Agricultural Education Competencies: a Comparison of Master's Students at Texas Tech and Texas A&M Universities

AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION COMPETENCIES: A COMPARISON OF MASTER’S STUDENTS AT TEXAS TECH AND TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITIES

James R. Lindner, Assistant Professor Texas A&M University Matt Baker, Professor Texas Tech University

Abstract

This study was designed to describe Texas Tech and Texas A&M universities agricultural education master’s students’ perceived competencies. A survey of active and continuously enrolled master’s students was conducted. A 60% response rate was achieved. Data for the study were collected by mailed and online questionnaires. Study findings showed that students at both institutions had similar levels of competencies. Students had highest levels of theories, techniques, and processes that enhance the teacher-learner process for adults and youth; content skills such as reading comprehension and mathematics that provide a foundation for the acquisition of more specific skills; communication abilities such as oral comprehension, written expression, speech clarity, and auditory attention that are needed to focus attention and deliver information and communicate effectively. Students had lowest levels of theories, principles, and practices related to agricultural development in cross-national settings; technical skills such as technology design and operations analysis that are needed to use information technologies effectively; and perceptual, spatial, and memory abilities, such as speed and flexibility of closure, visualization, and recollection, that are needed to identify and make sense of complexly related material and systems. Recommendations include increased professional conversations about our philosophical basis, knowledge bases, and contextual applications.

Introduction contextual applications to achieve his or her personal and professional goals. Further, he Trends in academic, social, and business or she will rely on a unique bundle of environments are reshaping degree programs knowledge, skills, and abilities that are around the world. Universities are acquired and strengthened through life responding by reconstituting curricula, experiences and education to achieve his or courses, and programs to help students her personal and professional goals. For acquire competencies needed to be master’s students, graduate school is an professionally successful. Students are opportunity not only to gain new challenging faculty and administrators to knowledge, but also to acquire and deliver curricula, courses, and programs that strengthen skills and abilities needed to be are up-to-date, inline with industry professionally successful. Knowledge is a standards, socially responsive, and body of information, supported by pragmatic. In response to these issues, professionally acceptable theory and many colleges of agriculture and research that students use to perform departments of agricultural education have effectively and successfully in a given developed extensive lists of generic student setting. Skill is a present, observable competencies (California State Polytechnic competence to perform a learned University, 2001, University of Arizona, psychomotor act. Effective performance of 2001; Allewelt, 1995). Little research skills requires application of related however has focused on measuring students’ knowledge and facilitates acquisition of new level of competence identified in these lists. knowledge acquisition. Ability is a present A successful agricultural education competence to perform an observable student and graduate will draw on a variety behavior or a behavior that results in of academic fields, knowledge bases, and observable outcomes. Collectively,

