\VHV
a? ..
a
x I;
‘

. I '13,.th
1

.

a.-.»

— V
n ‘ w . ll.
. o . . . u
l u
l ; ‘ I I . I
. o . ~ .4 u .no
.. v . . . a .
. . .
. . . . . a » ~ 1
. . . ‘- an I a . n I . I p-A
. . . . o . 1
h.ll - c ‘ » l
. Q I I. n . 1-
. c , . .. . . I.. .
I . .y ._ I
.. u .
. ..
C U I v D
u
c

I_%’ x; 1'13

' S

.1:

6

 

AN EVALUATION OF THE INSTITUTIONALPON-FARM

TfiAINING BROGRAM IN MICHIGAN

By
FORREST cum STEEND

A THESIS
Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan
State College of Agriculture and Applied Science
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
RASTLR OF AATS

Department of Agricultural Education

1953

The author wishes to acknowledge the very

friendly help of Dr. H. P. Sweany, Dr.
and Dr. H. M. Byram for assistance and
in the preparation of this study.

The author wishes to give special
ment to the Central Regional Committee
Hayward, the Committee's Chairman, and

Raymond Clark

suggestions

acknowledge-
and Mr. R. A.

the Institutional-

On-Farm Training Program in Michigan which was the basis

for this study.

317514

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER

I. THE PROBLEM AND DEFINITION OF TERMS US3D..
The Need...............................
The Problem............................
Statement of the problem............
Scope of the study..................
Definition of the terms used...........
II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE..................

Literature on Institutional-On-Farm
Training............................

Summary of studies reviewed and the
relationship to the present study...
III. PROCEDURES USED IN DEVELOPING THE PROGRAM
The questionnaire......................
Sampling...............................
Technique Used.........................
IV. THE FINDINGS...... ............ ............
The veterans-their characteristics.....
The instruction........................
Units of instruction...................
Methods of instruction.................

Classroom instruction..................

PAGE

‘IUNMMHH

12
13
13
13
14
16
15
17
18
21
22

CHAPTER PAGE
Establishment in farming................. 23
Degree of establishment............... 2}
Establishment without the training
program............................ 23
Establishment by farming status....... 24

istablishment according to educatidn.. 25

The Instructor........................... 26
Use of instructor..................... 26
The Community............................ 27
Community improvement................. 27
Future Programs.......................... 28
Financing programs.................... 29

V. SURRARY AND CONS USIONS.................... 32

summary Of FindingSO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 32
ConclusionSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOCOCOOCOOOOO 34
Recommendations For Future Studies....... 39

BIBLIOGBLAPHYOOOO..OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. 40

BPEIJDIXOOOOOOOOOOO...0.00....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOQOCO Z+5

TABLE
I.

II.

III.

IV.

V.

VI.

VII.

VIII.

LIST OF TABLES

The Percentage of Veterans in Michigan
by Grade Attained........................
An Evaluation in Mean Scores of Types of
Instruction Used in Michigan by Veterans
in the Training Program..................
An Evaluation of Educational Methods Used
in Michigan for the Training of Veterans
in Institutional-On-Farm Training
Computed in Mean Scores..................
The Difference Between the Importance of
Units of Instruction in Future Programs
of Adult Education and that Given the
Units in the Present Program in Michigan..
An Evaluation of Field Trips Preferred by
Veterans of Different Educational levels..
The Rating Given Methods of Classroom
Teaching by Michigan Veterans.............
The Farming Status that could have been
made with Subsistence but without Training
The Educational Level as it Affects the
Progress that could have been made with

Subsistence but without Training..........

PAGE

16

l7

18

2O

21

25

TABLE PAGE

IX. The use of the Instructor by Veterans

after Completion of the Training

Program.................................. 26
X. The Mean Score Value Veterans of Michigan

gave the Institutional-On-Farm Training

Program as it helped the Non-Veterans in

their Local Community.................... 28
XI. Responses of Michigan Veterans Concerning

the Continuation of the Present or a

Similar Institutional-On-Farm Training

ProgramOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 30

CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM AND DEFINITION OF TERMS USED

Since the institutional-on-farm training program was
Instituted at the close of World War II, there have been
these questions, "Has this type of an adult educational pro-
gram been worthwhile in Michigan?" "Should additional
programs of this type be initiated in the future?" How
should future programs be administrated and financed?“

.Thg £339. The institutional-on-farm training program
was started in Michigan to aid returning veterans of World
War II to become established on Michigan farms.

The need for an evaluation seemed great because of the
amount of money so far invested in the program. To illustrate:

On April 1, 1951, there were 6,066 trainees1 in institutional-
on-farm training in Michigan. It was estimated that each

trainee would receive a monthly subsistence of approximately
880 or more. This would bring the total monthly subsistence
to approximately $485,250, plus additional expenses for
instruction, instructional materials and administration.

The time for an evaluation seemed appropriate. The pro-
gram has been in operation for about six years and will not
continue to be in operation indefinitely. It is not known

whether to continue or have similar programs in the future.

 

1 Annual Report 9; the State Board 23 Control for Voc-
ational Education, 1 l. (Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State
College Press, 1951 , p. 5.

 

School administrators, officials in the veterans
administration and some lay citizens have often wondered how
much benefit the trainee received from this program. They have
also wondered if the trainee continued his training because of
the subsistence paid or because of the knowledge he was acquir-
ing or both? And what suggestions would the veteran trainee

offer for improvement of the training program.
THE PROBLEM

Statement 9; the problem. The problem was to evaluate
the present institutional-on-farm training program in terms
of opinions of the veterans enrolled. The subproblems were
to (1) determine the method of instruction preferred, (2) to
determine the amount of instruction that had been provided in
the different areas and which areas are preferred, (3) to
determine the progress that had been made, (4) to determine if
the community had benefited from the program, (5) to determine
if the program aided the establishment of the veteran, (6) to
determine what educational experiences were most beneficial
and (7) to determine whether or not the program should be con-
tinued.

Sgppg 2; 3h: gppgy. The study was to include a sampling
of trainees which were in training at the time of the study.

Th0 numblr of veterans in training in the various years were
5,627 in 1948-49, 6,772 in 1949-50 and 6,066 as of April 1,
1951. Fifty classes in each state were randomly sampled.

From the fifty classes a sample was drawn randomly and used

in this study.

DEFINITION OF TERMS USED

Institutional-Qp-Farm Training. A training program pro-

 

viding an opportunity for veterans of World War II to receive
training in the occupational field of their choice. Under
provisions of the Act (The Serviceman's Readjustment Act Pub-
lic Law 346, 78th Congress), veterans who desire vocational
and on-farm training in that occupation.3 Training classes,
on-farm training and training programs are used synonymously.
It will be referred to in this study as the training program.

Veteran. A former serviceman of World War II who would
be eligible for benefits as provided under Public Law 346,
78th Congress. The veterans were placed on the training pro-
gram either as self-employed or as employed trainees. Each
trainee was eligible for one year of training plus the number
of months in service up to four years. Each trainee was given
free instruction in addition to a subsistence wage to the train-
ee by the Treasurer of the United States.

The trainee, in order‘to receive subsistence, had to

 

‘-

2 "Instructions Pertaining to the Negotiations of
Contracts Between Veteran's Institutes, Boards of Education,
and Veteran's Administration for Institutional-On-Farm Train-
ing and Development of Courses of Related Training for Farm
Veterans", Bulletin No. 1017, Published by Eugene B. Elliott,
Superintendent of Public Instruction, Lansing, Michigan, 1947

p. 9.

4

attend two hundred hours of classroom instruction per year and
be visited on his farm by an instructor one hundred hours per
year. This trainee during his instructional period must have
shown growth to be eligible to continue on the training program.
In future discussions the trainee will be referred to as the
veteran.

Self-Proprietorsh_p. A term which is applicable to a
veteran who operates his swn farm through ownership, lease,
management or other tenure arrangement.3

Employer-Trainer. A term which is applicable to a vet-
eran who takes the on-the-Job portion of his training with a
farmer employer who serves as the veteran's immediate super-
visor.A

fligggfiflggg. A person working for hire on a farm.

Veterans Ipstructor. A person approved by the Michigan
State Department of Public Instruction to teach veterans in
the on-the-farm training program. He is usually a graduate
of an approved agricultural college with a B. S. Degree in
agriculture.

Renter. A veteran operating a farm for profit either
for cash paid to the land-owner for use of the land or on a
share basis.

Owner-Renter. A veteran operating a farm whereby he owns

 

51b1d., p. 10.

‘Ibid., p. 10.

a part of the total acreage he tills and rents the remaining
portion of the total acreage..

Owneregperator. A veteran operating a farm as sole owner
and operator.

Manager. A veteran who works for another under a manager-
ial arrangement.

Classroom. A room designated as a meeting place for in-

 

struction given in a more formal manner than would be given on
a farm. Usually an agricultural room in a local high school is
used.

