ERIC EJ1122291: Investigating the Effects of a Math-Enhanced Agricultural Teaching Methods Course

2013·0.58 MB·English

by  ERIC

©Journal of Agricultural Education
Volume 54, Number 1, pp. 124 – 138
DOI: 10.5032/jae.2013.01124

Investigating the Effects of a Math-Enhanced
Agricultural Teaching Methods Course

Christopher T. Stripling
University of Tennessee
T. Grady Roberts
University of Florida

Numerous calls have been made for agricultural education to support core academic subject matter in-
cluding mathematics. Previous research has shown that the incorporation of mathematics content into a
teaching methods course had a positive effect on preservice teachers’ mathematics content knowledge.
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of a math-enhanced agricultural education teach-
ing methods course on preservice agricultural education teachers’ mathematics ability, personal mathe-
matics efficacy, mathematics teaching efficacy, and personal teaching efficacy. Results indicated that pre-
service teachers’ mathematics ability increased after the math-enhanced teaching methods course. Inter-
estingly, personal mathematics efficacy decreased while mathematics teaching efficacy and personal
teaching efficacy increased slightly after the math-enhanced teaching methods course. Based on the re-
sults of this study, peer-teaching that utilizes the seven components of a math-enhanced lesson may be an
appropriate means to improve the mathematics ability of preservice agricultural education teachers.

Keywords: mathematics; math; preservice teachers; self-efficacy; teaching methods; teacher education

Increasing the mathematics proficiency of mathematics curriculum and that teacher educa-
American students continues to be a top priority tion should provide training in mathematics and
(National Commission on Mathematics and Sci- the methods of teaching mathematics. There-
ence Teaching for the 21st century, 2000; Na- fore, the Michigan State University Center for
tional Research Council, 2001, 2007, 2011) al- Research in Mathematics and Science Education
most thirty years after the National Commission (2010) called for the U.S. educational system to
of Excellence in Education (1983) released A “break the vicious cycle in which we find our-
Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational selves” (p. 3), where elementary and secondary
Reform. The National Commission of Excel- teachers that are not proficient in mathematics
lence in Education called for additional instruc- produce students that are not proficient in math-
tional time, an increase in graduation rates, ematics, who then then become teachers them-
higher academic standards, and better-quality selves and lack the necessary content knowledge
teacher education programs (Vinovskis, 2009). to effectively teach mathematics. Consistent
However, a plethora of recent research has with the Michigan State University Center for
shown that U.S. students are not proficient in Research in Mathematics and Science Educa-
mathematics (National Center for Educational tion, Stripling and Roberts (2012a) found that
Statistics, 2000a, 2000b, 2004, 2009a, 2009b, Florida preservice agricultural education teach-
2010, 2011). Likewise, the lack of mathematics ers were not proficient in mathematics standards
proficiency among Florida students is well rec- within the agricultural curricula and are there-
ognized, and in 2010, 56% of Florida 10th grad- fore ill-prepared to teach mathematics found
ers experienced little to partial success in math- naturally within the secondary agricultural edu-
ematics (Florida Department of Education, cation curricula.
2010). In addition, the Michigan State Universi- Based on the aforementioned findings and
ty Center for Research in Mathematics and Sci- recommendations, this study will seek to im-
ence Education (2010) stated that preservice prove the mathematics ability of Florida preserv-
teachers are ill-prepared to teach a rigorous ice agricultural education teachers by incorporat-
124
Stripling & Roberts Investigating the Effects…
ing the seven components of a math enhanced ences and physiological factors. Therefore, hu-
lesson (Stone, Alfeld, Pearson, Lewis, & Jensen, man behavior is influenced by personal experi-
2006) into the agricultural education teaching ences and are “retained in neural codes, rather
methods course at the University of Florida. In than being provided ready-made by inborn pro-
addition, this study will investigate the effects gramming” (Bandura, 1986, p. 22). With that in
that a math-enhanced agricultural education mind, “social cognitive theory encompasses a
teaching methods (MEAETM) course will have large set of factors that operate as regulators and
on personal mathematics efficacy, mathematics motivators of established cognitive, social, and
teaching efficacy, and personal teaching effica- behavioral skills” (Bandura, 1997, p. 35). Thus,
cy. Moreover, this study will contribute to pri- people are neither driven by inner forces
ority 3 (sufficient scientific and professional nor automatically shaped and controlled
workforce that addresses the challenges of the by external stimuli. Rather, human
21st century) and priority 5 (efficient and effec- functioning is explained in terms of a
tive agricultural education programs) of the model of triadic reciprocality in which
American Association for Agricultural Educa- behavior, cognitive and other personal
tion’s national research agenda (Doerfert, 2011). factors, and environmental events all
operate as interacting determinants of
each other. (Bandura, 1986, p. 18)
Theoretical Framework/Literature Review Bandura also stated that the interacting determi-
nants (behavior, internal personal factors, and
The theoretical framework for this study was the external environment) influence each other
Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory. Ac- bidirectionally, but their influences are not
cording to Bandura, social cognitive theory ex- equal. Operationalized for this study, behavior
plains cognitive changes or learning over a life- is the teaching of contextualized mathematics,
time and emphasizes that most cognitive skills external environment is the teacher education
are socially cultivated. In addition, Bandura program, and personal factors are self-efficacy
purported that human thought and behavior are and mathematics ability (Figure 1).
influenced by direct and observational experi-

