ERIC EJ839904: Examining the Instructional Planning Process Taught in Agricultural Education Teacher Preparation Programs: Perspectives of University Faculty

2008·0.39 MB·English

by  ERIC

EXAMINING THE INSTRUCTIONAL PLANNING PROCESS TAUGHT IN
AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION TEACHER PREPARATION PROGRAMS:
PERSPECTIVES OF UNIVERSITY FACULTY

Bradley C. Greiman, Assistant Professor
University of Minnesota
Mary Anne Bedtke, Agricultural Education Teacher
Triton High School

Abstract

Instructional planning is a curricular topic in teacher preparation programs, but limited
research in agricultural education has been conducted in this area. The purpose of this study
was to examine aspects of the instructional planning process that are taught to agricultural
education preservice teachers. Survey research and content analysis of course materials was
utilized to collect and analyze data. The population for the study was a census of agricultural
education teacher educators who taught instructional planning to preservice teachers at land
grant institutions during 2006-2007. This study found that the two most frequent instructional
planning models being taught were the Allen 4-step and the Madeline Hunter direct instructional
model. A majority of the instructional plan components being utilized were aligned with Searcy
and Maroney’s (1996) literature review; however, notable exceptions pertained to estimated
time required and reflection. Teacher educators were most frequently requiring Methods of
Teaching Agriculture (Newcomb, McCracken, Warmbrod, & Whittington, 2004) as a required
text and a course Web site as a required student reading resource. This study concluded that
while instructional plan requirements did not change at a number of institutions during student
teaching compared with when taught during coursework, there were changes whereby a more
succinct or more expanded instructional plan was required.