Individualegpfigggm Instruction. Training presented on
the veteran's farm by the veteran's instructor. Fifty hours
of this type of instruction was required.

Small Group pg £23m. A meeting of several veterans with
the Veteran's instructor on a veteran's farm for the purpose
of instruction.

Farm Records. Data kept by the veteran of the farming
operations which usually consisted of cash expenses and receipts,
farm inventory and production records.

Farm Plan. A plan developed by the veteran usually in
cooperation with the veteran's instructor detailing his future
farming methods and requirements.

Textbooks. Reference books on agriculture which were pro-
vided the veteran by the Veteran's Administration through the
public school.

Bulletins. Published technical information usually com-

piled by the state agriculture college based on experimenta-

tion and other research.

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Since the inception of the training program there have
been many articles written about the training program. How-
ever, few studies have been conducted to determine the out-
come of participation of veterans in institutional-on-farm
training.

Literature 23 Institutionalfgnfigarm Training. Wiegersl

 

 

made a status study of 1,944 trainees, or approximately four-
teen percent of the total number enrolled in Missouri. Wiegers'
"reported that 93% of the trainees who responded were of the
opinion that they had made more progress in becoming estab-
lished or reestablished than they would have made had they rec-
eived the equivalent of subsistence payments without benefits
of instruction."

Wiegers made the following conclusions:2
1. Insofar as trainees did not as a general rule specialize

in any certain type of farming, broad training covering

many aspects of farming is needed.

2. Institutional-on-farm training had been effective in help-

ing veterans with farm planning and management.

 

lGeorge W. Wiegers, Jr., ”Some Outcomes of Participation
of Veterans in Institutional-On-Farm Training in Missouri,"
(unpublished Master's thesis, The University of Missouri, 001-
umbia, Missouri, 1949), p. 5.

5mm. , p. 12.

'I

I‘

3. To some extent training had been effective in improving
living conditions and in enriching socially the lives of
veterans and their families.

4. Training had been of little use in providing for reces-
tional activities or in the promotion of cooperative activ-
ities among veterans.

5. Apparently the extent of formal schooling had not been a
major factor in veteran's ability to make farm plans and
to apply certain improvement practices.

6. For the most part, training was meeting the needs of yet-
erans enrolled in the program.

Wiegers continued by saying that the veterans indicated
soil conservation and livestock production should be stressed

3

more than they were in the present program. Quoting Wiegers,

"An explanation of this may be due to the widespread publicity
given by the Soil Conservation Service to the need for soil
conservation."

Wiegers stated that recreational and family relation-
ships were rated very low in subjects to be stressed. Vet-
erans who had taken Vocational Agriculture tended to rate the
units of study as needing the same emphasis as did veterans

who had no vocational agricultural training.

4
According to Agan, veterans enrolled in institutional-on

 

3Ibid., p. 113

4R.J. Agan, "Swine Management Practices Used By Participants
in the Institutional—On-Farm Training Program for Veterans." p.5
(unpublished Master's thesis, Iowa State College, Ames, Iowa, 1950)

farm training classes were using more improved practices in swine
management than were veterans who were not enrolled in such classes.

In the Minnesota study by Kitts,5 1t 13 reported "that ,d_

ucation pays off in farm ownership. All college graduates were
sole or Joint-owners except one who had a favorable agreement as
a wage hand at home." Mr. Kitts further stated that those with
least education were lowest on the ladder of ownership.

Slocum of Washington,6 stated that 85% of the veterans
were married with 83% married with children. Slightly more
than half had completed 12 or more years of formal schooling.
Of those, "48% of the veterans who had attended high school,
had taken some vocational agricultural courses."

Slocum in another study showed that "seven out of each
ten indicated that they felt that the program had been very
much worthwhile."7

Slocum continued by saying, "A significant indication of
the educational value of the training is the attitude of the

participants with respect to additional agricultural instruction.

 

5Harry W. Kitts, "Educational Readjustments of Rural Vet-
erans," College of Education, University of Minnesota, St. Paul
Minesota, 1949. P. 39.

6W.L. Slocum, "Adjustment of Veteran Trainees To Farming
and Rural Life," Washington Agricultural Experiment Stations,
Institute of Agricultural Sciences, State College of Washington,
Pullman, Washington, Bulletin 541, 1953, p. 3. ‘

7Walter L. Slocum, Agricultural Training for Veterans; A
report on Reactions of Participants, "Washington Agricultural
Experiment Stations, Institute of Agricultural Science, State
College of Washington, Pullman, Washington, Bulletin Circular
206, October 1952, p. 3.

I‘

~-

10

More than six out of each ten indicated that they would like

to continue in an agricultural instruction program."8

Hoskins of New York,9 in his study found that in Tompkins
County "nearly 30% were enrolled in vocational agriculture
before entering service; 17% had obtained an interest in a single
farm enterprise; 49% had worked as wage hands at either home or
away from home and that 30% were classified as "unpaid family
workers" or had been on an allowance status at home."

10 n

In the Regional Study, over 60% of the veterans enrolled

in the institutional-on-farm training in each state were from
26 to 35 years of age." The report further states that 50-60%
had more than 36 months of eligibility. It was noted in this
study that "there was a decrease in hired hand status from the

11
time of enrollment to the time the schedules were completed.”

The Regional Report goes on to say that "with the exception

of 3 states more than 60% of the trainees in the participating

states had no training in agriculture in high school."12

 

8Ibid.p.4.

9"Report of the Cooperative study of Institutional-On-Farm
Training in the Central Region," Central Regional Conference On
Research in Agricultural Education, The Interstate Printers and
Publishers, Inc., Dansville, Illinois, 1952, p. 12.

lorbide, p. 120
11

Ibide, p. 180

12Ib1d0, p. 210

11

In comparing methods of instruction, the Report of the Central
region stated that the trainees indicated that classroom in-
struction was of more value than either small group or individ-
ual on farm instruction.

In the course content, Livestock Production and Soil Con-
servation received the greater emphasis. From the study it was
shown that "9 out of 10 in each state indicated that they were

' 1
better established in farming because of their training." 3

In the National StUdYo 1# the size of the veterans farms
increased from an average acreage of 201.14 acres in 1949 to
207.14 in 1950. It stated further that "It has been shown that
there is an important relationship between education of farm
veterans and their advancement in tenure." "Those with the least

education are also lowest in tenure status."15

From the National Study, it was shown that "class discuss-

ion of individual problems was preferred as an educational

«16 "The majority of the veterans preferred 150 t0 200

17

medias

hours of class instruction per year."

It was also stated that "almost three-fourths of the veter-

 

13"Education of Veterans, "American Vocational Association,
Inc., 1010 Vermont Ave., N.W., Washington 5, D.C., Research
Bulletin No. 5.

14Ibid., p. 18.

15Ibid., p. 54.
16Ib1de, p. 55o
17Ibid., p. 60.

12

ans would be willing to pay from $10 to $50 for tuition per
year for an educational program after the expiration of the

program for veterans."18

Lintner of Ohio stated 19 in his study that out of 125
veterans, 84.6% indicated that subsistence payments were of
great importance in enabling a veteran to become established
in farming. However, Lintner stated that 80% of the veterans
indicated that training was more important than subsistence
in making progress. Lintner also stated that 50% of the vet-
erans indicated that they would continue to take part in an
educational farm program similar to the present one without
subsistence.

As can be seen from the studies just reviewed, veterans
found the training program valuable and educational. This
study will try to determine if Michigan veterans feel that
the training program in Michigan is valuable and if it or a
similar adult agricultural training program should be con-

tinu9d e

 

l81bid., p. 56.

19J. H. Lintner, "Effectiveness of Institutional-On-Farm
Training in Ohio, The Agricultural Education Magazine, 25:103,
November, 1952.

13
CHAPTER III
PROCEDURES USED IN DEVELOPING THE STUDY

The procedures used in developing the study are similar
to others that are being used in educational research.

The guestionnaigg. The questionnaire was developed with
the aid of various educational agencies in Michigan, along
with various agencies of the Central States. After the ques-
tionnaire was developed and before it was used it was sub-
mitted to a group of veteran instructors and to a committee
composed of representatives from the various Land-Grant

Colleges of The Central Region for criticisms.1

After revision, it was again checked, revised and printed.
The printed form was thought to yield more nearly complete
and accurate responses. The committee also suggested calling
the questionnaire "Veterans Schedule A" instead of a question‘
naire.2

Sampling. The sampling was confined to veterans currently
enrolled in the training program under full-time instructors.
Classes included in the study must have been in operation for
at least six months.

The major source of data for this study was obtained

from a sampling of fifty institutional-on-farm classes in

 

1See Appendix for a list of the Land-Grant Colleges of
the Central Region.

_ 2See Appendix for a copy of the questionnaire (Veterans
Schedule A) used.

HIM

14

Michigan. The state was divided into four sections and alist of
the full-time veteran instructors in each section was made.
The number of full-time instructors in the state was 122.

