I“) . \J l‘ ‘\ ‘ ‘ .. k '(all n I..4..', :\ ‘I r _ '24-; n 2" '9 "" 2'. "J I ~9- U I x J ' ‘ ,. ' y, .. '3‘ . 1. ‘v J k- ABSTRACT PERCEIVED TECHNICAL ORNAMENTAL HORTICULTURE TRAINING ADEQUACIES AND NEEDS OF SECONDARY VOCATIUNAL TEACHERS BY Ronald Lee Shumack The primary purpose of the study was to determine the perceived adequacies of and needs for technical ornamental horticulture training for vocational agriculture teachers in Michigan. Researchers in a number of fields have shown that technical training and knowledge of subject matter are important qualities for effective teaching. This has been especially true in vocational areas. Two groups of teachers were surveyed. All teachers in secondary schools offering ornamental horticulture as a specialized course of instruction made up the first pOpula- tion (n=15). The second group consisted of a random sample of all vocational agriculture teachers in Michigan (n=15). A personal interview was conducted with each teacher. Fifteen industry representatives, each serving on an advisory com- mittee for the ornamental horticulture teachers, were inter- viewed by telephone. The data were analyzed by the chi-square statistic to determine tendencies to unanimity or disparity between groups Ronald Lee Shumack on all questions. Hypotheses were tested using the multi- variate and univariate analysis of variance. Random sample teachers had been teaching longer than ornamental horticulture teachers but there was little differ— ence in the formal education of the two groups. Ornamental horticulture teachers reported a significantly higher amount of space available for growing plants. Ornamental horticulture teachers had taken more courses in horticulture and related areas, especially botany and entomology. However, random sample teachers had taken more courses in biological science, agricultural engineering and agricultural economics. Teachers in both groups generally thought courses in horticulture, soils, botany, entomology and agricultural engineering were helpful in qualifying them to teach ornamental horticulture. The teachers were asked if they taught 53 selected areas and if so, how qualified they felt about teaching each area. Industry representatives were asked how important it was for a teacher to be qualified to teach that area or skill. A high percentage of ornamental horticulture teachers reported they taught all the areas, while a high percentage of the random sample teachers reported teaching the competency areas and skills in only the soil science area. More ornamental horticulture teachers felt qualified to teach the areas. However, industry representatives thought it was important for teachers to be qualified in most of the areas. More ornamental Ronald Lee Shumack horticulture teachers felt qualified to teach specialized subjects primarily in horticulture. However, there was little difference between the groups on the other areas. Teachers in both groups generally believed that additional courses in horticulture and related areas would help them become better teachers. Courses in all areas were generally considered to be more helpful by random sample teachers than by ornamental horticulture teachers. Both groups perceived the strongest need for additional training in turfgrass manage— ment, woody ornamentals and floriculture. Teachers preferred a major in horticulture with a teach- ing certificate as the ideal formal education background for a teacher of ornamental horticulture. Both groups of teachers thought a person should be re— quired to work in an ornamental horticulture business before teaching a specialized program of ornamental horticulture. A higher percentage of ornamental horticulture teachers had worked in a related business before teaching and they thought a longer period of work experience should be required. Ornamental horticulture teachers generally agreed that work experience should be longer than six months; however, random sample teachers considered three to six months adequate. Random sample teachers stressed that inadequate college training and lack of adequate educational facilities were the primary reasons for not teaching specialized ornamental horticulture courses. However, ornamental horticulture Ronald Lee Shumack teachers said subject interest and local school policies were the two most important reasons for teaching ornamental horti- culture as a specialized program. Michigan State University Horticulture Department faculty members and state vocational administrators had been the most helpful of any group in the develOpment of ornamental horti- culture teachers curriculums. Generally, teachers were pleased with their students, educational facilities and instructional materials; however, most agreed that more input into the guidance of students prior to enrollment was needed. PERCEIVED TECHNICAL ORNAMENTAL HORTICULTURE TRAINING ADEQUACIES AND NEEDS OF SECONDARY VOCATIONAL TEACHERS BY Ronald Lee Shumack A THESIS submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Horticulture 1972 ACKNOWLEDGfi ENTS The writer extends sincere appreciation to Dr. William Carlson, Guidance Committee Chairman, for his concern and encouragement during the time this study was planned, conducted and written. Appreciation is also extended to Dr. Donald Meaders, Dr. Fred Peabody, Dr. Lee Taylor, and Dr. A. L. Kenworthy, members of the guidance committee. Sincere thanks are extended to the teachers and industry representatives who gave of their time for interviews. A special tribute is extended to my wife, Jo Ann, for her encouragement and assistance throughout the study. My two children, Marcus and Kellie Ann, deserve a special debt of gratitude for their patience and understanding. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Objectives of the Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Definition of Terms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 LITERATURE REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Competencies and Needs of All Teachers . . . . . 7 Competencies and Needs of Teachers in Non- Vocational Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Competencies and Needs of Teachers in Non- Horticultural Vocational Fields . . . . . . lO Competencies and Needs of Teachers in Horti- cultural Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Self—Concept Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 METHODS OF THE STUDY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Development of the Interview Instrument. . . . . 18 Population and Sample Interviewed. . . . . . . . 19 Administration of the Interview to Teachers. . . 22 Administration of the Interview to Industry Participants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Analysis of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 General Information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Undergraduate Training . . . . . . . . . . 31 Competency Areas and Skills Taught . . . . . . . 33 Formal Education Needed. . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Occupational Experience. . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS--Continued Other Perceptions. . . . . . . . . . . . Tests of Hypotheses. . . . . . . . . . . SUWAARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Recommendations for Further Study. . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDICES A. Teachers Interview Instrument . . . . B. Letter to Teachers. . . . . . . . . . C. Letter to Industry Representatives. . D. Industry Representatives Interview Instrument E. Tables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv Page 59 65 83 84 88 93 94 101 116 118 120 124 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1. Comparison of Ornamental Horticulture Teachers (O.H.T.) and Random Sample Teachers (R.S.T.) Bachelor's Degree Major and Master's Degree Major. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparisons of Formal Courses Taken in Horti- culture and Related Fields by Ornamental Horti- culture Teachers (O.H.T.) and Random Sample Teachers (R.S.T.), and the Importance Placed on Those Courses for Preparing Them to Teach Orna- mental Horticulture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of Areas or Skills Taught by Orna- mental Horticulture Teachers (O.H.T.) and Random Sample Teachers (R.S.T.). . . . . . . . . Comparison of Ornamental Horticulture Teachers (O.H.T.) and Random Sample Teachers (R.S.T.) Perception of Their Qualification to Teach Selected Areas or Skills, and the Importance Industry Representatives Placed on Being Quali- fied to Teach Those Areas or Skills. . . . . . . Comparison of the Average Number of Common and Scientific Names Students Should Know After High School Graduation According to Teacher Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of Ornamental Horticulture Teachers (O.H.T.) and Random Sample Teachers (R.S.T.) Perception of Their Qualification to Teach Selected Areas of Skills, and the Importance Industry Representatives Placed on Being Quali- fied to Teach Those Areas or Skills. . . . . . . Comparison of Ornamental Horticulture Teachers (O.H.T.) and Random Sample Teachers (R.S.T.) Perceived Need for Additional Formal Training in Selected Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 29 34 40 45 46 48 50 LIST OF TABLES-—Continued TABLE 8. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Comparison of Ornamental Horticulture Teachers (O.H.T.) and Random Sample Teachers (R.S.T.) Perceived Need for Additional Formal Training in Floriculture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of Ornamental Horticulture (O.H.T.) and Random Sample Teachers (R.S.T.) Perceived Need for Additional Formal Training in Woody Ornamentals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of the Importance Ornamental Horti- culture Teachers (O.H.T.) and Random Sample Teachers (R.S.T.) Placed on Work Experience in Selected Businesses for a Person Preparing to Teach Ornamental Horticulture. . . . . . . . . . Comparisons of Ornamental Horticulture Teachers (O.H.T.) and Random Sample Teachers (R.S.T.) Perception of How Long Work Experience Should Be Before Teaching Ornamental Horticulture . . . The Importance Ornamental Horticulture Teachers Placed on Possible Reasons Why They Taught Ornamental Horticulture as a Specialized Program The Importance Random Sample Teachers Placed on Possible Reasons for Not Teaching Ornamental Horticulture as a Specialized Program. . . . . . Ornamental Horticulture Teachers' Perception of The Helpfulness of Specified Resource Persons in Developing an Ornamental Horticulture Curricu- lum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Multivariate Analysis of Variance (25) for Teacher Groups Using the Dependent Variables of. Teaching Experience, Student/Teacher Ratio and Space Available for Growing Plants . . . . . . . Multivariate Analysis of Variance (25) for the Average Perceived Competencies of the Teacher Groups and Perceived Importance of Qualifica- tion Industry Representatives Placed on the Dependent Variables of Selected Areas or Skills. vi Page 52 54 58 59 6O 61 63 66 68 LIST OF TABLES-—Continued TABLE 17. Multivariate Analysis of Variance (25) for Teacher Groups Using the Dependent Variables of Perceived Competencies to Teach Selected Areas or Skills. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l8. Multivariate Analysis of Variance (25) for Teacher Groups Using the Dependent Variables of Perceived Need for Additional Formal Education in Specific Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19. Multivariate Analysis of Variance (25) for Teacher Groups Using the Dependent Variables of Perception of How Helpful Occupational Experir ence in Specific Areas Would Be for a Person Preparing to Teach Ornamental Horticulture . . . APPENDIX TABLES 1. Comparisons of Perceived Competencies Reported by Ornamental Horticulture Teachers (O.H.T.) and Random Sample Teachers (R.S.T.) with the Im- portance Placed by Industry Representatives (I.R.) on Being Qualified in Those Horticulture Areas or Skills. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Comparisons of Ornamental Horticulture Teachers (O.H.T.) and Random Sample Teachers (R.S.T.) Perception of How Important Selected Areas Would Be for Improving Their Overall Ornamental Horti- culture Teaching Program . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Comparison of Ornamental Horticulture Teachers (O.H.T.) and Random Sample Teachers (R.S.T.) Description of the Helpfulness of Selected Courses in General Agriculture for Teaching Ornamental Horticulture. . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Comparison of Mean Scores for Ornamental Horti- culture Teachers (O.H.T.) and Random Sample Teachers (R.S.T.) Answers to Questions Concern-. ing Teaching Experience, Student/Teacher Ratio and Space Available for Growing Plants . . . . . vii Page 73 79 82 125 133 134 135 LIST OF TABLES--Continued TABLE 5. Comparison of Mean Scores for Perceived Compe— tencies of Ornamental Horticulture Teachers (O.H.T.) and Random Sample Teachers (R.S.T.) to the Importance Industry Representatives Placed. on Being Qualified to Teach Selected Areas or Skills. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of Mean Scores for Ornamental Horti- culture Teachers (O.H.T.) and Random Sample Teachers (R.S.T.) Perceived Competencies to Teach in Selected Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of Mean Scores for Ornamental Horti- culture Teachers (O.H.T.) and Random Sample Teachers (R.S.T.) Perceived Need for Additional Formal Education. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of Mean Scores for Ornamental Horti- culture Teachers (O.H.T.) and Random Sample Teachers (R.S.T.) Perception of How Helpful Occupational Experience in Specific Areas Would Be for a Person Preparing to Teach Ornamental Horticulture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii Page 136 139 142 144 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE Page 1. Location of Ornamental Horticulture Teachers. and Random Sample Teachers who were inter- viewed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 INTRODUCTION - There has been more public awareness of plants and the environment in recent years. Student awareness has occurred at the high school as welI‘as at the university level. Increased demand for ornamental plants has encouraged many people to examine the entire area of production and marketing of plant material as a livelihood. Plantings in highway beautification, industrial sites, home grounds and the grow- ing popularity of cut flowers, bedding plants and other floriculture crops require knowledgeable personnel. As this trend develops, the demand for ornamental horticulture courses at the high school level has increased. The most logical teacher group to provide leadership in this area is vocational agriculture teachers. They have been educated in plant related areas and have traditionally taught a small amount of ornamental horticulture at all schools. Even though the vocational agriculture teachers may be best qualified to teach ornamental horticulture at the high school level, their background and training may not be sufficient. The teachers' formal education will usually be broad based if they have graduated from a land—grant university in agricul- tural education. They may have had courses in almost every area of agriculture. If this is the case, they may find that students, local school administrators, parents and industry representatives are asking for more ornamental horticulture, while the teachers do not feel competent to expand their efforts in that direction. Secondary vocational agriculture teachers may be con- cerned by the fact that area skills center programs being offered are able to develOp specialized instruction in a number of agricultural areas. Michigan has 18 skill centers in operation and the State Department of Education has plans for a total of 91 centers as soon as possible (3). These centers will offer forward looking programs in many areas, including ornamental horticulture. Michigan State University, the only institution in Michigan approved to prepare vocational teachers of agricul— ture, has a responsibility to educate secondary teachers who are equipped to teach subjects such as ornamental horticul- ture. Administrators and faculty are probably willing to offer courses that are needed but they are not certain which curriculum changes should be made. Information is needed concerning the educational level of teachers, facilities in use, competencies, and formal education needed by teachers who are presently employed. This, and other pertinent infor- mation, would be helpful to the university in evaluating both the pre-service and in-service educational program in horti- culture and in related fields. Objective of The Study The primary purpose of the study was to determine the perceived adequacies of and needs for technical ornamental horticulture training for vocational agriculture teachers in Michigan. More specifically, the following objectives were sought: 1. To determine if there was a difference in the formal educational background of ornamental horticulture teachers and random sample teachers. To determine if there was a difference in facilities and space for growing ornamental plants between ornamental horticulture teachers and random sample teachers. To determine if there was a difference in the level of perceived adequacy to teach seleCted ornamental horticulture and related areas between ornamental horticulture teachers and random sample teachers. To determine if there was a difference between all teachers perceptions of their adequacy to teach selected ornamental horticulture and related areas, and the perceptions of selected industry representa— tives as to the importance of teachers being quali- fied to teach those areas. To determine if the ornamental horticulture and random sample teacher groups had a different perception of the need for additional formal education. 6. 7. To determine if there was a difference between the ornamental horticulture and random sample teachers commercial work experience and their perceived importance of work experience for a person preparing to teach ornamental horticulture. To determine if the ornamental horticulture and random sample teacher groups had different reasons for teaching or not teaching ornamental horticulture. Definition of Terms For the purposes of this study, selected terms will be defined as follows: 1. Ornamental Horticulture Teachers Those teachers who taught at least one entire class in ornamental horticulture and had a greenhouse available for use at their high school. Random Sample Teachers Those teachers who were randomly selected from the entire list of vocational agriculture teachers after the ornamental horticulture teachers had been removed from the list. Ornamental Horticulture Includes the growing of all plants used for ornamental purposes. Trees, shrubs, flowers, sod, Christmas trees and other plants grown for enjoyment are some of the major areas included. 