Journal of Agricultural Education 50 Volume 44, Number 2, 2003

Lindner & Baker Agricultural Education… knowledge, skills, and abilities are referred opportunities for growth as they progress in to as competencies. Competencies are their education. Newcomb (1974) noted that behavioral dimensions that help to identify numerous lists of competencies in effective from ineffective performance agricultural education exist, but little is (Maxine, 1997). known about which competencies are related to success. For example, Shippy Theoretical Framework (1981) identified 246 competencies in 10 categories needed by agricultural education In agricultural education, numerous graduates including program planning, studies have been conducted to look at development, and evaluation; planning of specific student competencies within instruction; execution of instruction; specific contexts. Place and Jacobs (2001) evaluation of instruction; student vocational found that Extension employees needed organization; supervised occupational resource management competencies such as experience; management; guidance; school- time management, workplace management, community relations; and professional role and stress management to be effective. and development. Other studies have McCormick and Whittington (2000) found focused on a compilation of competencies that students needed well-developed abilities needed by agricultural teachers to be to think critically at higher levels of successful (Stewart, Lighari, & Gott, 1983). cognition. Dyer and Osborne (1996) found Findlay (1992) found that agricultural that problem-solving skills were needed and education teachers acquired high levels of could be taught to agricultural education competencies through formal education, on- students. Goecker (1992) stated that the-job experience, and self-directed study. agricultural education graduate students Lower levels of competency acquisition needed, but did not possess, very high levels were achieved through teaching-internships of teaching and learning competencies to be and laboratory experiences. Low levels of effective and productive professionals. It student knowledge, skills, and abilities may has also been shown that international result in frustration, demotivation, impeded graduate students have particular challenges learning, and ultimately failure for students with respect to communication and social (Lindner, Dooley, & Murphy, 2001). competencies (Timko, Linhardt, & Stewart, Further, faculty may similarly become 1991). Henderson and Shibano (1990) frustrated in developing and delivering found that international graduate students course material if they are challenged by showed the highest levels of knowledge students who do not possess the requisite acquisition in teacher education preparation, competencies to master course material; research methods and techniques, and conversely, faculty may be able to use this program development. Other studies have information to improve curricula, teaching been conducted to look at learner materials, and instructional delivery competencies of various audiences, methods. including undergraduate students (Baker, Lindner and Dooley (2002) developed Rudd, & Pomeroy, 2001); high school and tested an Agricultural Education teachers (Lockaby, Hogg, & Baker, 2001); Competency Model for doctoral students. In Extension audiences (Baker, Rudd, & this model, they identified 83 competencies, Pomeroy, 2000); Extension professionals classified them as 18 subcategories, and (Baker, Hoover, & Rudd, 1998); and documented changes in doctoral students’ university faculty (Baker, Hoover, & Rudd, levels of competence as they progressed 1996). toward a degree. These authors further Fewer studies have focused on the found that doctoral students had the highest compilation of knowledge, skills, and levels of teaching strategies knowledge and abilities that influence student success lowest levels of international knowledge; (Garton, Spain, Lamberson, & Spiers, 1999). highest levels of social skills and lowest Drawbaugh (1972) noted that students must levels of technical skills; and highest levels be made aware of their unique competencies of verbal abilities and lowest levels of and subsequently should be provided perceptual abilities.

Journal of Agricultural Education 51 Volume 44, Number 2, 2003 Lindner & Baker Agricultural Education…

Identifying competencies associated possessed by agricultural education master’s with higher levels of performance or goal students, and which competencies are attainment is known as competency related to successful completion of a modeling (Stone, 1997). For competency master’s program of study. Such models to be effective, and because information can help students identify and competencies can be influenced by a understand their unique competencies that student’s personality type, learning style, will help them be successful, and social style, and/or personal styles and subsequently use this understanding to values, competency models must be broad develop opportunities for personal growth enough to allow for students to offset and development. An understanding of a weaknesses on certain competencies with student’s unique competencies can help strengths on others (Parry, 1998). faculty develop individualized learning Competency models can be used as a sequences and plans. student recruitment and selection tool; as a student assessment and development tool; as Purpose a tool to develop curricula and other teaching material; as a coaching, counseling, The purpose of this study was to and mentoring tool; as a career development describe and explore perceived knowledge, tool; and as a behavioral requirement skills, and abilities of current Agricultural benchmarking tool (Yeung, Woolcock, & Education master’s students at Texas Tech Sullivan, 1996). University and Texas A&M University. Many models and methods can be used This study further attempts to gather for collecting the information necessary to baseline data that can later be compared establish a competency model. The with successful and unsuccessful master’s competency model used in this research was students to gain additional insight between based on Lindner and Dooley’s (2001) specific levels competence and attainment of Agricultural Education Taxonomy. This a master’s degree. The objectives of the model has been shown to be a valid and study were to: 1) describe and explore reliable model for collecting data on perceived knowledge and examine agricultural education competencies competencies by institution; 2) describe and (Lindner & Dooley, 2002; Lindner, Dooley, explore perceived ability and examine & Murphy, 2001). The knowledge category competencies by institution; and 3) describe of their original model was based on a and explore perceived skill and examine census of graduate course offerings at Texas competencies by institution. A&M University and Texas Tech University. The use of a standard inventory Methods of graduate courses to measure knowledge would be specific to each institution and The research design used for this study content area. Lindner and Dooley’s (2001) was descriptive and exploratory in nature. skill and ability competencies were The target population was Texas Tech originally based on the United States University’s Department of Agricultural Department of Labor’s Occupational Education and Communications and Texas Information Network taxonomy (O*Net, A&M University’s Department of 2001). Agricultural Education master’s students. As noted previously, various There were 69 master’s students in the competencies needed by agricultural population. The population consisted of 24 education graduates to be professionally Texas Tech students and 45 Texas A&M successful in a given field have been students who were actively and continuously identified in the literature. Further, master’s enrolled in a master’s program. Students students rely on a unique bundle of had progressed to various levels in the knowledge, skills, and abilities to be respective programs, from first semester successful in the classroom and life. Little enrolled in courses to last semester enrolled research, however, has focused on the in courses. compilation of unique competencies