The sampling was done randomly within the sections of the

state and the number drawn from each section was based on its
percentage of the total number of instructors in the state.
The veterans and instructors did not review the completed
questionnaire. The questionnairea when completed,were placed
in envelopes provided and sealed in the presence of the class
and mailed to the writer.

Techniqpe Used. In tabulating the IBM cards of each
veteran (300), certain key questions were selected and used
as variables in tabulating the data. The questions selected
are starred in the appendix.3

The tables depict raw scores, percentages and mean scores.
Mean scores were computed in two ways. The mean score to the
questions containing three possible answers was determined by
assigning numerical values to the responses: Much= 2, Some=l,
and None=0. Questions containing four possible answers were
assigned numerical values to the responses: Good=3, Fair= 2,
Poor' 1, and Uncertain= 0.

Raw scores show the actual number of veterans responding

to the question. Percentages are based on the total veterans

 

3See Appendix for a copy of the questionnaire (Veterans
Schedule A) that is starred.

15

who answered each specific question.

The data were taken from each Schedule A and placed on
IBM cards. This transfer required three IBM cards for the
veteran's responses to the questions. (The IBM cards were
taken to a local manufacturing plant to be tabulated. The
manufacturing plant, Gerity-Michigan Corporation of Adrian,
had an IBM sorting and tabulating machine. Through the gen-
erosity of the Gerity-Michigan Corporation the IBM cards were

summarized and tabulated.)

16
CHAPTER VI
THE FINDINGS

The veterans-their characteristics. The majority
(66.3%) of the veterans were between 26 and 35 years of age.
Over half of the veterans (61.4%) were married and had child-
ren. At the time of the survey 118 veterans had received be-
tween 13 to 24 months of training. Their status at the time
of the survey was approximately 37% owner-operators, while only
10.4% were hired hands. Eighty-six veterans had graduated
from elementary school, 113 from high school while just 2 had
graduated from college. The remaining veterans had only com-
pleted part of their elementary, high school or college educa-
tion. 177 had no vocational agriculture in high school, while
234 had had no young farmer or adult farmer training prior to

enrolling in the institutional-on-farm training.

TABLE I

THE PERCENTAGE OF VETERANS IN MICHIGAN
BY GRADE ATTAINED

 

 

Amount of education Total numbers Percent of total

 

 

Elementary (86) 09

/ 33-20
Hish school (113) 130 50.60
College, (2) 18 6.19
No answer 0.01

300 Total 100,00

 

 

17

From Table I it can be seen that over 50% of the vet-
erans had attended high school, while a third had attended
elementary school only. College graduates composed less than
10% of the veterans.

The instruction. The veterans reported that classroom

 

instruction was of more value to them than individual-on-farm
or small-group on-farm instruction. Much stress has been
placed on individual on-farm instruction by teacher training

centers and state departments of public instruction.

TABLE II

AN EVALUATION IN MEAN SCORES OF TYPES OF
INSTRUCTION USED IN MICHIGAN BY VETERANS
IN THE TRAINING PROGRAM.

 

 

 

 

 

Type of instruction Mean score
Classroom (off farm) 1.78
Individual on farm 1.71
Small group on farm 1.25

 

 

In Table II, the veterans rated classroom instruction
as the most valuable. Individual-on-farm instruction was
ranked second with the small-group on farm as third. It
should be noted that the difference between classroom and
individual on-farm may not be of any significance.

Many educators feel that farm plans and records are more

valuable than textbooks as an educational method. Veterans

18

felt that textbooks were more valuable than farm records and

farm plans which had scores of 1.69 and 1.05 respectively.

TABLE III

AN EVALUATION OF EDUCATIONAL METHODS
USED IN MICHIGAN FOR THE TRAINING OF
VETERANS IN INSTITUTIONAL-ON-FARM
TRAINING COMPUTED IN MEAN SCORES.

 

 

Methods Mean Scores

Educational Attainment
Elementary High School College Average

 

 

Textbooks 1.49 1.97 1.73 1.72
Farm records 1.69 1.78 1.61 1.69
Farm plan 1.13 1.18 0.83 1.05

 

 

From Table III it can be seen that high school graduates
placed a higher value on each of the methods than did the el-
ementary and college graduates. However, when we look at the
average, the veterans rated textbooks over farm records or a
farm plan as an educational method.

Epigg g: instruction. In determining what units should
be taught a comparison was made between what had been taught
and what veterans thought should be taught. It was found that

veterans wanted to stress all units that were taught even more

than what had been stressed. The greatest need for improvement

was reported for farm mechanics. The mean difference between

19

what had been taught and what should be taught was a plus .74.
There was very little difference between the two in the case

of farm and home accounts. The mean difference was a plus .01.
‘This would indicate that approximately the correct amount of
stress was placed on farm and home accounts in the present
training program. No additional emphasis is indicated as be-
ing needed for farm and home records in a future program.

One reason for the indicated increase in emphasis is that
some subjects or units were not fully covered during the train-
ing period. To account for this lack of training, it must be
remembered that many veterans had not completed a full four-
year course of instruction. Many veterans entered the train-
ing program in the middle of the year or were unable to study
units of their choice. Anather reason for an increased em-
phasis on certain subjects seemed to have been publicity giv-
en to their needs through newspapers, radio and organizatiOns.
subjects given such emphasis are soil conservation, livestock
and cnnp production.

From Table IV it can be seen that the greatest difference
may have been the fact that very little farm mechanics is taught
in Michigan. With the large investment in machinery the vet-
erans evidently felt that more farm mechanics should be taught.
Every unit Should be stressed according to the veterans. Farm
and home improvements received the second highest difference.
This may indicate that the veterans felt a need for instruction

in home improvements. Recreational activities showed a diff-

TABLE IV

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE IMPORTANCE OF
UNITS OF INSTRUCTION IN FUTURE PROGRAMS
OF ADULT EDUCATION AND THAT GIVEN THE
NITS IN THE PRESENT PROGRAM IN MICHIGAN

2O

 

 

Units taught

Amount of stress

 

 

Present Future Mean

Program Program Difference
Farm Mechanics..................o.98 1.72 .74
Farm and Home Improvement.......o.92 1.58 .66
Farm skills, such as castration.1.06 1.57 .51
dehorning, laying out terraces
Farm health and ”afetY..........l.22 1.63 .41
Fruit and Vegetable production..0.84 1.22 .38
Family relationsh1p8............O.80 1.18 .38
Marketing farm products.........1.25 1.62 .37
Recreational activities.........0.65 1.01 .36
Soil conservation...............1.50 1.85 .35
Leadership......................o.81 1.19 .31
Farm planning and management....1.50 1.78 .28
Livestock production practice...1.59 1.83 .24
Crop production practices.......1.6o 1.83 .21
Community and cooperatives....,.0,95 1.17 .21
activities
Farming programs................l.31 1.48 .17
Farm and home accounts,,,.......1.58 1.59 .01
*Food preservation and storage.. 1.35

 

 

 

*Due to error in printing scores were incomplete.

21

erence of .36. It should be noted that recreational activities
were given the least stress in both the present and future pro-
gram. Family relationships were shown to need much greater
stress in future programs, which rated low in the present pro-
gram.

Methods 2: instruction. In rating mediums of instruction,

 

field trips were rated very high. Veterans with a high school
education felt that field trips were more important than did
those who had had college or elementary training. An import-
ant reason for this difference may be that those with high
school training are more observing than those with less educa-
tion. It would seem that more field trips should be included
in the instruction.

Many educators have questioned the use of field trips as
an educational medium, with high school classes. One reason,
being that it causes an interruption of classes, loss of time
from other classes and by school employees used to drive the

bus. The use of field trips and their value is presented in

 

 

 

 

Table V.
TABLE V
AN EVALUATION OF FIELD TRIPS PREFERRED
BY VETERANS OF DIFFERENT EDUCATIONAL LEVELS.
Amount of education Answers in percent of tote;
Much Some None Total
Elementary 46.4% 46.4% 6.2% 100.0%
High School 50.5 44.8 4.7 100.0

College 50.0 44.4 5.6 100.0

 

 

22

To summarize briefly Table V, it can be seen that field
trips are important to former high school and college students
an an educational medium. In both cases the response was in
the "much value" column over 50% of the time. However, the
elementary group are even in their evaluation of the field
trip by giving both columns; Much and Some, 46.4%. Approxi-
mately 1/16 of all veterans felt that field trips were of no
value.

Classroom instructign. In rating methods of classroom

 

instruction,"discussion by class members" was indicated as

first choice of veterans. The mean score was 2.04; "demon-
stration" was rated second with a mean score of 1.82. "Ques-
tions and answers” was third with "laboratory-actual preference"
a fourth choice. "Lectures" were fifth in preference with
"reports" sixth and "debates" last with a mean score of 1.09.

This rating of classroom instruction by veterans should aid in

selecting methods of instruction to use in future program.

