for the salaries and training of Home Economist professionals
(Paulter, 1999).
Finally, the Vocational Education Act of 1963, the various Carl D. Perkins Acts from 1984 – 2006, and the Strengthening Career and Technical Education for the 21st
Century Act further provided funding for Home Economics/FCS related courses and programs. These legislative pieces made provisions for special and underrepresented populations, placed a greater emphasis for programs to promote college readiness, aligned fields of study with traditional academic content, and highlighted the transition of terminology from vocational education to CTE to reflect changing times (U.S.
Department of Education, 2018; Gordon, 2008; Threeton, 2007; Paulter, 1999; American
Vocational Association, 1998; and Blakenship & Moerchen, 1979).
The various legislation that has passed over the years concerning FCS courses and programs has been significant in ensuring that the proper funding is available so that courses offered, such as food science, can reflect the changing times. As mentioned
129
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020 previously in this study, FCS courses commonly fall under CTE. CTE is best described as courses that are cutting-edge, rigorous in structure, and relevant in today’s society that prepares students for in-demand and emerging careers (ACTE, 2018). CTE courses are typically taught in high schools, career centers, and post-secondary institutions.
Currently, CTE programs offer options through 16 Career Clusters and more than 79 POS
(ACTE, 2018). Various studies have shown that students enrolled in CTE courses have higher graduation rates, further their education at post-secondary institutions, and can potentially out-earn students with a bachelor’s degree when having an associate’s degree in a CTE related area (ACTE, 2018; ACTE, 2019). Each state has a CTE profile and
Texas is one of the premier CTE programs in the nation. With approximately 1,337,230 students enrolled in CTE courses during the 2016-2017 academic year, Texas can offer courses in all 16 Career Clusters which have led to career opportunities and dual-credit options for their students (ACTE, 2019; Texas Education Agency, 2019).
This study explored the self efficacy of FCS teachers who teach food science as a science credit. The theoretical foundation of this study was based on the work of Albert
Bandura’s Self Efficacy Theory and Megan Tschannen-Moran, Anita Woolfolk Hoy, and
Wayne K. Hoy’s perspective on Teacher Self Efficacy. Bandura viewed one’s self efficacy as an individual being able to identify their true capabilities by organizing and using a series of actions to obtain a certain behavior or goal (Bandura, 1977). He introduced the concept that one’s self efficacy was directly influenced by four major characteristics: performance accomplishments, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and emotional arousal.
130
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk-Hoy, and Hoy built upon Bandura’s Self Efficacy
Theory by applying his works to the teaching profession. Their research found that teacher self efficacy is a teacher’s personal belief in their ability to select the appropriate actions to successfully teach based on a given subject matter (Tschannen-Moran,
Woolfolk-Hoy, & Hoy, 1998). Factors such as one’s ability to persevere when challenges occur, one’s amount of education obtained, how prepared one felt during their teacher preparation program, years of teaching experience, and participation in PD opportunities determine one’s teaching self efficacy. One of the major hallmarks of teacher self efficacy is the idea that a teacher’s overall behavior is directly related to student achievement in a given subject. If a teacher feels confident and competent in the subject matter they teach, then their actions will be displayed in the classroom. Also, students will show mastery and high levels of success with the content that was taught.
Due to the diverse nature of FCS, many FCS teachers find themselves teaching a variety of subjects such as Child Development, Family Studies, Food Science, Human
Growth and Development, etc. More often than not, the content that FCS teachers teach is, and has always been relevant to current societal issues. A conscious effort is made to offer courses that are engaging while helping to improve the quality of life for individuals, families, and communities. The variety of these course offerings can be attributed to FCS’s classification under CTE and placement in one of the 16 career clusters. In Texas, Food science is one such course that falls under the Hospitality and
Tourism Career Cluster. In meeting the needs of changing times highlighting the relevance of Food science, Schmidt et. al. (2012) found that students enrolled in Food science courses on the secondary level can see its importance, relevance, and the
131
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020 numerous career opportunities that can be pursued. In fact, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2019), the demand for employment in agriculture and food science will grow by six percent between 2018-2028. This because there will be an increased need in understanding how food supply is affected by population growth, increased demand for water resources, harm from pests and pathogens, climate change, and consumer demand for new and innovative products.
An opportunity that FCS teachers may take advantage of in order to increase levels of self efficacy and ensure that they are teaching relevant content in food science is to participate in PD. The NRCCTE stated that PD is a comprehensive, sustainable, systematic learning system that identifies the needs of teachers to enhance their teaching to improve student achievement and outcomes (Drage, 2010). The effectiveness of PD opportunities can be directly related to whether a participant felt that it was meaningful and, in some way, beneficial to their teaching. Improving one’s professionalism as a teacher is not a foreign concept. To maintain teaching credentials, many states have standards in place that require ongoing PD. Within a certain number of years, either hours completed in PD and/or credits earned through PD must be documented and show how one stays abreast of current issues and best practices within their respective field. FCS teachers have the opportunity to participate in PD opportunities on the local, state, and national levels through their school districts and professional organizations such as
AAFCS and ACTE.
132
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
Findings and Discussion
The focus of this study was centered on three major research questions which consisted of varying hypotheses being tested. The research questions and hypotheses that were developed give insight as to whether an FCS teachers’ self efficacy, participation in a teacher preparation program, and level of participation in professional development activities were contributing factors to their comfort level in teaching Food science as a science credit.
The first research question, “What is the level of self efficacy of teachers who teach food science as a science credit?” showed that when looking at overall self efficacy based on Tschannen-Moran & Hoy’s Sense of Efficacy Scale Short Form
(Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001), FCS teachers who participated in this study reported high levels of overall self efficacy (M = 4.35, SD = .56). These levels were based on appropriate instructional strategies, student engagement, and having effective classroom management. The instrument developed by Tschannen-Moran & Hoy is considered to be credible regardless if one used the 24-item or 12-item scale as both have acceptable reliability and validity based on grade levels and countries (Zee & Komen, 2016).
There were two methods used to determine the reliability and validity of these results. The first method used to make this determination was a reliability analysis to ensure that there was an underlying overall self-efficacy construct which was verified by a Cronbach α = .938. The second method used was a factor analysis which revealed a
KMO value of .901. The results from both of these methods showed that FCS teachers are very confident in their overall teaching abilities.
133
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
With the development of the self-efficacy constructs, several alternative hypotheses were tested. An independent samples t-test was conducted to determine if there were any significant findings to self efficacy with whether Food science was taught as a science credit or elective, ethnicity, and type of teaching certification held. However, there were no significant findings to suggest that these factors have an overall effect on self efficacy.
Additional alternative hypotheses were also tested based on age, the number of years teaching, and education level obtained by using an ANOVA. The only significant finding for this study was based on education level [F (2,86) = 4.89, p = .010]. A post hoc comparison using the Tukey HSD showed that there was a difference between participants who had a bachelor’s degree from participants who had a master’s degree or more (D = 0.41, p = .007). This finding showed that participants having a master’s degree or higher level of education reported higher levels of self efficacy. In this study, 41% of the participants reported that the highest level of education they had obtained was a master’s degree or more. This study closely relates to Hines (2012) research in which she found that nutrition FCS teachers who had completed coursework beyond the bachelor’s degree or earned a degree higher than a bachelor’s degree reported higher levels of self efficacy. This finding supports Swackhamer et. al. (2009) research in which they found that a teacher who furthers their education can increase their levels of self efficacy.
According to the National Center for Education Statistics (2019), during the 2016-2017 academic year, 146,000 master’s degrees were conferred in education. The education field was identified as one of three fields of study (in conjunction with business and
134
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020 health professions) that consisted of over half of all 805,000 master’s degrees that were conferred.
The second research question, “How do variables (i.e. education, teacher preparation, and number of years teaching) affect the level of self efficacy of teachers who teach food science?” looked specifically at participants education level, experiences with their teacher preparation program, and the number of years that they have been teaching food science. This research question attempts to add to the body of knowledge in that most existing literature on teacher efficacy only looked at teaching experience based solely on the number of years that one has taught (Yoo, 2016). The variables that were selected add to the overall makeup of a participants’ teaching experience.
It was previously highlighted that in regarding the amount of education that a participant had obtained, there was a significant difference when comparing those with a bachelor’s degree among those with a master’s degree or more. With the development of the teacher preparation construct, which will be discussed in the following paragraph, an
ANOVA highlighted that when the main effects of education again showed a significant impact (p = .035) on self-efficacy levels.
Five variables were selected to determine the significance of a participants’ experience through their teacher preparation program. Reliability analysis was conducted with five variables and resulted in a Cronbach α = .816 which established reliability and validity. The overall averages of the five variables (M = 2.54, SD = 1.00) indicated that participants disagreed that they are prepared to teach food science based on their experience with their teacher preparation program.
135
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
With the development of the teacher preparation construct, a full factorial
Univariate ANOVA was conducted to control for education and number of years teaching. Results showed that teacher preparation had an impact when controlling for education.
In addition to analyzing overall self-efficacy levels, exploratory factor analyses and multiple regressions were used to determine if there were significant impacts based on the four individual components of self efficacy (i.e. performance accomplishments, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and emotional arousal). The only component that did not have any significant findings as it related to levels of self efficacy was vicarious experiences.