Journal of Agricultural Education 52 Volume 44, Number 2, 2003 Lindner & Baker Agricultural Education…

The instrument was based on Lindner Participants were asked what level of and Dooley’s (2001) Agricultural Education knowledge they possessed on 15 items. Competency Taxonomy and was designed to Knowledge items were classified into four measure participants’ perceptions of subcategories. Mean scores of subcategories behavioral dimensions used to assess were computed. Teaching Strategies knowledge, skills, and abilities. The Knowledge was defined as theories, instrument has been shown to be a valid and techniques, and processes that enhance the reliable model for collecting data on teacher-learner process for adults and youth. agricultural education graduate student This dimension included statements on knowledge, skills, and abilities (Lindner & learning theories, youth leadership, adult Dooley, 2002; Lindner, Dooley, & Murphy, education and your guidance and 2001). Additional evidence of instrument counseling. The learning theories statement, reliability was estimated by calculating a for example, was described as “learning Cronbach’s alpha coefficient on the final theories, techniques, and procedures to sample. Reliability for the scales on enhance the teaching-learning process; knowledge (.84), skills (.92), and abilities methods to evaluate learning.” The (.92) were calculated. Reliability estimates Agricultural Education Competency for corresponding subcategories are Taxonomy, on which this study was based, presented in Tables 1, 2, and 3. The alpha describes each statement in detail (Lindner level for statistical significance was set a & Dooley, 2001). Applications Knowledge priori at .05. was defined as current trends, practices, and Participants were asked to indicate their applications that facilitate change and current level of competence in each technology transfer. This dimension dimension using a five-point Likert-type included statements on history and scale. The points on the scale are as philosophy, research theory, research follows: 1=Very Low; 2=Low; 3=Average; methods, and policy development. 4=High; and 5=Very High. A limitation of Foundations Knowledge was defined as this study is that competencies are self- methods, theories, principles, and practices reported perceptions and not a test that provide a foundation for and guide the measurement of the variables themselves. field of agricultural education. This Data for this study were collected using a dimension included statements on distance mixed mailed/Internet questionnaire. education, technology transfer, Dillman’s (2000) general procedures for contemporary issues, and technology mailed/Internet questionnaires were application. International Knowledge was followed. A response rate of 67% (N=46) defined as theories, principles, and practices was obtained for the study. Seventy-five related to agricultural development in cross- percent of Texas Tech students and 62% of national settings. This dimension included Texas A&M students participated in the statements on international agricultural study. To control for non-response error, advising, international project management, primary variables of interest were regressed and international agricultural development. on the variable “days to respond.” No Table 1 shows participants’ levels of relationship between “days to respond” and Overall Knowledge (M=2.83), Teaching primary variables of interest were found; Strategies Knowledge (M=3.01), therefore, the results of the study were Applications Knowledge (M=2.88), generalizable to the target population Foundations Knowledge (M=2.81), and (Lindner, Murphy, & Briers, 2001). International Knowledge (M=2.27). When subjected to a t-test, Overall, t (44)=0.97, Findings p>.05, Teaching Strategies, t (44)=1.80, p>.05, Applications, t (44)=0.85, p>.05, Objective 1 Foundations, t (44)=1.20, p>.05, and The first objective of this study was to International knowledge, t (44)=0.90, p>.05, describe and explore perceived knowledge were not significantly related to institution. and examine competencies by institution.

