Date of Graduation

8-2024

Document Type

Dissertation

Degree Name

Doctor of Philosophy in Agricultural, Food and Life Sciences (PhD)

Degree Level

Graduate

Department

Agricultural Education, Communications and Technology

Advisor/Mentor

Miller, Jefferson D.

Committee Member

Estepp, Christopher M.

Second Committee Member

Jordan, Lorien

Keywords

Agricultural education; Cultural responsiveness; Culturally responsive teaching; Grounded theory; Social process; Teaching methods

Abstract

The racial and ethnic demographics of higher education are becoming increasingly diverse; however, faculty demographics remain predominantly White. With agriculture being one of the largest economic sectors, often with many roles to fill, recruiting and retaining racially and ethnically diverse students into agricultural and related science post-secondary programs, hereby referred to as agricultural programs, is crucial to drawing talent into the agricultural workforce. However, racial and ethnic demographics among students in post-secondary agricultural programs also remain predominantly White. Established pedagogical approaches for supporting culturally diverse have been established, such as Culturally Responsive Teaching. There is little to no research exploring how educators within post-secondary agricultural programs are prepared for navigating cultural diversity in their classrooms. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to explore how White faculty members conceptualize and negotiate culturally centered practices in colleges of agriculture and related sciences. This was accomplished by using a screening survey and intensive virtual interviews, following constructivist grounded theory methodology. In total, thirteen faculty members participated in interviews, ten of which were transcribed and analyzed in Atlas.ti following a grounded theory protocol for data analysis. Five themes were identified, including (1) Internal Processing; (2) Skill-building; (3) Negotiating Implementation; (4) Assessing Outcomes; and (5) Navigating Enablers and Barriers. Participants reported conceptualizing culturally centered or responsive teaching as involving ongoing cultural learning, often noting that one could not arrive at a final destination of being culturally responsive. Additionally, participants discussed mindful course design, and inviting students to share key aspects of their identities in class spaces. Most participants reported engaging in more informal learning around cultural responsiveness, until either graduate school or their faculty position. Regarding resources needs, participants expressed value for resources that included flexibility and variety, including options for self-paced learning, and engaging peer networks for suggestions. Participants reported negotiating implementing culturally responsive approaches in a variety of direct and indirect ways, which appeared dependent on both discipline and the types of courses being taught, among other details. Participants illustrated how they assessed outcomes, ranging from personal reflection, to discussing students’ experiences, to administering surveys. Lastly, regarding navigating enablers and barriers, both internal and external enablers and barriers were identified. Notably, internal enablers and barriers involved participants’ self-efficacy for navigating contentious topics. Some external barriers included the supports in place to engage in skill-building, navigating department, institutional and state climates, and possible resource limitations. Recommendations include: 1) Refining and expanding on the proposed emergent grounded theory model, seeking feedback from additional White educators across agricultural and related science disciplines; (2) Adapting, developing, and testing a quantitative tool for more accurately assessing faculty members’ self-efficacy implementing culturally centered or responsive teaching approaches, that integrates the emergent grounded theory model relevant to post-secondary educators’ experiences, across demographics; (3) Investigating the types of professional development and supplemental resources that different faculty groups would prefer; (4) Development and testing of professional development offerings and supplemental resources; and (5) Examining the impacts of broader climates across legislative, discipline, and institutional levels on culturally centered or responsive work.

Download

Share

COinS