When evaluating performance accomplishments, 38 variables were identified.
Two separate exploratory factor analyses had to be conducted to determine if an association existed. Concerning performance accomplishments, 23 of the 38 variables addressed comfort level in teaching food science-specific concepts. The remaining variables were related to best practices for instructional methods used to teach food science. The completion of these exploratory factor analyses allowed multiple linear regressions to determine if the selected variables associated with performance accomplishments could affect a participant’s overall self efficacy. Results showed that factors associated with food processing procedures (t = 2.53, B = 0.17, p = 0.14) and teaching students research and assessment strategies (t = 4.50, B = 0.27, p = 0.001) had an impact on overall self efficacy.
These results suggest that participants are comfortable in teaching food science- specific concepts related to food processing procedures such as canning, preservation,
136
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020 freezing, dehydration, pasteurization, and the role of food additives. Secondly, participants appeared to feel more comfortable teaching students how to research food science-related concepts. Finally, significance was also found in participants reporting that they felt comfortable in using the appropriate instructional strategies to relay information to students. An analysis of teacher self-efficacy research over the past 40 years found that teacher self efficacy, especially among in-service teachers, contributed to high levels of self efficacy based on the varied instructional strategies used (Zee &
Komen, 2016). Many of these instructional strategies included process-oriented instruction, differentiated instruction, goal development, and connecting with students on a personal level to adapt selected instructional strategies.
When evaluating the third component of self efficacy, only one variable associated with verbal persuasion had a significant impact. This impact related to participants knowing the necessary steps to teach food science concepts effectively (t =
4.19, B = 0.24, p = 0.001). This result is in alignment with earlier reporting of significance found in participants reporting higher levels of self efficacy in teaching specific food science concepts. More specifically, teaching food processing techniques which are procedural and are commonly taught in a step by step method. The step by step process would more than likely allow participants to feel comfortable teaching this particular food science-related concepts.
The final component of self efficacy that had significant findings was emotional arousal. Using the regression method, only three of the nine variables identified had significant values as they related to overall self efficacy. Surprisingly, one finding had a negative impact. Participants reported that they were very effective in monitoring food
137
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020 science experiments (t = -2.54, B = -0.21, p = .013); could confidently explain to students why food science experiments work (t = 2.73, B = -0.31, p = .008); and were able to generate student excitement for food science concepts (t = 3.76, B = 0.29, p = .001).
Monitoring food science experiments and being able to confidently explain how these experiments work, coincide with previous findings that were reported earlier.
When conducting experiments, certain steps must be followed in a specific order to ensure that the desired outcome is achieved. Because experiments are typically methodical and specific as to what should be done, it is not surprising that participants would report higher levels of comfortability in monitoring and explaining food science experiments. These findings are supported by research in that high levels of teacher self efficacy led to more student-centered approaches (such as food science experiments that were highlighted in this research) in that these learning formats gain students’ interests, are engaging, and allow students the ability to learn (Zee & Komen, 2016).
Finally, a regression was completed to determine if all four components of self efficacy combined (i.e. performance accomplishments, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and emotional arousal) had an overall effect on self efficacy. Collectively, the significant findings centered around the average of the food science concepts taught (p =
.031); monitoring (p = .002) and confidently explaining why food science experiments works (p = .006); generating student excitement for food science concepts (p = .001); and having the necessary skills to teach food science (p = .020).
The final research question of this study addressed the question “Does the level of participation in PD opportunities and the type of PD participation effect overall self- efficacy levels in teachers who teach food science as a science credit?” This question was
138
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020 taken from the angle of the opportunities that a participant attended PD events, support that was given, the preferred method of PD, and the significance of membership in professional organizations. Based on what was evaluated, three hypotheses were tested.
An ANOVA was used to determine if the first alternative hypothesis had any significance as it related to the level of PD participation affecting overall self-efficacy levels. The results showed that there was no significant impact. Secondly, a multiple linear regression showed that the preferred delivery method of PD had no significant impact on self-efficacy levels. However, 77.5% of all participants reported that a hands- on workshop (M = 1.29) was their most preferred method of PD and webinars (M = 6.15) were their least preferred method of PD. With webinars being a technological-based PD method and the least preferred method in this study, it aligns with the research in that comfortability with computer usage could be a determinant in influencing one’s decision to use various forms of technology (Zee & Komen, 2016). Research also suggested that for technology and computer usage to move forward, teachers will need to increase their personal self-efficacy levels with technological use.
The second alternative hypothesis that was tested focused on whether there was an interaction between the level and type of PD participation had a significant impact on self-efficacy levels using Univariate ANOVAs. No significant findings were found when evaluating the top three preferred methods of PD (i.e. hands-on workshop, online and videos) and level of PD; the most preferred and least preferred method concerning the level of PD opportunities; and the top preferred PD method and the level of PD opportunities. These findings showed that the preferred PD method and level of PD had no significant impact on overall self efficacy. The results may not be all that surprising
139
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020 considering that 50% of participants indicated that they had not participated in any form of PD. However, these findings refute previous studies that have indicated the benefits of
PD in that for teachers to meet the current demands, they must continuously stay abreast of the content of their discipline through PD (NRCCTE, 2010).
Implications
Several implications can be made based on the results that were discovered from this research study. Although there were three main research questions, each question implied various characteristics that may need to be taken into consideration to further the mission of the Family and Consumer Sciences profession. This section will evaluate five implications for future practice.
When looking at their overall capabilities as an FCS teacher, participants ranked themselves as having high levels of self efficacy. However, when looking at teaching specific food science concepts and using various instructional strategies most suited for food science, the levels of self efficacy varied. The first implication that can be made from this research is that the level of education that is obtained by an FCS teacher has a direct effect on one’s comfortability level in teaching food science. A significant finding from this research regarding educational attainment was that there was a significant difference in self-efficacy levels among participants who had a bachelor’s degree from participants who had a master’s degree or more. This is in alignment with Hines (2012) study in which she found that FCS teachers who earned an education beyond the master’s degree had higher levels of self efficacy.
140
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
Concerning educational attainment, the results of this research imply that the level of education that is obtained by an FCS teacher has a direct effect on one’s self efficacy in teaching food science. Also, obtaining an advanced degree could potentially increase self-efficacy levels as this research highlighted that participants felt they were not prepared to teach food science based on their experience with their teacher preparation program. Research is aligned with this implication in that Yoo (2016) quoted “With the growing population of teachers who actively seek advanced degrees or professional continuing education opportunities, there is a need to examine how this continuing education affects teacher efficacy.” From a professional perspective, FCS teachers should be made aware of the benefits of pursuing one’s education beyond the bachelor’s degree.
More specifically, obtaining advanced degrees in disciplines such as Food Science,
Agriculture, and/or Nutrition could be ideal in increasing self-efficacy levels of teaching food science.
The second implication that can be made from this research is an extension of the significant findings that were reported for educational attainment. A component that can be associated with educational attainment is one’s experience through their teacher education program. When asked, “I feel that my teacher preparation program fully prepared me to teach food science”, 24% of participants strongly disagreed and 23% of participants disagreed. If FCS teachers are leaving their teacher preparation programs not feeling prepared to teach food science, what can be done?
Depending on where one decides to further their education, the requirements for earning an FCS education degree vary. Also, the courses that are offered that could assist
141
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020 in one feeling comfortable to teach food science can also vary. Based on their experience in their teacher preparation program, the following participant stated the following:
“In my teacher preparation program at TTU, most of the other students in the
FCSE major were required to take 2 RHIM courses. Due to time and physical
restrictions, I replaced the second RHIM (Skyview Lab Class), with a Food
Preparation Principles in-line through the Alliance with TWU (Texas Woman’s
University). That class has been the most beneficial to me in regard to teaching
Food science. I am not a culinary teacher, but I do teach food science, and the
principles of food prep were more explicitly taught and experiences through the
required lab work I had to complete for the TWU class have been far more
beneficial.”
If one is not able to minor or double major in food science (provided it is offered at one’s college or university), at a minimum, one could supplement their curriculum in courses related to chemistry and biology. Directors and coordinators of FCS Education programs can recommend that their students take electives in these courses. Also, teaching food science during the student teaching experience may also be beneficial.
Another suggestion that could be considered is to allow teacher educators to participate in PD opportunities through their teacher preparation program. This would be a good opportunity for students to learn about the importance of participating in PD as professional. It would bring to light that FCS teachers are lifelong learners. In addition, they would be able to connect and network with FCS teachers that are currently teaching food science. An emphasis can be placed on the importance of joining professional organizations on the local, state, and national level. In addition, teacher educators would
142
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020 learn early how to seek appropriate PD opportunities that are directly related to food science.
The third implication from this research is the importance of evaluating the various components of self efficacy separately and collectively. There are four components of teacher self efficacy that can be evaluated when determining the comfortability level in teaching a specific subject. Zee & Komen (2016) stated that teacher self efficacy is exhibited by multiple characteristics of one’s profession and one can improve based on the tasks they are given, roles assigned, and students they work with over an extended period. This study looked at teaching food science specifically and made and attempt to determine if there was significance to the four separate components of teacher efficacy and the model as a whole.
