Motivational Factors Related to Youth Performance in a Horticulture

Career Development Event

Amy JonesDr. Neil KnoblochDr. Kathryn Orvis

Dr. Levon Esters

Introduction

According to the National FFA Organization…“The role of career development events is to motivate students and encourage leadership, personal growth,

citizenship and career development” (2006, p. 5)

(Radhakrishna, 2006, Lepper & Greene, 1978; Weber & McCullers, 1986; Johnson, 1914)

personal skills and goals and career development (Blakely, 1993)

Competition Mixed Results

Introduction

• Horticulture Industry Certification– Professional Landcare Network– American Society for Horticultural Sciences– Botanical Gardens– Indiana Nursery & Landscape Association

• Horticulture Degree Programs– Approx. 54 on-campus

• Horticulture Careers– Wide Variety– Various Degree Requirements

The purpose of this research study was to explore youth’s…

Purpose of Study

Knowledge Motivation Learning Experiences

and to describe relationships between

Youth Motivation

Coach Motivation

Learning and Preparation

Youth’s Performance

in a competitive out-of-school horticulture career development experience.

Conceptual Framework

Youth Motivation -Intrinsic Value -Utility Value -Attainment Value -Cost -Self-Efficacy

Pre-CDE Educational Experiences Coach Motivation -Intrinsic Value -Utility Value -Attainment Value -Cost -Self-Efficacy Learning and Preparation -Learning Resources -Preparation Time

CDE Outcomes CDE Performance -General Knowledge Exam -Identification Exam -Product Evaluation Exam

I.V.

D.V.

4 Research Questions

• Expectancy-Value Theory

• Self-Efficacy

Theoretical Framework

Expectancies and Values

achievementperseverancecompletion

(Eccles & Wigfield, 2002)

Personal beliefs

thoughts/feelingsmotivationbehaviors

(Bandura, 1994)

Review of Literature

Youth Motivation

•Six themes of how Oklahoma secondary agriculture teachers motivated their students to participate in CDEs Russell et al. (2009)•Students’ motives to participate in CDE were different than their teachers’ motives (Croom et al., 2005)

Preparation

•Visits to garden centers and greenhouses were the main preparation aid, followed by videos and slides, websites, textbooks, and university’s living laboratories (Poskey et. al, 2005)

Performance•Demographical differences between low and high performers at a Livestock Evaluation CDE (Theiman et. al, 2010)

Competition

•Of the four specific organizational elements of CTSOs (leadership, community service, competitions, and professional development) competition had the most constructive effects (Alfed et. al, 2007)

• Exploratory, descriptive study• QUAN + qual• Questionnaire distribution• Performance– General Knowledge Exam• 80 questions (800 Points, 36%)

– Identification Exam• 100 specimen (1000 Points, 45%)

– Product Evaluation Exam• 8 classes (400 Points, 18%)

Methodology

• Youth• motivation, 28 items (Post-hoc reliability 0.64 – 0.89)• learning resources and preparation, 21 items • demographics, 5 items

• Coaches• motivation for having youth participate, 29 items (Post-

hoc reliability 0.63 - 0.90)• learning resources used to help youth prepare, 19 items• demographics, 9 items

Instrument

PopulationYouthGender (n = 57; 2 missing) Male: 51%

Female: 49%

Class Status Underclassmen: 54%

Upperclassmen: 46%

Years Participated in Hort CDE 1 59%

2 or more 41%

Other CDEs besides Hort? Yes 66%

CoachesGender (n = 6; 1 missing) Male: 50%

Female: 50%

Participated as youth: Yes 83%

Coach description Agricultural Teacher/FFA Advisor 100%

Years Coaching Hort 11.33 years (SD = 14.82)

Conclusion 1

Youth were motivated to participate in a competitive horticulture career development event

Cost

Utility Valu

e

Self-E

fficacy

Attainment V

alue

Intrinsic

Value

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

4 3.683.29 3.08 3.06

2.76

Youth Mean Motivation

*Note: Scale: 1 = None, 2 = A little, 3 = Somewhat, 4 = Quite A Lot, 5 = A Great Deal

Conclusion 1

Relationships between Youth Motivation and Youth CDE Performance CDE Performance General

Knowledge Exam

IdentificationExam

Product Evaluation

Exam

Total CDE Exam Score

Youth Motivation Intrinsic 0.35* 0.34* 0.02 0.36*Utility 0.26 0.32* -0.04 0.30*Attainment 0.28 0.33* 0.07 0.32*Cost 0.06 0.17 0.15 0.14

Self-Efficacy 0.33* 0.33* 0.05 0.34*Note. *Practically significant = medium effect size

and youth motivation was related to performance of horticultural competencies

Youth were motivated to participate in a competitive horticulture career development event

Conclusion 2

Coaches’ motivation was related to youth motivation

Relationships between Youth Motivation and Coach Motivation

Coach Motivation

Intrinsic Utility Attainment Cost Self-EfficacyYouth Motivation

Intrinsic .15 .14 .11 .14 -.08Utility .52** .28 .36* .05 -.23Attainment .21 .09 .08 .09 -.03Cost .25 .06 -.10 .12 -.05

Self-Efficacy .33* .10 .10 .05 -.09Note. Practically significant = *medium effect size or **large effect size

Relationships between Coach Motivation and Youth CDE Performance

CDE Performance General

Knowledge Exam

IdentificationExam

Product Evaluation

Exam

Total CDE Exam Score

Coach Motivation Intrinsic .50** .57** -.03 .56**Utility .48* .50** -.02 .51**Attainment

.48* .53** -.03 .53**

Cost .25 .26 .07 .26Self-Efficacy -.39* -.57** -.07 -.53**Note. Practically significant = *medium effect size or **large effect size

Conclusion 2

and youth performance of horticulture competenciesCoaches’ motivation was related to youth motivation

Time spent preparing for the horticulture career development event and learning resources used by youth were related to youth’s overall performance of horticultural competencies.

Conclusion 3

Relationships between Learning Resources and Youth CDE Performance Exam

General Knowledge Identification Product

EvaluationTotal CDE

ScoreLearning Resources

Old Tests or Quizzes .42* .40* -.14 .42*Flashcards .22 .31* -.00 .29Classroom Aids/Real-Life Materials .31* .36* -.06 .34*

Preparation TimeWith TeamAloneTotal Hours

.30*.30*.39*

.31*.34*.43*

-.07.01.04

.32*.32*.42*

Note. *Practically significant = medium effect size

Conclusion 3

However, youth did not perform horticultural competencies at a level required to be a certified horticulture manager or technician in the horticulture industry.

General Knowledge

Identification

Product

Evaluati

on

Total CDE Sc

ore0

20406080

100

61 52

95

63

Average Exam Scores (%)

• Coaches clinic– create learning environments that

• build competencies • self-efficacy

– build youth’s competencies• assessment tools of the event • career and certification guidelines

• Learning resources and assessments should reflect– university course requirements – industry certification programs

Implications

• Due to the small population and nature of the study…

• Participants and contexts– replications into events with similar contexts – replications into events with differing contexts

• Measurements and impacts– coaching strategies and learning resources prior to

event– preparation of youth for future careers, including

STEM careers

Recommendations

• My Family and Friends• Dr. Neil Knobloch• Dr. Kathryn Orvis• Dr. Levon Esters• Graduate Students• YDAE

Acknowledgements

Thank you!

Questions?