Journal of Agricultural Education 53 Volume 44, Number 2, 2003 Lindner & Baker Agricultural Education…

Table 1 Master’s Student Perceived Level of Knowledge by Institution

Institution Alphaa N Mb SD tc Overall Knowledge .84 46 2.83 0.51 Texas Tech University 18 2.92 0.46 .97 Texas A&M University 28 2.77 0.54 Teaching Strategies Knowledge .65 46 3.01 0.65 Texas Tech University 18 3.22 0.49 1.80 Texas A&M University 28 2.88 0.72 Applications Knowledge .57 46 2.88 0.58 Texas Tech University 18 2.97 0.51 .85 Texas A&M University 28 2.82 0.63 Foundations Knowledge .77 46 2.81 0.67 Texas Tech University 18 2.96 0.63 1.20 Texas A&M University 28 2.71 0.68 International Knowledge .84 46 2.27 0.84 Texas Tech University 18 2.13 0.80 .90 Texas A&M University 28 2.36 0.87 Note. aOverall and subscale reliability was estimated by calculating a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient; b1=Very Low, 2=Low, 3=Average, 4=High, 5=Very High; cp>.05

Objective 2 concentrate on single tasks, and use The second objective of this study was mathematical methods to solve problems. to describe and explore perceived ability and Perception, Spatial, and Memory Abilities, examine competencies by institution. such as speed of closure, flexibility of Participants were asked what level of ability closure, visualization, recollection, are they possessed on 16 items. Ability items needed to identify and make sense of were classified into four subcategories. complexly related material and systems. Mean scores for subcategories were Table 2 shows participants’ levels of computed. Communication abilities, such as Overall Ability (M=3.56), Communication oral comprehension, written expression, Abilities (M =3.77), Idea Generation and speech clarity, and written expression, are Reasoning Abilities (M =3.58), needed to focus attention and deliver Attentiveness and Quantitative Abilities (M information and communicate effectively. =3.57), and Perceptual, Spatial, and Memory Idea Generation and Reasoning Abilities, Abilities (M =3.15). When subjected to a t- such as inductive reasoning, deductive Test, Overall, t (44)=1.85, p>.05, reasoning, fluency of ideas, and information Communication, t (44)=1.07, p>.05, Idea ordering are needed to formulate logical Generation and Reasoning, t (44)=1.96, conclusions. Attentiveness and Quantitative p>.05, Attentiveness and Quantitative, t Abilities, such as time-sharing, number (44)=-1.46, p>.05, and Perceptual, Spatial, facility, arithmetic reasoning, and originality and Memory abilities, t (44)=1.71, p>.05 are needed to handle multiple tasks, were not significantly related to institution.

Journal of Agricultural Education 54 Volume 44, Number 2, 2003

Lindner & Baker Agricultural Education…

Table 2 Master’s Student Perceived Level of Ability by Institution

Institution Alphaa N Mb SD tc Overall Ability .92 46 3.56 .58 Texas Tech University 18 3.37 .67 1.85 Texas A&M University 28 3.68 .48 Communication Abilities .81 46 3.77 .72 1.07 Texas Tech University 18 3.63 .86 Texas A&M University 28 3.86 .62 Idea Generation & Reasoning Abilities .83 46 3.58 .67 1.96 Texas Tech University 18 3.35 .71 Texas A&M University 28 3.73 .61 Attentiveness & Quantitative Abilities .64 46 3.57 .68 1.46 Texas Tech University 18 3.39 .76 Texas A&M University 28 3.69 .62 Perceptual, Spatial, & Memory Abilities .84 46 3.15 .74 1.71 Texas Tech University 18 2.92 .73 Texas A&M University 28 3.29 .71 Note. aOverall and subscale reliability was estimated by calculating a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient; B1=Very Low, 2=Low, 3=Average, 4=High, 5=Very High; cp>.05