TABLE VI

THE RATING GIVEN METHODS OF CLASSROOM
TEACHING BY MICHIGAN VETERANS

 

 

 

 

Methods of teaching Mean scores
Discussion by class members 2,04
Demonstration 1.82
Question and answer 1,44
Laboratory-actual performance by members 1.44
Lecture 1.35
Group or individual reports 1.10

Debates 1.09

_—

 

23

In Table VI it is assumed that the veteran's opinion is
based on his training program and is summarized in terms of
mean scores. It should be noted that veterans preferred met-
hods of teaching which required no preparation on their part.
Class discussion which requires no preparation is popular as
is a demonstration or even a lecture. Group or individual
reports as well as debates require preparation on the part of

veterans. These methods were rated low by the veterans.
ESTABLISHMENT IN FARMING

Degree 23 establishment. Ninety-six percent of the Mich-
igan veterans indicated that they are better established in
farming as a result of the training program. 3.36% were un-
certain, while only 0.67% indicated that they were not as well
established as a result of their training. This percentage is
very high in favor of the training program. If the responses
are correct than it would seem that the veterans thought the
training program valuable in terms of assisting and establish-
ing the veteran in farming.

Estab1ishment without the training program. In response
to the question,"Cou1d you have made just as much progress in
getting started in farming if you had received your subsistence
allowance without the training program?". Only 17 veterans said
yes; 257 said no; and 25 were uncertain. From their responses
we can conclude that subsistence was not an important contribu-

tion to their success in establishment in farming.

22+

Establishment by farming status. The above question was
broken down by farming status. From table VII we see that
some hired hands, partners and managers felt that they could
have made some progress with subsistence without training.
Reasons for this may be that hired hands, partners, and man-
agers were unable to exercise full control of their farms due
to employers, partners and owners. Or they may have felt that
they received some instruction or help from their employers,
partners or owners. However, it should be noted that the res-
ponse for those in every status was high in their feeling that

they could not have made the same progress with subsistence alone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE VII
THE FARMING STATUS THAT COULD HAVE BEEN MADE
WITH SUBSISTINCE BUT WITHOUT TRAINING
Farming status Could veterans make the same
at time of en- progress without training but
rollment. with subsistence?
Answers in percent of total
Yes No Uncertain
Hired hand 2.3% 93. 0% 4.7%
Partner 7.5 78.5 14.0
Renter 2.7 89.1 8.2
Owner-renter 0.0 86.6 13.4
Owner-operator 6.9 88.1 5.0
Manager 20.0 80.0 0.0

 

 

There were no owner-renters who felt that they could have

25

made progress with subsistence alone. However, over 13% were
uncertain. Could a few of the owneréoperators (6.9%) have been
so well established that additional training was unnecessary?
Or were they in need of financial help more than the techinical
assistance the program could give them? These are questions
that suggest additional investigation.

Establishment according to education. Again the above
question was broken down according to the amount of education.
Over 90% of the veterans felt that with their education they
could not have made the same progress with subsistence but
without training. We should remember that this is an opinion.
It is a conjecture that some of the college-trained veterans
may have had their pride hurt if they had answered in any other
manner. Then again, it may be the correct Opinion. This is
reasonable as some veterans had had as much training as the

instructor.

TABLE VIII

THE EDUCATIONAL LEVEL AS IT AFFECTS THE
PROGRESS THAT COULD HAVE BEEN KADE WITH
SUBSISTE'CE BUT WITHOUT TRAINING.

 

 

Amount of education Could the same progress have
been made with subsistence
but without training. ::_
Yes Percent No Percent Total

 

Elementary 5 5.4% 88 93.5% 94
High School 7 4.3 156 95.7 153
College 4 26.6 11 75.4 15

 

Total 17 255 272

 

26

To evaluate the training program from an educational
standpoint, we see that veterans with high school education
indicated that more progress was made because of the training
program than with subsistence without training then either
elementary or college trained veterans. The veterans, regard-
less of educational status seemed to have felt that the train-
ing was more important than subsistence in making progress to-

ward establishment in farming.

THE INSTRUCTOR

‘ygg g: instructor. Many thoughts have been raised as to
whether or not the veterans would use the instructor after com-
pletion of institutional-on-farm training program. It has been
shown in Table IX that over 50% of the veterans indicated that

they would want to use the services of the instructor, "much".

TABLE IX

THE USE OF THE INSTRUCTOR BY VETERANS
AFTER COMPLETION OF THE TRAINING PROGRAM

 

 

Farming status at

A
time of enrollment nswers in percent or total

 

Much Some None No response

Hired hand (45) 60.4% 37.2% 0.0% 2.4%
Partner (79) 57.0 38.2 4.8 0.0
Renter (37) 43.2 56.8 0.0 0.0
Owner-renter (15) 60.0 40.0 0.0 0.0
Owner-operator (116) 55.1 44.9 0.0 0.0
Manager (5) 40.0 60.0 0.0 0.0

 

Total (300) 52.6 40.2 4.8 2:4

 

 

27

The hired hands, owner-operators and partners indicated
the greatest desire to use the instructor. The renters and
managers felt a lesser degree of help would be obtained from
the instructor. This would seem logical as they obtain help
from their landlord or employer. There is an unanswered ques-
tion here relating to the hired hands and partners. Why haven't
they indicated that they would use the instructor as much?

Are they restricted more now than they hope to be or are ex-
pecting to become owner-operators? It would seem that the
hired hand and partner would become owner-operators sooner
than the renter and manager. Therefore, they would desire
greater use of the instructor after the institutional-on-farm
training program than the renter and manager. It might be
that those who would use the instructor would use him on a

part—time or same basis.

THE COMMUNITY

Community improvement. In evaluating whether or not the
training program had been beneficial to the community a mean
score was computed for each area. According to the veterans
the training program aided the soil conservation program in
their communities. The majority (over 90%) agreed that the
program helped improve the farming practices as well as in-
creasing the use of all educational programs. It is noted in
Table X that leadership and recreation were improved some
according to the veterans. This would be an area to work on

as good leaders will make a good community.

28

TABLE X

THE MEAN SCORE VALUE VETERANS OF MICHIGAN
GAVE THE INSTITUTIONALPON-FARM TRAINING
PROGRAM AS IT HELPED THE NON-VETERANS IN
THEIR LOCEL COMMUNITY.

 

 

Areas in which help Mean score
was given.

 

Soil conservation 1.49
Improved farming practices 1.27
Increased use of all educational agencies 1.16
Improved social and cooperative activities 0.93
Better rural leadership 0.89
Better rural recreation 0.63

 

 

FUTURE PROGRAMS

Need for more training. "Should there be another train-
ing program or similar programs?" Over 60% said that they
would continue to take part in another institutional-on-farm
training program even without subsistence. This speaks well
of the present program. The majority felt that a similar pro-
gram should be provided for veterans of the Korean Police Act-
ion. If such a program should become a reality, the veterans
felt that some subsistence should be paid.

There is an indication that there is still a need for

more training of veterans in agriculture. Over 50% of the vet-

erans reported that they would need additional training after

completion of the training program. This may be due to veterans

29

not receiving a complete four-year course, continual develop-
ment of new agricultural ideas and practices, the magnitude
of the subject, agriculture, or incompetent instruction.

It should be noted that over 80% of the veterans thought
that former students of vocational agriculture should have add-
itional training. Why should veterans, some of whom had com-
pleted a vocational agriculture course in high school, and had
the training program still desire more training? Could it be
that a vocational agriculture course in high school is of little
value to do practical farming? Or do these veterans have the
realization that with all their training they feel that they
are not masters of the subject? Or does agriculture require
continous training? These are questions which will require
additional research.

Financing programs. It seemed surprising with such high
taxes on all of us, that the veterans should state or urge
that taxes be levied to help provide for an adult education
program in local schools. This might suggest that the present
training program is successful and that additional programs
of a similar nature should be provided with tax money. The
veterans felt that all farmers should have the opportunity to
participate in adult education as provided by the local school.

To summarize Table XI we should take each question of the
table and discuss its significance. Only 8% of the veterans
felt that they would not continue to take part in a similar

program without subsistence. While 60% were for the program,

TABLE XI

RESPONSES OF MICHIGAN VETERANS CON-

CERNING THE CONTINUATION OF THE

PRESENT OR A SIMILAR INSTITUTIONAIP

ON-FARM TRAINING PROGRAM.

30

 

 

Questions

Responses in percentages

 

Yes

No

Uncertain

 

 

Would you continue to take part in,,,,,62.0% 8.0%

an educational program similar to
the present one without subsistence?