4. Industry Representatives Those participants who are actively engaged in some ornamental horticulture business and are presently serving on an advisory committee for one of the ornamental horticulture teachers. LITERATURE REVIEW This review of literature was designed to give insight into competencies and needs of secondary ornamental horti- Culture teachers. More specifically, it was designed to show the importance that various researchers have put on the knowledge and use of subject matter by teachers. The first section, Competencies and Needs of All Teachers, provides a review of the literature concerning those competencies and needs of teachers in all areas. The second section, Compe- tencies and Needs of Teachers in Non—Vocational Fields, pro- vides a review of the literature in specific fields such as science, English and mathematics as it relates to the subject. Competencies and Needs of Teachers in Non-Horticultural Vocational Fields is the third section and it points out research findings primarily in the industrial-technical and agriculture areas. The last section, Competencies and Needs of Teachers in Horticultural Fields, include a number of specific competencies researchers have found important for secondary ornamental horticulture teachers. It also points out employment Opportunities and student interest in the area. Competencies and Needgfiof All Teachers If teaching is to be improved, then more information must be obtained about competencies which teachers should possess to be effective. Therefore, there is a need to examine the factors which are involved in determining the competences of teachers. Fawcett (22) and Barr (7) found that administrators and teachers both placed a high importance on the knowledge of subject matter. In a similar study, Barr (6) found that a superior knowledge of subject matter was one of the three qualities possessed by all teachers but by none of the poor teachers in his study. Other areas of importance which were reported include desirable personality characteristics (10) and the application of subject matter in the community (11). Training institutions obviously play an important role in deve10ping teacher competencies, and their interest in assisting teachers to reach their potential cannot be over- emphasized (35). In a rather extensive study, Storm (53) identified factors in the backgrounds of successful teachers ‘by first grouping the teachers into high and low success groups. Some of his findings were: the high success instruc— tors generally attended state universities while members of the low success group were more likely to be the product of other 4-year institutions; the high success teachers had more advanced degrees in Education than the low success group; the average high success instructor earned more per year; but there was no significant difference between the two groups in their family status, major teaching fields or the age at which they started teaching. Competencies and Needs of Teachers in Non—Vocational Fields In an effort to determine possible improvements for a specific education program, competencies of science teachers and the effect of the science curricula upon the development of these abilities have been studied (17). It has been reported that an understanding of science does improve as future teachers progress through the university curriculum (13). Similar positive results have been shown in the improve- ment of teaching science skills by means of in-service educa— tion (13,15). Coffey (15) states that "in-service training programs to change teachers verbal classroom behavior are feasible and can be accomplished by local educational agencies at a modest level of financial support." However, some studies do not support this principle, since it has been shown (46,36) that the training of a teacher in a specific subject area did not result in a more effective teachers. The work of Perkes (46) has shown that the ability of junior high students to recall scientific knowledge was not significantly correlated with the amount of scientific preparation that their science teacher had received in college. He did find, however, that students who scored higher on factual information were taught by teachers who were older, had fewer credits in methods of teaching science, had lower GPA's in science and had less recently completed a college level science course. Further research has shown that science courses were not considered helpful for teaching home economics by those teachers who had recently graduated (36). Although teachers in specialized course areas need some of the same competencies as other teachers, they also need those pertaining solely to their area of specialization. For example, in the mathematics area, watson (57) found that the number of semester hours in mathematics taken by a teacher was a significant predictor of their students' achievement as measured by the SATeM test. He suggested that a sample of teachers who were teaching a specific mathematics course, such as Algebra I, should be used for the continuation of his work. In a later study, Wetter (58) found that beginning teachers of mathematics were teaching courses that were con— siderably different from those they took in college or from those taught during their practice teaching experience. The teachers included in his study recognized a need for addi- tional preparation and were making definite plans to obtain this instruction. Other areas where special knowledge of subject matter is essential include teaching the hearing impaired (2) and adult basic education (19). It was reported that eighty—five percent of the instructors in adult basic education expressed a desire for further training in some specific areas of instruction. 10 Competencies and Needs of Teachers in Non-Horticultural Vocational Fields In addition to the area of horticulture, a study of the literature of other closely related vocational and agricul- tural fields is necessary. The perceived competencies and needs of teachers in these areas could easily be applied to the horticulture profession as well. In all areas of voca- tional education, technical training is considered necessary by the teachers (16). Many of these teachers reported that an increase in both the number and depth of the technical courses is necessary to the improvement of their training (48,37,12).L Further research by Larson (34) revealed that many teachers enrolled in industrial-technical education in Michigan's community junior colleges concluded that too much emphasis had been placed on theory while not enough was given to practical application. In what might be Opposition to these teachers' ideas, Jones (26) found a positive significant correlation between the teachers' knowledge of subject matter and verbal and manual gain in their adult students. He, also, reported a non-significant correlation between the teachers' mental ability, age, years of teaching experience, adult student satisfaction, persistence; and verbal or manual gain. However, other studies have concluded that it is often dif- ficult to show a necessity for long employment in occupations or a training program specifically for various vocational educators (31,50). The results suggest that vocational teacher preparatory programs should place greater emphasis 11 on the individualization of instruction, teaching at indi— vidual learning rates, writing of performance Objectives, evaluation of instruction, and interpreting the goals and objectives of vocational education. Likewise, the research in agricultural fields revealed that teachers were in need of more competencies. In a recent study, Cardozier (l4) gathered data on 188 teachers concern- ing their academic achievement in college and their teaching performance as rated by principals and district supervisors. He found a significant positive correlation between teaching performance and student teaching; but, there was a non- significant difference in the variation of teaching performance according to undergraduate achievement. Other studies (32, 54) have supported the idea that many undergraduate courses were of little benefit to the vocational agriculture teacher. However, in an earlier study, White (59) established the fact that the number of credits earned in animal husbandry by teachers was associated with both the manipulative and mana- gerial abilities possessed by those teachers in beef cattle and swine enterprises. He thus concluded that teachers of vocational agriculture should be encouraged to take more credits in animal husbandry in an effort to acquire more manipulative and managerial abilities. Additional training through in-service technical education has been shown to be desired by vocational agriculture teachers (9). In addition to their function in technical schools, an important aspect of vocational and agricultural training are 12 the programs that are conducted in high schools throughout the country. It has been suggested that vocational instruc- tion at the secondary level is needed to help students to develOp basic skills and competencies to be used after their graduation (43). If students are to develop these skills and competencies, teachers must feel that they are well prepared in the areas which they are teaching (3). Judkins (28) said, in a 1965 speech, that superior teachers must have a knowl- edge of the subject being taught if information is to be dis- seminated and constructively evaluated. In that same speech, he continued: "The teacher's knowledge should involve related subject matter areas to insure that the interpretations and applications being considered in a particular course are relevant to current thought in the broad sweep of human knowl- edge." Competencies and Needs of Teachers in Horticultural Fields To determine some of the competencies needed by teachers of high school ornamental horticulture courses, Bass (8) surveyed twenty-two specialists in horticulture and agricul— tural education. In addition to identifying competencies needed, he asked the respondents to identify what the general purposes of a program in high school ornamental horticulture should be. Almost unanimous agreement was found among the respondents on the following items: (I) contribute to the educational objectives of American education, and (2) fit 13 students for gainful employment. The specialists unanimously agreed that high school ornamental horticulture courses should include (1) floriculture, (2) landscape management, (3) nursery management, and (4) turf management. Many of the competency areas included in Bass's study were also included in "Ornamental Horticulture: A Curriculum Guide for Agricultural Education" (44). The work of Oen (42) concluded that many competencies are desirable, but not necessarily required, for a high school student to know or have developed in order to obtain a job. However, he emphasized the fact that to advance within a firm, to trouble-shoot, or become a specialist, practically all of the competencies for a given area would have to be obtained and/or developed by the employee (42). In a similar study, Parsons (45) found that two-thirds of the greenhouse managers whom he interviewed considered that the knowledge of basic plant parts, basic growth processes and plant names was essential for the greenhouse grower. Eighty- nine percent or more of the managers stated that the following’ competency areas were essential for the greenhouse grower: soil sterilization (steam and chemical): plant propagation (seeds and cuttings): seedling planting and transplanting: potting; soil preparation: fertilization: insect, diseases and virus identification and control; and watering. In addi- tion, Judge (27) suggested that workers should be trained in some kind of technical ornamental horticultural programs. In a 1967 study, Dunbar (21) found that the Michigan floriculture industry needed 314 additional employees that year. 14 Fifty percent of the flower growers and 16 percent of the retailers needed help. All of the wholesalers and retailers and 66 percent of the growers indicated that by 1972 they would need 1980 additional employees. While employers varied in their educational requirements expected in their employees, most indicted; however, that a high school education was desired for the majority of the positions. There seems to be little doubt that more competencies will be needed by workers in the ornamental horticulture industry. White and‘Woodin (60) found that the number of positions as technicians in ornamental horticulture would increase nearly threefold from 1966 to 1972. Such expected increases are well documented for the state of Michigan also (38,41,23). This demand is not only in urban areas, but seems to be characteristic of all sections of the country. A study by.Mondart and Curtis (40) concluded that a surprisingly large number of firms were engaged in ornamental horticulture for the rural state of Louisiana. As jobs continue to increase in this area (4), student interest in ornamental horticulture as a profession may also show an increase. .Mohr (39) documented such an interest when he found that fifty universities across the United States expected enrolhments in floriculture, ornamental horticulture and landscaping to increase by 78 per- cent from 1968 to 1985. To determine student interest at the high school level, Altmen and smith (1) surveyed students following a program about ornamental horticulture which was- 15 conducted in their school. Some of their findings were: 64 percent indicated that they would like to study plants "not for a job, but for pleasure,“ (2) 11 percent intended to use such knowledge in future employment, and (3) 61 per- cent indicated an intention to enroll in ornamental horti- culture in high school. Experts seem convinced that horticulture will be a growing field in the future. Part of this growth may take place in the non-vocational area, such as through the appreci- ation of indoor plants and flowers (56). According to Widmoyer (61), "Through horticultural education, we aspire to develop men and women with ability to make wise, independent decisions based upon facts, clear reasoning and understanding. Many levels of education undoubtedly will be expanded because of need, change, interest, and publicity,... Today, we are considering those individuals who derive enjoyment from horti- cultural plants but who depend upon another vocation for their livelihood." Many of the problems resulting from the change in a traditional vocational agriculture program to a horticul- ture teaching program were described by Kahler in 1972 (30). It appears Obvious that this transition will be difficult for many teachers, and that they must be given the assistance and knowledge to move ahead with the times (52,24). Self-Concept Studies The entire area of self-concept is one that has been researched and discussed in great detail by communicators, 16 sociologists, psychologists and other educators. In fact, Diggory (20) suggested that there is a fundamental "drive" to evaluate ourselves. According to him, "there may be a uni- versal upward push with respect to abilities which biases our evaluations toward the favorable end of the scale in spite of possible evidence that they ought to be lower." In 1963, Super (55) said "A self concept is the individual's picture of himself, the perceived self with accrued meanings. Since the person cannot ascribe meanings to himself in a vacuum, the concept of self is generally a picture of the self in some role, some situation, a position, performing some set of functions, or in some web of relationships." A number of educators have recognized the importance of teachers evaluating themselves. ”Teacher self-evaluation is almost unanimously recommended by teacher organizations and professional experts on teacher improvements" (49). Researchers have found self-evaluation to be a reliable ef- fective method of determining competencies and needs (51,47, 18). KruskOp (33) attempted to assess the ability of voca- tional agriculture teachers to evaluate themselves. He first asked a panel of the Iowa VOcational Agriculture Teachers Association to evaluate the teachers. All teachers were ranked in A, B, C and D groups. Even though there were some inconsistencies, group D tended to indicate need for a higher degree of competence. A correlation of .93 was obtained between groups A and D for mean competency needed scores, 17 indicating a strong tendency of the two groups of instructors to rate their needs similarly. In a somewhat similar study, Judy (29) asked extension agents to estimate their knowledge of soil science, then administered a test to determine specified knowledge. Science Specialists were also asked to estimate the soils knowledge of each agent. It was concluded that the District Director or the Soils Science Specialist~* were the best estimators of agents' soil science knowledge. The highest correlation of any grouping or category was ob- tained by comparing an average of the agent's, director's and specialist's estimates of the agent's knowledge with his test score. Of the 105 agents in the sample, 48 estimated their knowledge accurately, 19 estimated one category too high, 25 under-estimated one category, 10 over-estimated two categories and three under-estimated their knowledge in two categories. There is not a group of supervisors or specialists who work this closely with vocational agriculture teachers in Michigan. METHODS OF THE STUDY The collection and analysis of data for this study were preceded by the development of an interview instrument, pro- cedures for conducting the interview, identification of teachers to be interviewed and preparation of plans for analy- sis of the data. Development of the Interview Instrument .A number of other surveys were studied in detail prior to the develOpment of the instrument used in this study. The reviewing of these studies helped to determine the competencies which are considered important for both teachers and students in the ornamental horticulture area. After the detailed instrument was develOped, it was reviewed by Michi- gan State University faculty members in the department of Horticulture and of Agricultural Education, and by the state coordinator for vocational agriculture. From this review suggested corrections were made to the instrument and it was then tested with the assistance of a vocational agriculture teacher and horticulture graduate students. One of the recom- mendations which resulted from this test was that the inter- view was too long, therefore it was shortened. 18 19 The interview instrument (Appendix A) was divided into six sections. These sections were: General Information, Competency Areas and Skills Taught, Undergraduate Training, Formal Education, Occupational Experience and Other Percep- tions. At the beginning of each interview, the overall pur- pose of the study and a general introduction was given. A short introduction was given prior to each new section. The entire interview was administered in person by the author to all teachers who were a part of both the random sample group and the ornamental horticulture group. Section II, Competency Areas and Skills Taught, was revised and used as the basis for interviewing the industry leaders. These leaders were asked how important they considered it to be that a teacher be qualified in each area or skill. It was stressed that they should consider vocational agriculture teachers in general and not an individual teacher. Population and Sample Interviewed The target pOpulation consisted of all vocational agriculture teachers in Michigan. The sampling frame for teachers consisted of two groups (Figure 1). All teachers in secondary schools offering ornamental horticulture as a specialized course of instruction made up the first group. The second group consisted of a random sample of vocational agriculture teachers in Michigan remaining after the orna- mental horticulture teachers had been selected. The random 20 Figure 1. Location of ornamental horticulture teachers (CD) and random sample teachers (U) who were interviewed. 21 sample was determined by numbering all teachers of vocational agriculture and then using these numbers to select partici- pants from a table of random numbers. Vocational agriculture teachers were selected because they taught some ornamental horticulture and had some technical training in horticulture or horticulture related fields. To qualify as an ornamental horticulture teacher, one had to teach at least one class of ornamental horticulture for the entire year and have a green- house at the high school. These fifteen teachers were in- cluded in the sample because of their special interest in and presumed knowledge of ornamental horticulture. Various methods were used to determine those teachers who were actually teaching ornamental horticulture. The supervisor of the Post-Secondary Unit of the Michigan Depart— ment of Education was contacted in the spring of 1971 and asked to provide a list of ornamental horticulture teachers. When his list was checked, however, it was determined that all of the teachers did not meet the desired criteria. Therefore, a revised list was develOped by contacting members of the agriculture education faculty and vocational agricul— ture teachers in various areas of Michigan. The list was constantly updated and revised as interviews were made. Included in this group were four teachers at area skill centers. These centers offer specialized high school courses of study that might be different from the average school; however it was decided that they should be a part of the 22 survey since these teachers were considered high school teachers in Michigan. Administration of the Interview to Teachers About one week before the desired date of an interview, each teacher was contacted by telephone and asked if he would participate in the survey. During the interview, after get— ting acquainted and establishing a favorable rapport with the teachers, the overall purpose of the survey was explained. The general information was completed first. This gave the teacher a chance to feel somewhat more at ease by first giving information that did not require his Opinion. The second section to be completed was Competency Areas and Skills Taught. A stack of cards containing 53 competency areas or skills was handed to the teacher, and a small box was placed in front of him with notations over compartments indicating the following: Do Not Teach, Well Qualified, Qualified, Poorly Qualified and Not Qualified. It was then explained to the teacher that each card listed one competency area that might be taught at a high school. If the area was taught in his school, the teacher was asked to indicate how qualified he felt he would be to teach that area by placing the card in one of the remaining compartments. After completing the interview, the researcher recorded the responses on the instrument. 