Objective 3 Problem-Solving Skills, such as information The third objective of this study was to organization, implementation planning, idea describe and explore perceived skill and generation, and idea evaluation, are examine competencies by institution. necessary to solve real-world problems. Participants were asked what level of skill Systems Skills, such as identification of key they possessed on 28 items. Skill items causes, systems perception, identifying were classified into seven subcategories. downstream consequences, and systems Mean scores of subcategories were evaluation, are needed to for people to work computed. Content Skills, such as reading with others. Technical Skills, such as comprehension, active listening, speaking, installation, testing, equipment maintenance, and writing, provide a foundation for the and repairing are needed to use information acquisition of more specific skills. Process technologies effectively. Skills, such as critical thinking, active Table 3 shows participants’ levels of learning, learning strategies, and monitoring Overall Skill (M=3.37), Content Skills (M contribute to increased acquisition of =3.79), Process Skills (M =3.54), Social additional competencies. Social Skills, such Skills (M =3.53), Resource Management as persuasion, social perceptiveness, Skills (M =3.51), Complex Problem-Solving coordination, and negotiation are developed Skills (M =3.35), Systems Skills (M =3.07), capacities that help individuals achieve and Technical Skills (M =2.60). When objectives. Resource Management Skills, subjected to a t-test, Overall, t (44)=0.27, such, as time management, management of p>.05, Content, t (44)=0.11, p>.05, Process, material resources, management of t (44)=0.36, p>.05, Social, t (44)=0.04, personnel resources, and management of p>.05, Resource Management, t (44)=0.22, financial resources, are needed to effectively p>.05, Complex Problem, t (44)=0.41, and efficiently allocate resources. Complex p>.05, Systems, t (44)=1.40, p>.05, and

Journal of Agricultural Education 55 Volume 44, Number 2, 2003 Lindner & Baker Agricultural Education…

Technical skills, t (44)=0.47, p>.05 were not significantly related to institution.

Table 3 Master’s Student Perceived Level of Skill by Institution

Institution Alphaa N Mb SD tc Overall Skill .92 46 3.37 .48 Texas Tech University 18 3.35 .56 0.27 Texas A&M University 28 3.38 .43 Content Skills .71 46 3.79 .59 Texas Tech University 18 3.81 .74 .11 Texas A&M University 28 3.79 .49 Process Skills .66 46 3.54 .53 Texas Tech University 18 3.51 .60 .36 Texas A&M University 28 3.57 .49 Social Skills .76 46 3.53 .61 Texas Tech University 18 3.53 .73 .04 Texas A&M University 28 3.54 .53 Resource Management Skills .85 46 3.51 .74 Texas Tech University 18 3.54 .73 .22 Texas A&M University 28 3.49 .76 Complex Problem-Solving Skills .75 46 3.35 .56 Texas Tech University 18 3.31 .64 .41 Texas A&M University 28 3.38 .51 Systems Skills .82 46 3.07 .60 Texas Tech University 18 2.92 .62 1.40 Texas A&M University 28 3.17 .59 Technical Skills .96 46 2.60 1.11 Texas Tech University 18 2.69 1.15 .47 Texas A&M University 28 2.54 1.10 Note: aOverall and subscale reliability was estimated by calculating a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient; b1=Very Low, 2=Low, 3=Average, 4=High, 5=Very High; cp>.05

Conclusions, Implications, and Discussion showed that master’s students perceived their teaching and learning competencies to Conclusion and Implication 1 be average. These findings support Goecker Of the four knowledge categories used in (1992), who found graduate students did not this study, master’s students had the highest possess very high levels of teaching and levels of competency in the acquisition and learning competencies. Findlay’s (1992) development in theories, techniques, and findings would suggest that such processes that enhance the teacher-learner competencies more likely would be acquired process for adults and youth as they through a combination of previous degree progressed toward a degree (Teaching programs, experiences, and self-directed Strategies Knowledge). These findings, study. unlike those of Lindner and Dooley (2002), More research, however, is needed to

