This study built upon existing processes and protocols in place for the Agricultural Education Supply and Demand research developed over the last 60 years. The project team has worked to strengthen and streamline data collection for both supply and demand aspects of the study. The parameters for the study were submitted (#4564) to the Institutional Review Board for Human Subjects Research at The Pennsylvania State University and approved.
The population for the supply of school-based agricultural education teachers included university agricultural teacher educators from every institution that offered an agriculture teacher preparation program leading to teacher licensure. The number of institutions offering agriculture teacher preparation varies from year to year as new programs are added or defunct programs are closed. The supply survey collected data on university teacher education programs, the number of licensure program completers, and the employment plans of program completers.
Supply frame. An accurate and up-to-date frame of institutions was scrutinized annually prior to data collection. Each year, we sent an informative email containing a snapshot of the previous year’s data and a list of institutions we planned to contact to enhance the trustworthiness of data collected. During data collection, the final item on the instrument requested the name and contact information for the institution's best contact for the following year. All institutions with a known and active teacher preparation program are included in the frame.
Supply instrumentation. As a legacy study, the starting point for each instrument was the set of questions asked in previous iterations of the instrument. Questions were added and revised based on current literature and feedback from a panel of agricultural teacher educator experts who reviewed the instrument for face, content, and construct validity. Reliability was checked annually and found to be appropriate for a descriptive study.
The population for the demand of school-based agricultural education teachers included state agricultural education leaders from all 50 states, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. The demand survey gathered information on existing and potential new programs, teacher counts, program types, projected retirements, and other factors influencing teacher demand.
Demand frame. An accurate and up-to-date frame of state agricultural education leaders was generated each year, with the original frame developed from membership in NASAE. National FFA State Relations Team regional specialists annually reviewed the frame for accuracy and assisted with identifying necessary changes. Prior to opening data collection each year, an informational email was sent with a state snapshot of the previous year’s data and an indication of who would receive the request for state data. This allowed for any unknown changes in staff to be resolved prior to sending the survey link. During data collection, the final item of the instrument asked who the best contact for that state in the following year would be, if known.
Demand instrumentation. As this is a legacy study, the starting point for the instrument was the set of questions asked in previous supply and demand studies. Questions were added and revised based on current literature and feedback from a panel of state and national agricultural educator leaders who served to check face, content, and construct validity. Reliability was checked annually and found to be appropriate for a descriptive study.
Preliminary data for both supply and demand were collected using an online Qualtrics survey. Procedures utilized Dillman's guiding principles for internet and mixed-mode data collection (Dillman, et al., 2014). Following dissemination of unique individual emails and reminders, the project team followed up with individual phone calls to non-respondents. Data was treated confidentially. We distributed both supply and demand surveys in the fall, adhering to the data collection procedures set in 2015. Supplemental questions are included on the supply survey every three years to capture additional institutional data, such as faculty appointments, degrees granted, and the structure of student internships.
Questions about the site can be addressed to Michael Spiess (California State University, Chico). Click here to report a data error.