Introduction preservice teachers in developing a
systematic process for instructional planning
Preparation in the form of instructional and to embrace the concept of writing
planning, termed lesson planning by some instructional plans (Baylor & Kitsantas,
educators and researchers, is the basis for 2005; Kitsantas & Baylor, 2001).
effective teaching and student learning Lending further support for the
(Reiser & Dick, 1996). In support of this importance of instructional planning, the
premise, Sung (1982) found that students Interstate New Teacher Assessment and
who were taught using more structured Support Consortium (INTASC) (1992)
instructional plans had significantly higher outlined a common core of 10 knowledge
achievement than those taught with less and skills that should be acquired by all new
structured plans. Additionally, teacher teachers. Principle seven states that, ―The
planning improves the likelihood of a teacher plans instruction based upon
successful class session through the use of knowledge of subject matter, students, the
proactive strategies (Bond & Peterson, community, and curriculum goals‖ (p. 27).
2004), and instructional planning provides The INTASC principles were drafted by
the teacher ―with some control over what is teachers, teacher educators, and state agency
going to happen as opposed to reacting only officials, and represent a shared view of the
to what has happened‖ (Duke & Madsen, important skills that should be integrated
1991, p. 11). As such, an important goal of into the teacher preparation curriculum.
teacher preparation programs is to assist Consistent with INTASC, Ball and
Journal of Agricultural Education 47 Volume 49, Number 4, 2008
Greiman & Bedtke Examining the Instructional…
Knobloch (2005) identified the importance be used to gain insight into teachers‘
of developing instructional plans as a pedagogical content knowledge (Panasuk &
curricular activity of teacher preparation Todd, 2005).
programs in agricultural education. In The Reflective Practitioner, Schön
Instructional planning is a process that (1983) examined how professional
accounts for a significant portion of a competence develops and suggested new
teacher‘s time. For example, in a study of forms of investigation into teacher thinking.
agricultural education student teachers He posited that knowing-in-action is learned
during a 15-week experience, Torres and through experience and is a competency that
Ulmer (2007) found that planning and a skilled professional demonstrates every
preparing to teach consumed 26% of student day. Knowing-in-action is composed of
teachers‘ time. Interestingly, teachers spend actions, judgments, and recognitions that are
more of this time thinking about planning typically exhibited by the professional in an
rather than writing formal instructional plans automatic, spontaneous, and tacit manner.
(Ball, Knobloch, & Hoop, 2007; Wilen, Schön suggested that ―as a practitioner
Ishler, Hutchinson, & Kindsvatter, 2000). experiences many variations of a small
This study extends previous research in number of types of cases, he is able to
agricultural education by focusing on the ‗practice‘ his practice‖ (p. 60). As a result,
mental aspect of instructional planning. The the professional develops a repertoire of
researchers contend that instructional techniques, learns what to look for, and how
planning models, instructional plan to respond to everyday situations. Rather
components, texts, and reading resources are than perceiving something to be unique, the
a major influence on preservice teachers‘ practitioner sees it as something already in
attitudes, beliefs, and mental approaches to his/her repertoire and sees the situation as
planning instruction. Equally important, both similar and different from the familiar
these aspects are an indication of the one. Schön‘s knowing-in-action corresponds
epistemological beliefs held by faculty closely to what Eraut (1994) described as
regarding instructional planning. Limited skilled behavior, which he defined ―as a
research has been conducted in this area, and complex sequence of actions which has
this study sought to gain insights regarding become so routinized through practice and
instructional planning from the perspective experience that it is performed almost
of university faculty. automatically‖ (p. 111). For example,
Jackson (1968) estimated that a high school
Theoretical Framework teacher might make 1,000 decisions each
day, and such decisions have to be largely
The study drew upon educational intuitive.
psychology and reflective practice theory As a result of developing knowing-in-
found in the professional knowledge and action, expert teachers become more
competence literature to form the theoretical efficacious and tacit in making decisions,
framework. Previous research has found that and less dependent on a written instructional
teachers engage in a remarkably complex plan (Yinger, 1980). Thus, it can be
thought process as they construct instruction logically argued that the novice teacher
(Fernandez & Cannon, 2005). This benefits from developing a more detailed
psychological process of planning was instructional plan as they learn to make
described by Clark and Dunn (1991) as a classroom decisions, whereas the expert
means for teachers to visualize their future teacher utilizes the mental instructional plan
teaching situation and to consider the goals that they have developed through multiple
and ways of achieving them. During the experiences of teaching the content.
planning or preactive teaching stage Supported by Schön (1983), preservice
(Jackson, 1968), teachers mentally engage in teachers begin developing knowing-in-
a purposeful effort to develop activities that action during student teaching, and as a
will motivate and enhance students‘ result, there is a need to conduct research on
cognitive development. As a result, written the optimal instructional plan format and/or
instructional plans provide evidence that can requirements that will align with the
Journal of Agricultural Education 48 Volume 49, Number 4, 2008
Greiman & Bedtke Examining the Instructional…
professional development needs of the interpretation, and (f) multipass (Hock &
student teacher. This study sought to initiate Mellard, 2005).
this inquiry. PAVER-Doc. This model is based on the
personalized system of instruction (PSI)