Figure 1. Triadic reciprocality model. Adapted from Bandura (1986).

Journal of Agricultural Education 138 Volume 54, Number 1, 2013
Stripling & Roberts Investigating the Effects…
Behavior – Teaching Contextualized Mathe- creased. Congruently, research in the field of
matics agricultural education has supported the effec-
tiveness of math-enhanced curricula that utilizes
In the context of this study, teaching the seven elements of a math-enhanced lesson as
contextualized mathematics in the teaching a model for teaching contextualized mathematics
methods course is considered a behavior that is (Parr, Edwards, & Leising, 2006, 2008; Young,
influenced bidirectionally by personal and envi- Edwards, & Leising, 2009).
ronmental determinants. For example, teaching
agriculture was influenced by the National Re- Personal Factors
search Council’s (1988) call to emphasize aca-
demic skills through an integrated curricula and In social cognitive theory, personal factors
to become more than a vocational discipline, influence the external environment and behavior
which influenced agricultural instruction in sec- (Bandura, 1986). More specifically, in the con-
ondary and postsecondary settings (Phipps, Os- text of this study, a preservice teacher’s self-
borne, Dyer, & Ball, 2008). Previous research efficacy and mathematics ability are personal
has indicated that preservice teachers are ill- factors that affect the behavior of teaching math-
prepared and lack sufficient mathematics content ematics and the environment of the teacher edu-
knowledge to teach mathematical concepts cation program. Correspondingly, the National
(Frykholm, 2000; Fuller, 1996; Goulding, Row- Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM; as
land, & Barber, 2002; Michigan State University cited in Benken & Brown, 2008) posited that
Center for Research in Mathematics and Science teachers of mathematics should have an “inte-
Education, 2010; Miller & Gliem, 1996; Stacey, grated, connected view of mathematics, rather
Helme, Steinle, Baturo, Irwin, & Bana, 2001; than a procedural, rule-based view” (p. 1). Simi-
Stoddart, Connell, Stofflett, & Peck, 1993; Strip- larly, Darling-Hammond and Bransford (2005)
ling & Roberts, 2012a, 2012b; Wilburne & described three types of knowledge that are re-
Long, 2010), thus theoretically impacting the quired for effective teaching: (a) subject matter
behavior of teaching mathematics. knowledge, (b) pedagogical knowledge, and (c)
Parnell (1996) claimed that “the basis for pedagogical content knowledge. In the context
good teaching is combining an information rich of this study, mathematics ability and personal
subject matter content with an experience rich mathematics efficacy are measures of subject
context of application” (p. 1), and Prescott, Ri- matter knowledge, personal teaching efficacy is
nard, Cockerill, and Baker (1996) purported that a measure of pedagogical knowledge, and per-
academic and vocational subjects should be in- sonal mathematics efficacy is a measure of ped-
tegrated to maximize learning opportunities. agogical content knowledge.
With this in mind, Stone et al. (2006) experi-
mentally investigated the Math-in-CTE model, Self-efficacy
which was developed as a means for enhancing
mathematics instruction in Career and Technical Self-efficacy is one example of a personal
Education (CTE). The study consisted of 236 factor that according to Bandura (1997) “occu-
CTE teachers, 104 mathematics teachers, and pies a pivotal role…because it acts upon the oth-
3,950 secondary students. At the core of the er classes of determinants” (p. 35). More explic-
model was a partnership formed between CTE itly, self-efficacy influences the activities one
and mathematics teachers in which the mathe- selects, motivation, knowledge acquisition, ana-
matics teachers aided the CTE teachers in devel- lytical thinking, and one’s talents (Bandura,
oping math-enhanced lessons and were available 1986). Self-efficacy is defined as one’s judg-
for support before and after the lessons. As a ment about one’s ability to perform a behavior
result of instruction in secondary schools that or task (Bandura, 1997). Thus, a student’s self-
utilized the math-enhanced lessons, the re- efficacy regulates their learning and impacts
searchers discovered that technical skill acquisi- their academic accomplishments (Bandura,
tion was not diminished and that the CTE stu- 1993). Furthermore, teacher or teaching effica-
dents’ mathematics content knowledge in- cy is a more specific type of self-efficacy (Strip-