Should there be another Institutional-
On-Farm Training program for those in
the armed forces at present? g...,,,,.,91.2

Should qualified trainees in a
future program receive subsis-
tence pay as in the present plan?.,,,,,88.5

Would farmers who have completed
institutional-on-farm training
need further farm training7............58,7

Would farmers who have attended a
college of agriculture need further

training? .57.6

Would farmers who have completed
vocational agriculture in high
school need further training?..,,,,,,,.8l.5

Would you be willing to pay taxes
for an adult education program in
10031 3°h°°13?.........................51-3
Should government officials be
urged to provide tax money for
adult education programs in the
DUbllc 8ch00187eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee057e5

Should all farmers have an oppor-
tunity to enroll in courses in
farming offered by the public schools?.82,5

1.3

2.0

11.1

12.0

2.6

16.0

16.5

4.3

30.0%

7.5

9'. 5

30.2

30.4

15.9

32.7

26.0

13.2

 

 

31

30% were uncertain as to whether or not they would participate.
This would indicate a favorable attitude toward the present pro-
gram. Over 90% said that another training program should be
provided for those who are in the armed forces at the present
time. As to whether or not subsistence should be paid to qual-
ified trainees of a future program, 85% of the veterans felt
that some subsistence should be paid.

In spite of the training received in the present program,
the veterans felt that they would need further training. The
veterans also thought that farmers who have attended a college
of agriculture would need further training. Over 50% of the
veterans were willing to pay taxes for an adult educational
program in the local schools, while 57.5% of the veterans said
that government officials should be urged to provide monies
for adult education programs in public schools.

From Table XI it is shown that over 80% of the veterans
thought that all farmers should have an opportunity to enroll

in courses in farming offered by the public schools.

CEAPTflR V
SUNNARY AND CONCLUSIONS

A need was felt for an institutional-on-farm training
program. A program was provided that satisfied that need. The
objective of establishment in farming was obtained and has
provided a basis for developing future programs in adult
education in agriculture.

SULLARY 0F FINDINGS

1. That the veterans received very little vocational
agricultural training in high school and still less instruction
from young farmer and adult farmer training programs prior to
enrolling in the training program.

2. That the veterans felt that four years of vocational

agriculture in high school did not give him a feeling that he

was well trained to farm.

3. That classroom instruction was more valuable to the
veteran than individual on-farm and small group on-farm train-
ing.

4. That more than the present amount of instruction or
emphasis be given each area of instruction in future programs
with farm mechanics receiving the greatest increase in emphasis
in future programs in Michigan. I

5. That high school and college—educated veterans felt
that field trips were more valuable as an educational method
than elementary—educated veterans.

6. That farm plans receive the same emphasis as an

33

educational medium and that more emphasis be placed on the

use of good textbooks and bulletins.

7. That the training program was successful in the minds
of the veterans was shown because they believed that they were
better established now because of the training program and not
because of the subsistence received. That the veteran's progress
toward.establishment could not have been as great with sub-

sistence, but without training.

8. That the instructor would be used as a farm adviser
by the veteran after his training ends by over 50% of the veterans.
This would indicate that the instructor should be retained in the
community in an agricultural program to serve the veteran.

9. That the community where the veteran lived benefited
by the instruction given.

10. That future training programs for future veterans should
be provided. The majority of the veterans favored a similar train—

ing program and that subsistence be paid.

11. That in spite of the instruction already given addition-
al training by the veteran would be needed.

12. That taxes be levied to help provide for an adult educa-
tional program in the local community.

13. That all farmers should have the opportunity to par-

ticipate in courses in farming offered by the public schools.

.34
THE CONCLUSIONS

There are many theories of how vocational agriculture should
be taught. Just as there are many theories, there are many met-
hods being used. Which method is preferred? Which method is
the most efficient? Which method is the most effective?

As with teaching day school students, veterans have pre-
ferences. 1. The veterans seem to feel that the preferred method
of teaching is one in which they do not have to study. They
enjoy talking about themselves, their experiences, hearsays and
experiences of their friends. Most people talk in generalities.
In discussion groups, it is easy to make a statement without
facts. The discussion period method of instruction enables the
individual to release emotions, ideas and attitude by presenting
them to the group. This method is excellent and should be used
as it may open the mind of the student to become more receptive
to the ideas of others.

However, as was hinted, there is some danger of being
misused. Many times the discussion period becomes a debate or
some other argumentative type of discussion, No one can be re-
ceptive if he is trying to defend his ideas or statements.

Demonstrations are popular because of the visual as well
as the auditory experience. Many can visualize better then
they can understand an idea by a verbal description. It is
questioned whether demonstrations are used as well as given

credit.

35

Many criticize the lecture method of instruction. However,
the veterans indicated they would prefer a lecture to a debate
or an individual report. The reason may be due to shyness on
the part of the veteran. Nany would rather listen then partici-
pate for fear of making a mistake. Another reason may be that
they like to have some one give them a direct answer. A short
condensed answer to a specific question may save time and energy
for the veteran.

The lecture type of meeting may be preferred over a.dis-
cussion method where a direct answer is not given. some in-
dividuals are afraid or unable to make decisions. Others like
to receive direct answers, whereby if they fail they may be able
to place the blame on others.

2. There shoUld be a continuous evaluation of what should
be taught. In hichigan, farm mechanics should be given increas-
ed emphasis. In developing a farm mechanics program, a revision
should be made of what is taught. With the increase use of
mechanical power, greater instruction should be given in selection,
care, repair and use of labor saving devices. By this is meant
the practical instead of why some machine or part operates as
it does.

Farm skills which would be practical should be increased
as well as farm marketing. Many farm skills such as laying
out a terrace or using a surveyors level may not be as impor-4

tent or practical as trimming hooves, dehorning, castration or

adjusting the draft of a plow.

36

3. Progress has been made by veterans in this program.
This is evident from the data presented. Some have stated that
the veterans' answers may be colored by their receiving sub-
sistence. The reasoning is, "Why would anyone who is receiv-
ing money for some thing he should do, give an answer that will
cut off his subsistence?" The writer feels that the datg from
the various crosspchecked questions indicate that the answers
were not colored. That the answers were sincere and honest.
That the veteran felt subsistence important but not as impor-
tant as the training received. The question might be raised,
"Why would anyone be willing to pay taxes for something that
was of little value?" The veterans indicated that they would
be willing to support publicly financed programs. This should
indicate satisfaction on the veterans part of the present program.

4. There havebeen some social influences in the veterans
training program. Many will want to continue social visits and
contacts made. Many will want to maintain that feeling that
he is part of a group. Many will want to continue their train-
ing to improve their educational and financial standing Just
as they have done while they were on the training program. This

strengthening of the social ties has benefited the community.

5. The program has aided the establishment of the vet-
'eran. Ninety—seven percent of the hichigan veterans indicated
that they are better established. With such a high percentage

the Only conclusion that can be drawn is that they are better

37

established.

6.’ The future of an adult education program for farm
families is good. There seems to be a felt need for the latest
farm information. For new ideas, methods, techniques and re-
sults. Many veterans who are no longer on the training program
will feel unsure of their source of information and their dec-
isions. This would compel veterans to find someone or some pro-
gram where they might find some answers to their problems. The
someone may well be the veteran instructor conducting an adult
farmer program.

In spite of all the reasons why there should be an adult
education program, the success and future of such a program
will be dependent upon one thing. That one point is "How much
value or the degree of importance the veteran or individual
places upon it in his mind." And that degree of importance or
value will be dependent upon the attitude the individual has

toward the program and those associated with it.

7. It is the conclusion of the writer that training in
agriculture is never complete. This is borne out by the re-
sponses of veterans on whether further training for graduates
of vocational agricultural students, college graduates and them-
selves Iill be needed. Agriculture is continually changing. A
farm profitably managed today requires the latest scientific
findings and "know how." This requires a man willing to change

and accept new ideas. Many of these ideas have to be presented

'38

or brought to the farmer of today for tomorrow. Training to
meet the needs of students of vocational agriculture of nec-
essity limits the scope of the training and does not provide,
all specific instruction for future needs.

It is reported that Will James once said,"Human beings
can alter their lives by altering their attitudes." Here it
could be concluded then that what is accomplished is done by
how the attitudes of the students were changed. No one is re-
ceptive to new ideas or methods if their attitude is one of

distrust or skepticism.

\w
‘9

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE STUDIES

1. A study to determine why veterans feel that four years
of vocational agriculture in high school does not give him the
feeling that he is well trained.

2. How on-farm instruction and small group on-farm
instruction can be improved.

3. What phase of farm mechanics should be stressed?

4. Why is discussion by class members preferred and how
can other methods of instruction be improved?

5. On what basis should a future program be financed?
Should it be from tax monies, grants, gifts, tuition or a com-

bination?

B IBLIOGRAPHY

41

BIBLIOGRAPHY
A. BOOKS

Cook, Glen 0., Handbook on Teaching Vocational Agriculture.
Danville, Illinois: Interstate Publishing Company, 1947.
651 pp.

Deyoe, George P., Supervised Farming in Vocational _griculture.
Danville, Illinois: Interstate Publishing Company, 1947.

453 pp.

Hamlin, H. M., A Community Program of Agricultural Education.
Illini Union Bookstore, Champaign, Illinois, 1943, 137 pp.