Literature Review developed by Keller (1968) and requires
documented student completion and mastery
The review of literature consisted of before allowing the student to move to the
instructional planning models that were next unit of instruction. PAVER-Doc is
germane to the study, instructional plan comprised of six steps: (a) principles, (b)
components, and the instructional planning applications, (c) verification, (d) extension,
process. (e) reflection, and (f) documentation (Project
SIMPLE, n.d.).
Instructional Planning Models 7-Element Approach. This model was
Allen 4-Step. This model was designed developed by the National Research Council
by Allen (1919) during his work as a for Career and Technical Education (Stone,
vocational educator and consists of the Alfeld, Pearson, Lewis, & Jensen, 2005),
following steps: (a) preparation, (b) and was designed to enhance CTE student
presentation (delivery), (c) application, and learning and understanding of mathematical
(d) evaluation. The Allen 4-step was utilized concepts. The seven elements are: (a)
during World War I training programs and introduce the CTE lesson, (b) assess
was credited with increasing the output of students‘ math awareness as it related to the
shipyard workers by tenfold. More recently, CTE lesson, (c) work through math example
the Allen 4-step model was successfully embedded in the CTE lesson, (d) work
adopted by the Japanese car industry. through related, contextual math-in-CTE
Madeline Hunter Direct Instructional examples, (e) work through traditional math
Model. Hunter‘s (1984) instructional theory examples, (f) students demonstrate their
into practice (ITIP) consists of seven understanding, and (g) formal assessment.
elements that teachers should consider
during instructional planning: (a) Instructional Plan Components
anticipatory set, (b) objective and its Searcy and Maroney (1996) conducted a
purpose, (c) instructional input, (d) literature review of instructional planning
modeling, (e) monitoring to check for models and found 14 instructional plan
understanding, (f) guided practice, and (g) components that were frequently included in
independent practice. Hunter asserted that teacher preparation curricula: (a) student
the instructional planning elements are not objectives, (b) materials required, (c) time
steps and are thus not necessarily taken in required, (d) prerequisite skills, (e) seating
sequence, and each instructional plan may arrangement, (f) anticipatory set, (g)
not need every element. instructional steps, (h) checks for
5 E’s: Engage, Explore, Explain, understanding, (i) guided practice, (j)
Extend, Evaluate. This model was created in independent practice, (k) summary/closing,
the late 1980s by the biological sciences (l) evaluation of student outcomes, (m)
curriculum study (BSCS) and is based on follow-up activity, and (n) self-evaluation of
the science curriculum improvement study lesson presentation.
(SCIS) learning cycle of exploration,
invention, and discovery. The 5 E‘s model Instructional Planning Process
has been used in the development of One of the challenges that teacher
curricula, materials, and professional educators face regarding the teaching of
training (Bybee et al., 2006). instructional planning revolves around the
Strategic Instruction Model. The beliefs and behaviors that preservice
strategic instruction model (SIM) is a teachers have developed (Schmidt, 2005).
reading program based on research and Lortie (1975) identified this phenomenon as
composed of six intervention strategies: (a) an apprenticeship of observation, and this
paraphrasing, (b) story grammar, (c) self- refers to a sense of familiarity created by
questioning, (d) visual imagery, (e) visual preservice teachers‘ observations of teachers
Journal of Agricultural Education 49 Volume 49, Number 4, 2008
Greiman & Bedtke Examining the Instructional…
and their own experiences as students. This that are being taught to agricultural
familiarity contributes to preservice education preservice teachers. The
teachers‘ illusion that they ―know" how to objectives of the study were to: (a) identify
teach (Zeichner & Gore, 1990). Further, few the instructional planning models taught to
preservice students have observed their preservice teachers, (b) describe the
instructors write or use instructional plans, instructional plan components utilized in
and thus they discount instructional planning agricultural education, (c) identify the
as a chore for a teacher preparation class and required student texts and reading resources
―maybe for student teachers, but not part of for instructional planning courses, and (d)
the practice of teachers in the real world‖ determine if and how the instructional plan
(Harwood & Wiggins, 2001, p. 35). requirements change during student teaching
However, experienced teachers believe in compared to during an instructional
the value of instructional planning and that it planning course.
should be taught to novice teachers (Neale,
Pace, & Case, 1983). Methods and Procedures
Research has found that student learning
increased when teachers plan carefully with This study utilized survey research (Gall,
the aim of achieving objectives based on the Gall, & Borg, 2003) and content analysis of
content and students‘ needs (Clark & course materials to collect and analyze data.
Yinger, 1987). However, this objectives-first The population for the study was a census of
approach to instructional planning advocated agricultural education teacher educators who
by Tyler (1950) is foreign to many teachers. taught instructional planning to preservice
It is common for teachers to begin teachers at land grant institutions in the
instructional planning by first considering United States during the 2006-2007
the content to be taught, and they rarely academic year. Contact information of
consider learning objectives (Ball et al., participants was obtained from the
2007; Peterson, Marx, & Clark, 1978; American Association for Agricultural
Sanchez & Valcarcel; 1999, Zahorik, 1975). Education (AAAE) directory and from Web
After making decisions regarding content to sites of land grant institutions. Forty-four
be taught, Zahorik found that teachers‘ next agricultural education department chairs
step in preparing to teach was focused on were contacted, but two declined to