23 The third section was Undergraduate Training. A stack of 31 cards, each with the title of an undergraduate course. in horticulture or a related field printed on it, was handed to the teacher and a box was placed in front of him. This box was marked with the following notations above the com- partments: 'Was Not Taken, Very Important, Important, No Opinion, Not Important and Time Wasted. If he had taken the course, he was asked to indicate, by placing the card in one of the remaining compartments, how important that course was in qualifying him to teach ornamental horticulture. He was instructed to disregard name changes in courses. If he had a course that was similar to one listed, he was asked to assume that the course was the same. If there were courses ~he remembered taking that were not a part of the list, these were recorded under "other", along with the importance of each. The fourth section was entitled Formal Education. It included eight questions about both the undergraduate and the graduate formal training and needs. Most of these questions could be answered with Very Helpful, Somewhat Helpful, No Opinion, Probably Not Helpful and Waste of Time. Teachers were asked to look at the questionnaire and respond after each question. The fifth section was Occupational Experience. The first question in this section was used as a filter question. If a teacher answered that he had not had any experience working in a commercial ornamental horticulture business, the 24 next four questions were omitted. However, the remainder of this section was answered by all participants. The sixth section was Other Perceptions. The first part of this section was used to determine how important the ' teachers' reasons were for teaching or not teaching ornamental horticulture as a specialized class. Included in this section were two Open-ended questions concerning changes that the teacher was planning and those that he would like to see made. Additional or probing questions were used to encourage the teacher to talk further or explain in more detail. After completion of the interview, each teacher was given a packet of mimeographs from the Horticulture Department and thanked for participating in the project. About one week after the interview, a letter was mailed to the teacher thanking him for his participation (Appendix B). Administration o; the Interview to Industry Participants All of the teachers who were teaching a specialized program of ornamental horticulture were asked to give the names of one to three industry peOple who served as members of the department's advisory committee. Several teachers did not have an active advisory committee, therefore no in- dustry names were recorded for their department. From the total of all departments, 17 industry leaders were suggested. From these 17, fifteen were selected as a sample group. All industry leaders who were contacted agreed to participate. 25 The questionnaire was then mailed to each leader with an explanation of the study and a notation saying that they would be called for answers during the next few days (Appendices C and D). Five days after the questionnaire was mailed, each person was called and asked to give his responses by the phOne. He was encouraged to ask for clarification anytime a question was unclear. The telephone interviews ranged from 15 to 45 minutes. Analysis of Data Research specialists in the Educational Research Service, College of Education, were utilized to determine possible analysis and treatment of the data. After all of the interviews were completed, the questions were coded and computer cards were punched. When possible the most positive response was given the highest number and the least positive response was given number one. There were primarily four types of responses: (a) yes/no questions which were coded 2 for yes and l for no: (b) qualification questions which were coded 4, very qualified; 3, qualified; 2, somewhat unqualified and l, unqualified; (c) importance questions which were coded 5, very important; 4, somewhat important; 3, no opinion: 2, little importance and 1, not important; and (d) helpfulness questions which were coded 5, very helpful; 4, somewhat helpful: 3, no Opinion; 2, prObably not helpful and l, waste of time. 26 A chi-square distribution was calculated on the first computer analysis of data. Because of the small sample size, it was concluded that this statistic would not be a valid test for the hypotheses (see statement of null hypotheses in Results and Discussion). However, it did provide an indica- tion of disparity and unanimity, cell frequencies and cell percentages. The statistical approach selected for the tests of the hypotheses was the multivariate analysis of variance. The computer program for the multivariate analysis of variance developed by Finn (25) yields a multivariate F ratio, and a univariate F ratio. The multivariate F ratio indicates whether the five dependent variables—-teaching experience and plant growing facilities, perceived competencies to teach ornamental horticulture and related areas or skills, per- ceived need for additional formal education, importance of occupational experience, and reasons for teaching or not teaching ornamental horticulture as a specialized program-- were simultaneously statistically significant at a given level of significance examined. The multivariate analysis of variance program also yielded a probability level for each F ratio. An alpha level of .10 was selected for the overall test. However, the .02 level of significance was used for the multivariate analysis since the overall test was split into five sections. The level of significance varied between sections since the number 27 of dependent variables were not the same. In order to be significant, the probability for rejecting each of the dependent variables in the section with seven variables would need to be less than .0018. The section with 41 variables would require a probability of less than .00049 to be sig— nificant. Other sections varied according to the number of variables. RESULTS AND DISCUS S ION General information A majority of teachers in both groups had received their Bachelor's and Master's degree in agricultural educa- tion (Table 1). None of the random sample teachers (n=15) had received either a Bachelor's or Master's degree in horti- culture. However, a small percentage of ornamental horticul- ture teachers (n=15) had received a Bachelor's or Master's degree in horticulture. Some teachers in both groups had degrees in other areas for both Bachelor's and Master's degrees, but random sample teachers had the highest per- centage of Bachelor's degrees in other fields. A possible explanation of the large number of ornamental horticulture teachers with agricultural education degrees is that a number of these teachers had previously taught vocational agriculture and then changed the emphasis in their instruc- tion to ornamental horticulture. Most of the degrees other than agricultural education or horticulture that were reported were in agriculture disciplines such as animal husbandry and sail science. Teachers in the random sample group had been teaching longer in their present position than the ornamental horticul- ture teachers. Random sample teachers had been in their 28 29 Table 1. Comparison of Ornamental Horticulture Teachers1 (O.H.T.) and Random Sample Teachers2 (R.S.T.) Bachelor's Degree Major and Master's Degree Major Agri- Other Horti- cultural Agri- culture Education culture3 Bachelor's Degree O.H.T. n 3 9 2 % 21 64 14 R.S.T. n 0 9 6 0 60 40 Masteijs Degree O.H.T. n 1 6 2 % 11 67 22 R.S.T. n 0 7 2 % 0 78 22 1n = 15 2n = 15 3Includes one major in speech 30 present position an average of 10.3 years, while the ornamental horticulture teachers had been in their present positions an average of only 7.4 years. The relatively new ornamental horticulture programs at some schools, especially at the area skill centers, probably accounts for this difference. However, there was very little difference in the average total years in the teaching profession. The average was 12.3 years for the ornamental horticulture group. Ornamental horticulture teachers-reported a larger average number of students per class than did the random sample teachers. The number of students per class was 20.4 for the random sample group and 23.5 for the ornamental horticulture group. As was expected, ornamental horticulture teachers had a higher average of greenhouse space (1123 square feet) than the random sample teachers (165 square feet). Similar dif- ferences appeared when ornamental horticulture teachers reported an average of 4.9 acres of nursery space while random sample teachers reported an average of only .12 acres of nursery space. An average of 42.3 square feet of classroom growing space was reported by the ornamental horticulture teachers while 23.3 square feet was reported by the random sample teachers. Many of the random sample teachers with little or no space for growing plants reported that they were seriously considering adding to or expanding their growing facilities. Only one teacher from each group reported using a plant growth chamber. It was a small area and was reported to be 31 used very seldom. Only five teachers reported the use of cold frames for growing plants and none reported the use of hotbeds. Undergraduate Training The undergraduate preparation of the teachers, as repre- sented by the kinds of agricultural courses taken, was quite varied. Ornamental horticulture teachers had taken the highest percentage of horticulture courses (Table 2). However, a majority of both groups had taken ngic Horticuiture. A majority of random sample teachers had not taken any other horticulture course. A low percentage (27% and 33%) had taken Landscape Plants I and Principles of Plant Propagatigg. Only 33% of the ornamental horticulture teachers had taken Indoor Piants and Fiowerg. A higher percentage of teachers had taken courses in soils science than any other area. Ninety-three percent of all teachers had taken Fundamentaig of Soii Science. §gii Management was taken by about the same number in each group, however more of the ornamental horticulture teachers had taken Turfgrass.Management. A large number of teachers in both groups had taken three of the—biological science courses. The largest number in both groups had taken Generai Biology 211 and General Biology 212. Ornamental horticulture teachers-had taken more botany courses than random sample teachers. None of the random sample 32 teachers had taken either of the two advanced plant physi- ology courses. Two of three courses in agricultural engineering had been taken by a majority of teachers in both groups. Teaching Agricultural.Mechanics was taken by 100% of the random sample teachers but by only 53% of the ornamental horticulture teachers. Random sample teachers had taken more agricultural eco— nomics than ornamental horticulture teachers. tAgriculture in The Economy and Eggm.Management were taken by more teachers in both groups than any other courses. Land Economigg_was the course in agricultural economics which had been taken by the smallest number of teachers. Teachers in both groups thought soil science, botany and horticulture courses were very important in preparing them to teach ornamental horticulture. Even though all horti- culture courses were perceived as important, Basic Horticulture was rated lower than any of the others. All of the other courses were perceived as very important or somewhat important by all teachers. Soils courses were rated almost as high. Abmost all of the teachers rated them in one or the other of the tOp two categories. Teachers did-not perceive biological science courses to be as important as courses in the other areas. Both groups of teachers felt about the same way about the courses in this area. Only 13% of the ornamental horticulture teachers and 33 8% of the random sample teachers thought General Biology 211 was very important in preparing them to teach ornamental horticulture. About the same percentage in each group thought that course was of little importance. This entire area is one that teachers may have felt they have not had an.oppor- tunity to use since leaving college.1 However, they may have helped the-teacher t0*build a competency in plant growing by providing him with a background which helped him in later courses. vBotany was also perceived as important. Elementary Piggg Physiology was considered very important by 75% of the orna- mental horticulture teachers and 33% of the random sample teachers. Other courses in botany were rated about the same. There was a tendency for both groups of teachers to rate agricultural economics and agricultural engineering courses as somewhat important: however, random sample teachers tended to rate them higher. Competency Areas and Skills Taughg Some of the 53 competency areas were taught by all of the teachers while others were taught by only a few (Table 3). Seventy-five percent of the areas were taught by all of the ornamental horticulture teachers; however, only 15% were 1The biological science courses and several other courses were part of a teaching minor in Biological Science. Some teachers may have used the courses for their teaching assign- ments in biology, general science or other science courses. 34 OODGHDGOO o o o o ooa .B.m.m 5 mm o o 0 ma mm .B.m.o mm ha unmenoufi>cm ucmam pmaaouucoo o o o o ooa .Bfopé n mm o o 0 mm“ no .B.m.o ov om unmemmmcmz_usmam Hmucmemsuo o o o o ooa .B.m.m n mm o o o o ooa .B.m.o mm mm mum3oam paw mucmam HOOUCH o o o o o .B.m.m o ooa o o o no hm .B.m.o he mm HH mucmam mamumpcmq o o 0 mm mu .9. m. m mm mm o o 0 me mm .B. m. o be mm H mucmam momompcmq 0 AH HH av mm .B.m.m om ow 0 ma 0 a mu .B.m.o mp hm ousuazoauuom venom mnsuasowuuom OCMOMOOEH oucmumoasm, somcflao ucmuHOQEH ucmuuooem‘ x008 Oxmw poz «Huang oz unnameom >um> u.c6ao «unmouom . unmoumm ousuHsOMuHom HmucOEBcHo #0669 OH Eons msaummmum Mom monusou muons so pmomam oudmuuomsfi map can A.B.m.mv umnosomoa OHQEMm sapsmm paw A. a. M. De mumnumme musuasuaunom amucmemsuo an opamam pounded paw Ousuasoauuom ca coxma momudoo awaken mo mcomaumaeoo .N magma 35 pmscfiucoo o o 0 ma mm .B.m.m mm he 0 o 0 mm mm .B.m.o om ov muounsauuom 6cm sunaauumm snow 0 o o ooa o .Bsmwm b mm o o o 0% ow .B.m.o mm 50 acmemmwcmz monumwwsa o m ,m hm mm .8.Mum nu mm o o 0 mm on .B.m.o mm mm somewmmcmzmflwom o o 5 ON mm .BJm.m OCH 0 o o 0 mm as .B.m.o mm b mocoaom wwom mo mwmucoempcsm madam o o o ooa o .B.msm b mm o o o as mm .B.m.o be mm ucoeummcmz.muomnsz o o o om om .B.m.m mm no 0 o 0 mm mm .B.m.o mm he coflummmmoum acmam molmmamwocanm Apmscwucoov mmwuasufiuuom ucmuuooEH OOGMOHOQEH acmcwoo ucmuuomEH unmuHOQEH xooa mxma uoz masses oz unnamEOm >Hm> u.csno ucoommw useouom GOLDSMD GOUII N OHQMH. 36 poncwucou o o o o ooa .B.m.m 5 mm o mN o 0 mm .B.m.o mm mm pauoz Osman o o o no mm .B.Mum om om o o 0 mm mm .B.m.o mm he NmoHowmmnm uGMflm ammucmemam Ncmuom o o o o ooa .a.m.m 5 mm o o o o 00.... .B.m.o 5 mm muonomms How oucmaom anus oaowm m ma ma an m .B.m.m hm ma 0 «a o as «a, .B.m.o ha mm “Name mmOHowm Hmumcmo m ma ma an m .B.m.m hm ma 0 ma 0 on ma .9. .0 mm he NAHNO haoaoam Hmumcww o _ on 0 mm mm .B.m.m hm mu 0 ha 0 no 5H .B.m.o oe om mucoaom HmumeHOAm mo mcowumpcsom . . . mocmaom anus H0sm ucmuuomEH mocmuuomEH coacwmo usmuHooEH psmuuomeH £009 @369 uoz mauunq oz umrzmsom mum> u.cono ucooumm ucmuumm umscaucouanm magma 37 poscwucou n 0 ma oe oe .B.m.m ooa o 0 ma ma mm o .B.m.o mm 5% mOwGMSOOZJflMHsuHSOAHamlmcwnumma m 0 hm pm on .B.m.m Mb mm m ha ha Ne SH .B.m.o om om musudsowuad ou pmwamad amamaocwwm acmumocflmcm adwnoocflacm amusuasowumm o as ,mm 54 mm .a.m.m ow oo 0 Ha C we we .B.m.o om ow Nmoaoeoucmlflmuocmo Nmmaoeoucm o o o o o .B.m.m o 00H 0 o 0 mm mm .B.m.o hm mu nuzomo ”mmoaoammnm unmam o o o o o .B.m.m o OCH 0 o 0 mm so .a.m.o om om awasonmumz "ammamammrm unmmm o o 0 on om .B.m.m ma OCH 0 o 0 mm no .B.m.o om om Nmoaosumm uamwm enouospouucH Apmscaucoov Namuom ucmuummEH mucmuHanH cowcwoo uqmuuomEH ucmuHOQEH x009 Oxme uoz mapped oz umssmEOm muo> (i, u.:6ao unmoumm ucmoumm coaasucoouum manna 38 pmscwucoo o o o 0 MH 0 5H NH ucmuuomsH mocmuuomEH uoz «Hausa o om om .B.m.m mm no on on o .B.m.o ma pm mcwumxumz tam mommwm Housuasuwmam o o 00H .B.m.m 5 mm o om o .B.m.o ma hm mufleocoum pang o om om .B.mum. ma mm mm mm o .B.m.o om om Hmmwmuaaé 0cm mosmcwm Bush 0 mm mm .B.m.m mm be o no 0 .B.m.o o¢ om unmemmmcmz tam moweocoom1d0fluuspoum m mm mm .B.m.m hm ma Ha mm o .8.m.o om ov meocoum was cw muduasowumm mudeocoum Housuasuaumd mm mm we .B.m.m hm ma 0 mm 3.. .B.m.o oe om made an cowumsnsouwacmoucH Aconcaucouv assummcwmcm Honouasoaumd coagflmo ucmuuoasH ucmuHOMEH #009 0x69 oz umnzmsom wum> u.cpwa ucouumm usmonom ooscnucounuw «Hams 39 .momusoo mnu smxmu can wasp pouuommn 0&3 mumsummu Omonu haso mo mcowcwmo co pommmn ma u an ma u as ma am 0 mm o .B.m.m om om ma em 0 mm o .B.m.o mm Sc ucoeummcmz sham Aposcwusoov moweocoom Housuasowu 4 ucmuuomEH OUGMUHOQEH GOHGMQO DGMUHOQEH ucmuHOQEH x009 Oxma uoz masons oz unreasom muo> u.cono ucoouom ucoowom oooonoooouum magma 40 Table 3. Comparison of Areas or Skills Taught by Ornamental Horticulture Teachers1 (O.H.T.) and Random Sample Teachers2 (R.S.T.) Percent Who Taught Area or Skill _ OtH.T. R.S.T. 1. Identifying ornamental plants by common names. 100 100 2. Identifying ornamental plants by scientific names. 73 47 3. Characteristics of more than five plant families. 93 67 4. Taking soil samples. 100 100 5. Testing soil samples. 93 87 6. Interpreting soil test results. 100 100 7. The effects of soil structure and texture on plants. 100 100 8. Sterilizing soil: With steam. 93 40 9. Sterilizing soil: With chemicals. 93 60 10. Changing soil pH: Raising the soil pH. 100 100 11. Changing soil pH: Lowering the soil pH. 100 87 12. Soil mixtures for potting. 100 80 13. Understanding the use of mulches. 100 93 14. The use of trace elements. 100 93 15. Planning the proper use of growth regulators. 100 80 16. Understanding how plant nutrients be— come available in the soil. 100 100 17. Making fertilizer recommendations for specific plants. 100 93 18. Mixing fertilizers for a specific ratio. 100 80 19. Identifying nutrient deficiencies in plants. 100 100 20. PrOper handling of agricultural chemicals. 100 100 21. Insects affecting ornamental plants: Identification of at least ten insects. 100 80 22. Insects affecting ornamental plants: Making recommendations for control. 100 93 continued 41 Table-3--Continued Percent Who Taught Area or Skill O.H.T. R.S.T. 23. Diseases affecting ornamental plants: Identification of at least five diseases. 100 77 24. Diseases affecting ornamental plants: Making recommendations for control. 100 _ 77 25. Controlling the greenhouse environ- ment: Regulation of light. 100 . 67 26. Controlling the greenhouse environ- ment: Regulation of moisture. 100 67 27. Controlling the greenhouse environ- ment: Regulation of temperature. 100 67 28. Understanding the cultural require- ments of ornamental plants: Green- house crOps. 100 67 29. Understanding the cultural require- ments of ornamental plants: Nursery crops. 100 80 30. Understanding the cultural require- ments of ornamental plants: Plants in landscape plantings. 100 93 31. Growing annual bedding plants: Sowing the seed. 100 93 32. Growing annual bedding plants: Trans— planting seedlings. 100 87 33. Growing annual bedding plants: Growing the plants. 100 87 34. Cut flowers: Cutting the stems. 100 60 35. Cut flowers: Care of the flowers after harvest. 100 60 36. Flower arranging: A knowledge of basic principles of design. 93 53 37. Flower arranging: Arranging the flowers. 93 53 38. Flower arranging: Pricing. 87 53 39. Propagating plants by: Grafting. 100 80 40. PrOpagating plants by: Cuttings. 100 80 continued 42 Table 3--Continued Percent Who Taught Area or Skiil O.H.T. R.S.T: 41. Propagating plants by: Budding. 93 80 42. PrOpagating plants by: Layering. 100 73 43. Pruning ornamental plants. .100 87 44. Balling and burlapping ornamental plants. 100 87 45. Performing annual maintenance of lawns and landscapes. 100 93 46. Advising customers concerning: Desirable varieties. 100 80 47. Advising customers concerning: Costs of plants. 93 73 48. Advising customers concerning: Proper planting procedure. 100 87 49. Advising customers concerning: Care after planting. , 100 87 50. Estimating the costs of caring for mechanical landscaping equipment. 87 60 51. Caring for mechanical landscaping equipment: Repairing. 100 80 52. Caring for mechanical landscaping equipment: Maintaining. 100 80 53. Caring for mechanical landscaping equipment: Adjusting. 