Journal of Agricultural Education 138 Volume 54, Number 1, 2013
Stripling & Roberts Investigating the Effects…
ling, Ricketts, Roberts, & Harlin, 2008), and is a ciencies (Miller & Gliem, 1996; Stripling &
teacher’s belief in his/her capability to facilitate Roberts, 2012a, 2012b). To that end, Miller and
the learning environment and produce desired Gliem (1996) found that preservice teachers at
learning outcomes (Guskey & Passaro, 1994; The Ohio State University scored 37.1% on an
Soodak & Podell, 1996). Teachers who are more instrument used to measure agricultural mathe-
efficacious persevere through challenges in the matics problem solving ability. Likewise, Strip-
learning environment (Goddard, Hoy, & Wool- ling and Roberts (2012a) reported that preserv-
folk Hoy, 2004) and put forth more effort in de- ice teachers at the University of Florida aver-
signing learning activities (Allinder, 1994). aged 35.6% on a mathematics assessment that
Previous research with preservice teachers was based on the national secondary agricultural
found that teacher education programs should education standards. Using the same assessment
scaffold teaching experiences, thus reducing in- as Stripling and Roberts (2012a), Stripling and
stances where preservice teachers lower their Roberts (2012b) reported that a randomly select-
self-perceptions of what constitutes excellent ed sample of preservice teachers from U.S. agri-
teaching (Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, & Hoy K., cultural teacher education programs revealed
1998). In developing teacher efficacy, teacher that the nations’ preservice agricultural educa-
education programs should provide opportuni- tion teachers are not proficient in mathematics,
ties for preservice teachers to state personal be- and the population mean on the mathematics
liefs related to teaching and learning and then assessment was estimated to be between 28.5%
expand and integrate new knowledge into exist- and 48.5% with 95% confidence. Lastly, re-
ing beliefs (Kagan, 1992). Specific to agricul- search in agricultural education has shown that
tural education, Knobloch (2001) discovered an agricultural education teacher’s mathematics
that peer-teaching increased preservice teacher’s ability is significantly associated with their stu-
teaching efficacy, and student teaching has been dents’ mathematics ability (Persinger & Gliem,
shown to have a positive effect on teaching effi- 1987).
cacy (Harlin, Roberts, Briers, Mowen, & Edgar,
2007; Roberts, Harlin, & Ricketts, 2006; Rob- External Environment – Teacher Education
erts, Harlin, & Briers, 2008; Stripling et al., Program
2008). What is more, Roberts, Mowen, Edgar,
Harlin, and Briers (2007) found that teaching According to Bandura (1986), the external
efficacy was negligibly related to personality environment is influenced by behavior and in-
type, and Roberts et al. reported that placing two ternal personal factors. For this study, the exter-
agricultural education preservice teachers at one nal environment is the agricultural teacher edu-
internship site did not significantly affect teach- cation program at the University of Florida.
ing efficacy. Considerable disagreement and debate surround
the purpose of teacher education (Hansen,
Mathematics ability 2008); nevertheless, Myers and Dyer (2004)
stated that the “goal of preservice teacher educa-
A plethora of research exists that underscores tion is to make the most effective use of the time
the mathematics deficiency among the nation’s available to prepare future educators for the task
preservice teachers (Adams, 1998; Ball & Wil- awaiting them” (p. 47). In regard to teaching
son, 1990; Bryan, 1999; Even, 1990, 1993; mathematics, teacher education programs should
Frykholm, 2000; Goulding et al., 2002; Mat- aid preservice teachers in fostering positive phi-
thews & Seaman, 2007; Michigan State Univer- losophies and attitudes about teaching and learn-
sity Center for Research in Mathematics and ing mathematics (Charalambous, Panaoura, &
Science Education, 2010; Miller & Gliem, 1996; Philippou, 2009). To that end, teacher education
Stacey et al., 2001; Stoddart et al., 1993; Strip- programs have been shown to influence how
ling & Roberts, 2012a, 2012b; Wilburne & beginning teachers dialogue about teaching and
Long, 2010). Correspondingly, research con- learning mathematics (Ensor, 2001) and that
ducted with agricultural education preservice research-proven mathematics instructional prac-
teachers has also revealed mathematical defi- tices incorporated into a teacher education pro-