planning activities in the form of student participate, and another department did not
learning experiences. Teacher perceptions of meet the criteria of being involved with
their students‘ needs, interests, and abilities teacher preparation. The study achieved a
were also found to be significant factors in 76% response rate with 31 of the 41
teacher planning (Shavelson & Stern, 1981). departments participating in the study.
Much of what a teacher does during early The data collection instrument was
planning decision points is mental and very developed by the researchers and a
little is written down (Kagan & Tippins, University of Minnesota faculty member
1992; Sardo-Brown, 1988). whose research interest is focused on
This study was conducted to fill a gap in instructional planning. An expert panel
the literature and is based on the premise comprised of eight university faculty
that the instructional planning model and members from four different institutions
associated schema that is taught to assessed the instrument for face and content
preservice teachers will have a tremendous validity. Panel members were selected
impact on their professional development. because of their background in instructional
Therefore, it is important to gain the planning, and several modifications were
perceptions of agricultural education faculty made to improve the clarity of the
regarding instructional planning. questionnaire based on the input from the
panel.
Purpose and Objectives The data collection instrument contained
three parts. The first part consisted of a list
The purpose of the study was to examine of six possible instructional planning
aspects of the instructional planning process models, and participants were asked to
Journal of Agricultural Education 50 Volume 49, Number 4, 2008
Greiman & Bedtke Examining the Instructional…
answer yes or no if the model was taught to other researcher had recently student taught.
the preservice teachers at their institution. The first step in the analysis process was for
Additional space was provided for each researcher to independently read the
participants to identify the instructional course material and to identify text units that
planning model they used if it was not in the would fit into appropriate categories.
list. The second part of the questionnaire Initially, this was done with half of the
consisted of six possible changes in respondents for objective 2, and the
instructional plan requirements that may researchers met to establish inter-rater
have occurred during student teaching in reliability. The researchers classified 94% of
comparison to during coursework. the content into similar categories, and
Participants were asked to answer yes or no where differences were found, the
to each possible change, and space was researchers reviewed their process of coding
provided to identify changes in a n d establishing categories and resolved
instructional plan requirements if not found their differences by mutual consent. After
in the list. The third part of the this process was conducted, one of the
questionnaire was a request for participants researchers analyzed the remainder of the
to share their course syllabi, instructional content for objective 2, and the other
plan templates, and instructional plan researcher randomly checked the data for
scoring guides with the researchers. agreement; the same process was followed
Participants had the option of returning for objective 3.
course materials by mail or by an attachment
through e-mail. Findings
A modified version of Dillman‘s tailored
design method (2000) guided the data The first objective of the study was to
collection process. A cover letter explaining identify the instructional planning models
the study, questionnaire, and self-addressed, taught to preservice teachers. As shown in
stamped envelope were mailed to the Table 1, the Allen 4-step (f = 16, 51.6%) and
department/unit chair in November 2006. the Madeline Hunter direct instructional
The chair was asked to forward the materials model (f = 15, 48.4 %) were identified as the
to the faculty member who taught the most frequent instructional planning models
teacher preparation course focused on being taught to preservice teachers. Some
instructional planning. Approximately 20 type of problem-solving model was being
days after the first mailing, nonrespondents utilized by 19.4% (f = 6) of the respondents.
were mailed a cover letter, questionnaire, Examples of models in this category were
and self-addressed, stamped envelope. The the problem-solving approach advocated by
third and final mailing was conducted during Newcomb et al. (2004), and the Minnesota
February 2007 in an effort to gain a model (R. L. Peterson, personal
representative response rate. communication, October 15, 2003).
The Statistical Package for the Social The second research objective was to
Sciences (SPSS version 14.0) was used to describe the instructional plan components
compile and compute the data. Categorical utilized in agricultural education. To
data were reported as frequencies and accomplish this objective, the researchers
percentages for each of the four objectives. reviewed the instructional plan templates
For Table 1, 3, 4, and 5, respondents could that were returned by 14 respondents and
report more than one answer, and thus the then conducted content analysis to identify
frequency total does not match the number the instructional plan components. As
of respondents. Quantitative content analysis revealed in Table 2, all respondents (f = 14,
(Bos & Tarnai, 1999) was employed to 100%) identified that a title of the course,
analyze the course material as part of unit, and/or lesson; student learning
objectives 2 and 3. The researchers‘ objectives; content material; and evaluation
professional backgrounds were beneficial were instructional plan components being
during the content analysis process. One utilized in their teacher preparation
researcher had taught a preservice course curriculum. The next most frequent (f = 13,
that included instructional planning, and the 92.9%) components included teaching
Journal of Agricultural Education 51 Volume 49, Number 4, 2008
Greiman & Bedtke Examining the Instructional…
materials, interest approach, application, and instructional plan component that was least
summary. Reflection (f = 1, 7.1%) was the frequently utilized.