The most significant finding that was seen throughout the self-efficacy model was related to teaching specific food science concepts. In this study, those concepts were food processing procedures; teaching students how to research food science-related concepts; using appropriate instructional strategies; monitoring food science experiments, and explaining how food science experiments work. These findings were directly related to performance accomplishments, verbal persuasion, and emotional arousal. The implication that can be made is that FCS teachers reported high levels of self efficacy based on food science concepts that they were most comfortable teaching and instructional strategies that they felt most comfortable using in the classroom. This falls in alignment with
Tschannen et al. (1998) view that a teacher’s belief in their capacity to develop an appropriate course of action will allow them to accomplish a specific task in a specific related subject matter. One can conclude that FCS teachers may not feel as confident
143
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020 teaching food science concepts that are heavily based in the “hard sciences” such as chemistry, organic chemistry, biology, etc. Various strategies should be considered as to how FSC teachers can feel confident in teaching and concept related to food science and feel comfortable using a variety of instructional strategies.
The fourth implication from this research focused on the need and demand for appropriate PD opportunities related to food science specifically. At the start of this study, it was assumed that the number of PD opportunities that a participant took advantage of would increase their self efficacy in teaching food science. However, the opposite was proven. This may be due to the following factors as reported by the participants:
• Only a limited number of participants indicated that they were a member of a
professional organization.
• For those who were members of a professional organization, they indicated that
the PD opportunities they participated in, had nothing to do with food science.
• 50% of participants reported that they did not attend any PD opportunities; 38.6%
only attended 1-2 PD opportunities so the chances that the PD offered in food
science specifically is very slim.
Although there were no significant findings as it related to various PD factors and the overall effect on self-efficacy levels, there are still implications that can be made that should be taken into consideration for professional practice.
An open-ended question on the research instrument provided an opportunity for participants to offer any comments and/or suggestions that they felt would help improve
PD opportunities for FCS teachers who teach food science. Although there is an
144
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020 abundance of research which stated the importance of PD (Kennedy, 2016; Liceaga, et al., 2014; Schieb, & Karabenick, 2011; Drage, 2010; Mizell, 2010; & NRCCTE, 2010), there were also factors reported as to why participants did not participate in PD and/or found the PD offered lacking.
Some participants reported that they did not participate in PD based on factors such as lack of offerings, not knowing that PD opportunities were available due to little or no advertisement, frustration with attending PD opportunities that had absolutely nothing to do with food science, and cost. Many participants stated that they wished professional organizations on all levels (i.e. local, state, and national) would make a better effort to offer PD opportunities related to food science. One participant stated that
“There is not enough of us for FCSTAT to provide much usable PD at the conference.
For the money spent, I get more from the ProStart conference and the HEAT conference.”
A potential practice that professional organizations such as AAFCS and ACTE may want to take into consideration is to survey what topics in food science should be offered as PD opportunities and to deliver those topics in various methods. Currently,
AAFCS offers webinars on various FCS topics. Since 2017, if an individual is a member of AAFCS, one can review previous webinars (which are archived) and/or watch upcoming webinars. According to the AAFCS Archived Webinars website (2020), the webinars that have been related to food science were as follow:
• Leading-in-the Lab by Dr. Susan M. Turgeson
• Food Science: Read It and Eat by Dr. Susan M. Turgeson
145
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
• SmartLabel – A Transparency Initiative for Consumer Trust by Julie Savoie and
Melanie Condon
Unfortunately, this study highlighted that webinars were the least preferred method of delivery and hands-on workshops were the most preferred method of delivery. If hands- on workshops were offered, then the issue of cost may still limit FCS teachers from attending PD opportunities even though they may have a genuine interest. Professional organizations could consider working closely with FCS State Administrators to determine if there is a way that ongoing opportunities could be offered on local and state levels so that opportunities are not just limited to the national level.
An alternative to the webinars offered could be for AAFCS to see if a partnership could be developed with the FDA’s Professional Development Program in Food Science.
Currently, individuals selected for this program attend a one-week training program in which all expenses are paid. Participants get the opportunity to review current and updated information in food science, visit the FDA and other related facilities, receive hands-on experience with curriculum, and exchange teaching and learning strategies with other participants. Also, participants are required to present a six-hour, hands-on workshop at their respective school, district, or region for the upcoming academic year.
As the program currently stands, any applicant can apply provided they meet the following criteria:
• Hold US Citizenship
• Be employed full time as a middle school or secondary school teacher (Grades 6 –
12)
146
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
• Teach science, FCS or health education in a US School, including the DoD school
system
• Have at least three years of consecutive, full-time teaching experience (by the
program start date)
• Have an up-to-date teaching certificate that is uploaded as part of the application.
If a teaching certificate is not required by one’s current school, then a letter of
explanation is required.
Because this program is very competitive, and FCS teacher may not be accepted into the program, AAFCS could see if this same program could be offered at a separate date for just FCS teachers. Information could be submitted in regard to the concepts that should be heavily emphasized. Although it would undoubtedly require a good bit of planning and determination would need to be made on how this additional program could be funded, it could be very beneficial to FCS teachers……especially if a certain number of educators were selected from each state.
The final implication that can be made is that the FCS profession could be in a prime position to take the lead in offering quality courses in food science on the secondary level. To have this recognition, several factors must be in place.
To take the lead, deficiencies that FCS teachers feel when teaching food science must be addressed. If FCS teachers can become more comfortable teaching the content and have the appropriate resources to teach food science, then they will be in a better position to educate their students on the benefits of food science beyond the classroom.
The FCS profession could establish bridge programs with colleges and universities that offer food science programs. These bridge programs could be established in each state
147
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020 and could assist FCS teachers in having direct access to food science professionals in post-secondary settings. In return, they could also have direct connections to food science professionals that are affiliated with these established post-secondary institutions.
Whether FCS teachers realize it or not, the FCS profession focuses on the practical application of food science while other professions, such as those who identify with agriculture, focus on the theoretical knowledge of food science. FCS teachers can be in a position to explain the importance of various food science concepts as it relates to its place in improving the lives of individuals, families, and communities. Comfortability could promote the desire to expand one’s teaching outside of the classroom.
In addition to the profession taking the lead in establishing quality food science classes and programs on the secondary level, FCS teachers could also become strong advocates for encouraging students to pursue a variety of careers related to food science…including becoming an FCS teacher that teaches food science. Just as there is a nationwide shortage of FCS teachers (Werhan, 2013), there is also a shortage of qualified food scientists. From the food science realm, these shortages fall in the areas of quality assurance and food safety-related careers that are typically found in settings such as food manufacturing facilities (Stevenson, 2016). Studies have shown that factors that have contributed to this lack of interest in pursuing food science-related careers are due to little recognition or understanding of career opportunities among high school educators; low enrollment in food science-related undergraduate programs; flawed and stereotypical views of food science careers; and lack of food science courses offered at the secondary and post-secondary levels (Stringer et. al., 2019; Stevenson, 2016; Weller, Robbins,
Elmore, & Wiedmann, 2015). At the secondary level, if FCS teachers confidence levels
148
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020 are raised in teaching the content AND they can establish quality courses and programs, then there is the potential for the FCS profession to offer special credentialing and/or licensure for students who take these courses. Also, the bridge program for FCS teachers that was mentioned previously could serve in the dual capacity of directing students to attend colleges and universities with undergraduate programs in food science. This could potentially increase enrollment numbers in food science programs and address the shortages found in selected careers in food science.
Once confidence levels have been raised, the final step would include increasing public awareness as to why FCS teachers are qualified to teach food science. Many individuals are unaware that the FCS profession has always been involved with food science in that the entire profession was based on the foundation of chemistry principles.
The following quote from White & White (2018) made the argument of the FCS profession’s place in food science:
“FCS professionals must remain in touch with the science, and specifically, the
chemistry background that came to us through the work of the mid-19th century
German chemists and formed the basis of Richards’ vision for the discipline,
especially in the areas of food science, nutrition, and textiles.” (White & White,
2018, pg. 47)
Despite the FCS profession’s historical roots with food science, public perception may not see the connection. This, in turn, may leave individuals to feel that food science should only be taught by individuals with a traditional science background such as biology or chemistry. The latter is evidenced by Stringer, Hendrix, Swortzel, Williams, &
Schilling (2019) comment in which they stated that “there are opportunities to develop
149
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020 and implement food science programs for secondary education.” This statement suggests that there are no food science programs currently existing on the secondary level. As a result, their study focused on the effectiveness of including food science lessons in high school biology and chemistry curriculum. Stringer et. al. (2019) emphasis was more so placed on the fact that since most states require biology and chemistry as a high school graduation requirement and/or elective, these classes were suitable for implementing food science concepts. Even though Stringer et. al. (2019) study mentioned Texas as requiring high school students to take both biology and chemistry, there was no acknowledgment that food science is already taught in Texas and counts as a science credit. The lack of knowledge in not realizing that food science courses/programs can be and are currently offered through FCS programs on the secondary level shows a disconnect that needs to be addressed.
Limitations
Although this study did have a certain number of significant findings, four limitations have been identified that could be addressed for future research.