Journal of Agricultural Education 138 Volume 54, Number 1, 2013
Stripling & Roberts Investigating the Effects…
gram positively affect student achievement (Ber- Purpose
ry, 2005). Burton, Daane, and Gieson (2008)
further found that adding 20 minutes of mathe- The purpose of this study was to investigate
matics content instruction into a teaching meth- the effects of a MEAETM course on preservice
ods course positively affected mathematics con- agricultural education teachers’ mathematics
tent knowledge of preservice teachers. Research ability, personal mathematics efficacy, mathe-
has also discovered that mathematics content matics teaching efficacy, and personal teaching
knowledge was improved when preservice efficacy.
teachers experience content, teaching methods, Four null hypotheses were used to guide this
and field experiences concurrently (Wilcox, inquiry:
Schram, Lappan & Lanier, 1991). Specific to H : There is no significant difference in the
01
agricultural teacher education, The National mathematics ability of preservice agricul-
Standards for Teacher Education in Agriculture tural education teachers before and after
(American Association for Agricultural Educa- the MEAETM treatment.
tion, 2001) suggested that general education H : There is no significant difference in the
02
should comprise one-third of the agricultural personal mathematics efficacy of preserv-
education program hours and should develop ice agricultural education teachers before
theoretical and practical understandings. Math- and after the MEAETM treatment.
ematics was specifically mentioned as an expec- H : There is no significant difference in the
03
tation of coursework within general education, mathematics teaching efficacy of preserv-
yet recommendations for mathematics instruc- ice agricultural education teachers before
tion and content knowledge were not given. and after the MEAETM treatment.
Swortzel (1995) recommended that calculus and H : There is no significant difference in the
04
statistics/data analysis should be required, and personal teaching efficacy of preservice
this recommendation is supported by research agricultural education teachers before and
that has found a substantial association between after the MEAETM treatment.
advanced mathematics or calculus and mathe-
matics ability (Stripling & Roberts, 2012b). Methodology
However, Swortzel’s article was the only refer-
ence found that recommended specific mathe- Definition of Terms
matics coursework for agricultural teacher edu-
cation. Also, consistent with the disagreement The following terms were operationally defined
mentioned above, variability exists in agricultur- for this study:
al teacher education programs (McLean & • The teaching method course was operation-
Camp, 2000; Swortzel, 1999). For example, ally defined as a teaching and learning
Swortzel (1999) reported that U.S. agricultural methods course that “focuses on the selec-
education programs were found in colleges of tion and use of teaching strategies, meth-
agriculture, education, and business or technolo- ods/approaches, and techniques; evaluating
gy and credit hours for a four year degree ranged learning; and managing learning environ-
from 120-148. Moreover, McLean and Camp ments for teaching agricultural subjects in
(2000) reported that the top 10 peer nominated formal educational settings” (Roberts, 2009,
agriculture teacher education programs had sub- p. 1).
stantial variations in their required coursework • Mathematics ability is defined as the stu-
or programs of studies. For example, McLean dents’ scores on the Mathematics Ability
and Camp discovered 118 different topics were Test (Stripling & Roberts, 2012a).
being taught with only 44 of the topics being • Personal mathematics efficacy is the self-
taught in at least 50% of the programs. belief in one’s capabilities to solve mathe-
matics problems. Personal mathematics ef-
ficacy was defined as the student’s score on
8 items contained in the Mathematics En-