Journal of Agricultural Education 56 Volume 44, Number 2, 2003 Lindner & Baker Agricultural Education… explore these relationships and to determine problems and opportunities discussed in the whether perceived levels of knowledge meet first two conclusions apply here, and little is minimally acceptable standards for master’s known about acceptable ability standards for students. Longitudinal comparisons with success in a master’s program. students completing and not completing a For example, students need well- master’s degree, and with professionally developed abilities, such as perceptual successful and unsuccessful graduates, is abilities, to think critically at higher levels of needed to gain additional insights into cognition (McCormick, & Whittington, specific levels of competence needed to 2000). Participants in this study perceived complete a master’s degree and be their perceptual abilities as average. professionally successful. For example, Perceptual Abilities, however, was the knowledge of computers and information lowest rated ability category. Whether technology (Applications Knowledge) is students with higher Perceptual Abilities are critical to the completion of a master’s more likely to be successful in a master’s program and is necessary for one to be program is not known. More research is professionally successful. Lower levels of needed to explore these relationships. Applications Knowledge may result in frustration, demotivation, impeded learning, Conclusion and Implication 3 and ultimately failure for students. Faculty Of the seven skills categories used in may similarly become frustrated in the this study, participants had highest perceived development and delivery of course material levels of persuasion and social if they are challenged by students who do perceptiveness needed to help students not possess the requisite knowledge to achieve objectives (Social Skills), and master course material; or faculty may be lowest perceived levels of technology design able to use this information to improve and operations analysis needed to use curricula, teaching materials, and information technologies effectively instructional delivery methods. (Technical Skills). As educational and Participants in this study perceived that informational technologies expand, students their lowest levels were of International will need to learn and apply such Knowledge. This finding supports Lindner technologies not only in the classroom, but and Dooley (2002), who found doctoral also in the field to be successful. Many students perceived that they had low levels faculty, including these authors, provide of International Knowledge. An implication students with technology assistance as exists that low levels of knowledge related needed to complete assignments. A need to theory of agricultural development in exists to ensure master’s students have cross-national settings (International strong technical skills. This can be Knowledge) may cause negative accomplished by developing curricula, consequences for master’s students engaged courses, modules, and programs with the in international agricultural development. specific objective of helping agricultural education graduate student attain higher Conclusion and Implication 2 levels of technical skills. Or, this can be Of the four ability-categories used in this accomplished by recruiting graduate study, participants had the highest perceived students with stronger technical skills. levels of oral comprehension, written Minimally acceptable skill standards for expression, speech clarity, and auditory success in a master’s program are not attention needed to focus attention and known, and the problems and opportunities deliver information and communicate listed above also apply here. For example, effectively (Communication Abilities) and will international students who have been lowest perceived levels of time-sharing, shown to have lower levels of social skills number facility, and arithmetic reasoning than domestic students (Timko, Linhardt, & needed to handle multiple tasks, concentrate Steward, 1991) be disadvantaged in on single tasks, and use mathematical completing a master’s program? Or, will methods to solve problems (Attentiveness international students rely on different and Quantitative Abilities). Again, the competences to perform an observable