 

Morgan, Arthur E., The Small Community. New York: Harper and
Brothers, 1943, 312 pp.

B. PERIODICALS
Besemer, Ellsworth I., "Use of Progress Reports Records,"
Agricultural Education Ma azine, 23:10, April, 1951.
Chunn, Chris 0., "Effectiveness of Institutional-On-Farm Train-
ing in Meeting Needs of Negro Veterans," Agricultural
Education Magazine, 233221, March, 1951.

Fetterolf, H. 6., "After Entitlement, What?" Agricultural Educa-
tion Magazine, 23:200, March, 1951.

Franken, U. R., "Establishing Veterans in Farming," Agricultural
Education Magazine, 23:211, March, 1951.

Fidler, L. E., "Ohio Evaluation of Institutional-On-Farm Train-
ing" , Agricultural Education Magazine, 23: 224, April, 1951.

Fowle, Watson, "Outcomes of the Veterans Program." Agricultural
Education Magaggne, 23:231, April, 1951.

Thomas, Robert, "Measuring Results of Teaching Farm Veterans,"
Agrggultura; Education Magazine, 23:222, April, 1951.

Lintner, J. H., "Effectiveness of Institutional-On-Farm Train-
ing in Ohio", The Agricultural Education Magazine, 25: 103,

42

PERIODICALS CONTINUED

Harris, R. 0., "Local Progress Report on Sixty-One Veterans
Who Have Completed Institutional-On-Farm Training",
Agricultural Education Magazine, 23: 227, April, 1951.

Hart, John 0., "Build Course On Needs of Veterans," Agricul-
tural Education Magagine, 22:163. January, 19 9.

Mills, B. R., "Development of Our Veterans Training Program"
Agricultural Education Magazine, 21:156, January, 1949

Schipper, Homer,N "Farm Veterans and Wives Work, Play and Learn
Together", Agricultural Education Magazine, 22: 148, Jan-
uary, 1950.

Smith, Hunter E., "Accomplishments in Veterans Program", Agr -
cultural Education Magazine, 22:153, January, 1950.

Storms, D. A., "Did We Do What We Set Out To Do?" Agricultural
Education Magazine, 23:232, April, 1951.

Swanson, George, "Developing Criteria To Evaluate Progress
Made by Veterans , Agricultural Education Magazine,
21:156, January, 1949.

Swecker, John 8., "West Virginia Veterans Making Progress To-
ward Establishment in Farming", Agricultural Education
Ma azine, 23: 226, April, 1951.

Thompson, Charles, "Emphasis On Individual Instruction In
Oklahoma Program For Veterans", Agriculture; Education
Magazine, 22: 162, January, 1950.

Whitemarsh, Fred M., "Agencies Cooperate in Instruction Of Vet-
erans" , Agricultural Education Magazine, 21: 157, Jan-
uary, 1949.

Woods, Stewart A., "Effective Methods in Farm Veteran Training",
Agricultural Education Magagine, 22:161, January, 1950.

Zinn, L. Glenn, "Veterans Like to Learn Why", Agricultural
Education Ma azine e, 22:15, July, 1949.

43

P'BLI 3AT NS 0? LiARLiD ORGANIZATIONS

Annual Report Lf the State Board Lf Control For Vocational

Education. 1951,1Lansing,_Iichigan: Fichigan State
College Press, 1951).

"Instructions Pertaining to the Negotiations of Contracts Between
Veterans" Institutes, Boards of Education, and Veteran's
Administration for Institutional-On-Farm Training and
Development of Courses of Related Training for Farm Vet-
erans", Bulletin N9. 1017, Published by Eugene B. Elliott,
Superintendent of Public Instruction, Lansing, Michigan,
19 7.

"Report of the Cooperative Study" of Institutional-On-Farm Train-
ing in the Centlal Region" Central Regional Conference
On Research in Agricultural Education, The Interstate
Printers and_ Publishers, Inc., Dansville, Illinios, 1952.

"Education of Veterans" , American Vocational Association, Inc.,
1010 Vermont Ave., N.W. Washington 5, D.C., Research
Bulletin No., 5, 1953. 95 pp-

"History and Development of Institutional- On-Farm Training in
Arkansas" State Department Lf Education, Division Lf
Vocational Educa tionA Institutional- On-rarm T;aining

Program, Little Rock, Arkansas and University Lf arkansas

College Lf .ducation, Department Lf Vocational Teacher
Education, Fayetteville, Arkansas, 1950,62 pp.

 

"Developing Instruction in Vocational Agriculture for Veterans
0n Farms in Indiana", Department pf Public Instruction,
State of Indiana, Bulletin No. 196, 1937, 37 pp.

44
UNPUBLISHED MATERIALS

Agan, R. J., "Swine Management Practices Used By Participants
in the Institutional-On-Farm Training Program For Vet-
erans" , Unpublished Master' s Thesis, Iowa State College,
Ames, Iowa, 1950.

Donahoo, A. W., "Soil Management Practices by Participants
in The Institutional On-Farm Training Program for Vet-
erans" , Unpublished Master's Thesis, Iowa State College,
Ames, Iowa, 1950.

Elliott, Dean A., "Implications for Adult Education in Agricul-
ture From Responses of Participants in the Veteran Farm
Training Program in the Central Region, III Course Content",
Unpublished Master' s Thesis, Iowa State College, Ames,
Iowa, 1951.

Wiegers, Jr., George W., "Some Outcomes of Participation of
Veterans in Institutional On-Farm Training in Missouri,"
Unpublished Master' s Thesis, The University of Missouri,
Columbia, Missouri, 1950.

APPEND IX

A LIST OF

THE LAND GRANT COLLEGES OF THE CENTRAL

REGION

Illinios
Iowa

Indiana
Kentucky
Kansas
Michigan.
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
Ohio

South Dakota

Wisconsin

45

X

VETERANS Schedule A ' 745

INSTITUTIONAL-ON-FARM TRAINING IN THE CENTRAL REGION

 

Completed forms to be sealed in

p resence of class and mailed
first class or expressed prepaid
to:

Department of Vocational Education
Iowa State College, Ames, Iowa

 

 

 

Part I

DIRECTIONS: Please read each question carefully. Pick out the correct answer, or answers, and place

1.

X9.

an X in the answer space following it. Do not skip any questions.
What is .your present marital status 7
Single ( )3 Married, no children ( )3 Married, with children ( )3 Divorced or Separated ( ).
What is yOur present age ?
25 years or under ( )3 26 to 30 years ()3 31 to 35 years ()3 36 years or older ( ).

How many months of eligibility and entitlement for training or education did you have when you enrolled
in Institutional On—Farm Training ?

15 months or less ( )3 16 to 24 months ( )3 25 to 36 months ()3 More than 36 months ( ).

. How long have you been attending classes in Institutional On-Farm Training?

6 months or less ( ), 7 to 12 months ()313 to 24 months( )3 25 to 36 months ()3 More than 36 months ( ).

. How many years did you spend on a farm after the age of 10, while in or out of school, and prior to the

time you enrolled in Institutional On-Farm Training?
None ()3 1 to 3 years ()3 4 to 6 years ( )3 7 to 9 years ()3 10 or more years ( ).

How many years did you spend as a full-time partner, sharecropper, renter, owner-operator, or
manager, prior to the time you enrolled in Institutional On-Farm Training?

None ()3 l to 3 years ()3 4 to 6 years ()3 7 to 9 years ()3 10 years or more ( ).

What is your present farming status? (Check One)

(a) Hired hand ( ) (c) Renter ( ) (e) Owner-Operator ( )
(b) Partner or sharecrOpper ( ) (d) Owner and Renter ( ) (f) Manager ( )
What was your farming status at time of enrollment in Institutional On-Farm Training?
(a) Hired hand ( ) (c) Renter ( ) (e) Owner-Operator ( )

(b) Partner or sharecropper ( ) (d) Owner and Renter ( ) (f) Manager ( )

What is the highest school grade you have completed? (Circle one)

Elementary High School College
12 45 78 9101112 1234

- z -
X 10. How many years of Vocational Agriculture did you have in high school?
(a) None ( )3 (b) 1 year ( )3 (c) 2 years ( )3 (d) 3 years ( )3 (e) 4 years ( ).

11. Prior to enrolling in Institutional On-Farm Training how many years of Young Farmer and/or Adult
Farmer training did you have ? (At least 10 meetings per year)

None ()3 1 to 3 years ( )3 4 to 6 years ( )3 7 to 9 years ()3 10 or more years ( ).

Part II

This part of the information blank deals with the Institutional On-Farm Training pragram for farm
veterans of World War II as provided by Public Law 377.

‘51: 12. Of what value has the following type of instruction been to you?