The first limitation is that the sample size only consisted of FCS teachers who taught food science as a science credit in the state of Texas. Therefore, the results can only be generalized to FCS teachers who live in Texas and teach food science as a science credit. The researcher is aware that food science is taught as a science credit in other states and this opens the potential for future research. What will need to be considered is how each state and possibly local school district constitutes how food science is recognized as a science credit versus an elective. Although data was able to be
150
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020 obtained on the exact number of FCS teachers who taught food science in Texas, some participants reported that their course was being taught as an elective.
The second limitation of this study was the use of self-reported data. Many factors are associated with the disadvantages of using self-reported data and the possibilities of inaccurate reporting. One concern is that participants may not have understood the wording of certain questions and an accurate response may not have been provided which could lead to lower reliability. The research question that addressed how many PD opportunities a participant had attended within the last year may have produced flawed results due to how the question was comprehended and memory issues. Regarding comprehending the question, respondents may have interpreted “year” to mean the calendar year (i.e. January-December) or the academic year (i.e. August-June). In addition, based on the time that a respondent had to think back to, it may have been very difficult to remember when the PD opportunities occurred and how many opportunities they attended.
The third limitation of this study was the low Cronbach alpha value that was reported based on the reliability analysis that was conducted on the emotional arousal subscale. As mentioned previously, a desired alpha value that a researcher tries to achieve is 0.70 or greater. When evaluated individually, the value of emotional arousal was α =
.121 and could be considered unacceptable. However, when emotional was analyzed collectively with the remaining scales (i.e. performance accomplishments, verbal persuasion, and vicarious experiences) a Cronbach α = .966 would be deemed acceptable.
This falls in alignment with Taber (2018) as he indicated that the alpha value’s goals is
151
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020 more so based on the reported value of collectives items as opposed to item specific factors.
The final limitation of this study may have been the length of the instrument that was used to collect data. Peytcher & Peytcher (2017) indicated that long surveys can be draining on participants and can result in greater measurements in errors. Also, questions placed towards the end of a lengthy survey may be ignored or provide a shorter response from the participant. The instrument used for this study consisted of over 100 questions and participants may have experienced respondent fatigue. An open-ended question appeared at the end of the instrument, but the submission of responses was low. Although there was an incentive to complete the instrument, there is still a chance that a respondent just clicked on an answer and did not fully comprehend the question that was being asked.
Recommendations for Future Research
To the knowledge of this researcher, this is the first study of its kind that evaluated the self efficacy of FCS teachers who teach food science. When completing a search in academic databases using the key terms “family and consumer sciences”, “food science” and “self efficacy” in various combinations, no studies were found. Most of the results given from the academic databases were centered on specific topics related to food science with no mention of family and consumer sciences OR food and nutrition as it related to best practices, program evaluation, and curriculum integration. It must be stated that there are several components discussed in food science classes that are rooted
152
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020 in food and nutrition. However, food science and food and nutrition are two separate disciplines and should not be used interchangeably.
A study that is worth mentioning that did appear in these searches was conducted by Liceaga, Ballard, & Esters (2014) in which they determined if content and self efficacy of high school educators could increase by taking an online food science course.
Based on the demographics of the 20 participants of their study, the only background information that was provided centered on gender, the highest level of education completed, and geographical location. The teaching assignment of the participants nor their teaching credentials, other than being a high school educator, was included.
Therefore, a determination could not be made if any FCS teachers participated in this study. However, the findings were promising and beneficial to this current research.
Due to the lack of availability of research concerning evaluating the self efficacy of teaching food from the perspective of FCS teachers, there is a great need to add to the body of knowledge. Also, this could encourage FCS professionals to contribute to an area that is essentially wide open for exploration. Based on the results and various findings from this study, this section will offer eight recommendations for future research as it relates to evaluating the self efficacy of FCS teachers who teach food science.
Recommendation #1: Expand This Study to Evaluate FCS Teachers Who Do
Not Teach Food Science as a Science Credit. This study should be expanded to include
FCS teachers who teach Food Science as an elective. It would be interesting to determine the self-efficacy levels of those FCS teachers. One concern is that those who teach Food
Science as an elective, may not include the rigor that is needed and instead teach the course as an “over-glorified” Food and Nutrition course. As stated previously, Food
153
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
Science and Food and Nutrition are two separate disciplines and should not be used interchangeably.
Recommendation #2: Conduct Additional Research Based on the Educational
Credentials of FCS Teachers. More research needs to be completed in regard to analyzing the level of education obtained by FCS teachers & whether it has a significant impact on self efficacy. Areas in which additional information could be completed are as follow:
• In addition to FCS Education degrees, what other degrees are FCS teachers
earning on the undergraduate level that makes them qualified to teach food
science?
• Does the type of FCS Degree education earned affect self efficacy in teaching
food science? For example, could there be a difference in self-efficacy levels
among someone who earned a traditional FCS Education Degree versus an
individual with an FCS Education Degree with a specialization in Food Science?
Could there be a difference between traditional teacher certification vs. alternative
teacher certification?
• What type of graduate degrees are FCS teachers pursuing? Are any FCS teachers
earning Master’s degrees in Food Science?
Because the educational background of FCS teachers can be very diverse, it may be worth analyzing to see if this plays a role in how comfortable one feels teaching food science.
Recommendation #3: Complete an In-Depth Analysis of Teacher Education
Programs. An in-depth analysis needs to be completed of current FCS teacher education
154
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020 programs and the curriculums that are used. The curriculum evaluation can determine where there may or may not be an emphasis on courses that could be beneficial in learning food science concepts. Also, of the FCS teacher education programs in the
United States, a determination could be made on whether a major or minor in food science is available. If so, the information could be researched on whether FCS teacher education programs have a working relationship with the food science program located on their campus and if they required their students to take a certain number of courses within that program.
There are currently 94 Family and Consumer Sciences Teacher Education
Programs in the United States (Holland, 2020) and each program has its own set of criteria and requirements. For example, at Texas Tech University a student can combine their degree in Human Development and Family Studies, Food and Nutrition, or
Restaurant, Hotel, and Institutional Management (RHIM) with a teaching certificate
(Texas Tech University, 2020). However, if a student follows the RHIM track, they have the potential to earn a specialized certificate in Hospitality, Nutrition, and Food Science.
By evaluating FCS Teacher Education programs and the flexibility in course selection, strengths and weaknesses could be identified as it relates to preparing students to teach food science as an FCS teacher.
Recommendation #4: Complete an In-Depth Review of the Effectiveness of
Hands-On PD. Although research may be limited as it relates to evaluating the unique challenges of teaching food science, the self efficacy of FCS teachers who teach food science, and preferred delivery method of PD does not necessarily mean that PD opportunities with hands-on workshop approach have not been completed. This study
155
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020 found that the most preferred method of delivery for PD as it related to concepts in food science was hands-on workshops. A systematic review of the literature should be completed on reported studies that have researched the effectiveness of hands-on workshops as a delivery method of PD. Common themes could develop as it relates to the best practices of hands-on and interactive workshops. This information could then be used to ensure that the proper techniques and formats are implemented when developing effective hands-on workshops for FCS teachers who teach food science.
Recommendation #5: Evaluate the FDA’s Professional Development
Program in Food Science. FCS teachers who teach food science should be encouraged to apply for the FDA Professional Development Program in Food Science. According to
Graduate School USA (n. d.), the purpose of this program is as follow:
“The FDA Professional Development Program in Food Science is a sustained
development opportunity for middle level and high school science, health, and
family and consumer science (FCS) teachers. Taking advantage of the current
understandings in food science, teachers have an opportunity to provide
topically relevant lessons in food science for their students.”
(http://www.teachfoodscience.org/i_food_science_program.asp)
Approximately 20 educators are selected each year and there have been a total of 835 participants who have completed this program since 2000. Participants of this program have the representation of all 50 states including Washington D.C., Guam, the Northern
Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Even though all teachers can apply for this program, it is encouraging that FCS is listed specifically. When the question was raised “I teach Family and Consumer Sciences,
156
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
Agriscience, Health Education or Food Science. May I apply?”, Graduate School USA
(n.d.) acceptance of FCS teachers was evident based on their following response:
“Yes! We have always welcomed teachers from these disciplines to apply for
our professional development program, and over the years, many have been
selected to participate. In fact, this professional development opportunity has
led to some great partnerships between FCS and science teachers, since the
curriculum we use addresses both science and FCS standards. We welcome
the knowledge the other disciplines bring – it enriches the program!”
(http://www.teachfoodscience.org/faq.asp#3)
Since FCS teachers have participated in this program, it would be beneficial to complete an evaluation of the effectiveness of this program in which several factors can be observed. In return, one could determine if confident levels in teaching food science would increase for FCS teachers based on participation in this program.
Recommendation #6: Complete Causal-Comparative Research on PD
Delivery Method and Self Efficacy. This study highlighted the preferred delivery method and least preferred delivery method of PD as it related to acquiring additional knowledge in food science concepts. These findings can be taken a step further by conducting causal-comparative research to determine if selected delivery methods of PD may be contributing factors to low or high levels of self efficacy. For example, a researcher could offer the same content of a food science PD session in various delivery methods, randomly assign participants to one of the delivery methods, and determine if low or high levels of self efficacy are achieved based on their confidence level in using what was learned in the PD setting to successfully teach content. Also, a researcher could
157
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020 evaluate the levels of self efficacy based on the effects of PD delivery methods for those who participate in PD opportunities versus those who do not participate in PD opportunities.