100 80 J‘13:].5 2n=15 43 taught by all of the random sample teachers, most of which were in the soil science area. The following eight competency areas were reported as being taught by teachers in both groups: Identifying ornamental plants by common names. Taking soil samples. Interpreting soil test results. Effect of soil structure and texture on plants. Changing soil pH: (Raising the soil pH. Understanding how plant nutrients'become available in the soil. Identifying nutrient deficiencies in plants. Proper handling of agricultural chemicals. It can be noted that six of these areas are related to the soils science area. The reason for a unanimous response on these items could be due to the fact that many of- these areas would be taught by a vocational agriculture teacher at any school. It is evident that the entire soils area is closely connected to the growing of all plants. Even though nearly three-fourths of the ornamental horti— culture teachers taught the identification of ornamental plants by scientific names, the area was not taught by as amany of the teachers as were the other horticulture areas. A majority of random sample teachers did not teach this area. Data in Table 3 indicate that a higher percentage of both groups of teachers taught characteristics of more than five 44 plant families, even though fewer of the random sample teachers taught it. The highest percentage of “Didn't Teach” answers by random sample teachers occurred on the following items: Cut flowers: Cutting the stems. Cut flowers: Care of the flowers after harvest. Flower arranging: A knowledge of basic principles of design. Flower arranging: Arranging the flowers. Flower arranging: Pricing. Estimating the costs of caring for mechanical land— scaping equipment. Other areas where above 30%»of the random sample teachers answered in the "Didn't Teach" column included those con- cerning controlling the greenhouse environment and understand- ing the cultural requirements of greenhouse crOps. Even though random sample teachers did not teach all of the areas, it is evident that they taught a wide range of the competency areas in ornamental horticulture. Ornamental horticulture teachers felt somewhat more qualified to teach the identification of ornamental plants than did random sample teachers. However, both groups-felt more qualified to teach identification by common than by -scientific names. All of the industry representatives except one, thought it was more important for a teacher to be quali- fied to teach the identification of ornamental plants by common names than by scientific names. Table 4 shows eight areas or skills that tend to show disagreement between the 45 H "on “3 no" :3 no. 0 on he mm .m.H ms om a o .s.m.m .omHmoo mo moHoHooHuo oHomn no om mm mm om .9. m. o mmUOHzocM a umchcmuum HOBOHm o 9 mm o¢ .m. H he he 9 o .9. m. m .umo>um£ nmumm mneBoHH 0 mm 9N ea .9. m. 0 you «O OHMO «whosoHH usu 0 MH MH mu .m. H .mQOHO monogamouw umHQMHm he MH ov o .9. m. m Hmucoemcuo Ho mucmEmHHso o A mm ca .9. m. 0 non HonouHoo may moHoomomuoooo o A «H om .m. H .oroHH as AN . on A .a. m. m «o coHumHooom mucosaouH>Ho o 9 ea mm 9. m. o Omsoncmmnm mnu mcHHHOHucou o 0 MH mm .m. H .mommmep O>Hm umMOH oe am an o .9. m. m no mo ooHooonHucooH “ouoon 0 SN mm om .9. m. o Hmucosmcuo mcHuOOHHm mommomHO 9 mm: he MH .m. H oo MH om a .a. m. m .ooeao onHuooHoo an 9m MH 9m m .9 m. o musmHm Hmucmemcuo mcHamHucopH o o 9 mm .m. H O on so MH .9. m. m .mooao ooeeoo an o 0 mm . no .9 m. o mHGMHm Hmucoemcno mcHMHHucOUH ucmuHOQEHGD HCMHMOQSHGD HGMHHOQEH ucmuuomEH \ooHoHHooooo \oonHHmoooo \ooHnHHmoo \ooHuHHooo Hmn3oeom 9HO> ucoouom mHHme Ho momma Onon9 nomo9 on pOHHHHmso msHom so pOOMHm ano>HumucomOHmOm wuumsch mocmuuomEH men can .mHHme no momma pmuOOHOm numm9 on coHumOHHHHmso HHO£9 Ho GOmemouom A. 9. m. me ~mnm£omo9 OHmemm sousmm pom A. 9. m. ov mumnomm9 ousuHsOHunom Hmucmemcuo Ho cOmHumosoo .e OHnm9 46 three groups. Appendix E, Table 1 includes a complete list- ing of responses to the 53 items in this section. Both tables presented in this section include responses from the industry representatives about the importance that they place on a teacher being qualified to teach that area or skill. The reader is also reminded that the "unqualified“ category includes those teachers who said that they did not teach an area of skill. {Ornamental horticulture teachers thought that their best students would know how to identify more ornamental plants than did the random sample teachers. Table 5 reveals that both groups taught fewer scientific names than common names. All teachers taught some identification of ornamental plants by common name but several in each group did not teach any scientific names. Table 5. Comparison of the Average Number of Common and Scientific Names Students Should Know After High School Graduation According to Teacher Groups Average Average Number of Number of Common Scientific Names Names Ornamental Horticulture Teachers 101 63 Random Sample Teachers 26 4 Total 64 34 47 Industry representatives thought it was very important that teachers be qualified to teach the identification of at least five diseases, however neither teacher group felt highly qualified in that area. More than half of the orna— mental horticulture teachers felt very qualified to teach ~the regulation of light as part of controlling the greenhouse environment. >However, random sample teachers tended to feel unqualified to teach this area and many did not have a green— house at their school. However, industry representatives thought it was important that a teacher be qualified to teach this area. Only two representatives did not respond to one of the tOp two categories. MOre of the ornamental horticulture teachers thought they were qualified than did random sample teachers to teach the care of cut flowers after harvest. Industry representa- tives did not feel that this area was as important as some of the other areas. All three groups responded much the same way to a knowledge of basic principles of flower arranging as they did to the care of cut flowers after harvest. More of the ornamental horticulture teachers tended to feel quali- fied to teach these areas than did random hample teachers, however, both groups rated this area low. Industry represen- tatives also rated this area lower than many of the others. There were some areas where all three groups tended to show agreement. Table 6 is used to show four of these areas. Random sample teachers felt more qualified to teach the 48 ma u an mH u on mH u ca MH mm mm om .m.H on 9 mm om .9.m.m .OHumu.OHHHummn 9 MH mm 9N .9.m.o m mom mHONHHHuHmH mcHtz 0 9m om MH .m.H 9 ON mm om .9.m.m 0 mm mm MH .9.m.o .mucosmHo mums» Mo was on9 0 0m om om .m.H o o 9¢ mm .9.m.m .mm HHom on» o 0 AN m9 .s.m.o mcHonm "mo HHom ocHoomro o 9 9m 9m .m.H o 9 mm om .9.m.m .muHomon o o oo 04 .e.m.o poop HHom moHuonououcH ucmuuoachD ucmumanHcD ucmumomew HGMAWOQEH \oonHHmooco \oonHHmooco \oonHHooo \oonHHooo umg3m50m hum> acouuom mcHOm so pOOMHm momma oouooHom rooms.ou ooHumonHHmso uHors mo ooHuooouoo.A.a.m.mv n mHHme no.ooou¢ moors rooms on ooHuHHooo no>HumucOmmHmOm huumsch oucmuuomeH was new .mHHme Ho OHmemm Ebpcmm pcm A.9.m.ov a muonumm9 OHSHHSOHuHom HMHGOEBGHO mo conHHmmEOO «mumgumo9 .m OHQMB 49 interpretation of soil test results than techniques for rais- ing the soil pH. There was very little difference between the three groups in their response to teaching the use of trace elements. Most of the teachers felt qualified to teach that area. About the same percentage of industry representatives responded to the importance of teaching the use of trace elements. Teachers in the ornamental horticulture group felt more qualified to teach mixing fertilizers for a specific ratio than felt they were qualified to teach the use of trace elements. Formal Education Needed Both ornamental horticulture teachers and random sample teachers thought more formal courses would help them be better teachers of ornamental horticulture (Table 7). Courses in woody ornamentals and turfgrass management were perceived as being more helpful than any of the others included in the interview. Ninety-three percent of the random sample teachers felt more training in turfgrass management would be very help— ful. Both floriculture and soil science courses were per- ceived as areas where training would be very helpful. A higher percentage of random sample teachers than ornamental horticulture teachers felt a need for additional training in this area. .Both groups rated the need for soil science train- ing about the same. More random sample teachers perCeived that additional training in botany would be helpful than ornamental 50 mH u o~ ma u or 9 3 o om oo 96.x 9 on 0 9m 9s .s.m.o "ooooHom HHom o 0 on oo om .s.mnm 9 o o mm o4 .s.m.o "HmoHorumo o 0 .MH 9o om .a.m.m o o 9 mm o4 .a.m.o "832.35 0 o o 9 mm .s.m.m 9 9 0 9m oo .s.m.o “someommooz monummuoe o 0 MH om 9 .s.m.m mH on 0 mm MH .9.m.o "hmOHOHmhsm OGMHH o 3 «H cm «H dame mH om 9 94 mH .s.m.o “Henson 0 o 0 ON om .s.m.m 9 9 o NH M9 .s.m.o "mHouoosmouo moooz 9 o 0 ON M9 .a.m.m 9 «H 0 9m mm .a.m.o "ououaooHuon oeHelwo Homoaoz ooz ooHcho HomoHoz Hoonom «one mummz thmnoum oz umn3mEOm >Hm> assumed momma omuuoHom cH mchHmu9 Hmeuom HmcoHquo¢ How ommz pm>HmouOm A.9.m.mv «mumnumm9 OHmsmm soccmm poo A.9.m.ov Hmuosomo9 ousuHsuHuuom Hmucoemcuo Ho comHnmmeou .9 mHnm9 51 horticulture teachers. However, only a slight majority in both groups responded to the tap two categories. A majority of teachers in both groups thought additional training in plant physiology, entomology and plant pathology would be somewhat helpful. There were differences in their responses, however. Eighty percent of the random sample teachers and 53%»of the ornamental horticulture teachers thought more training in plant physiology would be somewhat helpful. A higher percentage of random sample teachers rated addi- tional training in both entomology and plant pathology as somewhat helpful. A reversal occurred in the very helpful category on those two items. A majority of both groups of teachers thought cultural requirements of greenhouse crops and controlling the green- house environment would be very helpful floriculture courses in their teaching program (Table 8). Ornamental horticulture teachers responses were slightly higher for cultural require- ments of greenhouse crOps but random sample teachers responded higher for controlling the greenhouse environment. More ran- dom sample teachers also thought a course in indoor plant culture would be helpful than ornamental horticulture teachers. However, both groups thought it would be helpful. Even though teachers thought more training in flower arranging would be helpful, a larger number rated it in the lower two categories of importance than either of the other floriculture areas. This is one of the areas teachers did not feel as highly 52 ll £2 mH 9 o 0 ON M9 9 om o 9m 9¢ "onsuHsu HQMHm Hooch ON 0 ,9 mm ov mH om o 9 oo ”monamuua Hozoaz 9 9 0 MH M9 9 MH 0 ON om "ucosaouH>cm monondmmuw may mcHHHonucoo 9 9 0 0m 9m 9 m m 9 MH 0 9 m9 .e.m.o "moouo monogamous Ho mucosmuHsoom HousuHsO 08H9 HO Hsmmem uoz GOHGHQO HsHmHOm Asumdmm scum mums: aHnsQOHH, oz unnameom huo> ucoumwm OHsuHso IHHOHH CH mchHmu9 Hmeuom.HmcoHqup¢ How pmoz pO>HOOHom A.9.m.mv ~mum£umo9 OHmewm soccer paw A.9.m.ov amHO£OMO9 muduHsuHuHom Hmucmemcuo mo conHHmmsou .m OHnm9 53 qualified in as some of the others (see Competency Areas and Skills Taught). Therefore, they must feel that this area is not as important to their teaching program as some of the others. More than 50% of the teachers in both groups thought additional training in identification and characteristics of plants, nursery management and landscape design would be very helpful (Table 9). Eighty percent of the random sample teachers and 67% of the ornamental horticulture teachers thought more training in landscape design would be very help- ful. More random sample teachers rated additional training in identification and characteristics of ornamental plants, and landscape maintenance as helpful than ornamental horticulture teachers. A large majority of random sample teachers thought training in landscape maintenance would be very helpful but 47% of the ornamental horticulture teachers rated it in the top category. Teachers in both groups rated training in garden center management slightly lower than the other areas in woody ornamentals. rForty percent of the teachers in both groups thought garden center management training would be very helpful and 40% thought it would be somewhat helpful. There was a strong tendency for teachers to prefer a major in horticulture with a teaching certificate as the ideal formal education background for a teacher of ornamental horticulture in high school. Seventy—three percent of the 54 mH u cm mH H CH 0 om o o¢ oe .9.m.m 9 MH o co co .9.m.o "mOHmm Ilucmewmmcmz_umucmo copumw o o o om om .9.m.m 9 9 o om 9m .9.m.o "cmHme manomUGMH o o 0 9m M9 .9.m.m fl 9 0 mm 9a .9416 "3:23:32 monomocmq o o o o¢ ow .9.m.m MH 9 o om oo .e.z.o "coHummooouo ucmHm ocH IpsHocH .ucmsmmmsmz_mumnusz o o 0 9m M9 .9.m.m MH MH 0 om mm .9.m.o umHCMHm Ho MOHumH Inouomnmau pom coHumOHHHucOpH mEH9 mm, HsHmHOm you somcHoo HsmmHmm HszHOm oumfl spams xHanoum oz umg3weom 9Hm> ucoouom mHmucosficuo MUOOS cH mchHmu9 HmEHom HMGOHHHUpd How pooz to>HoouOm A.9.m.mv ~muosomo9 OHmSmm sopcmm paw A.9.m.ov amusuHsoHunom Hmucoemcuo Ho conHmeeoo .m OHnm9 55 ornamental horticulture teachers and 87% of the random sample teachers thought a major in horticulture with a teaching certificate would be ideal. Only 7%.from each group thought a major in agricultural education would be the ideal back— ground. None of the ornamental horticulture teachers and 7% of the random sample teachers thought a major in horticulture with no teaching certificate would be ideal. Seven percent of the ornamental horticulture teachers thought some other degree would be ideal and 13% thought the area the degree is in would make no difference. Most of the random sample teachers would not recommend their kind and amount of formal education for other teachers before they begin teaching ornamental horticulture. However, slightly more than one-half of the ornamental horticulture teachers would recommend their training. Fifty-three percent said they would recommend their training to other teachers whereas 47% said they would not. Only 13% of the random sample teachers would recommend their training. Teachers in both groups placed a great deal of importance on in-service training meetings, physical facilities, inter— ested students, instructional materials and formal courses for improving their overall ornamental horticulture teaching" program (Appendix E, Table 2). They placed less importance on formal courses than any of the others. Even though a ‘majority of the random sample teachers thought more formal courses was very important, only 40% of the ornamental horti— culture teachers thought it was very important and 20% 56 thought it was not important. Teachers generally thought courses in animal hquandry, dairy science and poultry science had been of little help to them in teaching ornamental horticulture (Appendix E, Table'3). However, courses in crop science, agricultural economics, forestry, fisheries and wildlife, and agricultural engineering were thought to be helpful. They tended to rate animal hus- bandry, dairy science and poultry science as probably not help- ful but somewhat helpful was the most frequently reported category for the other courses. Occupational Experience Eighty percent of the random sample teachers and 47% of the ornamental horticulture teachers did not have work experience in a commercial ornamental horticulture business before teaching. However, all of those who had work experi- ence thought it had been very helpful to them in their teach- ing program. The ornamental horticulture teachers work experience was varied, but all random sample teachers with occupational experience had worked in greenhouse firms. Twenty—five percent of the ornamental horticulture teachers had worked with greenhouses, 38% with nurseries, 25%.with landscape construction and maintenance firms and 13% with garden centers. A majority of the teachers in both groups thought work experience in a greenhouse, nursery or garden center would be very helpful for a person preparing to teach ornamental 57 horticulture (Table 10). They rated nursery experience the most preferred of any in the group. About one-half of the teachers in each group said work experience in a florist shop would be somewhat helpful. However, 20% of the ornamental horticulture teachers and 13%»of the random sample teachers thought it would be probably not helpful. Random sample teachers thought work experience in farming would be more helpful than did ornamental horticulture teachers. Twenty percent of the ornamental horticulture teachers said it would be time wasted. None of the random sample teachers thought it would be time wasted. More of the ornamental horticulture teachers than random sample teachers felt that work experience in an ornamental horticulture business should be required before a person begins teaching ornamental horticulture.p All of the orna- mental horticulture teachers said work experience should be required and 80% of the random sample teachers agreed. Teacher's perception of the length work experience should be, varied according to groups (Table 11). Random sample teachers tended to think work experience should be less than 6 months, however ornamental horticulture teachers thought more than 6 months should be required. This is possibly a reflection on the fact that a higher percentage of ornamental horticulture teachers had work experience before teaching than random sample teachers. 58 MH n on MH H CH 0 9 0 9m 9 .9.m.m m ON 9 mm 9 .a.m.o “moHeuoz o o 0 9m M9 .9.m.m 0 MH 0 9 om .9.m.o "Hmucoo Copumw o o o 9 mm .9.m.m o o o 9 mm .s.m.o "Humouoz 9 MH 9 9e 9m .9.m.m o om o 94 mm .a.m.o udorm umHnon o o 0 ON om .9.m.m o o 0 MH 9m .9.m.o ”mmsogcoonw pmummz HSHmHOm uoz doHchd HsHQHOm HSHQHOm mocmHummxm mo mesa OEH9 mHnmnoum oz DMSBOEOm mum> ucmunmm muzquOHuHom Hmucoewcuo nomo9 on mcHHmmOHm conned o now means: IHmsm pouomHmm cH 00:0Huomxm xHOS so poOMHm A.9.m.mv ~mum£omw9 OHmemm eopcmm pom A.9.m.ov HnHO£OMO9 onsuHsuHuHom Hmucoemsuo oucmuuomeH one no comHHmmeou .OH OHnm9 pl 0—4 59 Table 11. Comparison of Ornamental Horticulture Teachers (O.H.T.) and Random Sample Teachers (R.S.T.) Perception of How Long Work Experience Should Be Before Teaching Ornamental Horticulture Percent Less than Sixth months .More than 6 months to 1 year 1 year O.H.T. (n=15) 13 47 40 R.S.T. (n=15) 60 27 13 Othei Perceptions There was lack of agreement among random sample teachers concerning the importance of reasons why they did not teach ornamental horticulture as a specialized program (Table 13). They placed the most importance on lack of facilities and in- sufficient college training. Even though a majority did not think the job market was too limited, 33%.thought it was important. Generally, they did not think ornamental horti— culture should be the responsibility of the area skill centers or that local industry representatives were encouraging them not to teach ornamental horticulture. The subject was of interest to them. Ornamental horticulture teachers felt differently about why they taught ornamental horticulture on several items than random sample teachers (Table 12). Student interest, job availability, interesting subject and encouragement by local policies were the items a high prOportion of the ornamental 60 Table 12. The Importance Ornamental Horticulture Teachers Placed on Possible Reasons Why'They Taught Orna- mental Horticulture as a Specialized Program Percent Reasons for Teaching 51 4 3 2 1 College training in this area. 47 13 0 13 27 Students are interested. 53 40 0 7 0 Jobs are available. 53 40 0 7 0 General agriculture not as important as knowledge in a specific area. 20 40 13 20 7 Subject is interesting to you. 93 7 0 0 0 Local school policies encourage me to teach it. 67 0 0 20 27 Facilities were here and should be used. 53 0 0 20 27 Local industry representatives encourage you to teach it. 33 27 0 7 33 15=very important; 4=important; 3=no opinion;,2=little importance; l=not important. *4 [>51 J (I) 61 Table 13. The Importance Random Sample Teachers Placed on Possible Reasons for Not Teaching Ornamental Horti- culture as a Specialized Program Percent Reasons for Not Teaching 51 4 3 2 1 College training of teachers is insufficient. 40 27 0 20 13 Students not interested. 13 33 0 33 20 Job market too linited. . 0 33 7 27 33 General horticulture should be responsi- bility of area skill centers. 7 20 33 O 40 Ornamental horticulture should be responsi- bility of area skill centers. 0 7 27 0 67 subject is not of interest to you. 20 0 0 13 67 Local school policies do not permit. 13 7 7 7 67 Facilities are not available. 53 20 0 20 7 Local industry representatives encourage you not to teach it. 13 7 7 0 73 15:==very important; 4=important; 3=no opinion, 2=litt1e importance, 1=not important. 