Much Some None

(8.) Individual on farm .................. . . . . . . . . ( ) ( ) ( )

(b) Small groups on farm ................. . ..... . ( ) ( ) ( )

(c) Classroom (off farm) ......... . . . . . . . . . ..... () () ()

13. Have you used new farm practices as a result of your training?
Much ( ) Some ( ) None ( )
X 14. Have the following been of value in your Institutional On-Farm Training?
Much Some None
><(a)1“armandhomerecords .......... T T)—

(b) Notebooks ................ . ....... . . . . . . () () ()
*(c) Annualfarmandhomeplan ...... . . () () ()
7" (d) Textbooks, referencebooks,and bulletins. . . . . . ........ ( ) ( ) ( )
'7‘ (e) Field trips to experiment station and state colleges of

agricultureandtocountyfielddays................ . () () ()

(f) Field trips to fairs, shows, and sales. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . () () ()

(g) Field trips to farmsinthe community. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . () () ()

(h) Field trips to commercial firms such as stockyards, fertilizer

plants, demonstration farms, machinery companies ....... . ( ) ( ) ( )
15. Have you received training in the following ?
Much Some None

(a) Farm mechanics ............. . . ....... . ( ) ( ) ( )
(b) Farm skills, such as castration, dehorning, laying out terraces . ( ) ( ) ( )
(c) Soil conservation ................ . . . . . ...... ( ) ( ) ( )
(d) Farmandhomeaccounts ....... () () ()
(e) Farm planning and management .......... . ....... ( ) ( ) ( )
(f) Livestock production practices .................. ( ) ( ) ( )
(g) Cr0p production practices. . . ..... . . . . ......... ( ) () ()
(h) Fruit and vegetable production practices ............. ( ) ( ) ( )
(1) Family relationships. . . . ..... . . ...... . . . . . . . . ( ) ( ) ( )
(j) Marketing farm products ....................... ( ) ( ) ( )
(k) Farming programs .......................... ( ) ( ) ( )
(1) Leadership. ............................. ( ) ( ) ( )
(m) Recreational activities ........................ ( ) ( ) ( )
(11) Community and c00pe rative activities ....... . . . ...... ( ) ( ) ( )
(0) Farm health and safety ........................ ( ) ( ) ( )
(p) Farm preservation and storage ...... . . . . . . . . . . . () () ()
(q) Food preservation and storage .................... ( ) ( ) ( )

-3-

16. Have persons from the following agencies assisted in your training prOgram?

 

Much Some None

(a) Rural Electrification Administration ............... . ( ) () ( )
(b) Farm Credit Administration (Production Credit Association and

Federal Land Bank) ........................ ( ) ( ) ( )
(c) Extension Service ......................... ( ) ( ) ( )
(d) Farm and Home Administration .................. ( ) ( ) ( )
(e) Soil Conservation Service ..................... . ( ) ( ) ( )
(f) Forestry Service ......................... . . ( ) ( ) ( )
(g) Production and Marketing Administration .............. ( ) ( ) ( )
(h) State College of Agriculture ............... . . ( ) ( ) ( )
(i) State Board for Vocational Education, Vocational Agriculture

Section ...................... () () ()

17. Should the progress of the student be measured by the number of new and improved farm practices
carried out on the farm ? Yes ( ) No ( ) Uncertain ( )

18. Should Institutional On-Farm Training be limited to: (Check one)
(a) Those who live on the farm and are employed full time on the farm

( )
(b) Those who live on the farm and are employed part time on the farm ( )
(c) Those who live in town and are employed full time on the farm ( )
( )
( )

 

 

 

 

 

 

(d) Those who live in town and are employed part time on the farm
(e) Those who live in town or country and spend no time on the farm

 

 

 

 

K19. Are you better established in farming as a result of the Institutional On-Farm Training Program?
Yes () No () Uncertain ()

X20. Does the Institutional On-Farm Training prOgram help the peOple in your community who are not
enrolled in the program?
Much Some None

 

(a) Improved farming practices ...... . ........... . . . ( ) ( )

(b) Better rural leadership ...................... ( ) ( ) ( )
(c) Improved social and c00perative activities ............ ( ) ( ) ( )
(d) Better rural recreation. . . . . . ............ . . . . () () ()
(e) Increased use of all educational agencies ............. ( ) ( ) ( )
(f) Soil conservation ............ . .............. ( ) ( ) ( )

21. Could you have made just as much progress in getting started in farming if you had received your
subsistence allowance without Institutional On-Farm Training? Yes ( ) No ( ) Uncertain ( )

22. To what extent would you like to continue to use the advice and counsel of your Institutional On-Farm
Training instructor after completion of training? Much ( ) Some ( ) None ( )

/ 23. Would you continue to take part in an educational farm prOgram similar to the present one without
subsistence pay? Yes ( ) No ( ) Uncertain ( )

K 24. Should there be another Institutional On-Farm Training program for those in the armed forces at
present? Yes ( ) No ( ) Uncertain ( )

'- 25. What should be the maximum length of a future prOgram for veterans ?
1 year ( )3 2 years ( )3 3 years ( )3 4 years ()3 More than 4 years ( )

3“" 26. Should qualified trainees in a future prOgram receive subsistence pay as in the present plan?
Yes () No () Uncertain ()

-4-

27. In case of another Institutional On-Farm Training program, who should be responsible for giving
the instruction? (Check one)

(a) State college of agriculture .............. . . ...... ( )
(b) The Veterans Administration. ........ . .......... ( )
(c) Public schools with or without vocational agriculture. ...... ( )
(d) The public schools through the Vocational Agriculture Department. ( )
(e) The Extension Service ....................... ( )
(f) The Soil Conservation Service ................... ( )
(g) Other agencies, public or private ........... ( )
Part III

This part of the information blank is to get your Opinion as to the nature of a future educational program
for farmers after the Institutional On-Farm Training program ends. This future program would be
planned for all farmers with fewer requirements and no subsistence pa'y. Your experience in Institutional
On-Farm Training will be of value in planning a more permanent program.

 

 

28. Where should instruction be given? (Check one) On the farm ( )3 In the classroom ( )3 Both ( )

'. 29. How much instruction should be offered per year on the farm? (Check one)

 

(a) None ( ) (d) 10 to 20 hours ( ) (g) 50 to 75 hours _( )
(b) Less than 5 hours ( ) (e) 20 to 35 hours ( ) (h) 75 to 100 hours ( )
(c) 5 to 10 hours ( ) (f) 35 to 50 hours ( ) (i) More than 100 hours ( )

30. How often would farmers want on-farm instruction? (A farm visit by the instructor.) (Check one)

(a) Weekly ( ) (c) Monthly ( ) (e) Once every 3 months ( )
(b) Once every two weeks ( ) (d) Once every other month ( ) (f) None at all ( )

31. How often should instruction be given at the school or central meeting place ? (Check one)

(a) Weekly ( ) (d) Every two weeks in slack season of farm work and monthly in other
(b) Every two weeks () months. . ..... . . . . . . . ........ . . . . . . ()
(c) Monthly ( ) (e) Every week in slack season of farm work and monthly in other
months... ............... ..... ()
(f) None at all ( )

32. What length should nonshop class sessions be ? (Check one)

(a) One hour ( ) (c) Two hours ( ) (e) Four hours ( )
(b) One and one-half hours ( ) (d) Three hours ( )

33. For what length of time and when should farm mechanic classes be held? (Check one)
(a) Two hours during the day (d) Three hours at night

( )
(b) Two hours at night ( ) (e) Three hours during the day plus three hours at night
(c) Three hours during the day ( ) (f) A full day

AAA
VVV

34. Who should give the instruction? (Check one)

(a) The regular vocational agriculture instructor who devotes part of his time to high school

teaching .......................... . . . . . ......... . . ()
(b) An additional vocational agriculture instructor who would give full time to adult farm

education ......................................... ( )
(c) An additional vocational agriculture instructor so that more time is available for adult

work by both instructors. . . . ............................

AA
VV

(d) Special instructors - local farmers, machinery dealers, mechanics, etc .......

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

Y40.

.5.

Should farmers in the class form their own organization to assume some responsibility in planning
and conducting their educational program? Yes ( ) No ( ) Uncertain ( )

How should farmers be grouped into classes in schools having more than one class ? (Check one)
Grouped according to: (a) age (

(b) farming status (

(c) farming interests (
(d) previous training (
(e) location of farm (
(f) a combination of the above factors (

)
)
)
)
)
)

To what extent would the following groups profit from instruction in farming ?

 

 

Much Some None Uncertain
(a) Young farmers (ages 16-25) ...... . . . . . . . . . (j ()— ()— ()
(b) Adult farmers (ages 26-35). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . () () () ( )
(c) Adult farmers (ages 36 or older). . . . . . . . . . . . () () () ()
((1) Rural non-farmers .............. . . . . . . ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(e) Farmwomen ................ . . () () () ()
(f) Part-time farmers ........ . . . . . . . . . . . () () () ( )

To what extent should the following persons or groups take part in planning the farm problems to be
studied ?