Journal of Agricultural Education 57 Volume 44, Number 2, 2003 Lindner & Baker Agricultural Education… behavior in order to be successful? If higher understand their unique bundles of levels of social skills are necessary for one knowledge, skill, and abilities that will help to complete a master’s program, then them achieve success, and can use these international students are at a distinct results to develop opportunities for disadvantage for completion. More research competency acquisition and growth is needed to explore these relationships. (Drawbaugh, 1972). Faculty members can use these results now in limited and Discussion expanded capacities to take advantage of a student’s unique bundle of knowledge, skill, These results address the need, as and abilities. Faculty can create individual described by Garton, et al. (1999), learning plans for students by authenticating Newcomb (1974), and Drawbaugh (1972), these results. We have used this approach to for information with respect to identifying help students use strengths on certain and understanding agricultural education competencies to overcome weaknesses in student competencies. Study findings others. Authentication of these results by showed that agricultural education master’s faculty can also provide direction in students at Texas Tech University and Texas development, refinement of courses, and A&M University had similar levels of curricula. competencies. The results further build The findings of this study provide new upon Lindner and Dooley’s (2002) findings information on the compilation of that showed as doctoral students progressed competencies possessed by agricultural toward a degree, they acquired and education master’s students. Research strengthened unique bundles of findings, like those presented here, should competencies. Study findings suggest that be scrutinized against strategic objectives to master’s students have lower levels of ensure that departments of agricultural knowledge, skills, and abilities than doctoral education are fulfilling their missions. For students, as described by Lindner and example, students’ perceptions of their level Dooley (2002). of theories, techniques, and processes that As noted earlier, a limitation of self- enhance the teacher-learner process for administered rating scales, such as the one adults and youth should be compared against used for this study, is that they measure a department’s strategic objectives with perceptions of the person making the respect to Teaching Strategies Knowledge to judgment. Additional research is needed to ensure that desired levels are acquired. That verify the validity of such judgments. is, are our students learning and growing in Further, replication of this study with other specified agricultural education content and student populations is needed to evaluate the context areas (Shinn, 2001)? extent to which the results presented here The authors challenge ourselves and our would be similar and recommendations colleagues to engage in research and applicable. One procedure for gathering conversation about student competencies these data would be to conduct authentic and the philosophical basis for agricultural assessments of student competencies education, our professions knowledge bases, through testing, faculty assessment, peer and contextual applications. For example, assessment, or other forms of external professional development committees of the assessment. This procedure would result in American Association for Agricultural larger samples of ratings, which may lead to Education and the Association of higher reliability. International Agricultural and Extension Longitudinal research is needed to verify Education could use these results as a these results as new students join the springboard for professional discussions program, and as students achieve or fail to about what our graduates “look like” and achieve success. It would be useful also to what they should “look like.” correlate these findings with quantitative, verbal, and analytical scores from the References Graduate Record Exam. Master’s students can use these results to help identify and Allewelt, W.F., Jr. (1995). Report of

Journal of Agricultural Education 58 Volume 44, Number 2, 2003 Lindner & Baker Agricultural Education…

the commission on California agriculture in Agriculture, 13(2), 16-23. and higher education. Retrieved July 30, Dyer, J.E., & Osborne, E.W. (1996). 2001, from University of California, Effects of teaching approach on problem- Department of Agriculture and Natural solving abilities of agricultural education Resources Web site: http://danr.ucop.edu/ students with varying learning styles. jpc/commission.htm Journal of Agricultural Education, 37(4), 36-43. Baker, M., Hoover, T., & Rudd, R. (1998). Characteristics of Florida extension Findlay, H.J. (1992). Where do professionals that influence the secondary vocational agriculture teachers teaching/learning process. Journal of acquire professional agricultural education Extension, 36(1). Retrieved August 14, competencies? Journal of Agricultural 2001, from http://www.joe.org/joe Education, 33(2), 28-33. /1998february/rb1.html Garton, B.L., Spain, J.N., Lamberson, Baker, M., Hoover, T.S., & Rudd, R.D. W. R., & Spiers, D. E. (1999). Learning (1996). A comparison of learning styles, styles, teaching performance, and student value systems, and demographic achievement: A relationship study. Journal characteristics of selected faculty at the of Agricultural Education, 40(3), 11-20. University of Florida. Proceedings of the 46th Southern Region Agricultural Goecker, A.D. (1992). Priorities for Education Research Meeting, Athens, GA, college and university agricultural education 46, 144-151. faculty. Journal of Agricultural Education, 33(3), 1-7. Baker, M., Rudd, R., & Pomeroy, C. (2000). Tapping into the creative potential Henderson, J.L., & Shibano, G. (1990). of limited resource farmers: A theoretical Follow-up of international graduate students perspective. Proceedings of the 16th Annual in agricultural education at the Ohio State Association for International Agricultural University. Journal of Agricultural and Extension Education Conference, Education, 31(1), 71-74. Alexandria, VA, 16, F9-F17. Lindner, J.R., Dooley, K.E., & Murphy, Baker, M., Rudd, R., & Pomeroy, C. T.M. (2001). Discrepancies in (2001). Relationships between critical and competencies between doctoral students on- creative thinking. Journal of Southern campus and at a distance. American Journal Agricultural Education Research, 51(1). of Distance Education, 15(2), 25-40. Retrieved August 14, 2001, from http://www.aged.tamu.edu/Conferences/Pro Lindner, J.R., & Dooley, K.E. (2001). ceedings/index.html A taxonomy of agricultural education graduate students’ knowledge, skills, and California Polytechnic State University. abilities (Department Information Bulletin (2001, April). Information competence No 01-4). College Station, Texas: Texas project. Retrieved July 27, 2001, from the A&M University, Department of Robert E. Kennedy Web site: Agricultural Education. http://www.lib.calpoly.edu/infocomp/specifi c.html Lindner, J.R., & Dooley, K.E. (2002). Agricultural education competencies and Dillman, D.A. (2000). Mail and progress towards a doctoral degree. Journal internet surveys: The tailored design method of Agricultural Education, 43(1), 57-68. (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley & Sons. Lindner, J.R., Murphy, T.H., & Briers, Drawbaugh, C.C. (1972). A framework G.H. (2001). The handling of nonresponse for career education. Journal of the in agricultural education. Journal of American Association of Teacher Educators Agricultural Education, 42(4), 43-53.