Journal of Agricultural Education 138 Volume 54, Number 1, 2013
Stripling & Roberts Investigating the Effects…
hancement Teaching Efficacy Instrument by was conceptualized as a slice in time (Oliver &
Jansen (2007). Hinkle, 1981), and according to Gall, Borg, and
• Mathematics teaching efficacy is a person’s Gall (1996), when convenience sampling is used
self-belief about their capabilities to teach the researcher should provide a comprehensive
mathematics. Mathematics teaching effica- description of the sample and describe the rea-
cy was defined as the student’s score on 13 sons for selection. To that end, the sample was
items contained in the Mathematics En- selected based on previous research, which dis-
hancement Teaching Efficacy Instrument by covered that Florida preservice agricultural edu-
Jansen (2007). cation teachers were not proficient in the math-
• Personal teaching efficacy is a person’s self- ematics content of the cross-referenced NCTM
belief about their capabilities to teach. Per- sub-standards (Stripling & Roberts, 2012a). The
sonal teaching efficacy was defined as the sample consisted of 22 preservice agricultural
student’s score on 12 items contained in the education teachers, 17 females and 5 males, that
Mathematics Enhancement Teaching Effica- volunteered to participate and signed an in-
cy Instrument by Jansen (2007). formed consent that was approved by the Uni-
versity of Florida’s Institutional Review Board.
Research Design The small sample size is a limitation of this
study. The participants’ average age was 22
This study was preexperimental and utilized years old (SD = 1.41), and 21 of the participants
a one-group pretest-posttest design (Campbell & described their ethnicity as white and one as
Stanley, 1963). The research design is shown other. Twenty of the participants were complet-
below: ing an undergraduate degree, and the remaining
two participants were completing a graduate de-
O X O gree. The mean university grade point average
1 2
was 3.53 (SD = 0.46).
Threats to internal validity are history, matu-
ration, testing, instrumentation, and possibly Instrumentation
statistical regression (Campbell & Stanley,
1963). History is a limitation of this study, The participants agreed to complete the
however, it should be noted that no participants Mathematics Ability Test (Stripling & Roberts,
were enrolled in a mathematics course during 2012a) and the Mathematics Enhancement
this study. Maturation and testing are also noted Teaching Efficacy Instrument (Jansen, 2007).
as limitations of this study; however, to reduce The Mathematics Ability Test consist of 26
the influence of testing the posttests were given open-ended mathematical word problems and
at the beginning of the 2011 semester instead of was utilized because it was developed based on
the end of the 2010 semester. Instrumentation the previously mentioned 13 NCTM sub-
was controlled by using a scoring rubric that was standard that are cross-referenced with the Na-
made by two secondary mathematics experts and tional Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources
by utilizing one scorer. Lastly, statistical regres- Career Cluster Content Standards (National
sion is only a threat if subjects are selected based Council for Agricultural Education, 2009). The
on extreme scores (Campbell & Stanley, 1963). instrument took approximately 60 minutes to
In this study, the participants were not selected complete and the reliability or the Cronbach’s
because of extreme scores. alpha coefficient was reported by Stripling and
Roberts (2012a) to be .80. Additionally, the re-
Sample searchers stated that a panel of experts com-
prised of two secondary mathematics experts
The target population for this study was pre- and university agricultural teacher education and
service agriculture teachers in their final year of mathematics faculty representing three universi-
a teacher education program at the University of ties established face and content validity. The
Florida’s main campus. For this study, the sam- 26 open-ended mathematical word problems of
ple was a purposive convenience sample that the Mathematics Ability Test were scored as in-