62 horticulture teachers thought were most important as reasons why they were teaching ornamental horticulture. Even though almost one-half thought their college training was very important, 40% apparently felt their college training was not an important reason. A surprisingly large number did not place high importance on industry encouragement. Apparently industry representatives were not viewed by the teachers as positive factors in the development of ornamental horticulture programs. While 27% of the ornamental horticulture teachers described last year's overall ornamental horticulture teaching program as "excellent") none of the random sample teachers thought their ornamental horticulture program was "excellent". In addition, the "good" category was also reported by 54% of the ornamental teachers and by 23% of the random sample teachers. However, 54% of the random sample teachers rated their program fair and.23% rated it poor. Eighteen percent of the ornamental horticulture teachers rated their program fair, but none rated it poor. Ornamental horticulture teachers thought Michigan State University Horticulture Department faculty members and state vocational education administrators had been the most helpful in develOping an ornamental horticulture curriculum (Table 14). They rated the county agricultural agent and local school administrators as the least helpful resourse persons. Many of the teachers felt that they had developed their programs 63 Table 14. Ornamental Horticulture Teachers' Perception of The Helpfulness of Specified Resource Persons in Developing an Ornamental Horticulture Curriculum. Percent Resource Persons 51 4 3 2 1 Other vocational agriculture teachers. 33 27 7 13 20 Industry Representatives. 27 40 0 20 13 Local School Administrators. 13 47 7 20 13 State Vocational Administrators. 33 40 7 0 20 Michigan State University Horticulture Department Faculty Members. 47 40 0 0 13 Local Advisory Group. 27 33 0 20 20 County Agricultural Agent. 27 13 7 33 20 15=very helpful; 4=somewhat helpful; 3=no Opinion; 2=probably not helpful; 1=time wasted. with very little specific help from any group of persons. They often mentioned that other vocational agriculture teachers are becoming a better source of information and ideas since more programs are in Operation. Random sample teachers planned to make more changes in their teaching program than did ornamental horticulture teachers. Most random sample teachers planned to teach more ornamental horticulture next year. The changes they indicated were often of a more extensive nature than the changes indi— cated by ornamental horticulture teachers. 64 Teachers in both groups generally thought they were gets ting treated fairly in terms of students, facilities and instructional materials. They felt that student interest was high and would continue that way; however, they felt that better vocational guidance and screening would strengthen their program. Ornamental horticulture teachers indicated a need for better screening techniques more often than did random sample teachers. Several random sample teachers said that they had too many students to do a good job. Only one teacher expressed real concern that his good students were going to the area skills center. Almost every teacher in both groups said they needed more and better facilities. They did, however, feel that they would get better facilities as they showed the need. All teachers indicated that good instructional materials were important to their ornamental horticulture program. Random sample teachers often mentioned that Michigan should have teaching materials available such as Ohio and other states. There was much agreement that materials were available if they would take the initiative to get them. Teachers reported the use of pamphlets, booklets, reprints and other periodicals as their primary source of instructional materials. They said they bought books for reference purposes rather than buying a COpy for each student. 65 ngpg of Hypotheggg The hypotheses were tested using the multivariate analy- sis of variance method outlined in Chapter III. For purposes of the test, an overall alpha level of .10 was partitioned among five categories of questions and each was analyzed separately. The partitioning determined the probability level required to assume the significance of .10. Ho:1 There is no difference in the space available for growing ornamental plants between ornamental horticulture teachers and random sample teachers. Ho:1 is rejected. There was an observed significant difference between the orna— mental horticulture teachers and random sample teachers accord— ing to the availability of space for growing ornamental plants. Having rejected the multivariate null hypothesis, using an alpha level of .017, subsequent univariate analysis of vari- ance were conducted to determine on whiCh specific items the groups differed. Appendix E, Table 4 is used to show the mean scores for each group and Table 15 is the multivariate and univariate analysis of variance table. A large difference in the number of years teaching ornamental horticulture as a specialized program was expected since teachers were selected for the two groups using that variable. There was a highly significant difference between the two groups in the amount of greenhouse space available. Even though not as large, a difference was also evident in the amount of nursery space available. Other variables listed in this section did not show highly significant differences. 66 .Hozomoe not» an unmsmu mommMHO Ho Hones: was an popH>Hp Honomou was an unmsmu mucmpsum Ho HOQEfic Hmuou 0:9H Hmm.o ‘o¢.o om.9O9~ muooHo monoum now owns woman BooummMHu Ho Doom mumsdm .9 m¢o.o mm.¢ mH.N9H momma ascends HO mound .m 9ooo.o mm.wH MH.momm9mo momma monogamoum no uoom ouooom .m ~om.o HH.H o¢.H9 HoHuou Hozooou\ucooooo omouo>< .e Hooo.o an.om oo.o~H smumouo oouHHMHooom n no OHSHHsoHuHOA Housmamcuo mcHnummu nummw .M MM9.o 90.0 mm.m GOHnnOHOHm mcHnomou as» :H mums» Hmu09 .N mem.o «9.0 mm.¢o coHuHooo summons oH sumo» .H amen mama. .m.z oHomHuo> muHHHnmnonm mumHHm>HcD GOOSHOm not» mmoH HoHHHnmnoum 9mmm.9nm mm son 9 u no mHGMHm mcHonO How OHanHm>¢ oommm pom OHumm Monumm9\ucopsum .OUCOHHomxm mcHnomo9 mo moHanum> ucmpcommn on» mchD masono HO£OMO9 How Ammv OOGMHHM> Ho mHmmHmsd ouMHHm>HuHsz_ .MH oHnm9 67 HO:2 There is no difference in the average of both teacher groups perceptions of their adequacy to teach selected ornamental horticulture and related areas, and selected industry representatives per— ceptions of how important they considered it that a teacher be qualified to teach those areas. .Ho:2 was not rejected. Since no overall significant difference was observed at an alpha level of .02, subsequent analyses cannot be taken as tests of hypotheses. However, a univariate analysis of vari- ance was conducted in order to rank the questions according to the degree of differentiation between the groups. Appendix B, Table 5 is used to show the mean scores of both groups tested and Table 16 is used to show the results of the multivariate and univariate analysis of variance tests. The following questions represent the quartile account- ing for the greatest differences: 1. Identifying ornamental plants by common names. 2. PrOper handling of agricultural chemicals. 3. Insects affecting ornamental plants: Identification of at least ten insects. 4. Insects affecting ornamental plants: Making recom- mendations for control. 5. Diseases affecting ornamental plants: Identifica— tion of at least ten diseases. 6. Controlling the greenhouse environment: Regulation of light. 7. Understanding the cultural requirements of ornamental plants: Greenhouse crops. 8. Cut flowers: Care of the flowers after harvest. 9. Flower arranging: A knowledge of basic principles of design. 68 pochucoo moH.o m9.~ om.o HHom on» cH oHno IHHm>m OSUOQ MUGOHHHSG #GMHQ 30£ mGHmuGMHMHOUCD .mH emo.o mm.M HN.M mHOHMHsmOH £u30um MO was Homage Tau OGHGGMHm .vH mom.o No.0 Ho.o moooemHo moons mo was one .MH omm.o «9.0 am.o monoHos no on: man mcHooououoocs .NH om~.o oN.H om.o .maHuuom you monoust HHom .HH ~mm.o mm.o m~.o mo HHom on» mcHuosoq "no HHoo maHmcono .oH m¢~.o H¢.H am.o no HHoo or» maHmHom "mm HHom moncoso .m 9oo.o 9o.m \a~.m mHmoHeoso spas "HHom moHuHHHuoum .m HNH.o om.m om.~ smoua‘zuaz .HHoo mcHuHHHuoum .9 moo.o 9¢.m HH.H oucoHo so ousuxou new muzuosuum HHom mo muoowmo 0:9 .0 ¢m¢.o om.o mH.o moHomou poop HHoo mcHuoumuoucH .m 99H.o ~9.H oo.H moHosmo HHoo ocHuoos .a m9m.o Hm.o H9.o moHHHsmm ocMHo m can» once mo moHumHuouooumeo .m eoH.o Ho.~ mH.~ moans onHuooHom 9n mucosa Hoooooaauo mcHzmHuoooH .9 Nooo.o HM.mH Ho.¢ moans coeeou 9Q mHGMHm Houdoemcuo maHhHHucopH .H can» mmOH m .m.z OflflmHHm> MHHHHanOHm mumHHm>HCD :003uom ~m~.o . amen mooH muHHHnmnoum mmo9.mum m can Henna mHHme Ho momma OOHUOHom mo ananHm> acopcommo on» do UOOMHm no>HumucOnOHm0m anaesch GOHHMUHHHHsz mo mucmuuomEH pO>HOOH0m use undone Honumm9 exp 90 mTHocOuwmeoo pO>HOOuom mmmum>¢ man How Ammv mocmHHm> Ho mHmmHmc< mumHum>HuHszs .OH OHnm9 69 poscHucoo 69H.o mm.H HH.H mmcHHooom mcHHCMHmncmu9 "nucMHm mchpon Hmsccm mcHsoHO .9N 0000.0 00.0 H0.¢ mmcHHGMHm OmmonOGMH cH mUCMHm “mucmHm Hmucoemcuo Ho muconHHsomu HousuHSO on» 0CHpnmumuopcD .mm HH00.0 Hm.NH 0H.m nmouo hummusz umHGMHm Hmucmemcno Ho mUGOEOHHzoOH HousuHso Orv msHpamumumpsD .mm 0000.0 9H.MH vM.m nmouo monogamouw ”musMHm Hmucmemcuo HO musOemHHsoon HousuHso any mchcmumuopcD .em Hooo.o mm.mH mm.HH uanH no coHuoHsoom "unweaouH>so mesonsomum on» mcHHHOHucoo .Mm H000.0 MM.MM 09.9H nommman m>Hm unmmH an H0 cOHHMOHH IHucopH "nHGMHm Housmemcuo mcHuOomHm mOnMOmHQ .NN M000.0 0N.0H 00.0 Houusoo How nsoHumpcoeeooou mcmez "mHGMHm Hmucosacuo mcHuoommm nuomncH .HN H000.0 00.0H 00.0H muoomcH sou umMOH no mo GOHH IMOHHHUGOOH unOGMHm Hmucoemcuo mcHuuomHm nuoomcH .0N 0000.0 m0.¢H HN.M nHoOstno HmHDUHSOHHmm mo mcHHpsmn Homoum .mH ooo.o m¢.m H~.m oucoHo cH ooHoooHoHuoo pooHuuoo mcHsmHuoooH .mH om~.o mm.H am.H oHuou onHoooo a now ououHHHuuom mcHtz .9H moo.o 9m.m H~.m mucmHo OHHHommm How nGOHumpcmeeouou HONHHHHHOH mcmez .mH cons mmoH . z .m.z, oHanum> muHHHanoum OHMHHM>HCD cmozuom ~M~.0 amen mmoH muHHHnmnoum mmo9.mum m can kumo ooocHucoouuoH oHnms 70 m~¢.o «o.o 04.0 mcHonucHoz "ucoemHon mchoompcoH HoOHcmguoE How UGHHMU .Hv Mm0.0 mm.M 0m.~ mcHHHomom "ucoemHsdo mchmoopcoH HoOHconooE Mom mcHHmu .00 mooo.o an.oH em.mH someoHooo moHoooooooH HMOHcmnoos onu How mcHHmo Ho ouooo osu mcHumeHumm .mM HNH.o Hm.m oo.H moHoomHo Houmm oumo "mchuoOsoo ouosouoso mcHoH>p4 .mM 000.0 MM.0 00.0 mucon Ho mumoo umchHoocoo ouoeouoso mcHoH>0¢ .9M 099.0 m0.0 00.0 ooHuoHHm>. oHanHoop umchHoocoo ouoeouoso mchH>p< .0M mm~.0 9H.H .00.0 mudon Houcoemsuo mchmoHHsn pom mcHHHom .MM mmo.o mo.m H~.m ouooHoszuoosocuo mcHoouo .em mMH.o mm.~ mm.H moHuozoq "an.moomHo moHuomooouo .mm HHo.o mH.9 mm.m moHooom "an muooHo ooHommoooum .mm HmH.o «H.~ oo.H mcHuomuo "an mucosa moHoommoouo .Hm Hooo.o o9.9m om.- mcHoHuo .monomuum noonm .om Hooo.o mH.- H~.mH omHmoo mo moHo IHOGHHQ OHomn Ho ompoH3ocx m "demcmuuo HoBOHm .mm H000.0 H~.mH 00.0H umo>uo£ Houmo mHo3OHH on» no oumo "muo3OHH you .mm corn mmoH m .m.z oHnoHum> huHHHnonoum oHMHHo>HGD coo3uom NMN.0 omen omoH HOHHHnonouo nmo9.~um m can Heuuo ooooHuooouuoH oHnos 71 10. Flower arranging: Pricing. 11. Estimating the costs of caring for the mechanical landscaping equipment. Items in this group tend to be related to the technical side of ornamental horticulture. Industry representatives felt that teachers should be well qualified in these areas, however teachers did not feel that highly qualified. There were some items in which there was little differ} ence in the importance that industry representatives placed on being qualified in that area, and the qualification that the teachers felt for teaching the area. The following ques— tions represent the quartile accounting for the smallest significant differences between the groups: 1. Characteristics of more than 5 plant families. 2. Interpreting soil test results. 3. Changing soil pH: ‘Raising the Soil pH. 4. Changing soil pH: Lowering the soil pH. 5. Soil mixtures for potting. 6. Understanding the use of mulches. 7. The use of trace elements. 8. Mixing fertilizers for a specific ratio. 9. Balling and burlapping ornamental plants. 10. Advising customers concerning: Desirable varieties. 11. Caring for mechanical landscaping equipment: Maintaining. These areas or skills are predominantly in the soils science area. Out of the eleven, only four are in other areas. 72 Possibly the earlier section on undergraduate training gives clues for the closeness of responses on soils science areas. Teachers in both groups tended to have taken more than one of the courses listed and they thought the courses were important for qualifying them to teach ornamental horticul— ture. Also, the soils science knowledge can be utilized in many areas of general agriculture and not just in ornamental horticulture. Industry representatives did not think being qualified to teach the characteristics of more than 5 plant families was highly important and teachers did not feel highly qualified in that area. The other areas where all three groups tended to agree were in the ornamental horticulture area or in one that is closely related. Ho:3 There is no difference between ornamental horti- culture teachers and random sample teachers per- ceptions of their adequacy to teach selected ornamental horticulture and related areas. Ho:3 is not rejected. ‘ Even though subsequent analyses cannot be taken as tests bf hypotheses, a univariate analysis of variance was conducted in order to rank the questions according to the degree of differentiation between the groups. Appendix E, Table 6 is used to show the mean scores of both groups tested. Table 17 is used to show the results of the multivariate and univariate analysis of variance tests. The following areas represent the quartile accounting for the greatest differences between the groups: 73 poucHucoo 900.0 00.0 00.0 oHuoH onHooao a you muouHHHouom monHz .9H 090.0 00.0 00.0 ouooHo OHwHoomo How odOHumosoeeooou HoNHHHuHoH mcHx 2 .0H HOM.0 M0.0 0M.0 HHOm ogu sH oHno IHHm>m osooon mucoHHusc ucon 3o: mchcmumHopcs .mH NH0.0 00.0 M0.0 mHOHMHsmoH £u3onm Ho oos Homoum onu mcHacon .0H m00.0 00.0 M0.0 mucoeoHo oomnu no on: o£9 .MH 0m0.0 00.0 M0.0 monOHsE Ho oos onu msHpcmuoHopcD .NH H000.0 H0.9~ 00.00 maHouoo mom monoust HHom .HH 00H.0 00.9 00.H mm HHoo one mcHuozoq "no HHoo 00000000 .00 000.0 99.0 00.0 mo HHom on» monHom “mo HHoo 0:00:000 .0 0H0.0 0H.9 00.9 onoHEoso 0003 "1.80 mcHNHHHuoum .0 0000.0 09.0H 09.0H 20000 0003 "HHom moHNHHHuoom .9 00~.0 00.H 00.0 oucoHo so ousuxou 0cm onsuosnum HHOm Ho ouoommo o£9 .0 0M00.0 0M.0 MH.0 onHzmoH poop HHoo mnHuoanoucH .0 000.0 90.0 00.0 moHoemo HHom 0000009 .0 M00.0 90.0 M0.0 ooHHHsBH ucon 0 not» once «0 oOHuoHuouoouono .M 0H0.0 m0.0 00.0 moans OHHHusoHom an oHGMHm Houdoemcuo demHHucopH .m «000.0 H0.0H 00.0 moans GOEEOO an oHGMHm Hmucoemcuo mnHmmHucopH .H one» mme 0 .0.2 oHanuo> MDHHHQMQOHE ouoHHm>HcD coo3uom 0000.0 0000 mmwalxmaaammmouo 0000.Hu0 mloooxaaumo ’(ul oHHme Ho mooud.0ouuoflom nooo9 ou moHosouomEOo 0o>HoOHom mo noHnoHHo>. usoncomon osu mcHoD nmsouw Honumo9 HOH Ammv oOGMHHm> Ho mHmMHmca ouoHuo>Hquz. .9H oHQo9 74 poscHucoo 0000.0 00.0H 00.0 cmHmoo 0o ooHo lHOcHHm OHooQ Ho omUoH3osx 4 “msHmcoHHo HoSOHm .mN H000.0 00.0M MH.0H umo>uo£ Houmo ouo3oHH onu «0 oumo "nHo3OHH you .00 9000.0 00.0H 00.0H mmcHHoooo mcHucoHdeou9 "oHGMHm mcHUUoQ Hoscco mCHSOHO .9N H00.0 0M.HH M0.0 nmcHucon ommomvcoH CH nucon umHGMHm Houcoeacuo Ho mucoEoHHsooH HousuHso on» 0dHucmuoHopc0 .00 0H00.0 0m.HH 00.9 odouo huonndz "mucon Housoemcno Ho mucoaoHHsvon HoHDOHso onu mchcmuouoncD .mm H000.0 90.00 09.0H mmouo oosoncoouw "nucon Hmucoeacuo Ho oucoSoHszon HousuHso on» mcHonoumHoch .00 H000.0 00.00 09.0H uanH 0o ooHu IMHsmom "ucoenouH>co oosoncooum onu mcHHHOHucou .Mm H000.0 00.00 00.0H monsooHo o>HH uoooH um HO sOHuoo IHHHucoUH uoHGMHm Houcoemcuo msHuooHHm ooooooHQ .NN 0H0.0 00.0 09.0 Houucoo How mcoHuoccoEEoooH mConz. "nucon Houcoemcuo deuoommo muooocH .HN 000.0 0H.0 00.0 . muooosH sou unmoH no mo coHuoo 0HHHuco0H "mucon Housoemcuo mcHuoommm muooosH .00 mm~.0 HM.H 00.0 mHMOHsoSO HouzuHsOHumm Ho mcHHvdmn uomoum .mH 009.0 00.0 00.0 oucmHo oH ooHocoHonoo pooHuuoo monmHuoooH .mH corp 000H .0.2 oHnmwmo> huHHHnononm oOMHHo>HcD coozuom I 0000.0 can» omoH auHHHnonoum ~H00.Hum N can H0uuo oosoHuqoouu9H oHnms 75 090.0 H0.0 00.0 0chHouchz “ucoemHsvo 0GHmoOmUcmH HoOHsmgooE Mom 0sHumu .H0 00.0 90.0 00.0 0oHHHooom "unoemHSdo 0GHmoOmpcoH HoOHconooE How 0cHHoO .00 000.0 00.0 MM.M ucoedevo mchmooGGMH HMOHconooE ogu How 0cHuoo Mo 00000 on» 0cHumeHumm .00 000.0 00.9 00.0 moHucoHo Houmm ouou “mchnoOsoo muoeoumso 0anH>0¢ .00 M000.0 09.0H 00.0H mucon mo mumoo "decHoocoo muoeouozo 0chH>00 .90 0000.0 00.0 00.0 moHuoHHo> oHanHooQ ”msHsHoOcoo whosouoso 0sHoH>00 .0M 0000.0 Mm.9 m0.m ouson Houcoemcuo 0GHmmoHHsm 0cm 0GHHHom_.mM 0H00.0 90.0H 00.9 mocmHm Hmucosmcno 0choum .00 0000.0 N0.0H 00.0H 0GHHomoH "an.mus0Hm 0dHuomomoum .00 990.0 00.0 09.0 0000000 ”mg 000000 00000000o00 .00 000.0 00.0 mH.~ 0cHuHoHO "an oucon 0cHummmmoum .Hm 0000.0 00.0 00.0 mcHoHum “000000000 Hoson .00 con» omoH ..0.z oHQmHHm> muHHHnonoum ouoHHo>HcD coozuom .1 0000.0 cars 0000 mpHHHnmnoum 0000.0u0 0 0:0 H0nmo ooscHuooouu9H.oHnma 76 1. Identifying ornamental plants by commOn names. N o Sterilizing soil: With steam. . Soil mixtures for potting. 3 4. Diseases affecting ornamental plants: Identification of at least five diseases. 5. Controlling the greenhouse environment: Regulation of light. 6. Understanding the cultural requirements of ornamental plants: Greenhouse crOps. 7. Growing annual bedding plants: Transplanting seedlings. 8. Cut flowers: Care of the flowers after harvest. 9. Flower arranging: A knowledge of basic principles of design. 10. Propagating plants by: Layering. ll. Advising customers concerning: Costs of plants. In all of the above areas, the ornamental horticulture teachers felt more qualified to teach that area or skill than did the random sample teachers. Two of the areas are in the' soils science field; however, they are closely tied to orna- mental horticulture. MOst of these areas would more likely’ be taught by an ornamental horticulture teacher than by a random sample teacher. However, there were some areas where teachers in both groups tended to agree. The following list is the quartile showing the greatest tendency to agree: 1. Testing soil samples. 2. Interpreting soil test results. 3. The effects of soil structure and texture on plants. 77 4. Changing soil pH: Raising the soil pH. 5. The use of trace elements. 6. Understanding how plant nutrients become available in the soil. 7. Making fertilizer recommendations for specific plants. 8. Mixing fertilizers for a specific ratio. 9. Identifying nutrient deficiencies in plants. 10. PrOper handling of agricultural chemicals. ll. Caring for mechanical landscaping equipment: Repairing. All of the above areas, except the last one, is in the soil science area. Even though no statistical analysis was conducted, there is a possible relationship between the number of teachers taking soil science courses and the per- ceived adequacy to teach areas in the soil science area. A high percentage of both groups had taken courses in soil science, and they felt those courses were important in quali— fying them to teach ornamental horticulture. The number tak- ing horticulture and related courses was not as high as the number taking soil science (see Table 2). Ho:4 There is no difference between ornamental horti- culture teachers and random sample teachers perceptions of the need for additional formal education. Ho:4 was not rejected. Since no overall significant difference was Observed at an alpha level of .02, subsequent analyses cannot be taken as tests of hypotheses. waever, a univariate analysis of variance was conducted in order to rank the questions according 78 to the degree of differentiation between the groups. Mean scores of both groups is shown in Appendix E, Table 7. Table 18 is used to show the results of the multivariate and univariate analysis of variance. Even though random sample teachers tended to show less perceived competency in selected ornamental horticulture areas, they tended to show a greater need for additional formal training than did ornamental horticulture teachers. The following variables accounted for the quartile showing the greatest differentiation between the two groups.- 1. Helpfulness of more formal courses in ornamental horticulture and related fields. 2. More formal training in: Turfgrass management. 3. More ornamental training in: LandscapeuMaintenance. 4. More ornamental training in: Identification and characteristics of plants. 5. Recommend your kind and amount of formal education. 6. Importance of physical facilities. In all of the areas except "Recommend your kind and amount of formal education," the random sample teacher's mean score was higher than the ornamental horticulture teacher's score. The ornamental horticulture teachers tended to recom— mend their kind and amount of formal education more highly than did random sample teachers. The following variables account for the quartile representing the least difference between the two groups: 1. More formal training in: Pathology. 2. More formal training in: Soil Science. 79 posdHucoo 000.0 00.0 00.0 .oococou IdeE omooovcmq "CH 0chHmnu Hmucoewsuo ouoz .0H 00H.0 0H.