Journal of Agricultural Education 59 Volume 44, Number 2, 2003 Lindner & Baker Agricultural Education…

Lockaby, J., Hogg, J., & Baker, M. Department of Agricultural Education Web (2001). The Influence of foundational and site: http://www.aged.tamu.edu expressed values on teacher behavior. In J. Kotrlik, & M. Burnett (Eds.), Proceedings of Shippy, R.D. (1981). Professional the 28th National Agricultural Education competencies needed by beginning teachers Research Conference, New Orleans, LA, 28, of agriculture/agribusiness. Journal of the 374-383. American Association of Teacher Educators in Agriculture, 22(1), 29-34. Maxine, D. (1997). Are competency models a waste? Training & Development, Stewart, B.R., Lighari, L., & Gott, R.E. 51(10), 46-49. (1983). Administrators’ perceptions of professional education competencies needed McCormick, D.F., & Whittington, M.S. by teachers of vocational agriculture. (2000). Assessing academic challenges for Journal of the American Association of their contribution to cognitive development. Teacher Educators in Agriculture, 24(3), Journal of Agricultural Education, 41(3), 22-31. 114-122. Stone, B.B. (1997). A system’s Newcomb, L.H. (1974). The role of approach to professional development. agricultural educators in competency based Journal of Extension, 35(2). Retrieved July teacher education. Journal of the American 30, 2001, from http://www.joe.org/ Association of Teacher Educators in joe/1997april/tt2.html Agriculture, 15(1), 20-24. Timko, J.J., Linhardt, R.E., & Stewart, Occupational information network. B. R. (1991). Educational needs of (2001). Retrieved July 30, 2001, from international graduate students in agriculture http://www.onetcenter.org and education as perceived by University of Missouri-Columbia graduate faculty. Parry, S.B. (1998). Just what is a Journal of Agricultural Education, 32(2), competency? Training, 35 (6), 58-64. 44-51.

Place, N.T., & Jacobs, S. (2001). University of Arizona, Department of Stress: Professional development needs of Agricultural Education. (2001). Field extension faculty. Journal of Agricultural approved competencies. Retrieved July 30, Education, 42(1), 95-103. 2001, from http://ag.arizona.edu/ aed/facompetencies.htm Shinn, G.C. (2001, May 1). Creating a strategic framework for the department of Yeung, A., Woolcock, P., & Sullivan, J. agricultural education. Retrieved July 30, (1996). Identifying and developing HR 2001, from Texas A&M University, competencies for the future. HR. Human Resource Planning, 19 (4), 48-58.

Journal of Agricultural Education 60 Volume 44, Number 2, 2003