Journal of Agricultural Education 138 Volume 54, Number 1, 2013
Stripling & Roberts Investigating the Effects…
correct, partially correct, or correct using a ru- Treatment – MEAETM
bric that, according to Stripling and Roberts, was
developed by two secondary mathematics ex- The treatment for this study was devised by
perts. The Mathematics Enhancement Teaching the researchers and was incorporated into the
Efficacy Instrument was developed and validated Fall 2010 agricultural education teaching meth-
during a doctoral dissertation at Oregon State ods course at the University of Florida as a po-
University and is divided into three constructs: tential means to improve the mathematics ability
(a) personal mathematics efficacy, (b) mathe- of the preservice teachers enrolled in the course.
matics teaching efficacy, and (c) personal teach- The treatment consisted of three parts. First, the
ing efficacy. The instrument utilizes a different researcher prepared and delivered a lecture to
rating scale for each construct – personal math- the preservice teachers that explained and
ematics efficacy (1 = not at all confident to 4 = demonstrated how to use the National Research
very confident), mathematics teaching efficacy Center for Career and Technical Education’s
(1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree), seven components of a math-enhanced lesson
and personal teaching efficacy (1 = nothing to 9 (Stone et al., 2006) to teach mathematical con-
= a great deal of influence; Jansen, 2007). Jan- cepts in the context of agriculture (Figure 2).
sen (2007) reported that face and content validi- Second, each preservice teacher was randomly
ty were established by a panel of experts and assigned two of the thirteen NCTM sub-
that the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the standards that have been cross-referenced to the
personal mathematics efficacy, mathematics National Agriculture, Food and Natural Re-
teaching efficacy, and personal teaching efficacy sources Career Cluster Content Standards.
constructs to be .84, .88, and .91, respectively. Third, the preservice teachers were required to
Scores for each construct were calculated by teach the two NCTM sub-standards to their
averaging the corresponding items after reverse peers using the seven components of a math-
coding items 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 13. The enhanced lesson (Stone et al., 2006). Therefore,
Mathematics Enhancement Teaching Efficacy each preservice teacher participated in the math-
Instrument took 8-12 minutes to complete. enhanced lesson lecture, integrated mathematics
Furthermore, each instrument was adminis- content that corresponds to their randomly as-
tered before and after the treatment utilized in signed NCTM sub-standards into two of the
this study. More specifically, the Mathematics normally required peer-teaching lessons of the
Ability Test was administered the second week teaching methods course, and participated in
of the Fall 2010 semester and the first week of each other’s math-enhanced peer-teaching les-
the Spring 2011 semester. The Mathematics sons. In summary, beyond what was previously
Enhancement Teaching Efficacy Instrument was required in the teaching methods course at the
administered week three of the Fall 2010 and University of Florida the treatment added the
Spring 2011 semesters. Since the instruments following three elements: (a) a lecture on the
were administered during instructional time, the seven components of a math-enhanced lesson,
preservice teachers were informed that volun- (b) random assignment of the NCTM sub-
teering to complete the instruments would not standards among the preservice teachers, and (c)
positively or negatively affect their course grade requiring two of the peer-teaching lessons to be
math-enhanced.

Journal of Agricultural Education 138 Volume 54, Number 1, 2013
Stripling & Roberts Investigating the Effects…

Figure 2. The National Research Center for Career and Technical Education: 7 Elements of a Math-
Enhanced Lesson model (Stone et al., 2006, p. 13).

Data Analysis Findings

Demographic and mathematics background Mathematics Ability
data were summarized using descriptive statis-
tics. Paired samples t tests were utilized to de- The pretest results revealed that 19 (86.4%)
termine if a significant difference existed in of the preservice teachers answered fewer than
mathematics ability, personal mathematics effi- 50% of the items correctly on the mathematics
cacy, mathematics teaching efficacy, and per- ability instrument (Table 1). The mean score
sonal teaching efficacy scores from before to was 34.4% or 8.93 (SD = 3.78) on the 26 item
after the MEAETM treatment, and according to instrument, and the scores ranged from 9.6% to
Agresti and Finlay (1997), t tests are appropriate 63.5%. The posttest results revealed that 63.6%
for small sample sizes. In addition, Dunlap, of the preservice teachers answered fewer than
Cortina, Vaslow, and Burke’s (1996) formula 50% of the items correctly, and the mean score
for calculating effect size was also used to cor- was 46.5% or 12.09 (SD = 4.25). The posttest
rect for overestimation due to the correlation scores ranged from 23.1% to 86.5%.
between measures.