Recommendation #7: Increase Collaborative Efforts with Food Science
Adjacent Disciplines. An implication that was made previously in this study was that a disconnect exists in understanding how food science is also a part of FCS. One way to address this issue is for FCS teachers to collaborate and establish ongoing working relationships with teachers of food science adjacent disciplines such as agriculture, biology, and chemistry. There are numerous opportunities for team teaching to occur.
Collaborative efforts with agriculture, biology, and chemistry teachers could potentially allow teachers of these disciplines to gain a better understanding of how FCS fits into the food science realm.
In many states, preference is given to agricultural teachers to teach food science.
If there is an agricultural teacher and FCS teacher at one school, this would be a great opportunity for these professionals to collaborate with one another to show students how food science is viewed from a theoretical and practical application perspective. Resources that agricultural teachers use to teach food science that may not be commonly known by
FCS teachers can be shared and vice versa. In addition, the connections to industrial professionals that both agricultural teachers and FCS teachers have access to can be shared. In working together, students can have a better understand of the numerous job opportunities that are available from and agricultural and FCS perspective.
From a chemistry perspective, White & White (2018) stressed the importance of applying chemistry in FCS curricula whenever it is appropriate. If an FCS teacher is not
158
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020 strong in teaching chemistry principles that are commonly found in food science, working with a chemistry teacher could be very beneficial and possibly increase levels of self efficacy. White & White (2018) felt that FCS professionals needed to truly understand the importance of applying scientific principles in various ways that help to improve the quality of life of individuals, families, and communities. They also encouraged FCS teachers who have taken rigorous science courses to share their experiences and knowledge with up and coming FCS teachers. By sharing experiences,
FCS teachers can see that it is possible to be successful in courses such as chemistry with an FCS background.
Recommendation #8: Continue to Develop Items Aligned With Bandura’s
Self-Efficacy Theory to Ensure Reliability Analysis. Although Bandura’s Self-Efficacy
Theory is widely used in educational research, it can be challenging to develop the appropriate items that will adequately measure performance accomplishments, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and emotional arousal. In this study, the reliability analysis of these four components individually garnered varying alpha values. The items that were selected and analyzed individually for two of the components (i.e. vicarious experiences and verbal persuasion) had alpha values less than the desired 0.70 or greater standard. However, when all four components were analyzed collectively, a Cronbach α
= .966. Additional research should be conducted as it relates to the development of items when evaluating the four components of Bandura’s theory individually when using the reliability analysis method.
Recommendation #9: Develop a Food Science Teaching Self Efficacy Scale.
Research should be completed to determine the feasibility of developing a Food Science
159
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
Teaching Self Efficacy Scale. This study used Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk-Hoy, &
Hoy’s (1998) Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale to evaluate a participant’s belief in their overall teaching. However, there may be a need to develop a teaching self-efficacy scale that is directly related to food science concepts.
Currently, two instruments focus specifically on self efficacy and science teaching. To improve science education and teaching among elementary teachers, the
Science Teaching Belief (STBI) Instrument was developed (Enochs & Riggs, 1990). Two forms were created in which Form A measured the personal beliefs of preservice elementary teachers and Form B measured self efficacy concerning science teaching and science learning. The Self-Efficacy for Science Teaching Scale (SSST) is considered a revision of the STBI in that it measures context-specific self efficacy in an elementary school setting (Yangin & Sidekli, 2016). Their study took into account science content and context as it related to an individual teacher’s science teaching self efficacy.
With the existence of these science-related self-efficacy instruments, it may be beneficial to develop a food science teaching self-efficacy instrument. The development of this instrument could be a tremendous help in getting an accurate measurement of an
FCS teacher’s comfortability level in teaching food science. Also, there is the possibility that more research could be completed when looking at not only FCS teachers who teach food science but also teachers who teach food science with varying educational credentials. This scale could potentially open various avenues of research on the secondary and post-secondary levels.
160
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
REFERENCES
Advance CTE (2019). Career technical education. Retrieved from https://careertech.org/
Advance CTE (2019). Texas. Retrieved from https://careertech.org/Texas
American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences (2019). American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences. Retrieved from http://www.aafcs.org/
American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences (2019). What is FCS? Retrieved from https://www.aafcs.org/about/about-us/what-is-fcs
American Vocational Association (1998). The Official Guide to the Perkins Act of 1998. The Authoritative Guide to Federal Legislation for Vocational-Technical Education. Retrieved from ERIC Database.
Arnett, S. E. & Freeburg, B. W. (2011). Teaching intentions: Orientation and commitment among family and consumer sciences teachers. Journal of Family & Consumer Sciences Education, 29(2), 38-46
Arnett, S. E. & Freeburg, B. W. (2008). Family and consumer science pre-service teachers: Impact on an early field experience. Journal of Family & Consumer Sciences Education, 26(1), 48-56
Association for Career and Technical Education (2019). About ACTE. Retrieved from https://www.acteonline.org/about-cte/
Association of Career and Technical Education (2019). CTE Research - Fact Sheets. Retrieved from https://www.acteonline.org/factsheets/
Association of Public and Land-Grant University (2012). The Land-Grant Tradition. Retrieved from http://www.aplu.org/library/the-land-grant-tradition/file
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 121-125.
161
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
Beecher, C. (1848). A Treatise on Domestic Economy, for the use of Young Ladies at Home, and at School. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=szc2AQ AAMAAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA25&dq=a+treatise+on+a+domestic+economy&ots=A K1j-UApyV&sig=ReOc0qjkAvcmOr2WsAOLnSyHPek
Blackburn, J. J. & Robinson, J. S. (2008). Assessing teacher self-efficacy and job satisfaction of early career agriculture teachers in Kentucky. Journal of Agriculture Education, 49(3), 1-11. doi: 10.5032/jae.2008.03001
Bland, B. (2008). Supporting high quality career and technical education through federal and state policy. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED 502301)
Blankenship, M. L. & Moerchen, B. D. (1979). Federal legislation and vocational home economics. Home economics education (pp.47-61). Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Improvement Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-270, § 123, 250 Stat. 44-55
Compton, C. M. (2010). What teachers want: Educators at all career stages express the desire to connect with and learn from one another. Journal of Staff Development, 31(4) 52-55. Retrieved from ERIC Database.
Drage, K. (2010). Professional development: Implications for Illinois career and technical Education teachers. Journal of Career and Technical Education, 25(2). 24-37. Retrieved from ERIC Database.
Duemer, L. S. (2007). The agricultural education origins of the Morrill Land Grant Act of 1862. American Educational History Journal, 34(1), 135-146.
Enochs, L. G. & Riggs, I. M. (1990). Further development of an elementary science teaching efficacy belief instrument: A preservice elementary scale. (Report No. E 051411). Manhattan, KS: Center for Science Education – Kansas State University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 319601)
Floros, J. D., Newsome, R., Fisher, W., Barbosa-Cánovas, Hongda, C., Dunne, C.
162
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
P.,…Ziegler, G. R. (2010). Feeding the world today and tomorrow: The importance of food science and technology. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Technology, 0, 1-28. doi: 10.1111/j.1541-4337.2010.00127.x
Godbey, K. & Johnson, C. A. (2011). Career choice influences and job satisfaction for early career family and consumer sciences teachers. Journal of Family & Consumer Sciences Education, 29(2), 12-25.
Gordon, H. R.D. (2008). The history and growth of career and technical education in America (3rd ed.). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, Inc.
Graduate School USA-FDA Food Science Program (n. d.). The FDA professional development program in food science. Retrieved from http://teachfoodscience.org/i_food_science_program.asp
Hillison, J. & Burge, P. L. (1988). Support for home economics education in the Smith- Hughes Act. Home Economics Research Journal, 17(2), 165-174.
Hines, M. K. (2012). Investigating the role of family and consumer sciences teachers in nutrition education in texas secondary schools (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved From ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing, 2012 (3538808).