Table 1
Instructional Planning Models Taught to Preservice Teachers (n = 31)
Instructional planning model f %
Allen 4-step: preparation, presentation, application, evaluation 16 51.6
Madeline Hunter direct instructional model 15 48.4
Problem-solving model 6 19.4
5 E‘s: engage, explore, explain, extend, evaluate 6 19.4
Brain-based model 3 9.7
SIM: strategic instructional model 3 9.7
PAVER-Doc 2 6.5
Self-developed 2 6.5
Praxis III 1 3.2
7-Element Approach: centralized teaching & learning method 1 3.2
State department of education model 1 3.2
No model 1 3.2

The third objective of the study was to frequently required student reading
identify the required student texts and resources (Table 4) were course Web sites
reading resources for instructional planning (f = 6, 30.0%) and course packets (f = 4,
courses. To accomplish this objective, the 20.0%).
researchers reviewed the course syllabi of The fourth objective of the study was to
instructional planning courses that were determine if and how the instructional plan
returned by 20 respondents; content analysis requirements change during student teaching
was utilized to identify the student texts and compared to during an instructional
reading resources. As shown in Table 3, the planning course. As shown in Table 5, the
most frequently required student texts were most frequent responses (f = 12, 38.7%)
Methods of Teaching Agriculture (Newcomb were no change, less scripted, and a
et al., 2004) (f = 8, 40.0%), and Strategies shortened version. The less frequent
for Great Teaching (Reardon & Derner, responses were more detailed (f = 5, 16.1%)
2004) (f = 4, 20.0%). The most and more scripted (f = 4, 12.9%).