Table 1
Analysis of Scores on the Mathematics Ability Test
f % of students
Number correct (out of 26) range % correct range
Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest
2.5 – 5.5 9.6 – 21.2 5 0 22.7 0.0
6.0 – 9.0 23.1 – 34.6 8 6 36.3 27.3
9.5 – 12.5 36.5 – 48.1 6 8 27.3 36.4
13.0 – 16.5 50.0 – 63.5 3 6 13.6 27.3
21.5 – 22.5 82.7 – 86.5 0 2 0.0 9.1
Note. Pretest mean score 8.93 (SD = 3.78); posttest mean score 12.09 (SD = 4.25), out of 26 possi-
ble.

In addition, an analysis of hypothesis one re- null hypothesis was rejected. The practical sig-
vealed a 12.15% increase in scores after the nificance of the difference was assessed using
MEAETM treatment (Table 2), and the increase Cohen’s d, and the effect size was .78, which is
in mathematics ability scores after the treatment a medium effect size according to Cohen (as
was significantly different (p = .00). Thus, the cited in Kotrlik, Williams, & Jabor, 2011).

Journal of Agricultural Education 138 Volume 54, Number 1, 2013
Stripling & Roberts Investigating the Effects…

Table 2
Summary of Paired Samples t test
Mean difference SD SE t p d
Math ability posttest – pretest 12.15 10.97 2.34 5.19 .00 .78

Mathematics Enhancement Teaching Efficacy efficacy, M = 7.25, SD = .72). Posttest results
revealed that the preservice teachers were confi-
As depicted in Table 3, pretest results indi- dent in their mathematics ability (personal math-
cated that the preservice teachers in this study ematics efficacy, M = 3.35, SD = .65), moder-
were confident in their mathematics ability (per- ately efficacious in their ability to teach mathe-
sonal mathematics efficacy, M = 3.46, SD = matics (mathematics teaching efficacy, M =
.39), moderately efficacious in their ability to 3.45, SD = .60), and perceived themselves as
teach mathematics (mathematics teaching effi- having “Quite a Bit of Influence” in affecting
cacy, M = 3.37, SD = .71), and perceived them- student learning (personal teaching efficacy, M
selves as having “Quite a Bit of Influence” in = 7.34, SD = .80).
affecting student learning (personal teaching

Table 3
Mathematics Enhancement Teaching Efficacy Scores
Personal Mathematics Efficacy Mathematics Teaching Efficacy Personal Teaching Efficacy
(PME) (MTE) (PTE)
M SD M SD M SD
Pretest 3.46 .39 3.37 .71 7.25 .72
Posttest 3.35 .65 3.45 .60 7.34 .80
Note. Scales: personal mathematics efficacy (1 = not at all confident to 4 = very confident), mathematics
teaching efficacy (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree), and personal teaching efficacy (1 = noth-
ing to 9 = a great deal of influence; Jansen, 2007).

Furthermore, analysis of hypotheses two, crease on a 9-point scale in personal teaching
three, and four revealed a .11 point decrease on a efficacy after the MEAETM treatment (Table 4).
4-point scale in personal mathematics efficacy, a However, the mean differences were not statisti-
.09 point increase on a 5-point scale in mathe- cally significant. Thus, the null hypotheses were
matics teaching efficacy, and a .09 point in- not rejected.

Table 4
Summary of Paired Samples t tests – Self-Efficacy
Mean difference SD SE t p
PME posttest – pretest -.11 .52 .11 1.00 .33
MTE posttest – pretest .09 .90 .20 .45 .66
PTE posttest – pretest .09 1.06 .23 .37 .72

Conclusions/Implications/Recommendations tion of mathematics into a teaching methods
course may significantly increase the mathemat-
The MEAETM treatment had a positive ef- ics ability of preservice teachers. The results of
fect on the preservice agricultural education this study were also consistent with Pascarella
teachers’ mathematics ability scores, and the and Terenzini (2005), which stated that peer in-
practical significance of the difference in the teraction that reinforce academics “appear to
scores was described as medium (d = .78). Con- influence positively knowledge acquisition and
sistent with Burton et al. (2008), the incorpora- academic skill development during college” (p.