~ M0.0 .ousuHsO ucon HOOUGH "0H 0cHCHoHu ousuHOOHHOHH ouoz .MH 000.0 H0.0 M0.0 .msHmcoHHo Ho3OHm "CH 0GHGHmHu ousuHsoHHOHm ouoz .NH 090.0 00.0 00.0 .usosEOHH>co omsogcooum on» 0GHHHOHucoo "CH mchHoHu ousuHSOHHOHm ouoz..HH 000.0 00.0 00.0 .00000 oosonsooum mo mucoe IoHHsdoH Housquo "0H 0sHsHmuu ousuHDOHuOHH ouoz .0H 000.0 00.0 00.0 oocoHom HHom "CH 0CHCHoHu HoEuom onoz .0 000.0 00.0 0000 .90o0o0000 "00 00000000 Hmeuo0 00oz .0 000.0 00.0 00.0 .00o0oeo000 n0000000000 0msuo0 00oz .9 000.0 90.0 00.0 .ucoeomocoz 000000059 udH 0deHmuu Hmeuou ouoz .0 000.0 90.0 09.0 .00o0o00000 0:000 "00 00000000 Hmeuom 00oz .0 000.0 00.0 00.0 .mcmuom ":0 00000000 Hmeuom 00oz .0 900.0 00.H 0N.H .mHmucoEmsuo 90003 "CH 0chHoHu Hosuom onoz .M 000.0 0H.H M0.H .ousuHsuHHOHm "CH 0sHsHoHu Hoeuom ouoz .0 000.0 00.0 M0.H. .ovHon wouoHoH can ousuHsOHuuon Houcoaosuo CH noousoo Hoahom once 00 ooocHsdeom..H can» mooH m .0.2 oHanHo> wuHHHanoum ouoHHm>HcD soo3uo0 0000.0 0000 0000 00000nmoo00 0900.0n0 0 000 00u00 mooud OHHHoomm :H soHuoosvm Hmeuom HMGOHquvd HOH vooz Uo>Hoouom mo ooHnoHum> unoccomon osu 0GHmD 005000 Honomo9 How A000 oucoHHo> mo onNHocd oHMHHo>HUHsz .0H oHQo9 80 000.0 00.0 00.0 .000000005 0000000500000 00 0000000080 .mm 000.0 00.0 0~.0 .00000500 0000000000 00 0000000060 .00 000.0 00.0 00.0 .0000000000 00000000 mo 0000000000 .00 000.0 00.0 00.0 .00000008_0c00000u 000>000|00 00 0000000080 .00 000.0 00.0 0050 .0000500 008000 no 0000000080 .Hm 000.0 00.0 0000 .0000 I00500 002000 00 005050 000 0000 0000 000600000 .00 000.0 00.0 00.0 0000000000 000000000 000000 0000 .00 000.0 00.0 00.0 .0000000005 000000 000000 "00 00000000 0000050000 0002 .00 000.0 00.0 MH.~ .000200000500000032 000000000000 H0000§0000 0002 .00 000.0 00.0 00.0 .000000 00 000000000000030 000 0000000000000H 000 00000000 0000020000 0002 .00 000.0 00.0 no.0 .000000 000000000 "00 00000000 0000080000 0002 .00 00:0 0000 m .m.z 0000000> muflaflnmm00m 000000>000 000300m 0000.0 0000 0000 00000000000 0000.0n0 0 000 0~u00 0050000001100 @0308 81 3. More floriculture training in: Cultural require- ments of greenhouse crOps. 4. More floriculture training in: Controlling the greenhouse environment. 5. More floriculture training in: Flower arranging. 6. More ornamental training in: Garden center manage- ment. One-half of the variables in the quartile representing the least difference between the groups were in the flori- culture area. There was a strong indication that both groups wanted training in these areas. rHo:5 There is no difference between the ornamental horticulture teachers and random sample teachers perception of how helpful occupational experi— ence in speéific areas would be for a person pre- paring to teach ornamental horticulture. Ho:5 was not rejected. Even though further analysis cannot be taken as tests of hypotheses, Appendix E, Table 8 and Table 19 are presented to show differentiation between the groups on specific items. Ornamental horticulture teachers tended to think work1experi— ence in a greenhouse and florist shOp would be more helpful than did random sample teachers. Random sample teachers tended to rate work experience in garden center and farming slightly higher than did ornamental horticulture teachers. There was a tendency for ornamental horticulture teachers to think work experience should be for a longer period than , random sample teachers. 82 mmoo.o mo.oa mm.m .mocmaummxu xuoa mo sumcmq .a who.o om.m om.o nmcfinommu muommn wouflsvmu on mmmcflman manuaso Ifluuon Hmucmsmcuo cm ca oUGMflummxm xuo3 flasonm .m «no.0 mH.¢ mo.¢ maneumm "camoocmauomxo xuoz_.m 00.0 o~.o MH.o Hmucmo Gopumw "cw woumaummxu xHOB .¢ aooo.d oo.o oo.o coauoqcoum hummusz ”an oucmmummxm xuoz .m Heo.o mm.o om.o .monm unmuoam "an mucmaummxu xuoz .m who.o om.m om.o .mmaoncomuo ”cw oucmaummxo Muoz .H can» mwma m .m.z mmmmmum> mumamnmnomm mummmwvaco cwwsumm ~maa.o can» mmoa mwmafinmnoum ommm.Hnm am can puma wuouasowuuom Hmucoemcuo gamma ou mcflummmum comumm 0 How on vaaoz mmmu¢ oamaoomm Ga oucmfluomxm Hmcowummnouo Hammamm 30m «0 cowumooumm mo moanmaum> ucuvcmmma on» mcwmo museum Honomoe How Ammv oucmwum> mo mamaamcd oumwum>wuaaz_ .aa manna SUWMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The primary purpose of the study was to determine the perceived adequacies of and needs for technical ornamental horticulture training for vocational agriculture teachers in Michigan. More specifically, the following objectives were sought: 1. To determine if there was a difference in the formal education background of ornamental horticulture teachers and random sample teachers. To determine if there was a difference in space available for growing ornamental plants between ornamental horticulture teachers and random sample teachers. To determine if there was a difference between ornamental horticulture teachers and random sample teachers in the level of perceived adequacy to teach selected ornamental horticulture and related areas. To determine if there was a difference between all teachers perceptions of their adequacy to teach selected ornamental horticulture and related areas, and selected industry representatives perceptions of 83 84 how important they considered it for a teacher to be qualified to teach those areas. 5. To determine if the ornamental horticulture and random sample teacher groups had a different perception of the need for additional formal education. 6. To determine if there was a difference between the ornamental horticulture and random sample teachers commercial work experience and perceived importance of work experience for a person preparing to teach ornamental horticulture. 7. To determine if the ornamental horticulture and random sample teacher groups had different reasons for teaching or not teaching ornamental horticulture. Findings Teachers in both groups tended to have their Bachelor's degrees in agricultural education, with about the same per- centage in both groups holding Master's degrees. Random sample teachers had been teaching longer than ornamental horticulture teachers. In general, ornamental horticulture teachers had taken more of the horticulture and related courses than random sample teachers. This was especially evident in the horti- culture, botany and entomology areas. However, random sample teachers reported more courses in biological science, agri- cultural engineering and agricultural economics. 85 Teachers in both groups generally thought courses in horticulture, soils, botany, entomology and agricultural engineering were helpful in qualifying them to teach orna- mental horticulture. They did not think biological science and agricultural economics were as important as the others. There was a tendency for ornamental horticulture teachers to place less importance on agricultural engineering and agri- cultural economics than for random sample teachers. But, the ornamental horticulture teachers thought botany courses were more important. Teacher groups varied in the areas or skills taught in their program. A high percentage of the ornamental horti- culture teachers consistently taught all the 53 subjects asked about, while a high percentage of the random sample teachers taught the competencies and skills only in the soil science area. Fewer of the random sample teachers taught areas dealing with cut flowers and flower arranging than any of the other areas. Ornamental horticulture teachers generally felt more highly qualified to teach ornamental horticulture and related areas than random sample teachers. However, industry repre- sentatives thought it was important for teachers to be quali- fied in most of the 53 areas included in the survey. More of the ornamental horticulture teachers felt qualified to teach specialized horticulture subjects than did random sample teachers, however, there was little difference between the 86 groups on the other areas. All three groups tended to agree on qualification for teaching soils science areas. The teacher groups felt qualified and industry representatives thought it was important that teachers be qualified in those areas. Teachers of both groups generally believed courses in horticulture and related areas would help them be better teachers. Courses in woody ornamentals, turfgrass manage- ment and floriculture were perceived as being the most helpful. There was a tendency for random sample teachers to think all of the courses would be more helpful than ornamental horti— culture teachers. Courses in botany, plant physiology and soil science were perceived as those that would be least helpful. Even though both groups of teachers perceived a relatively low competency level in flower arranging, they said training in that area would be less helpful than any of the other areas of floriculture. However, both groups thought floriculture training would be helpful. They felt a slightly stronger need for more training in woody ornamentals, but random sample teachers thought it would be the mosthelpful. All teachers thought training in landscape design would be very helpful. Teachers in both groups preferred a major in horticulture with a teaching certificate as the ideal formal education back- ground for a teacher of ornamental horticulture in high school. A.majority of ornamental horticulture teachers would recommend 87 their kind and amount of formal education for other teachers before they begin teaching; however, random sample teachers would not recommend their training. General agriculture courses in animal husbandry, dairy science and poultry science were perceived to have been of little help in preparing teachers to teach ornamental horticulture. All of the participants thought formal courses, in- service training meetings, physical facilities, interested students and instructional materials would be important for improving their overall ornamental horticulture teaching program. Even though teachers in both groups thought occupational experience would be very helpful before teaching ornamental horticulture, a higher percentage of ornamental horticulture teachers had work experience before teaching. They thought work experience in a greenhouse, nursery or garden center would be very helpful. Work experience in a florist shop was not perceived as being as helpful as other types of orna- mental horticulture businesses. Most of the teachers thought that work experience should be required before a person begins teaching ornamental horticulture but they disagreed on how long that experience should be. Ornamental horticulture teachers tended to think it should be longer than six months, while random sample teachers tended to think three to six months was adequate. Responses varied when teachers were asked why they taught or didn't teach ornamental horticulture. Random sample 88 teachers placed high importance on the lack of college train- ing and their high school facilities available for growing plants as reasons why they did not teach the subject- However, ornamental horticulture teachers placed the most importance on interest of the subject and local school policies for teaching ornamental horticulture. Ornamental horticulture teachers did not think any one group of persons had been extremely helpful to them in the development of their curriculum. But, they thought Michigan State University Horticulture Department faculty members and state vocational education administrators had been the most helpful of any group. Teachers tended to be pleased with their students, facilities and instructional materials, however they thought they needed more input into the guidance of students prior to enrollment. Almost all of the teachers in both groups said they could use better facilities. However, ornamental horti- culture teachers reported an average of more space available for growing plants. Conclusions On the basis of findings of this study, the following- conclusions seem to be justified: 1. There is little difference in the formal education background of ornamental horticulture teachers and random sample teachers. 2. 89 There is a difference in space available for growing ornamental plants between ornamental horticulture teachers and random sample teachers. There was not a significant overall difference in the level of perceived adequacy to teach selected areas of skills between ornamental horticulture teachers and random sample teachers. Specific areas, primarily in the horticulture area, did show signifi- cant differences, however. There was not a significant overall difference between all teachers perceptions of their adequacy to teach selected areas or skills, and the perceptions of selected industry representatives as to the importance of teachers being qualified to teach those areas. However, a significantly higher number of industry representatives thought it was important for teachers to be qualified in a number of horticulture, ento- mology, botany and agricultural engineering areas, while a large number of teachers did not feel quali— fied in those areas. 5. There was no significant difference in the perception of the need for additional formal education between ornamental horticulture teachers and random sample teachers. Random sample teachers tended to show a slightly greater need for additional formal education. 90 6. There was no significant difference in the perceived importance of commercial work experience for a person preparing to teach ornamental horticulture between ornamental horticulture teachers and random sample teachers. Both groups thought a person should be required to work before teaching ornamental horticul- ture in high school. 7. There was a tendency for random sample teachers and ornamental horticulture teachers to have different reasons for teaching or not teaching ornamental horticulture. Implications The following comments are presented as possible ideas for improvement of teaching ornamental horticulture in the secondary schools of Michigan. They are based on the data from the study, general observations made by the researcher while collecting the data, and previous experiences of the researcher as an extension specialist. Plant growing facilities in.Michigan schools should be thoroughly reviewed. Even the largest greenhouses were barely large enough to conduct an adequate ornamental horticulture program. Nursery space was usually available but often poorly developed. Teachers need instruction on how to effectively Construct and utilize growing space in the greenhouse, hotbeds and classroom. 91 Information on lighting and plants adapted for growing under artificial lights should also be made available. The agricultural education curriculum at Michigan State University should be altered to permit more horticulture courses. Even though teachers indicated they are teaching more ornamental horticulture each year, potential teachers of vocational agriculture are apparently taking a relatively small amount of horticulture. Students showing a strong interest in horticulture should be encouraged to major in horticulture and obtain a teaching certificate. In addition, the horticulture department should make some of their present courses more relevant to the problems of prospective vocational agriculture teachers. In-service training is needed in a number of areas. All teachers should receive further training in the following areas: cultural requirements of nursery crOps and plants in landscape plantings, flower arranging, plant propagation, desirable varieties, sterilizing soil with chemicals, making' fertilizer recommendations for specific plants, and identifi- cation and control of diseases. In all of these areas, industry representatives thought it was important for teachers- to be qualified but teachers in neither group felt highly qualified. There are many others, especially for the general vocational agriculture teacher. Teachers should receive comprehensive formal training in the areas of turfgrass manage— ment, floriculture and woody ornamentals. This training could 92 be divided into a basic and advanced level group. A series of three meetings might be held each year for all teachers. The subject matter for the first group would include identifi— cation of ornamental plants and other horticultural tOpics. The advanced group might disCuss areas in which they were deficient, such as disease identification and control. At the end of a two year period, the series could be evaluated and teachers could be placed in new groups before beginning a new series. Before a person begins teaching ornamental horticulture in high school, at least six months of work experience in an ornamental horticulture business should be required. Ideally, this training would be in a finm that includes a wide range of ornamentals, and could provide a breadth of experiences in the areas for instruction in high school. However, business experience of any kind would be helpful. An effort should be made to work with counselor-educators- at the state level and counselors at the local level concerning' student placement in ornamental horticulture and vocational agriculture programs. 'They should become acquainted with the purposes and potential of the program. A continuing effort should be made to help teachers utilize the instructional materials that are available in the ornamental horticulture area. Infonmation is apparently avail- able but teachers need help and encouragement to incorporate the information into their instructional programs. 93 Recommendations for Further Study 1. A study concerning teachers perception of ideal facilities to teach ornamental horticulture would be meaningful. Experienced teachers should have excellent suggestions based on their experience. 2. Detailed recommendations for a Bachelor's curriculum designed for potential ornamental horticulture teachers should be made. This could be done by surveying other university curriculums, teachers of ornamental horticulture and industry representatives. 3. Students of vocational agriculture should be sur- veyed concerning (a) their competencies for entering and advancing in ornamental horticulture careers, and (b) the strengths and weaknesses of the instruc- tion they received in high school to prepare them for their career. 4. Teachers and students should be asked what the role’ of a youth organization such as the FFA should be in an ornamental horticulture high school program. 5. An updated study of the Opportunities for employment in the Michigan ornamental horticulture industry should be conducted. 6. A study should be conducted to measure the performance competencies of teachers of agriculture for providing instruction in ornamental horticultural occupations to high school students. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY l. Altmen, Charles Dwayne and Larry Julian Smith. 1968. Student interest and employment opportunities in the field of ornamental horticulture in Pickens county, South Carolina. South Carolina Vocational Education Research Coordinating Unit. Clemson University. Clemson, South Carolina. 22 p. 2. American Organization for Education of the Hearing Impaired. 1968. Competencies needed by teachers of hearing impaired children: deaf and hard of hearing. Volta Bureau. Washington, D.C. (ERIC No. ED022313) 34 p. 3. Aspy, Darid N. 1969. The effect of teachers' inferred self concept upon student achievement. University of Florida. Gainesville, Florida. (ERIC No. ED031300) 20 p. 4. . 1970. A survey of the manpower needs in the commercial nursery industry. State Education Depart— ment of New'York. Albany, New York. 5. 1970. A tentative plan for the develOpment of area vocational education centers in Michigan. Michigan Department of Education. Lansing, Michigan 65 p. 6. Barr, A. S. 1929. Characteristic differences in the teaching performance of good and poor teachers of the social studies. PUblic School Publishing Company. Bloomington, Illinois. 89 p. 7. Barr, A. S. 1950. Teaching competencies. EncycloPedia of Educational Research. Revised Edition. 1449 p. £3. Bass, B. C. 1970. Competencies needed by teachers of high sdhool ornamental horticulture courses. Research Division. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Blacksburg, Virginia. Bulletin 23. 50 p. 9...BejOt, Dennis. 1967. Analysis of the Opinions of vocation— a1 agriculture instructors in Nebraska relative to in- service training. Department of Agricultural Educa- tion. The University of Nebraska. Lincoln, Nebraska. 94 10.. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 95 Bledsoe, Joseph and Others. 1967. Comparison between ~selected characteristics and performance of pro— visionally and professionally certified beginning teachers in Georgia. University of Georgia. Athens, Georgia. (ERIC No. ED015553) 287 p. Bradley, Ruth and Others. 1964. Measuring teacher competence. Research Backgrounds and Current Prac- tice. California Teacher Association. Burlingame, California. (ERIC No. ED040152) 47 p. Brantner, S. T. 1964. Trade and technical teacher's Opinions on inservice education. Ed. D. thesis. Pennsylvania State University. University Park, Pennsylvania. (ERIC No. ED016044) 92 p. Breit, Frank D. and David P. Butts. 