Journal of Agricultural Education 52 Volume 49, Number 4, 2008
Greiman & Bedtke Examining the Instructional…
Table 2
Instructional Plan Components Utilized in Agricultural Education (n = 14)
Instructional plan component n %
Title of course, unit, and/or lesson 14 100
Student learning objectives 14 100
Content material 14 100
Evaluation 14 100
Teaching materials 13 92.9
Interest approach 13 92.9
Application 13 92.9
Summary 13 92.9
Instructional strategy 12 85.7
Situation 10 71.4
References 10 71.4
Estimated time required 7 50.0
Standards: national, state, local, academic 6 42.9
Purpose or broad goal 5 35.7
Key terms 3 21.4
Reflection 1 7.1

Journal of Agricultural Education 53 Volume 49, Number 4, 2008
Greiman & Bedtke Examining the Instructional…
Table 3
Required Student Texts for Instructional Planning Courses (n = 20)
Required student text f %
Methods of Teaching Agriculture (Newcomb et al., 2004) 8 40.0
Strategies for Great Teaching (Reardon & Derner, 2004) 4 20.0
Foundations of Agricultural Education (Talbert, Vaughn, & Croom, 2005) 3 15.0
Classroom Management Strategies (Cangelosi, 2004) 1 5.0
Strengthquest (Clifton & Edward, 2002) 1 5.0
The Act of Teaching (Cruickshank, Jenkins, & Metcalf, 2006) 1 5.0
Methods of Teaching (Feden & Vogel, 2003) 1 5.0
Program Planning Guide for AgriScience and Technology Education (Lee, 2000) 1 5.0
Preparing Instructional Objectives (Mager, 1997) 1 5.0
The Power of Positive Teaching (McCormick, 1994) 1 5.0
Learning Outside The Lines (Mooney & Cole, 2000) 1 5.0
Teaching Strategies (Orlich, Harder, Callahan, Trevisan, & Brown, 2004) 1 5.0
Active Training (Silberman, 2006) 1 5.0
Managing the Occupational Education Laboratory (Storm, 1993) 1 5.0

Table 4
Required Student Reading Resources for Instructional Planning Courses (n = 20)
Required student reading resource f %
Course Web site 6 30.0
Course packet 4 20.0
LifeKnowledge (National FFA Organization, 2005a) 3 15.0
State department of education curriculum guides 2 10.0
Local Program Resource Guide (National FFA Organization, 2005b) 2 10.0
Agriculture Teacher’s Manual (National FFA Organization, 2001) 1 5.0
Agricultural Education Supply & Demand Study (Camp, Broyles, & Skelton, 2001) 1 5.0

Journal of Agricultural Education 54 Volume 49, Number 4, 2008
Greiman & Bedtke Examining the Instructional…
Table 5
Change In Instructional Plan During Student Teaching Compared to During An Instructional
Planning Course (n = 31)
Change in instructional plan during student teaching f %
No change 12 38.7
Less scripted 12 38.7
Shortened version 12 38.7
More outlined 10 32.3
More detailed 5 16.1
More scripted 4 12.9

