STUDENTS’ ENGAGEMENT IN SCHOOL-BASED AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION

A CORRELATIONAL STUDY OF RURAL AND URBAN FLORIDA SCHOOLS

University of Florida Anna G. Taff

Need for the study

Boys performing less academically in secondary school; less so than their female counterparts. (Houtte, 2004)

More girls than boys on average in FFA leadership positions (Ricketts, Osborne, & Rudd, 2004)

Girls had higher scores for engagement, and scored higher in academic performance than boys by their teachers (Lam et al., 2012)

Literature Review

Student engagement is influenced heavily by motivation. According to Connell & Wellborn (1991), “Engagement operates within a motivational framework” (Appleton 2012, pg. 726).

Psychological engagement which is influenced by things students value, such as relationships and sense of belonging (Appleton, 2012).

Cognitive engagement incorporates the students’ value they place on the relevance of learning, schoolwork, goals, and future endeavors (Appleton, 2012).

Four types of extrinsic motivation move along a continuum; External, Introjected, Identified, and Integrated (Deci, Vallerand, Pelletier, Ryan, 1991).

Objectives

1. Ascertain the level of engagement of students in rural and urban SBAE programs.

2. Compare and contrast the level of student engagement between boys in rural SBAE programs and boys in urban SBAE programs.

3. Examine the relationship between level of student engagement and psychological and cognitive engagement.

Population & Sample

6 Florida School-Based Agriculture Education Programs 3 Rural Programs 3 Urban Programs

172 Agriscience students Grades 10th, 11th, 12th

Research Design & Methods

Purposive Survey Design

Student Engagement Instrument SEI (Appleton et. al., 2006)

Description of Respondents

38.4

61.6

Rural v. UrbanRuralUrban

Age 14

15

16

17

18

19

47.7

52.3

Gender

Male

Female

30.8

43

26.2

Grade Level9th10th11th

Semesters

0 1 2

3 4 5

6 7 8

Findings - Objective 1

1. Ascertain the level of engagement of students in rural and urban SBAE programs.

Rural StudentsA: 2.72 – Teacher and Student Relationship

B: 2.95 - Peer Support for Learning

C: 3.58 – Family Support for Learning

D: 2.87 – Control/Relevance of School Work

E: 3.56 – Future Aspirations and Goals

F: 1.64 – Extrinsic Motivation

Urban StudentsA: 2.69 – Teacher and Student Relationship

B: 3.01- Peer Support for Learning

C: 3.36 – Family Support for Learning

D: 2.80 – Control/Relevance of School Work

E: 3.55 – Future Aspirations and Goals

F: 1.68 – Extrinsic Motivation

Findings – Objective 2

2. Compare and contrast the level of student engagement between boys in rural SBAE programs and boys in urban SBAE programs.

According to Davis (1971), low levels of correlation (.10 - .29) between; • Male vs. Female and Rural vs. Urban • Male vs. Female and Number of Semesters• Male vs. Female and Future Aspirations and Goals• Male Vs. Female and Extrinsic Motivation

Very High Level of correlation (.70 - .99) between;• Relationship between Rural students with Control/Relevance of School

and Future Aspirations and Goals

All Respondents – Mean Scores

MalesA: 2.66 – Teacher and Student Relationship

B: 3.04 - Peer Support for Learning

C: 3.45 – Family Support for Learning

D: 2.47 – Control/Relevance of School Work

E: 3.43 – Future Aspirations and Goals

F: 1.81 – Extrinsic Motivation

FemalesA: 2.75 Teacher and Student Relationship

B: 2.94 - Peer Support for Learning

C: 3.43 – Family Support for Learning

D: 2.91 – Control/Relevance of School Work

E: 3.67 – Future Aspirations and Goals

F: 1.54 – Extrinsic Motivation

According to Davis (1971), low levels of correlation (.10 - .29) between; • Male vs. Female and Rural vs. Urban • Male vs. Female and Number of Semesters• Male vs. Female and Future Aspirations and Goals• Male Vs. Female and Extrinsic Motivation

Very High Level of correlation (.70 - .99) between;• Relationship between Rural students with Control/Relevance of School

and Future Aspirations and Goals