1969. A comparison of the effectiveness of an inservice program and a preservice program in developing certain teaching competencies. Paper presented at The Forty—Second Annua1.Meeting of The National Association for Research in Science Teaching. Pasadena, California. (ERIC No. ED028069) 15 p. Cardozier, V. R. 1965. Undergraduate academic achieve— ‘ment and teaching performance. .Maryland Agricultural Experiment Station. Maryland University. College Park,.Mary1and. No. 559. (ERIC No. ED016045) 82 p. Coffee, Varren Chester. 1967. Change in Teachers' verbal classroom behavior resulting from an in-service program in science education. Unpublished Ed.D. Thesis. University of California. Berkeley, California. 159 p. Courtney, E. Wayne and Harold H. Halfin. 1969. Compe- tencies of vocational teachers. A factor analysis of the training needs of teachers of occupational educa— tion. Oregon State University. Corvallis, Oregon. (ERIC No. ED034843) 52 p. Craven, Gene Francis. 1966. Critical thinking abilities and understanding of science by science teacher candidates at Oregon State University. Unpublished Ph..D. Thesis. Oregon State University. Corvallis. Oregon. 155 p. Crisp, Raymond D. 1968. The professional competency of Illinois Secondary School English Teachers: A report of the self evaluations of experienced Illinois Sec— ondary School English Teachers. Interim report. Illinois State-Wide Curriculum Study Center in The Preparation of Secondary English Teachers. Urbana, Illinois. (ERIC No. ED029889) 61 p. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 96 Davison, Catherine V. 1970. Training needs of instruc— tors in adult basic education programs in British Columbia. British CO1umbia University. Vancouver. (ERIC No. ED045955) 89 p. Diggory, James C. 1966. Self evaluation: concepts and studies. Johb Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York, N. Y. 477 p. Dunbar, Donald A. 1968. A manpower survey of various segments of the Michigan floriculture industry. M. S. Thesis. .Michigan State University. East Lansing, Michigan. Fawcett, Claude W. 1965. The skills of teaching. California University. Los Angeles, California. (ERIC No. ED016605) 121 p. Haslick, Clifford G. 1965. A study of student involve— ment in off—farm placement programs in Michigan department Of vocational agriculture. unpublished report for summer conference of Michigan Associa- tion of Teachers of Vocational Agriculture. .Michigan Department of Education. Lanaing, Michigan. Hodges, Clinton F. and Ervin L. Denisen. 1972. -Develop- ment of a baccalaureate curriculum for horticulture students planning to teach high school horticulture. Horticulture science. 7(1):ll. . 1970. Jeremy D. Finn's multivariance-univar- iate and multivariate analysis of variance and covariance: A FORTRAN IV program. Office of Research Consultation, College of Education. Michigan State University. East Lansing, Michigan. Occasional Paper No. 9. Jones, Charles Irving. I967. (Factors related to the effectiveness of teachers Of short-term adult voca— tional courses. Unpublished Ed. D. Thesis. The Florida State University. Tallahassee, Florida. 190 p. Judge, Homer V. .1965. Employment opportunities and needed competencies in off-farm agricultural occupa— tions in Massachusetts. .Research Report. Massa- chusetts Department of Education. Boston, Massa- chusetts. 10 p. Judkins, Wesley P. 1965. The superior teacher. Proceed— ings of The Conference on Undergraduate Education in Hbrticultural Science. American Society of Horti- cultural Science. St. Joseph,.Michigan. 68 p. 97 29. Judy, William Howard. 1964. Comparison of estimate Of soils knowledge with test for soils knowledge. Unpublished M. S. Thesis. (Michigan State University. East Lansing, Michigan. 76 p. 30. Kahler, Alan A. 1972. Transition from traditional "vo-ag" to "vo-agri-business" afid"”vo-hort“ in the midwest. -Horticulture Science. 7(1):7. 31. Karth, E. L. and Parul C. Geanini. 1967. Professional competencies of teachers of technical education in Florida. .Florida State University. Tallahassee, Florida. (ERIC No. ED017687) 76 p. 32. Kelly, Warren. 1968. An evaluation of the pre-service agricultural education curriculum at West Virginia University. Ed. D. Thesis. University of Missouri. Columbia, Missouri. 204 p. 33. Kruskop, LeroP Lawrence. 1966. Competencies in farm management needed by vocational agriculture instruc- tors. M. S. Thesis. Iowa State University of Science and Technology. Ames, Iowa. 131 p. 34. Larson, Milton Erving. 1965. A study of the character- istics of students, teachers, and the curriculum of industrial-technical education in the public commun- ity junior colleges of Michigan. Unpublished'EB: D Thesis. Michigan State University. East Lansing, Michigan. (ERIC No. ED025255) 362 p. 35. Madden, George R. 1968. Teacher selection--How to weed out the duds. Paper presented at the annual meeting of The American Association of School Administrators. (ERIC No. ED022260) 17 p. ' 36. Major, Barbara C. and Others. 1969. An analysis of science prerequisite course work for home economics education majors. Utah Research Coordinating Unit for Vocational and Technical Education. Salt Lake City, Utah. (ERIC No. ED029991) 86 p. 37. Margules, Morton and‘Virginia M. Keith. 1969. A study of supervisors' ratings of most effective and least effective industrial arts teachers on 3 competing dimentions. JOurnal of Experimental Education. 37:37—44. 38- .Meaders, 0. Donald and Mark F. O'Neill. 1966. A survey of occupations in the nursery, landscape and tree service businesses in Kent County, Michigan. Mimeograph. .Michigan State University. East Lansing, Michigan. ,15 p. 39. 40.~ 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. A48- 98 Mohr, H. C. The present situation and trends in under- graduate education in horticulture. Proceedings of The Conference on Undergraduate Education in Horti- cultural Science. The American Society for Horti- cultural Science. St. Joseph, Michigan. 8 p.’“ Mondart, C. L., Sr. and C. M. Curtis. 1965. Occupational opportunities and training needs for non-farm agri- cultural jObs in the metropolitan areas of Louisiana. Department of Vocational Agricultural Education. Louisiana State University. Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Nevel, F. Paul and John L. Malcomnson. 1965. A survey of non-fanm agricultural occupations in Monroe COunty, Michigan. ”Mimeographed report. Agricultural Educa- tion Department, Michigan State University. East Lansing, Michigan. .18 p. Oen, urban T. 1969. Employment opportunities and needed competencies in selected nursery, turfgrass, arbori- culture, and landscaping businesses in the Lansing, Michigan area. Ed. D. Thesis. Michigan State University. East Lansing, Michigan. 182 p. . .1971. Opinions about vocational education in Michigan: Summary and Recommendations. .Michigan Advisory Council for Vocational Education. Lansing, Michigan. 19 p. . 1969. Ornamental horticulture: A curriculum guide for agricultural education. Agricultural Education Service. Division of Vocational Education. State Department of Education. Richmond, Virginia. Parsons, Warren. 1966. An analysis of training needs“ and employment characteristics of the greenhouse grower in three metropolitan areas. Ed. D. Thesis. .Michigan State University. East Lansing, Michigan. 117 p. Perkes, Victor Aston. 1967. Junior high school teacher preparation, teaching behaviors, and student achieve— ments. Unpublished Ed. D. Thesis. Stanford Univer- sity. Stanford, California. 84 p. Price, Randel Keith. 1960. An analysis of educational needs of Arkansas extension agents. Ph. D. Thesis. Wisconsin University. .Madison, Wisconsin. (ERIC NO. ED022988) 199 p. Silvius, G. Harold and Andrew F. Ford. 1965. The report of the Michigan study of industrial teacher compe- tence. ~Wayne State University. Detroit, Michigan. (ERIC No. ED014529) 128 p. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. £59. [99 Simpson, Ray H. ,1966. Teacher self—evaluation. The Macmillan Company. New York, N. Y. 100 p. Spazium, Richard T. and E. Wayne Courtney. 1971. The application of Bloom's cognitive taxonomy to selected professional education competencies. Oregon State University. Corvallis, Oregon. (ERIC NO. ED052376) 63 p. Stanley, Emory R. 1967. The effectivensss of a self- appraisal guide in an in-service education program. Pennsylvania School Study Council. University Park, Pennsylvania. (ERIC No. ED021314) 8 p. Stinson, Richard F. .1972. Curriculum materials for high school ornamental horticulture programs. -Horti- culture Science. 7(1):6. ‘ Storm, George. 1966. The successful teacher in technical education: The preparation of the successful teacher. Unpublished Ed. D. Thesis. Oregon State University. Corvallis, Oregon. 141 p. ' Sullivan, Archie W. 1948. Farm mechanics needs of teachers of vocational agriculture as a guide for college curriculum construction and course planning. Masters Thesis. Auburn Polytechnic Institute. Auburn, Alabama. 73 p. Super, Donald E. 1963. Career development: self-concept theory. College Entrance Examination Board. Princeton, New Jersey. 95 p. Taylor, J. L. 1972. Teaching horticulture to nonemajors in elementary Education and home economics. -Horti— culture Science. 7(1):12. Watson, Larry Wayne. 1969. The relationship of the mathematical course work of teachers and the SAT4M scores of their students. Ed. D. Thesis. Duke University. Durham, North Carolina. .154 p. Wetter, Donald Merlin. 1966. An analysis of the prep- aration of secondary school teachers of mathematics with special reference to the new mathematics pro- grams. Unpublished Ed. D. Thesis. The University of Nebraska Teachers College. Lincoln, Nebraska. 150 p. White, Paul Conrad. 1951. Factors associated with cer— tain abilities possessed and jobs taught in selected livestock enterprises by teachers of vocational agriculture in Michigan. Ed. D. Thesis. .Michigan State College. East Lansing, Michigan. 100 60. White, Robert H. and Ralph J. Woodin. 1967. The educa- tion of ornamental horticulture technicians in Ohio. A research report of a Ph. D. Thesis. Research Series in Agricultural Education. The Ohio State University. Columbus, Ohio. (ERIC NO. ED022867) 63 p. 61. Widmoyer, Fred B. 1972. The role of amateurs in horti- cultural education. Horticulture Science. 7(1):9. APPENDICES APPENDIX A TEACHERS INTERVIEW INSTRUMENT 101 APPENDIX A TECHNICAL ORNAMENTAL HORTICULTURE TRAINING ADEQUACIES AND NEEDS OF SECONDARY VOCATIONAL TEACHERS This questionnaire was prepared to determine the compe— tencies needed by teachers at the secondary-level for conducting occupational programs in the area of ornamental horticulture. These occupations include the general areas of floriculture, landscape, horticulture and ornamental plant material. Research has been conducted to detenmine needs felt by various industry leaders; however, teachers have not been asked to point out their own adequacies and needs. We would like to use your answers about your competencies and needs to make suggestions for formal training at Michigan State University for future teachers and for the training of teachers who are already in the field. If a question is not clear, please ask for a clarification. I. General Information A. Demographic Data Name Name of School Where YOu Teach Year received Bachelor's degree 102 103 Name of institution What was your major? Year received Master's degree Name of institution What was your major? Years in present position Total years in the teaching profession If you are presently teaching ornamental horticul- ture, how long? How many students are enrolled in your ornamental horticulture classes for the 1971-1972 school year? Please specify class and number enrolled in each. B. Teaching Facilities Indicate the facilities you have for growing plants. Square feet of greenhouse space Square feet (or acreage) of nursery space presently utilized Square feet of classroom space used for growing space Square feet of laboratory space used for teaching ornamental horticulture Number of plant growth chambers Special growing facilities II. Competency Areas and Skills Taught The following is a list of competency areas and skills in ornamental horticulture that might be taught at your 104 school. Competency areas, such as interpreting soil test results, require only that the student can perform the task. Skills, such as taking soil samples, require only that the student can perform the task. Your answers should reflect areas and skills taught to students enrolling in the maximum ornamental horticulture at your school. First, indicate by a check under either yes or no if you teach the area or skill. Second, indicate how qualified you think you are to teach that area of skill. Qualification Does Very Somewhat Not‘ Quali- Quali- Unquali— Unquali- Teach fied fied fied fied 1. Identifying orna- mental plants by common names. If yes, how many? 2. Identifying orna- mental plants by scientific names. If yes, how many? 3. Characteristics of more than five plant families. 4. Taking soil samples. 5. Testing soil -samples. 6. Interpreting soil test results. 7. The effects of soil structure and texture on plants. 1 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 105 Qualification Does Very Not Quali— Quali- Unquali— Unquali- Teach fied fied Sterilizing soil: a. with steam b. with chemicals Changing soil pH: a. Raising the soil pH b. Lowering the 'soil pH Soil mixtures for potting. Understanding the use of mulches. The use of trace elements. Planning the proper use of growth regu— lators. Understanding how plant nutrients be- come available in the soil. Making fertilizer recommendations for specific plants. Mixing fertilizers for a specific ratio. Identifying nutrient deficiencies in plants. Proper handling of agr icultural cheni- cals. Insects affecting ornamental plants: a. Identification of at least ten insects. b. Making recommenda- tions for control. Somewhat fied fied 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. Diseases affecting ornamental plants: a. Identification of at least five diseases. b. Making recommen- dations for con- trol. Controlling the greenhouse environ— ment: a. Regulation of light. b. Regulation of moisture. c. Regulation Of temperature. Understanding the cultural require- ments of ornamental plants: a. Greenhouse crops. b. Nursery crOps. c. Plants in land- scape plantings. Growing annual bedding plants: a. Sowing the seed. b. Transplanting seedling. c. Growing the plants. Cut flowers: a. Cutting the stems. b. Care of the flowers after harvest. Flower arranging: a. A knowledge of basic principles of design. b. Arranging the flowers. c. Pricing. 106 Does Very Not Quali- Quali- Unquali- Unquali- ‘Teach fied Qualification fied Somewhat fied fied 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. PrOpagating plants ‘by: a. Grafting. b. Cuttings c. Budding. d..Layering. Pruning ornamental plants. Balling and bur- rlapping ornamental plants. Performing annual maintenance of lawns and land— scapes. Advising customers concerning: a. Desirable varie- ties. b. Cost of plants. c. Proper planting procedure. d. Care after planting. Estimating the costs of caring for the mechanical landscap- ing equipment. Caring for mechani- cal landscaping equipment: a..Repairing. b. Maintaining c. Adjusting. d. List kinds of equipment. 107 Does Very Not Quali- Cuali- Unquali- Unquali- fied Teach fied Qualification Somewhat mil-2L 108 III. Undergraduate Training First, place a check (V) in the space provided to the left of the courses which you have taken at M.S.U; (or other institution). Disregard changes in numbers which may be currently used to designate courses in horticulture and related fields. Second, for each course area which you have taken, please indicate how important were those courses for qualifying you to teach skills in ornamental horticulture. Was Importance taken 51 4 3 2 1 Horticulture Basic Horticulture .Landscape-PlantsWI Landscape Plants 11' Indoor Plants and Flowers Ornamental Plant Management Controlled Plant Environment Principles of Plant Propagation Nursery Management Other, specify llllllll m 0 p. g... (0 Fundamentalf of Soil Science Soil Management Turfgrass Management Soil Fertility and Fertilizers Other, specify 1H! Biolo ical Science Foundations of Biological Science General Biology General Biology Biological Science for Teachers Other, specify Botan L Elementary Plant Physiology Plant World Introductory Plant Pathology Plant Physiology: Metabolism Plant Physiology: Growth Other, specify \HlH 109 meortgnce 51 4 '3 2 Entomolggy General Entomology Agricultural Engineering Engineering Principles Applied to Agriculture Teaching Agricultural Mechanics Internal Combustion Engines Other, specify Agricultural Economicg Agriculture in the Economy Production Economics and Management Farm Finance and Appraisal Land Economics Agricultural Prices and Marketing Farm Management Other, specify ' 15=very important: 4=somewhat.important: 3=no opinion, 2=little importance, and l=not important. IV. Fonmal Education and Occupational Experience Please answer the following questions as they relate to your formal educational training (undergraduate and graduate) and your ideas for training needs. 1. Would more-formal courses in ornamental horticulture and related fields help you to be a better teacher of orna- mental horticulture? a. Very Helpful b. Somewhat Helpful c. NO Opinion d. Probably Not Helpful e. Waste of Time lHll 2. C. D. E. F. H. I. 3. b. c. d. e. 4. 110 If you indicated more formal training (undergraduate and graduate) in ornamental horticulture and related fields would be helpful, indicate below how helpful training in each of the following areas would be to you in your teaching program. Some- No Probably Waste Very what Opin- Not of He p. Help. ion Helpful Time . Floriculture (pot plants, cut flowers, annual bedding plants, etc.) Woody ornamentals (land- scaping, shrubbery, trees, etc.) Botany Plant physiology Turfgrass management Entomology Pathology Soil Science Other, specify If in question 2 you indicated a need for more floriculture courses, how helpful would each of the following be to you in your teaching program? Some- No PrObably Waste Very what Opin— Not of Help. Help. ion Helpful Thme Cultural requirements of greenhouse crOps. Controlling the green— house environment. Flower arranging. Indoor plant culture Other, specify If in question 2 you indicated a need for more courses in woody ornamentals, how helpful would each of the following be to you in your teaching program? 6. 111 Some— No Probably Waste Very what Opin- Net of Help . Help . En Helpful Time Landscape.Maintenance Landscape Design Identification and characteristics of plants. Nursery management, including plant propagation. Garden center manage- ment--sa1es. Other, specify Ideally, which of the following fonmal education back- grounds would be best for a teacher of ornamental horti- culture in high school? a. Major in Agricultural Education. b. Major in Horticulture (no teaching certificate) c. Major in Horticulture with a teaching certificate d. Other, specify e. The areas the degree is in does not really matter. Would you recommend your kind and amount of formal education for other teachers before they begin teaching ornamental horticulture? a. Yes b. No \) Indicate how important each of the following is for improv- ing your overall ornamental horticulture teaching program. NO Very Opin- Little Not Imp. Imp. ion Imp. I p. .Formal courses In-service training meetings Physical facilities Interested students Instructional materials Now, we would like your opinion about the formal educa- tion program at Michigan State University. mommonam < 112 How would you describe the courses you took in general agriculture as they-relate to your teaching program in ornamental horticulture? Some- No Probably Waste Very what Opin- Not of Help. Help. ion Helpful Time . Dairy Science Animal Husbandry Poultry Science Cr0p Science . Agricultural Economics Forestry Fisheries and'Wildlife Agricultural Engineering . Occupational Experience Have you worked in commercial ornamental horticulture businesses before teaching vocational agriculture? a. Yes b. No If yes, in what type of business? How long did you work? What type work did you do? Has your work experience been helpful to you in your teaching program? Very Helpful Somewhat Helpful NO Opinion Probably Not Helpful Time wasted HH How important would each of the following be as work experi— ence for a person preparing to teach ornamental horticulture? Some- NO Probably Very what Opin- Not TimE' Help. Help. ion Helpful Wasted Work Experience in: a. b. c. d. e. f. Greenhouse Florist Sh0p Nursery Production Garden Center Farming Other, specify 113 2. Should work experience in an ornamental horticulture busi- ness be required before a person begins teaching ornamental horticulture? a. Yes ____ b. No If yes, for how long? Less than six months Six months to one year More than one year VI. Other Perceptions The following section will help us to determine your ideas concerning teaching ornamental horticulture in general. If you teach ornamental horticulture, omit the following and proceed to the other section of this page. Listed below are some possible reasons that ornamental horti— culture might not be taught at your school. Please indicate how important you consider each of these factors. Very NO Little Not Imp. Imp. Opinion Imp. Imp- 1. College training Of teachers is insufficient. 