 

Much Some None Unce rtain
(a) Instructors of the class. ....... . . . . . . . . . U () ( ))
(b) Students of the class .......... . . . . . . . . . () () () ()
(c) Local advisory committee ..... . . . . . . . . . . () () () ()
(d) School superintendent ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . () () () ()

To what extent should the following factors be considered in choosing farm problems and farm jobs
to be taught? Much Some None Uncertain
(a) Leading farm enterprises of the community. . . . . . -(-)I_ () ()w ( )
(b) Experiences, interests, and opinions of the majority
ofthefarmers intheclass. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(c) Ability of the instructor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(d) Subject matter information available. . . . . . . . . .
(e) Information obtained from local surveys. . . . . . .
(f) Suggestions of advisory committees. . . . . . . . . ..
(g) Anticipated changes in farming. . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

 

. vvvv
AAAAAA
VVVV, ,V
' ,vvvv
AAAAAA
. ,Vvvvv

How much should the following units be stressed in the course of study?
Much Some None Uncertain

(a) Farm mechanics ............ . . . . . . . ( ) ( ) () ()

(b) Farm skills, such as castration, dehorning, laying out

 

terraces,etc. .. ....... ........... () () () ()
(c) Soil conservation ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . () () () ()
((1) Farm and home accounts --------------- ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(e) Farm planning and management ......... . . . . ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(f) Livestock production practices. . . . . . . ..... () ( ) () ()
(g) Crop production practices. . . . . . . . . . ...... () () () ()
(11) Fruit and vegetable production practices ...... . . ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(i) Family relationships ...... . ........ . . ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(j) Marketing farm products ............... ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(k) Farming programs ......... . . . . . . . . . . () () () ( )
(1) Leadership ........... () () () ()
(m) Recreational activities .............. . . ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(11) Community and cooperative activities. . . . . . . . ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(o)Farmhealthandsafety................ () () () ()
(p) Farm and home improvement. . ..... . . .. . . . . ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(q) Food preservation and storage ...... . ..... ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

-6-

I’.’ 41. How would you rate the following methods of classroom teaching?

 

 

Good Fair Poor Uncertain
(a) Lecture .......................... (T (r () r)
(b) Question and answer ................. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(c) Discussion by class members ............ ( ) ( ) () ( )
(d) Demonstration ...................... ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(e) Laboratory - actual performance by students. . . . ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(f) Group or individual reports ............... ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(g) Debates ...................... ( ) () () ( )

42. How much of the instructors' time should be devoted to individual, including small group, on-farm
instruction? (Check one)
(a) None () (C) 25% () (e) 75% ()
(b) 10% () (d) 50% (l (f) 100%“

43. How much time should be set aside in each class session for discussion of emergency farm problems
as they arise ? (Check one)

(a) None ( ) (c) Not more than 20 minutes ( ) (e) No time limit ( )
(b) Not more than 10 minutes ( ) (d) Not more than 30 minutes ( ) -

44. From your experiences with the Institutional On-Farm Training program, of what importance are

 

 

these items in improving classroom instruction? Much Some None Uncertain
(a) Supervised study in the classroom .......... .

(b) Home study .......... . .............

(c) Secure qualified instructors .............

(d) Secure recent books, bulletins and farm magazines.
(e) Give time to individual farm problems of students. . .
(f) Use movies, slides and other visual aids. . . . . . . .

AAAAAAA
vvvvvvv
AAAAAAA
AAAAAAA
vvvvvvv
AAAAAAA

(g) Bring in specialists ....... . ..........
(h) Connect problems to actual farming situations of

students ................ . ....... ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(i) Use local information ................. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(j) Farm visits by the instructor .............. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(k) Use notebooks ..................... ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(1) Set up goals for each practice ............. . ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(m) Change teaching methods from time to time ..... ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(11) Have active participation by ELI-students. . . . . . . ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

45. Should the trainees know in advance if the instructor is coming to the trainees' farm for on-farm
instruction? . (Check one)
Always ( ) Usually ( ) Occasionally ( ) Never ( ) Uncertain ( )

46. What emphasis should be given the following in on-farm instruction?

 

 

Much Some None Uncertain
(a) Supervising record keeping and analysis ....... . ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(b) Follow-up of class instruction .......... ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(c) Social visit ........................ () () () ( )
((1) Getting acquainted with farm situation ........ ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(e) Demonstrating practices ............... ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(f) Supervising home study ................ ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
47. Of what value is the following reference material for adult classes?
Much Some None Uncertain
(a) Bulletins and circulars from your home state colleges ( ) ( ) () ()
(b) Bulletins and circulars from other state colleges. . . ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(c) Bulletins and circulars from the U.S. Department of
Agriculture ...................... ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(d) Farm magazines and papers ............. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(e) Farm texts or reference books ............ ( ) () () ( )

48.

49.

50.

51.

"'52.

I"53.

’ 54.

-7-

To what extent should the following be used in an effective instructional pregram?

 

Much Some None Uncertain

(a) Motion pictures ........... . ......... ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(b) Filmstrips and slides ................ . . ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(c) Photographs, pictures, charts, tables, and graphs. . ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(d) Specimens (grains, insects) and models (livestock,

buildings) .............. . ...... . . . ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(e) Maps ........................... ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(f) Blackboard ...................... ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(g) Bulletin board .................... . ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(h) Field trips ........................ ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(i) Wire or tape recordings .............. . . ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(j) Demonstrations. . . . . . . ............. () ( ) () ( )

Of what value are the following recreational activities in a complete yearly prOgram?

 

 

 

Much Some None Uncertain
(a) Variety of games ................... . () () ( T ( )
(b)Dances.... ............. () () () ()
(c) Refreshments ..... ................ () () () ()
(d) Occasional prOgrams for families. . . . . . . . . . . () () () ()
(e) Basketball, baseball, and softball teams. . . . . . . . () ( ) () ()
(f) Tripsandtours..... ...... . () () () ()
(g) Fishingandcampingtrips................ () () () ()
(h)Annualbanquet ...... () () () ()

To what extent could the following agricultural agencies be of assistance to the educational program ?
Much Some None Uncertain

(a) Rural Electrification Administration . . . . . . . . . . () () ( ) I)
(b) Farm Credit Administration (Production Credit

 

 

 

Association and Federal Land Bank). . . . . . . . . ( ) () ( ) ()
(c) Extension Service ....... . ............ ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(d) Farm and Home Administration ............. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(e) Soil Conservation Service ................ ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(f) Forestry Service ................... ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(g) Production and Marketing Administration ...... ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(h) State College of Agriculture. . . . . . . . ..... () () () ()
(1) State Board for Vocational Education, Vocational

Agriculture Section .................. . ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
To what extent would the following associations and organizations be helpful to the educational
program ? Much Some None Uncertain
(a) Dairy herd improvement associations. . . . . . . . . ( ) (7 ( ) ( )
(b) Other livestock and poultry improvement associations. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(c) Artificial insemination associations ........... ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(d) Crop improvement associations. . ......... ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(e) Local and community c00peratives .......... ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(f) State farm cooperatives ............... ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(g) Farm management associations ........... ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

Would farmers who have completed Institutional On-Farm Training need further farm training?
Yes () No ( ) Uncertain ( )

Would farmers who have completed Vocational Agriculture in high school need further farm training?
Yes () No ( ) Uncertain ()

Would farmers who have attended a college of agriculture need further farm training ?
Yes () No () Uncertain ()

-3-

55. Which of the following methods do you consider the best for financing adult farmer pragrams?
(Check one) ‘

(a) Federal funds ..................... . ( )
(b) State funds ........................ ( )
(c) Federal and state funds ................ . ( )
(d) Local school funds .................... ( )
(e) Federal and local funds ................ . ( )
(f) State and local funds ................... ( )
(g) Federal, state, and local funds ............. ( )
(h) Tuition charge for students taking the training ..... ( )
(1) Tuition plus financial aid from federal, state, and

local funds ..................... . . . ()

' 56. Would you be willing to pay taxes for an adult education prOgram in local schools?
Yes () No ( ) (Uncertain ()

57. What annual fee would you be willing to pay for a course including on-farm instruction after the present
course is completed?

(a) None () (d) $10.00 () (g) $35.00 ()
(b) $1.00 () (e) $15.00 () (h) $50.00 ()
(c) $5.00 () (f) $25.00 () (i) More than $50.00 ()

58. Should government officials be urged to provide tax money for adult education programs in the public
schools ? Yes ( ) No ( ) Uncertain ( )

59. Should all farmers have an apportunity to enroll in courses in farming offered by the public schools ?
Yes () No ( ) Uncertain ()

‘ e‘.‘ 419 ”16.5%
is Eng"? fi\" "i A ’

AG 4 ..

May 3 '57

Mk ,5 “:38

. . . . ..,- u

0 li . ' ‘
! .
_ a

..

 

 

H... .EHLST . .
.31. $15 J Harv ..¢ .
.. . . ._ «Rummage . ,
- C e . OF“y.s...-e. oIlv .
‘rkhw .33.. . ,-«.-,.n7.......1-L-. ,...

to"
m ...