Students’ self-perceived scores for Style increased from assignment one (M = 20.81, SD = 1.28) to assignment three (M = 21.86, SD = 1.26) while students’ self-calculated scores consistently increased between assignment three (M = 20.85, SD = 3.53) and assignment five (M = 23.73, SD = 0.90). Overall, students’ perceived and calculated ability for Style increased from assignment one (perceived, M = 20.81, SD = 1.28; calculated, M = 19.36, SD = 3.39) to assignment six (perceived, M = 22.26, SD = 0.69; calculated, M = 22.82, SD = 1.89). Students’ self-perceived scores for Organization fluctuated between 21.20 and 22.69, while, with the exception of assignment four, students’ self-calculated scores increased between assignment one (M = 21.36, SD = 2.24) and assignment six (M = 24.00, SD = 0.00). Overall, students’ perceived and calculated scores for Style were more in line with assignment one (perceived, M = 21.26, SD = 1.47; calculated, M = 21.36, SD = 2.24) than assignment six (perceived, M = 22.38, SD = 0.71; calculated, M = 24.00, SD = 0.00). Students’ self-perceived scores for Conventions remained fairly steady with less than a one point increase at any point during the semester while students’ self-calculated scores steadily increased during the semester from assignment one (M = 12.14, SD = 2.85) to assignment six (M = 14.00, SD = 0.00). During the semester, students’ perceived and calculated ability for Conventions remained within one point of each other on all six assignments (See Figure 2). Objective Three For objective three, students reported their perceived level of confidence on a scale of 1 to 100. With the exception of assignment six, students’ perceived level of confidence increased for Idea and Content Development, Style, Organization, and Conventions on each assignment. Overall, students appeared to become progressively more confident in their writing ability with the exception of assignment six (See Figure 3). Additionally, the correlation between self-perceived and self-calculated scores increased from .42 to .72.
Table 4 Barriers Influencing Missouri School-Based Agriculture Teachers to Avoid the Instruction of Oxy-Gas Cutting/Welding Curriculum (n = 32) Factor Levels of Influence 0 1 2 3 4 f % f % f % f % f % M SD Equipment Available to Teach 5 15.20 3 9.10 7 21.20 5 15.20 13 39.40 2.55 1.48 Budget Available to Teach 5 15.20 5 15.20 3 9.10 8 24.20 12 36.40 2.52 1.50 Facilities Available to Teach 6 18.20 4 12.10 5 15.20 7 21.20 11 33.30 2.39 1.52 Personal Interest in Teaching 8 24.20 3 9.10 6 18.20 11 33.30 5 15.20 2.06 1.44 Personal Importance 8 24.20 3 9.10 6 18.20 12 36.40 4 12.10 2.03 1.40 Personal Ability to Teach 9 27.30 3 9.10 4 12.10 12 36.40 5 15.20 2.03 1.49 Experience in Teaching 8 24.20 4 12.10 5 15.20 12 36.40 4 12.10 2.00 1.41 Student Importance 8 24.20 5 15.20 6 18.20 12 36.40 2 6.10 1.85 1.33 Community Importance 10 30.30 7 21.20 7 21.20 9 27.30 0 0.00 1.45 1.20 Administration Importance 12 36.40 5 15.20 7 21.20 7 21.20 2 6.10 1.45 1.35 Note. Levels of Influence: 0 to 0.50 = No Influence, 0.51. to 1.50 = Little Influence, 1.51 to 2.50 = Some Influence, 2.51 to 3.50 = Moderate Influence, 3.51 to 4.00 = Great Influence Teachers also indicated that the factor Facilities Available to Teach had the greatest impact on their decision to not teach the curriculum area of woodworking to their students (Mean = 1.87; SD = 1.73). Likewise, Administration Importance influenced teachers the least to not teach woodworking curriculum to students enrolled in Agricultural Construction 1 and/or 2 (Mean = 1.11; Median SD = 1.22). Further data concerning this curriculum area are displayed in Table 5.