Conclusions, Implications, and strategy that has been embraced by
Recommendations agricultural education for many years (Parr
Instructional planning is a complex and & Edwards). However, it was somewhat
mental process (Clark & Dunn, 1991; surprising to find the 5 E‘s model being
Fernandez & Cannon, 2005; Jackson, 1968) taught as frequently as problem-solving
that forms the basis for effective teaching models. This finding implies that some
and student learning (Reiser & Dick, 1996). agricultural education faculty embrace the
While instructional planning is a curricular concept of agriscience as a curricular area in
topic in teacher preparation programs, high school agricultural education programs.
limited research in agricultural education As a result, the way that preservice teachers
has been conducted in this area. The purpose are being prepared to conduct instructional
of this study was to examine aspects of the planning reflects the concept of agriculture
instructional planning process that are taught as a science, and thus it seems logical to
to preservice teachers, and perceptions were incorporate the 5 E‘s model into teacher
obtained from university faculty. preparation courses.
This study found that the two most This study concluded that a majority of
frequent instructional planning models being the respondents were utilizing instructional
taught are the Allen 4-step and the Madeline plan components that aligned with the 14
Hunter direct instructional model. Therefore, components identified by Searcy and
it is implied that these two models are most Maroney (1996). However, there were
frequently serving as the framework for notable exceptions, and the components
preservice teachers‘ mental process of being utilized less frequently in agricultural
instructional planning. Further, the Allen 4- education instructional plans were estimated
step and Madeline Hunter direct time required and reflection. Estimated time
instructional model are an indication of the required for the instructional plan was a
epistemological beliefs held by faculty component being utilized by only half of the
regarding instructional planning. The next respondents, and only one respondent
most frequently taught instructional indicated that reflection was an instructional
planning models are based around problem- plan component that they were utilizing in
solving and science (i.e., 5 E‘s). It is teacher preparation courses. It is
recognized that problem-solving and the 5 recommended that agricultural education
E‘s model are based on similar principles, as teacher educators consider incorporating
both aim to engage students through inquiry estimated time required and reflection as
and discovery learning (Bybee et al., 2006; instructional plan components (Searcy &
Parr & Edwards, 2004). It came as no Maroney). While it is possible that an
surprise that problem-solving models were additional assignment requires preservice
taught during instructional planning courses, teachers to reflect and write about their
as problem-solving is an instructional instructional plan during an instructional
Journal of Agricultural Education 55 Volume 49, Number 4, 2008
Greiman & Bedtke Examining the Instructional…
methods course, it would appear that the generalizability of the findings is limited
purposefully incorporating this component to agricultural education teacher educators
may have merit in assisting preservice located at land grant institutions. Due to
teachers to develop the habit of reflective being part of a larger study, participation
thinking and knowing-in-action (Russell, was limited to land grant institutions. It is
2005; Schön, 1983). recommended that further research be
Teacher educators most frequently conducted with all agricultural education
require Methods of Teaching Agriculture teacher preparation programs in the United
(Newcomb et al., 2004) as a student text, States. Second, additional follow-up with
and problem-solving is prominently participants may have clarified some of the
featured. The second most frequently questions regarding the course materials that
required text is Reardon and Derner‘s (2004) were provided to the researchers and may
Strategies for Great Teaching, and brain- have resulted in additional materials being
based instruction is the basis for much of the shared. However, this investigation is
content. The most frequently required intended to stimulate additional research
student reading resources were course Web focused on instructional planning, an
sites and course packets. This implies that important aspect of effective teaching
faculty are attempting to individualize their (Reiser & Dick, 1996).
instructional planning course and may be
incorporating a number of resources that References
would be unavailable in one required text. It
was beyond the scope of this study to Allen, C. R. (1919). The instructor, the
determine the specific reading resources man, and the job. Philadelphia: J. B.
found at course Web sites and in course Lippincott.
packets.
This study concluded that at a number of Ball, A. L., & Knobloch, N. A. (2005).
institutions there were no changes in the A document analysis of the pedagogical
instructional plan requirements during knowledge espoused in agriculture teaching
student teaching compared with during an methods courses. Journal of Agricultural
instructional planning course. An almost Education, 46(2), 47-57.
equal number of respondents indicated that a
more succinct (i.e., less scripted, shortened Ball, A. L., Knobloch, N. A., & Hoop, S.
version, more outlined) instructional plan (2007). The instructional planning
format was required during student teaching. experiences of beginning teachers. Journal
Thus, it appears that agricultural educators of Agricultural Education, 48(2), 56-65.
might be adjusting instructional plan
requirements in support of the professional Baylor, A. L., & Kitsantas, A. (2005). A
development needs of student teachers comparative analysis and validation of
(Schön, 1983). Rather surprisingly, a small instructivist and constructivist self-reflective
number of respondents indicated that a more tools (IPSRT and CPSRT) for novice
expanded (i.e., more detailed, more scripted) instructional planners. Journal of
instructional plan was required during Technology and Teacher Education, 13(3),
student teaching compared with during the 433-457.
instructional planning course. It is
recommended that additional research be Bond, N., & Peterson, C. L. (2004).
conducted to learn more about the rationale Preparing preservice teachers to plan
associated with changes in instructional plan problem-based learning: Qualitative case
requirements. study of online and face-to-face
Although the findings from this study learning. Action in Teacher Education,
contribute to the limited research conducted 26(3), 82-95.
on instructional planning in agricultural
education, the researchers recognize there Bos, W., & Tarnai, C. (1999). Content
are several limitations with the study. First, analysis in empirical social research.

Journal of Agricultural Education 56 Volume 49, Number 4, 2008