Holland, A. (2019). National directory of university programs in family and consumer sciences education. Retrieved from http://teachfoodscience.org/i_food_science_program.asp
Illinois State University (2020). Family & consumer sciences teacher education – sample plan of study. Retrieved from http://findyourmajor.illinoisstate.edu/downloads/pdf/4year/2017/fcs-teacher- education.pdf
Institute of Food Technologists (2000). A century of food science. http://www.ift.org/knowledge-center/learn-about-food-science/what-is-food- science/history-of-food-science.aspx
Jamil, F. M., Downer, J. T., & Pianta, R. C. (2012). Association of pre-service teachers’
163
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
performance, personality, and beliefs with teacher self-efficacy at program completion. Teacher Education Quarterly, 39(4) 119-138. Retrieved from ERIC database. (EJ 1001446)
Johnson, G. A. & Brooks, G. P. (2009). Initial scale development: Sample size for pilot studies. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 70(3) 394-400. doi: 10.1177/0013164409355692
Kansas State University (2020). College of health and human sciences – Family and consumer sciences education bachelor’s degree. Retrieved from https://www.hhs.k-state.edu/academics/departments/fcsed/ugrad/
Kato, S. L. & Elias, J. G. (2015). Professional Foundations in Family and Consumer Sciences: Careers Serving Individuals, Families, and Communities. Tinley Park, IL: Goodheart-Willcox
Kennedy, M. M. (2016). How does professional development improve teaching? Review of Educational Research, 86(4) 945-980. doi: 10.3102/0034654315626800
Liceaga, A. M., Ballard, T. S., & Esters, L. T. (2014). Increasing content knowledge and self-efficacy of high school educators through an online course in food science. Journal of Food Science Education, 13, 28-32. doi: 10.1111/1541-4329.12028
McKim, A. J. & Velez, J. J. (2017). Developing self-efficacy: Exploring preservice coursework, student teaching, and professional development exercises. Journal of Agricultural Education, 58(1) 172-185. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.201701172
Michals, D. (2015). Catherine Ester Beecher (1800-1878). Retrieved from http://www.nwhm.org/education-resources/biography/biographies/catharine- beecher/
Miles, J. B. (2011). Ellen Swallow Richards. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEI_l61eOzY
Mills, G. E. & Gay, L. R. (2019). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and applications (12th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice-Hall.
164
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
Mizell, H. (2010). Why professional development matters. Retrieved from http://www.learningforward.org/docs/pdf/why_pd_matters_web.pdf
Moss, M. (2013). Convenience with a Capital ‘C”. In, Salt Sugar Fat: How the Food Giants Hooked Us (pp.46-67). New York, NY: Random House, Inc.
National Center for Education Statistics (2019). Graduate degree fields. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_ctb.asp
National Research Center for Career and Technical Education (2010). Professional development for secondary career and technical education: Implications for change. Retrieved from ERIC Database.
Paulter, A. J. (Ed.) (1999). Workforce education: Issues for the new century. Ann Arbor, MI: Prakken Publications, Inc.
Peytchev, A. & Peytcheva, E. (2017). Reduction of measurement error due to survey length: Evaluation of the split questionnaire design approach. Survey Research Methods, 11(4) 361-368. doi: 10.18148/srm/2017.v11i4.7145
Pucciarelli, D. L. (2009). Early history and evolution of nutrition science in the United States of America. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 38(2), 106- 122. doi: 10.1111/ j.1552-3934.2009.00011.x
Putman, S. M. (2012). Investigating teacher efficacy: Comparing preservice and inservice Teachers with different levels of experience. Action in Teacher Education, 34(1) 26-40. Retrieved from ERIC Database. (EJ 977143)
Schieb, L. J., & Karabenick, S. A. (2011). Teacher Motivation and Professional Development: A Guide to Resources. Math and Science Partnership - Motivation Assessment Program, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. Retrieved from: www.mspmap.org
Schmidt, S. J., Bohn, D. M., Rasmussen, A. J., & Sutherland, E. A. (2012). Using food
165
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
science demonstrations to engage students of all ages in science, technology, engineering, and Mathematics (STEM). Journal of Food Science Education, 11(2) 16-22. Retrieved from ERIC Database. (EJ 961569).
Stage, S. & Vincenti, S. B. (1997). Rethinking Home Economics: Women and the History of a Profession. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press
Stevenson, C. D. (2015). Toward determining best practices for recruiting future leaders in food science and technology. Journal of Food Science Education, 15, 9-13. doi: 10.1111/1541-4329.12078
Stringer, E. I., Hendrix, J. D., Swortzel, K. A., Williams, J. B., & Wes Schilling, M. (2018). Evaluating the effectiveness of integrating food science lessons in high school biology curriculum in comparison to high school chemistry. Journal of Food Science Education, 18, 21-28. doi: 10.1111/1541-4329.12153
Swackhamer, L. E., Koellner, K., Basile, C., & Kimbrough, D. (2009). Increasing the self-efficacy of inservice through content knowledge. Teacher Education Quarterly, 36(2), 63-78.
Swan, B. G., Wolf, K. J., & Cano, J. (2011). Changes in teacher self-efficacy from the student teaching experience through the third year of teaching. Journal of Agricultural Education, 52(2), 128-139. doi: 10.5032/jae.2011.02128
Taber, K. S. (2018). The use of cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in Science Education, 48(6), 1273-1296. doi: 10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2
Texas CTE (2019). Texas CTE resource center. Retrieved from https://www.txcte.org/
Texas Education Agency (2019). Career and Technical Education. Retrieved from https://tea.texas.gov/Academics/College_Career_and_Military_Prep/Career_and_ Technical_Education/Career_and_Technical_Education
Texas Education Agency (2017). Chapter 130. texas essential knowledge and skills for career and technical education. Subchapter i. Hospitality and tourism. Retrieved from http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/rules/tac/chapter130/ch130i.html#130.256
166
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
Texas Education Agency (2019). Teacher FTE counts and course enrollment reports. Retrieved from https://rptsvr1.tea.texas.gov/adhocrpt/adfte.html
Tschannen-Moran, M & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teacher and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783-805.
Texas Tech University (2020). Family and consumer sciences education. Retrieved from https://www.depts.ttu.edu/hs/fcse/undergraduate_details.php
Threeton, M. D. (2007). The Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education (CTE) act of 2006 and the roles and responsibilities of CTE teachers and faculty members. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 44(1), 66-82.
Tschannen-Moran, M. & McMaster, P. (2009). Sources of self-efficacy: Four professional development formats and their relationship to self-efficacy and implementation of a new teaching strategy. The Elementary School Journal, 110(2), 228-245.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk-Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202-248.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2018). Agricultural and food technicians. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/ooh/life-physical-and-social-science/agricultural-and- food-scientists.htm
U.S. Department of Education (2018). Strengthening career and technical education for the 21stCentury act signed into law. Retrieved from https://blog.ed.gov/2018/08/strengthening-career-technical-education-21st- century-act-signed-law/
Ward, D. (2013). Food Science; An old but new subject. In Ward, L.T. (Ed.). Principles of Food Science (3rd ed.). Tinley Park, IL: The Goodheart-Willcox Company, Inc.
Weigley, E. S. (1974). It might have been euthenics: The lake placid conferences and the home economics movement. American Quarterly, 26(1), 79-96. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2711568
167
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
Weller, D., Robbins, J., Elmore, A., & Wiedmann, M. (2015). Master of professional studies in agriculture and life sciences offered through the field of food science and technology at Cornell University: A model for the development of a course- based graduate degree in food science and technology. Journal of Food Science Education, 14, 10-17. doi: 10.1111/1541-4329.12047
Werhan, C. R. (2013). Family and consumer sciences secondary school programs: National survey shows continued demand for FCS teachers. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 105(4), 41-45.
Werhan, C. & Way, W. (2006). Family and consumer science programs in secondary schools: Results of a national survey. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 98(1), 19-25.
White, J. H. & White, R. C. (2018). Ellen Swallow Richards: Building FCS on the foundations of chemistry. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 110(4), 42- 48. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.14307/JFCS110.4.42
Yangin, S. & Sidekli, S. (2016). Self-efficacy for science teaching scale development: Construct validation with elementary school teachers. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 4(10), 54-69.
Yoo, J. H. (2016). The effect of professional development on teacher efficacy and teachers’ self-analysis of their efficacy change. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability, 18(1), 84-94. doi: 10.1515/jtes-2016-0007
Zee, M. & Koomen, M. Y. (2016). Teacher self-efficacy and its effects on classroom processes, student academic adjustment, and teacher well-being. A synthesis of 40 years of research. Review of Educational Research, 86(4) 981-1015. doi: 10.3102/00.4654315626801
168
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
The Cyclical Nature of Teacher Efficacy
Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk-Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its
meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202-248.
169
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
APPENDIX B
FOOD SCIENCE TEACHING SELF-EFFICACY SCALE
FOR SECONDARY TEACHERS Self-Efficacy of Family and Consumer Sciences Teachers Who Teach Food Science as a Science Credit
Intro
EXPLORING THE SELF-EFFICACY OF FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES TEACHERS WHO TEACH FOOD SCIENCE AS A SCIENCE CREDIT
Please share your thoughts in this survey research project.
What is this project studying?
The study is called “Exploring the Self-Efficacy of Family and Consumer Sciences Teachers who Teach Food Science as a Science Credit.” This study will help us determine your current thoughts and feelings about teaching Food Science. What we learn may help other Family and Consumer Sciences teachers see the advantages and benefits of offering Food Science as a Science credit instead of an elective. In addition, we hope that this study will provide answers on what changes need to be made on the local, state, and national level to provide you the appropriate resources needed when teaching Food Science. We hope to publish this study widely to reach as many Family and Consumer Sciences teachers as possible.
What would I do if I participate?
In this study, you will be asked to share your experiences, thoughts, and views in the form of an electronic survey. There will be questions about you as a Family and Consumer Sciences teacher, your comfort in teaching Food Science in general, your comfort level in teaching specific concepts in Food Science, and your professional development experiences as a Food Science teacher.
How will I benefit from participating?