Journal of Agricultural Education 138 Volume 54, Number 1, 2013
Stripling & Roberts Investigating the Effects…
121). Furthermore, these results support Ban- matics content knowledge, which Darling-
dura’s (1986) social cognitive theory, and the Hammond and Bransford (2005) would call sub-
belief that cognitive skills can be socially culti- ject matter knowledge. Subject matter
vated. With that in mind, this study suggests knowledge is an essential type of knowledge for
that peer-teaching that utilizes the seven compo- effective teaching (Darling-Hammond & Brans-
nents of a math-enhanced lesson (Stone et al., ford, 2005).
2006) may be an appropriate means to improve What is more, the preservice teachers were
the mathematics ability of preservice agricultural moderately efficacious in mathematics teaching
education teachers. Therefore, the authors rec- efficacy and efficacious in personal teaching
ommend that the MEAETM treatment be incor- efficacy before and after the treatment. This fact
porated into the agricultural education teaching is encouraging because mathematics teaching
methods course at the University of Florida. efficacy is a measure of the preservice teachers’
Due to the limited scope of this study, future perceptions of their ability to teach mathematics,
research should further investigate the effects of and personal teaching efficacy is a measure of
mathematics peer-teaching on preservice teach- the preservice teachers’ perceptions of their abil-
ers’ mathematics ability. ity to teach in general. However, why are pre-
Furthermore, the preservice teachers were service teachers moderately efficacious in teach-
confident in their personal mathematics efficacy ing mathematics when they are not proficient in
before and after the MEAETM treatment. This mathematics after the treatment of this study?
is very interesting since the self-efficacy data Future research should examine this issue. Ad-
was collected after the administrations of the ditionally, research should seek to determine if
mathematics ability instrument and despite a the MEAETM treatment has an impact on the
mean pretest ability average of 34.4% and a teaching of mathematics content in secondary
mean posttest average of 46.5%. Theoretically, agricultural classes once the preservice teachers
Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory would graduate. Also, are the preservice teachers more
suggest that confidence in personal mathematics likely to successfully integrate mathematics after
efficacy should positively influence the behavior graduation as a result of the MEAETM treat-
of teaching mathematics found naturally in the ment, and do the preservice teachers with the
secondary agricultural curricula. On the other highest mathematics ability scores produce stu-
hand, Bandura’s social cognitive theory would dents with higher scores like the secondary agri-
also suggest that low mathematics ability should culture teachers in Persinger and Gliem (1987)?
negatively influence the behavior of teaching Furthermore, the authors recommend that addi-
mathematics in the secondary agricultural cur- tional empirical research be conducted to vali-
ricula. Thus, future research should seek to ex- date the effectiveness of the MEAETM treat-
plain this disconnect between personal mathe- ment in other preservice agricultural teacher
matics efficacy and mathematics ability among populations. The authors also recommend that a
the preservice teachers. With that in mind, it is quasi-experimental research design be utilized to
conceivable that even after the treatment of this further examine the effectiveness of the ME-
study that the preservice teachers are ill- AETM treatment. Moreover, future research
informed of the level of mathematics present in should determine if mathematics can be effec-
the secondary agricultural education standards. tively and efficiently integrated into other agri-
Therefore, future research should examine pre- cultural teacher education courses. To that end,
service teachers’ perceptions of the mathematics it is plausible, that the summative effect of small
found naturally in the secondary agricultural changes made to agricultural teacher education
curricula. Additionally, research should inquire coursework, which emphasizes mathematics
into the development of personal mathematics integration may produce preservice agricultural
efficacy and investigate factors that influence education teachers that are proficient in mathe-
personal mathematics efficacy among preservice matics and aid the agricultural education profes-
agricultural teachers. The aforesaid research is sion in answering the numerous calls to assist in
vital, since personal mathematics efficacy is a improving secondary students’ mathematics
preservice teacher’s perception of their mathe- achievement. However, agricultural teacher ed-

Journal of Agricultural Education 138 Volume 54, Number 1, 2013