Besides providing the project with valuable information, your name will be entered in a drawing to win one of ten $100.00 Visa gift cards for volunteering your time to complete this survey. In order to be eligible for the drawing, step by step directions will be provided at the end of the survey. The odds of winning one of ten $100.00 Visa gift cards is 1 in 10.
170
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
Can I quit if I become uncomfortable?
Yes, absolutely. Your participation is completely voluntary. Dr. Karen Alexander and the Human Research Protection Program at Texas Tech University have reviewed the questions and think you can answer them comfortably. You may skip any question you do not feel comfortable answering. You can also stop answering questions at any time. Participating is your choice. However, we do appreciate any help you are able to provide.
How long will participation take?
We are asking for 20-30 minutes of your time.
How are you protected privacy?
Your name will not be linked to any documentation and any use of this material in reports, publications, or presentations will never be associated with participants in this study without permission. No one other than the researchers associated with this project will have access to the raw data. All related documentation will be stored either in a locked file cabinet in the researcher’s office or on a password protected computer.
I have some questions about this study. Who can I ask?
The study is being conducted by Dr. Karen Alexander and Ms. LaToya Johnson from the Family and Consumer Sciences Education Program at Texas Tech University. If you have questions, you can call Dr. Alexander at 806-834-2212.
Texas Tech University also has a Board that protects the rights of people who participate in research. You can ask them questions at 806-742-2064. You can also mail your questions to the Human Research Protection Program, Office of the Vice President for Research, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas 79409 or email them to [email protected].
171
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
SECTION 1: Teaching Self Efficacy
In this section, please rate your degree of confidence as a teacher based on the scale listed below. Please select only one response for each statement based on how you honestly feel.
1 = Strongly Disagree (SD) 2 = Disagree (D) 3 = Undecided/Neutral (U/N) 4 = Agree (A) 5 = Strongly Agree (SA)
SD D U/N A SA 1. I can control disruptive behavior in my classroom. 1 2 3 4 5 2. I can motivate students who show little interest in school 1 2 3 4 5 work. 3. I can calm a student who is disruptive and noisy. 1 2 3 4 5 4. I can help students value learning. 1 2 3 4 5 5. I can craft good questions for my students. 1 2 3 4 5 6. I can get students to follow classroom rules. 1 2 3 4 5 7. I can get students to believe that they can do well in 1 2 3 4 5 school. 8. I can establish a classroom management system with my 1 2 3 4 5 students. 9. I can use a variety of assessment strategies. 1 2 3 4 5 10. I can provide an alternative explanation or example when 1 2 3 4 5 students are confused. 11. I can assist families in helping their children do well in 1 2 3 4 5 school. 12. I can implement alternative strategies in my classroom. 1 2 3 4 5
172
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
SECTION 2: Comfort In Teaching Food Science Overall
In this section, please rate your degree of confidence as a teacher in teaching Food Science based on the scale listed below. Please select only one response based on how you honestly feel.
1 = Strongly Disagree (SD) 2 = Disagree (D) 3 = Undecided/Neutral (U/N) 4 = Agree (A) 5 = Strongly Agree (SA)
As an individual who teaches food science: SD D U/N A SA 13. I was assigned/told that I would be teaching food science. 1 2 3 4 5 14. I volunteered to teach food science. 1 2 3 4 5 15. I teach food science as well as I do other FCS subjects. 1 2 3 4 5 16. I know the necessary steps to teach food science concepts 1 2 3 4 5 effectively. 17. I am very effective in monitoring food science 1 2 3 4 5 experiments. 18. When teaching food science, I welcome a student’s 1 2 3 4 5 question(s). 19. When a student has difficulty understanding a food 1 2 3 4 5 science concept, I am usually able to help the student understand it better. 20. I can confidently explain to students why food science 1 2 3 4 5 experiments work. 21. Student’s achievement in food science is directly related 1 2 3 4 5 to their teacher’s effectiveness in teaching food science. 22. I am able to generate student excitement for food science 1 2 3 4 5 concepts. 23. I have the necessary skills to teach food science. 1 2 3 4 5
173
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
As an individual who teaches food science: SD D U/N A SA 24. I am continually finding better ways to teach food 1 2 3 4 5 science. 25. I have gained new insights into teaching food science by 1 2 3 4 5 observing another teacher has taught/teaches a similar course. 26. I have completed a computer program or simulation that 1 2 3 4 5 has helped my teaching of food science. 27. Given a choice, I would invite the principal to evaluate 1 2 3 4 5 my food science teaching. 28. I feel that my teacher preparation program fully prepared 1 2 3 4 5 me to teach food science. 29. I taught food science as part of my teaching experience 1 2 3 4 5 for my teacher preparation program. 30. I feel that I took an adequate number of nutrition 1 2 3 4 5 courses in my teacher preparation program to effectively teach food science. 31. I feel that I took an adequate number of science courses 1 2 3 4 5 in my teacher preparation program to effectively teach food science. 32. I took a course in food science as a high school student 1 2 3 4 5 that made me want to teach food science. 33. I feel that taking a course in food science in my teacher 1 2 3 4 5 preparation program helped me to effectively teach food science. 34. I am generally effective in teaching food science. 1 2 3 4 5
174
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
SECTION 3: Comfort In Teaching Food Science Specific Concepts
In this section, please rate your degree of confidence as a teacher in teaching specific concepts of food science based on the scale listed below. Please select only one response based on how you honestly feel. Each statement should begin with the following phrase: I feel comfortable teaching students……
1 = Strongly Disagree (SD) 2 = Disagree (D) 3 = Undecided/Neutral (U/N) 4 = Agree (A) 5 = Strongly Agree (SA)
I feel comfortable teaching students… SD D U/N A SA 35. how to use scientific methods and equipment during 1 2 3 4 5 investigations 36. how to research opportunities and requirements for 1 2 3 4 5 selected careers in food science 37. the roles of acids and bases in food science 1 2 3 4 5 38. principles of food safety and microbiology 1 2 3 4 5 39. chemical properties of food 1 2 3 4 5 40. how to analyze solutions, colloids, solids, gels, foams, 1 2 3 4 5 and emulsions 41. the functions of enzymes in food science 1 2 3 4 5 42. the role of fermentation in food science 1 2 3 4 5 43. how to assess the reaction of leavening agents in baked 1 2 3 4 5 products 44. the role of food additives 1 2 3 4 5 45. how to analyze the process of energy production in 1 2 3 4 5 food 46. the properties of carbohydrates and their effects on 1 2 3 4 5 food production
175
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
I feel comfortable teaching students… SD D U/N A SA 47. the properties of fats and their effects on food 1 2 3 4 5 production 48. the properties of proteins and their effects on food 1 2 3 4 5 production 49. the properties of vitamins and minerals and their effects 1 2 3 4 5 on food production 50. the properties of water and their effects on food 1 2 3 4 5 production 51. the food irradiation process 1 2 3 4 5 52. the food dehydration process 1 2 3 4 5 53. the food canning process 1 2 3 4 5 54. the food freezing process 1 2 3 4 5 55. the food pasteurization process 1 2 3 4 5 56. food preservation processes 1 2 3 4 5 57. how to examine packaging and labeling guidelines 1 2 3 4 5
176
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
SECTION 4: Best Practices in Instructional Strategies for Food Science
In this section, please rate your degree of confidence as a teacher in using the following best practices in instructional strategies for Food Science courses based on the scale listed below. Please select only one response based on how you honestly feel.
1 = Not at all Confident (NC) 2 = Little Confidence (LC) 3 = Neutral (N) 4 = Somewhat Confident (SC) 5 = Very Confident (VC)
NC LC N SC VS 58. Demonstrations 1 2 3 4 5 59. Laboratory Experiments 1 2 3 4 5 60. Case Study Methods 1 2 3 4 5 61. Experiential Learning 1 2 3 4 5 62. Inquiry Based Learning 1 2 3 4 5 63. Project-Based Learning 1 2 3 4 5 64. Research 1 2 3 4 5 65. Differentiated Instruction 1 2 3 4 5 66. Cooperative Learning 1 2 3 4 5 67. Student Self-Assessments 1 2 3 4 5 68. Game-Based Learning 1 2 3 4 5 69. Multimedia Presentations (e.g. 1 2 3 4 5 PowerPont, Prezi, Emaze, etc.)
177
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
SECTION 5: Professional Development
In this section, please rate your degree of participation and overall feelings as it relates to professional development in general. Please select only one response for each statement based on how you honestly feel.
1 = Strongly Disagree (SD) 2 = Disagree (D) 3 = Undecided/Neutral (U/N) 4 = Agree (A) 5 = Strongly Agree (SA)
In regards to professional development in general: SD D U/N A SA 70. I receive encouragement from my district administrators 1 2 3 4 5 to attend professional development opportunities. 71. I complete professional development opportunities 1 2 3 4 5 monthly. 72. I complete professional development opportunities 1 2 3 4 5 yearly. 73. I prefer to complete professional development 1 2 3 4 5 opportunities during school hours. 74. I prefer to complete professional development 1 2 3 4 5 opportunities outside of school hours. 75. I prefer to complete professional development 1 2 3 4 5 opportunities in an online format that is synchronous (happens at a specific time). 76. I prefer to complete professional development 1 2 3 4 5 opportunities in an online format that is asynchronous (happens at my leisure). 77. My school district provides professional development 1 2 3 4 5 opportunities that meet my needs as a food science teacher.
178
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
In regards to professional development in general: SD D U/N A SA 78. My region/state provides professional development 1 2 3 4 5 opportunities that meet my needs as a food science teacher. 79. Participating in professional development helps me to 1 2 3 4 5 become a more effective food science teacher. 80. I would like the opportunity to attend professional 1 2 3 4 5 development opportunities that are directly related to food science. 81. Most of the professional development opportunities I 1 2 3 4 5 attend have nothing to do with food science related topics. 82. If I had more time, I would attend professional 1 2 3 4 5 development related to food science topics. 83. If I had more financial resources, I would attend 1 2 3 4 5 professional development opportunities that related to food science topics.
In this section, please answer each question accordingly in regards to your level of participation and preferred method of delivery in professional development opportunities as it relates to teaching food science.
84. How many professional development opportunities did you attend last year that related to food science related topics? a. 0 opportunities b. 1-2 opportunities c. 3-4 opportunities d. 5-6 opportunities e. 7 or more opportunities
179
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
85. In which setting(s) do you/have you received professional development opportunities for food science related topics? (Select all that apply.)
____ The school in which I teach ____ District wide event ____ Regional event ____ State conferences/meetings ____ National conferences/meetings ____ International conferences/meetings ____ Enrollment in a graduate course(s) ____ I have not received any professional development opportunities related to food science.
86. Please rank your preferred method of receiving professional development opportunities with “1” being your most preferred method and “8” being your least preferred method. You can “drag” and “drop” your selection in the appropriate slot.
____ Hands-On-Workshop ____ Online ____ Podcasts ____ Videos ____ Video-Conferences ____ Webcasts ____ Webinars ____ Traditional Lecture
180
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
87. Please selected the following resources that you use in order to teach Food Science. Please select all that apply.
____ Computer Applications ____ Cookbooks ____ Guest Speakers ____ Internet ____ Journal Articles ____ Newspaper Articles ____ State Produced Curriculum ____ Television Shows ____ Textbook ____ The Curriculum Center for Family and Consumer Sciences – Texas Tech University ____ USDA: Science and our Food Supply ____ Videos ____ University Collaborations ____ Other (please specify):______
88. In the space below, please list ALL local, state, national, and international professional organization(s) in which you currently hold membership to stay abreast of information related to effectively teaching food science. If you do not belong to any professional organizations, please leave the space below blank.
_____ I do not hold membership in any professional organizations. _____ American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences (AAFCS) _____ Association of Career and Technical Education (ACTE) _____ International Federation of Home Economics (IFHE) _____ Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics _____ Other (please specify):______
181
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
89. Based on your membership in: a. the American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences (AAFCS), how satisfied are you with the professional development opportunities that are offered in Food Science? o Very Satisfied o Somewhat Satisfied o Neither Satisfied Nor Dissatisfied o Somewhat Dissatisfied o Very Dissatisfied
b. in the Association of Career and Technical Education (ACTE), how satisfied are you with the professional development opportunities that are offered in Food Science? o Very Satisfied o Somewhat Satisfied o Neither Satisfied Nor Dissatisfied o Somewhat Dissatisfied o Very Dissatisfied
c. in the International Federation of Home Economics (IFHE), how satisfied are you with the professional development opportunities that are offered in Food Science? o Very Satisfied o Somewhat Satisfied o Neither Satisfied Nor Dissatisfied o Somewhat Dissatisfied o Very Dissatisfied
182
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
d. in the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, how satisfied are you with the professional development opportunities that are offered in Food Science? o Very Satisfied o Somewhat Satisfied o Neither Satisfied Nor Dissatisfied o Somewhat Dissatisfied o Very Dissatisfied
e. in the professional organization that you listed, how satisfied are you with the professional development opportunities that are offered in Food Science? o Very Satisfied o Somewhat Satisfied o Neither Satisfied Nor Dissatisfied o Somewhat Dissatisfied o Very Dissatisfied
90. In the space below, are there comments and/or suggestions that you feel would help improve professional development opportunities that are offered in Food Science?
______
SECTION 6: Demographic Information In this section, please answer each question accordingly in regards to your demographic information. Please note that the responses to these questions will only be used for research purposes.
91. What is your gender? o Male o Female o Other (please specify):______
183
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
92. What is your age? o 20-29 years o 30-39 years o 40-49 years o 50-59 years o 60 years or older
93. What racial/ethnic background do you consider yourself? o American Indian o Alaskan Native o Asian/Pacific Islander o Black/African American, not of Hispanic Origin o Hispanic/Latino(a) o White, not of Hispanic Origin o Other (please specify):______
94. Please indicate your current teaching assignment. o Family and Consumer Sciences Teacher o Agricultural Sciences Teacher o Science Teacher o Other (please specify):______
95. Do you have teaching certification in Family and Consumer Sciences and/or Home Economics? o Yes o No
96. In which state do you currently hold teaching certification? ______
184
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
97. Do you have teaching certification in any other area(s)? o Yes. Please specify in the box below. ______o No
98. In the space below, what are the industry certifications (e.g. ServSafe Food Manager, ServSave Allergens, etc.) that you obtain that support you in teaching Food Science. Please do not use abbreviations or acronyms.
______
99. How many years have you taught courses in secondary schools? o 1-5 years o 6-10 years o 11-15 years o 16-20 years o 20 years or more
100. In the space below, please indicate how many years you’ve been teaching Food Science. ______
101. What is the highest level of education that you have attained? o Bachelor’s Degree o Bachelor’s Degree with graduate coursework o Bachelor’s Degree with coursework towards a Master’s Degree o Master’s Degree o Master’s Degree with graduate coursework o Master’s Degree with coursework towards a Doctorate Degree o Doctorate Degree o Other (please specify):______
185
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
102. What course(s), if any, do you teach in addition to Food Science? Please list them in the space below. Please do not use abbreviations or acronyms.
103. Does the Food Science course you teach count as a science credit or elective? o Science Credit o Elective
104. Does the Food Science course you teach count as college credit? o Yes o No
186
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
APPENDIX C
ACCEPTANCE OF STUDY FROM HUMAN RESEARCH PROTECTION PROGRAM
187
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
188
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
APPENDIX D
E-MAIL TO FOOD SCIENCE CONTENT EXPERTS
189
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
APPENDIX E
EXAMPLE OF E-MAIL REQUESTING PARTICIPATION IN PILOT STUDY
190
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
APPENDIX F
E-MAIL SENT TO EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF FCSTAT
191
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
APPENDIX G
ITEMS SELECTED FOR BANDURA’S SELF-EFFICACY THEORY
Component of Definition Survey Questions That Self-Efficacy Address This Component Theory Performance Based on an individual Q28 I feel that my teacher Accomplishments mastering various preparation program experiences based on fully prepared me to the previous successes teach food science. or failures of that Q29 I taught food science experience during my student teaching experience in my teacher preparation program. Section 3: Comfort in Teaching Food Science Specific Concepts (Q35 – Q57) Section 4: Best Practices in Instructional Strategies for Food Science (Q58 – Q69) Q100 How many years have you taught Food Science? Vicarious Allows an individual to Q28 I feel that my teacher Experiences observe another person preparation program carry out a behavior or fully prepared me to task that they teach food science. themselves deem Q32 I took a course in food dangerous beyond their science as a high current knowledge to school student that successfully complete made me want to teach food science.
192
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
Component of Definition Survey Questions That Self-Efficacy Address This Component Theory Q33 I feel that taking a course in food science in my teacher preparation program helped me to effectively teach food science. Verbal An individual feels as Q13 I was assigned/told I Persuasion though they can would be teaching food successfully accomplish science. a task or behavior based on suggestions from Q14 I volunteered to teach others, exhortation, or food science. self-instruction Q17 I know the necessary steps to teach food science concepts effectively. Q70 I receive encouragement from my district administrators to attend professional development opportunities.
Emotional Allows an individual to Q15 I teach food science as Arousal recognize negative well as I do other FCS feelings such as fear, subjects. stress, and physical Q16 I know the necessary agitation as a steps to teach food component of science concepts unsuccessfully being effectively. able to complete a Q17 I am very effective in specific behavior or task monitoring food science experiments.
193
Texas Tech University, LaToya N. Johnson, May 2020
Component of Definition Survey Questions That Self-Efficacy Address This Component Theory Q19 When a student has difficulty understanding a food science concept, I am usually able to help the student understand it better. Q20 I can confidently explain to students why food science experiments work. Q22 I am able to generate student excitement for food science concepts. Q23 I have the necessary skills to teach food science. Q27 Given a choice, I would invite the principal to evaluate my food science teaching. Q34 I am generally effective in teaching food science.
Overall Analysis of Components Addressed:
# of Questions That Address Performance Accomplishments 36 questions
# of Questions That Address Vicarious Experiences 3 questions
# of Questions That Address Verbal Persuasion 4 questions
# of Questions That Address Emotional Arousal 9 questions
194