2. Students not interested. 3. JOb market too limited. 4. General horticulture should be responsibility of area skill centers. 5. Ornamental horticulture should be responsibility of area skill centers. 6. Subject is not of interest to you. 7. Local school policies do not permit. 114 Very NO Little Not. Imp. Imp. Opinion Imp. Imp. 8. Facilities are not available. . - ' 9. Local industry representa— tives encourage you not to teach it. 10. Others, specify Answer this section only if you teach ornamental horticulture. If you do teach ornamental horticulture, indicate how im- portant each of the following is for you teaching this area. Very NO Little Not 332; Impp_0pinion Imp. Imp. 1. College training in this area. 2. Students are interested. 3. Jobs are available. 4. General agriculture not as important as knowledge in a specific area. 5. Ornamental horticulture should be the responsibility of local schools as well as the area skill centers. 6. subject is interesting to you. ' 7. Local school policies encourage me to teach it. 8. Facilities were here and should be used. 9. Local industry representa- tive encourage you to teach it. 10. Others, specify 115 2. How would you describe your overall ornamental horticulture OH) teaching program this past year? a. Excellent b. Good c.-Fair d. Poor Ill . When you began developing your ornamental horticulture curriculum, indicate how helpful each of the following was to you. Some— Very what 'Help. Help. Other vocational agri- culture teachers. Industry representa- tives. Local school adminis- trators. State vocational administrators. Michigan State Uni- versity horticulture department faculty members. Local advisory group. County agricultural agent. Others, specify No Probably Opin- Not Time ion Helpful ngpgg Indicate the amount of changes you have scheduled for next year's program. ‘We know that every teacher feels that some parts of his Program are very strong and perhaps other parts would be Stronger if he could make some changes. We would like to know how you feel about three aspects of your instruc- tional program. Students— Facilities- Instructional materials- a APPENDIX B LETTER TO TEACHERS 116 117 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EAST LANSING - MICHIGAN 48823 COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES - DEPARTMENT OF HORTICULTURE - HORTICULTURE BUILDING November 1971 Dear : I want to sincerely thank you for your participation in my recent survey. Your Opinions and ideas are important to us and will add much to the overall results. All of the vocational agriculture teachers contacted have been extremely cooperative. All of you participants have not hesitated to take time out of your schedule. It is a real pleasure to work with a group such as this. I hOpe that the packet of infommatiOn will prove to be some help to you and that the study will help us here at Michigan State. We already have plans to analyze and utilize your answers in developing a better educational program in ornamental horticulture. Thank you again for your cooperation. I hOpe you have a good school year. Sincerely yours, Ronald L Shumack APPENDIX C LETTER TO INDUSTRY REPRESENTATIVES 118 O 119 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EAST LANSING-MICHIGAN 48823 COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES - DEPARTMENT OF HORTICULTURE - HORTICULTURE BUILDING January 1972 Dear : We appreciate your willingness to give us your recom- mendations for improving our training program for teachers of ornamental horticulture. As I mentioned during the telephone conversation, we are contacting both industry persons and high school teachers for suggestions. .Your local teacher, Mr. suggested you as a person who could offer helpful advice. When you respond to our questions, please keep in mind that we are concerned with*what high school teachers of ornamental horticulture need to know and be able to do. Also, please assume that they are preparing students who may enter the ornamental horticulture industry after graduating from high school (or after post high school training). We would like to know how important is it that a teacher have certain specific competencies. Try to think of the total ornamental horticulture industry and not just your specific ‘business when you give your Opinion. Also keep in mind that we are concerned with the preparation of teachers for schools throughout.Michigan. In a few days I will phone you to ask your responses. If you have a chance to study the list before my call we can complete the call much quicker. It will not be necessary forw you to mail anything back to me. Thank you very much for taking your time to help us. we will make every effort to utilize your ideas effectively. Sincerely, Ronald L. Shumack APPENDIX D INDUSTRY REPRESENTATIVES INTERVIEW INSTRIMENT 120 121 QUESTIONNAIRE FOR INDUSTRY REPRESENTATIVES The following is a list of areas or skills that might be taught at a high school. Some of these areas such as inter- preting soil test results require an understanding of princi— ples: however, skills such as taking soil samples require only that the teachers can show students how to perform the skill. To simplify your responses we have assigned numbers to the four possible responses. You may respond by telling me (during my telephone call) the number which corresponds to how important you consider each of the items. Very Important - 4 Little Importance — 2 Somewhat important - 3 Not Important - l Impogtance 4 3 2 1 1. Identifying ornamental plants by common names. 2. Identifying ornamental plants by scientific names. 3. Characteristics of more than five plant families. 4. Taking soil samples. 5. Testing soil samples. 6. Interpreting soil test results. 7. The effects of soil structure and texture on plants. 8. Sterilizing soil: a . with steam b. with chemicals 9. Changing soil pH. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 122 Soil mixtures for potting. Understanding the use of mulches. The use of trace elements. Planning the prOper use of growth regulators. Understanding how plant nutrients become_ available in the soil. Making fertilizer recommendations for specific plants. Mixing fertilizers for a specific ratio. Identifying nutrient deficiencies in plants. PrOper handling of agricultural chemicals. Insects affecting ornamental plants: a. Identification of at least ten insects. b. Making recommendations for control. Diseases affecting ornamental plants: a. Identification of at least five diseases. b. Making recommendations for control. Controlling the greenhouse environment: a. Regulation Of light. 'b. Regulation of moisture. c. Regulation of temperature. Understanding the cultural requirements of ornamental plants: a. Greenhouse crops. 'b. Nursery crops. c. Plants in landscape plantings. Growing annual bedding plants: a. Sowing the seed. b. Transplanting seedlings. c. Growing the plants. Cut Flowers: a. Cutting the stems. 'b. Care of the flowers after harvest. 4 Importance 3 2 1 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 123 Flower arranging: a. A knowledge of basic principles of design. b. Arranging the flowers. c. Pricing. PrOpagating plants by: a. Grafting. b. Cuttings. c. Budding. d. Layering. Pruning ornamental plants. .Balling and burlapping ornamental plants. Performing annual maintenance of lawns and landscapes. Advising customers concerning: a. Desirable varieties b. Costs of plants c. Proper planting procedure d. Care after planting Estimating the costs of caring for the mechanical landscaping equipment. Caring for mechanical landscaping equip- ment. a. Repairing b. Maintaining c. Adjusting 4 Importance 3 2 1 APPENDIX E TABLES 124 125 poocwucoo o h h hm .m.H ououmaoe no hm hm om h .B.m.m cowumasmou "Homeconw>co o 0 he mm .e.m.o masoncomum on» mcaaaouucoo .m o a ma om .m.H .unmefl no he hm ON 5 .B.m.m cowumasmou "nauseoua>co o 5 ea mm .e.m.o mmzosaumum may mcaeaouucou .m o o n ma .m.H o 0 mm he .e.m.m memosewao amusueso o a om mm .e.m.o lemma mo masseuse Hmaoum .e e em as ea .m.H oe oe ma. 5 .e.m.m muoumasmou rescue a an ow om .e.m.o mo mu: Humane may mceccmem .m 5 mm he as .m.H om ma ON a .e.m.m moan: oawaucuaom an RN me an an .e.m.o amucmemauo scammeucoee .~ 0 o 5 mm .m.H 0 ON hm ma .B.m.m mosh: coeeoo an mucmam o 0, mm no .B.m.o Hmucoemcuo mcwmmwucopH .H ououaaoauuom ucmuummEHcD ucmuHOQEaGD ucmuHOmEH ucmmeQeH meanness \eoaumemno \dmamaamso L \cemewaamsoca \ema umnzoeom ucoouom hum> Hesse no mesa maaaxm Ho moose ououaoowuuom muons ca powwflamso mcwom co “.m.Hv nomaaumucomoumom huumoch an poomam oucmuHomEH onu £ua3 A.B.m.mv «muonumoa mamemm seesaw paw A.a.m.ov Hmnonomma ousuasuaunom HMDGOEEGHO an pouuomom moaocoummeoo Oo>wouumm_mo mcomaummeoo .H magma 126 poscwucoo o a mm oe .m.H he am RN 0 .e.m.m .msuum 0 mm RN oe .e.m.o onu assuage "mumsoem use .ee 0 a pm 56 .m.H om om oe om .e.m.m .mpcmaa «A» message "mucmem o a am so .e.m.o unaccon Hansen aqueous .ms 0 5 SN. no .m.H .mmowapoom ON ON mm hm .e.m.m mcaucmemmcmue ”unease o 0 me am .e.m.o essence Hansen massage .ma 0 me am om .m.H ma hm o¢ om .B.m.m .pmmm map mGMBOm "mucmam o o a ma .e.m.O mcaeemn emaccm oce3ouo .Ha .mmcwucmam woman 0 a an om .m.H Incas 8% mucmam “unease ma mm be h .B.m.m amucmaacuo mo musoemuwsoou o 5 mm 04 .e.m.o unusuaso on» masocmuuuoucn .oa 0 ma ON hm .m.H .mmouu hummuaz newsman mm hm mm b .9. m .m Amused—mono mo mucosuwsoou o as oo sw .e.m.o amusuaso may mcaccmuuuooco .m o «A ma ms .m.H (.mmouo monogamouw «macadm be ma 0? o .B.m.m .Amucweacuo mo mucoeouanoou o a mm as .e.m.o .amuauaso an» mcaecmuuumcca .m o a a he . .m.H unaumumeeuu no hm hm om h .a.m.m cowumaomou uuceEEOHa>co o o mm 56 .e.m.o maaonaooum as» mcwHHouucoO .s ucmumomewob ucmuumeHCD Homuuomam ucmuuoasH .cmauaemaaca \eoamaemsvaa \emameamao \emameamso umn3mEOm kHo> aaammlmmlmmma unmouom amsqaucoouue manna 127 Omscwucoo R. RN oN Re .m.H 06 RN Rm R .B.m.m meanwhmq o R om mm .B.m.0 "an musmHm mcwummmmoum .NN R mN oN Re .m.H mm 04 ON R .e.m.m .mcaeesm R mm mm. R .e.m.O ..RA mucmNe mceummmmoum .NN o 0N NN R6 .m.H ON 6N oe ON .e.m.m .mmceuuao 0 me o Rm .e.m.o «an mucmam mcauwmmaoum .oN R RN ON Re .m.H ON RN he R .e.m.m .mcaummuo 0 ON Rm NH .e.m.o ”RA shaman maeummmmoum .me 0 RN mm oe .m.H om oN o o .e.m.m mm an RN R .e.m.o .maauaum, .mcamcmuum nozoam .mN R mm RN mm .m.H NR RN o o .e.m.m .muozoau as» was RN RN RN ON .e.m.o umcauna, "maemcmuum amends .RN 0 ON Re mm .m.H .cmaume mo MR ON 5 o .B.m.m mudmdocaum Damon mo onto oN an RN oN .e.m.o masocx.4 .mcamcmuum uozon .me o R mm oe .m.N . Re Re R o .e.m.m .uum>umn umuwm uuuzoem may o an RN oe .e.m.o we once “muozoau use .mN. ucmuuomawca ucmuuomsanp ucmuuomlwl ucmuuooeH \emmmaamseca \auamaamsecs \vaamaamso \emamaemao umszoeom >H0> Nessa no mane unmouom poscaucoonla,oanma 128 pesoaucoo O NH RN OO .m.H ma om mm ma .B.m.m .mcaucmam umpmm oumu nose 0 NH EN 00 .B.m.0 IGHOUGOU meEOHmSU DGHmHNer .mm o R oe mm .m.H .oudpmooum ON ON Re NH .e.m.m zecuucmNO Humane “ch O «N RN OO .e.m.o. -cumocoo mnuaoumso chuN>O¢ .mN O ON Oe Oe .m.H Re RN RN O .e.m.m .mucmae mo mumoo .chcumu R «N mm RN .e.m.o ucoo unassumsu OONmN>Om .RN O R «N OO .m.H ON Ov mm R .e.m.m .meuoNum> mNnmuNmmO "ecu O NH mm mm .e.m.O scumocoo muoeoumso chmN>O¢ .ON 0 ma ON 50 .m.H .mommompcma R «N Re mm .e.m.m Ocm mczma mo mosmcmucNms O R O NO .e.m.o Nassau mcaenomumm .mN O RN ON mm .m.H ON RN mm ON .e.m.m .uucmNm O R Re Re .e.m.o chRRMNHOn can chNNmm .ON O R ON OR .m.H ON ON Oe ON .e.m.m O R RN Re .e.m.o .uucmaa Nmucmsacuo Ocucsum .NN ucmuuomeacb HGODMOQEHGD ucmuuooea ucmuuomeH Haaxm Ho mead \Omawwamsocb \poamwamoocb \uoamadmoo \Oowwwamoo um£3m80m mum> unmoumm emacaucoonuN «News 129 poocwucoo O ON ON OO .m.N O O Re mm .e.m.m .me NNom may OONmNmu O O RN NR .e.m.o "as NNom machmso .R NN mN mm Oe .m.N mm R mm R .B.m.m .mamoaeoso R ON Re: RN .e.m.o auNa .NNom chuNNNuoum .O mN ON mm mm .m.N OO ON «N. R .e.m.m .emoum R ON mm oe .e.m.o suNa .NNom chuNNNumum .m O NN Oe Ra .m.N O O Ra mm .e.m.m .ducmaa so unauxmu can mush O O ON OO .e.m.o nusupm NNom No muummmm are .O O R RN RO .m.N O R mm. OO .e.m.m .uuNsaou O O OO OO .e.m.o uauu NNOm maNumuaumucN .m R RN mm mm .m.N NN R RN mm .e.m.m R O NN. OO .e.m.o .moneau NNou OONumme .N O NN RN OO .m.N O O O .OON. .e.m.m O O NN Rm .e.m.O .mONmsmu NNou quxme .N mmamammuaamw ucmuuomENSD ucmuuomeacb acmuHQmEH DCMNHOQSH \OmNmNNmnOcO \OmNNNNmsOaO ROwNNNNmaO \eoNNNNmaO unsaoEOm hHo> Ndaxm HO mend unmouom OmscNucoouuN mNnme 130 poscNucoo O O NO RO .m.N O NN RO ON .e.m.m .mucmNe ON mmNocmNUNomO O ON Re mm .e.m.o uamNuusc OONRmNucoON .mN NN mm mm ON .m.N ON R an Oe .e.m.m .oNpmu ONNNummu R NN mm- RN .e.m.o 8 How mumNNNNuuom maNxNz .ON O O mm RO .m.N .mucmNm R R R6 ON. .e.m.m onNomem mom mOONumecms O R RO RN .e.m.o -aouwu umuNNNuumm chxmz .NN O R RN RO .m.N .NNom may :N mNnm O O OO Oe .e.m.m -NNm>m osoumn mucmNnus: O R R6 RN .e.m.o ucmNe 30: chOcmamumOcO .NN O RN Om mN .m.N R ON mm ON .e.m.m - O mm mm- NN .e.m.o .mucmauNm moan» No was «re .NN R NN OO ON .m.N ON ON mm mm .e.m.m .mmNONse O O Re mm .e.m.o No mm: was chOcmumuoOcO .ON O ON RN mm .m.N OO ON ON ON .e.m.m O O «N Rm .e.m.o .chuuoe NON mmNOuxNz NNom .O O ON ON OO .m.N ON R Re mm .e.m.m .mm NNom one OcNumzoN O R Oe . mm . .e.m.O "mm NNom chmamso .m uGMUNOQENcD ucmunomeacb ucmumomEH ucmuuomEH Nawxm Ho some \OONNNNmOecO \OONNNNMOOOO \uonNNmso \emNuNNmsO Dmnzmeom muo> unmoumm OmacNucoounN mNnme 131 poscNucoo O ON Re NM .m.N chumsNON Om R om MN .B.m.m "ucoemNsoo OGNmmompcmN O R OO mm .e.m.o NMONcmsoms now chumO .O O om O¢ O¢ .m.N OCNcNmucNmz ON 0 RO MN .B.m.m "HomemNsoo chmmomOGMN O R OO mm .e.m.o NmoNcmnome new chumu .N 0 ON Re MM .m.N .chuNmmmm om MN om, R .a.m.m "unmemNooo chmmom O Oa we NN .e.m.o -OORN NmuNcmsoms now chumO .N 0 ON Oe Oe .m.H .udoemNsoo OGNmmumpcmN Re Oe R R .B.m.m NMOHdmsooE on» How chumo NN mm ON ON .e.m.o No mumoo may chumeNumm .N chHoocmmcm NONOHNOONumfl O 0 RN MR .m.N .NOHucoo How OGONumpcme 0% MM RN O .a.m.m leooou chxmz “mHGMNm No» O ON Oe Oa .e.m.o unmeacuo chuoummm mmmmmmNn .N .mommmmNp O O MN Rm .m.H 0>Nm uOOON no mo CONN Oe RN mm O .e.m.m -MUNmNueouN "mucmNe Nmucms O RN mm OO .e.m.o :mcuo.maNuummmm mommouNO .N O ON Rm MN .m.N Oe ON RN NN .e.m.m .moNNasmm ucmNO m>Nm cusp R ON ON Mm .B.m.o ONOB mo mONumNNouomumso .N NOONonumm HCMNm pom acmuom ucmuuomENcD ucmuHomENcD ucmuuomEH ucmuHOQEH \OmNNNNmsOOO \OoNNNNmsecO \OmNNNNmso \emNNNNmOO um53OEOm huo> NNNxm Ho some unmouom OOOONucoounN Oana 132 .moum HO NNNxm away game» no: ONO 0:3 muoaomou moon» mopsNocN OONMNNOOUGDO mNuan mNuON mNncN .Nouucoo o O Md Rm .m.H Now mOONumpcoeeooou R RN mm MN. . .e.m.m chxmz “muamNe Nmucos O NN Ow Re .e.m.o uncuo chuuomum muumch .N .muuoch sou o O R Mm .m.N HOMON us no GONHMONMNHGOON ON ON Re MN. .e.m.m "ONOMNO Nmucmaacuo O NN Oe Re .eum.o chuuouNm muumch .N NmoNoeovcm MGMUNOQENOD HGMNHOQENQD ucmuuomEH unnumOQEH NNNxm Ho mend \OmNmNNmaocO \OONNNNmsoaO \eoNNNNmsO \OONNNNmOO umn3oaom NHO> ucouuwm OOOONNCOOIIN ONANB 133 mNnGN mNucN O R 0 ON MR .a.m.m R R 0 RN om .B.m.o umNmNueumz.chONuOONuch O R 0 OG Mm .9.m.m MN R O RN Mm .B.m.o "mucepoum peueeueucN O O O RN MR .a.m.m NN R O RN mm .e.m.o “mmNuNNNomm NOONuNsN O O O RN MR .B.m.m R O O RN Rm .B.m.o "echueez chcNmua eON>HeMIcH O . a O ON 3 .e.m.m ON R. O .MM. oe .B.m.o umeeHOOU Nmshom eeNa New New coNcN 0 New New Now New mend mo uoz oz um£3eeom mue> eummz hNNmNONm uceonem .smumoum chsumeB enduNouNuHOm Nmucesmcuo NNmHe>o NNenB ch>oumeN Now em.mN503 amend peueeNem ucmuuomeN 30m mo GONumeouem A.B.m»mv Neuenemea eNmemm soucmm pom A.B.m.ov Nonesemea eNOuNsONuuom Nmuceemcuo mo coeNHmmeoo .N eNAmB 134 mHflGN mHHGN MN 0 0 MM MM .a.m.m . R o eN Me OM .B.m.o “chueecchm NmumuNSONNm< O MN om ON R .e.m.m R NN Me ¢N eN .a.m.o “emNNONNS pom meNuesmNm O 0 MN MR MN .B.m.m O o «N Rm ON .B.m.o "huumeuom R R MN Re RN .B.m.m «N R R em R .B.m.o -«mONeocoom NmuouNsONum< O o O Mm Re .B.m.m O R ON Me NN .B.m.o neoceNom mOHO RN MR O O O .B.m.m ON NO ON R O .e.m.o "mocmNom RuuNsom RN MR O O O .B.m.m NN me ON «N O .a.m.O “Raucmnusm Nasaca RN MR O O O .B.m.m NN ON ON R O .e.m.o "oucoNum NuNmO eawa Now New coNcN 0 New New NaumNem emuzOO mo oz umnseEDm hHe> eummz MNanoum uceouem eNOUNoeNuuom vaceeecuo chnomee How eHsuNsuNumm Nmueceo :N eemusou meuoeNem Ne eeechumNem esu mo cONumNHOmen A.a.m.mv Nemesumea eNmemm somcmm pcm A.a.m.ov Neuesomea ensuNOONuNOm Nmuceemcuo mo comNumoeou .M eNnt 135 Table 4. Comparison of Mean Scores for Ornamental Horticul- ture Teachers (O.H.T.) and Random Sample Teachers (R.S.T.) Answers to Questions Concerning Teaching Experience, Student/Teacher Ratio and Space Avail— able for Growing Plants . O.H.T. R.S.T. Dependent Variable n=15 n=15 1. Years in present position 7.4 10.3 2. Total years in the teaching profession 11.3 12.3 i .- . 3. Years teaching ornamental horti- culture as a specialized program 4.0 0.0 4. Average student/teacher ratio1 23.5 20.5 5. Square feet of greenhouse space 1123.2 165.7 6. Acres of nursery space 4.9 0.1 7. Square feet of classroom space used for growing plants 42.3 23.3 1The total number of students taught by the teacher divided by the number of classes taught by that teacher. 136 Table 5. Comparison of Mean Scores for Perceived Competen- cies of Ornamental Horticulture Teachers (O.H.T.) and Random Sample Teachers (R.S.T.) to the Importance Industry Representatives Placed on Being Qualified to Teach Selected Areas or Skills Average of O.H.T. and I.R. R.S.T. Dependent Variable (n=15) (n=30) 1. Identifying ornamental plants by common names 3.9 3.3 2. Identifying ornamental plants by scientific names 2.7 2.2 '3. Characteristics of more than 5 plant families 2.9 2.6 4. Testing soil samples 2.9 3.3 5. Interpreting soil test results 3.6 ~3.5 6. The effects of soil structure and texture on plants 3.3 3.7 7. Sterilizing soil: With steam 2.9 2.4 8. Sterilizing soil: With chemicals 3.0 2.4 9. Changing soil pH: Raising the soil pH 3.4 3.6 10. Changing soil pH: Lowering the soil pH 3.4 3.3 11. Soil mixtures for potting 3.3 3.0 12. Understanding the-use of mulches 2.9 3.1 13. The use of trace elements 2.9 2.8 14. Planning the prOper use of growth regulators 2.9 2.3 15. Understanding how plant nutrients become available in the soil 3.6 .3.3 continued 137 Table 5--Continued Average of O.H.T. and I.R. R.S.T. Dependent Variable (n=15) (n=30) 16. Making fertilizer recommendations for specific plants 3.7 3.1 17. Mixing fertilizers for a specific ratio 2.6 43.0 18. Identifying nutrient deficiencies in plants " 3.7 3.2 19. Proper handling Of agricultural chemicals 3.9 3.3 20. Insects affecting ornamental plants: Identification of at least ten insects 3.9 2.9 21. Insects affecting ornamental plants: Making recommendations for control 3.9 3.0 22. Diseases affecting ornamental plants: Identification of at least five diseases 3.9 2.5 23. Controlling the greenhouse environ- ment: Regulation of light 3.7 2.7 24. Understanding the cultural require- ments of ornamental plants: Greenhouse crOps 3.6 2.6 25. Understanding the cultural require- ments of ornamental plants: Nursery crOps 3.5 2.6 26. Understanding the cultural require- ments of ornamental plants: Plants in landscape plantings 3.5 2.9 27. Growing annual bedding plants: Transplanting seedlings 3.6 3.3 28. Cut flowers: Care of the flowers after harvest 3.3 2.3 continued 138 Table 5--Continued Average of O.H.T. and I.R. R.S.T. Dependent Variable (n=15) (n=30) 29. Flower arranging: A knowledge of basic principles of design 3.1 1.9 30. Flower arranging: Pricing 3.1 1.4 31. PrOpagating plants by: Grafting 3.1 2.6 32. Propagating plants by: Budding 3.1 2.3 33. Propagating plants by: Layering 3.1 2.3 34. Pruning ornamental plants 3.7 3.1 35. Balling and Burlapping ornamental plants 3.3 3.0 36. Advising customers concerning: Desirable varieties 3.5 2.7 37. Advising customers concerning: Costs of plants 3.2 3.1 38. Advising customers concerning: Care after planting 3.5 3.1 39. Estimating the costs of caring for the mechanical landscaping equipment 3.2 2.1 40. Caring for mechanical landscaping equipment: Repairing 3.1 2.6 41. Caring for mechanical landscaping equipment: Maintaining 3.2 -3.0 Table 6. 139 Comparison of Mean Scores for Ornamental Horticul- ture Teachers (O.H.T.) and Random Sample Teachers (R.S.T.) Perceived Competencies to Teach in Selected Areas O.H.T. R.S.T. Dependent Variable (n=15) (n=15) 1. Identifying ornamental plants by common names 3.7 2.9 2. Identifying ornamental plants by scientific names 2.7 1.7 3. Characteristics of more than 5 plant families 3.2 2.1 4. Testing soil samples 3.5 3.2 5. Interpreting soil test results 3.4 3.5 6. The effects of soil structure and texture on plants 3.8 3.5 7. Sterilizing soil: With steam 3.1 1.7 8. Sterilizing soil: With chemicals 2.9 1.9 9. Changing soil pH: Raising the soil pH 3.7 3.5 10. Changing soil pH: Lowering the soil pH 3.5 3.0 11. Soil mixtures for potting 3.9 2.2 12. Understanding the use of mulches 3.5 2.8 13. The use of trace elements 2.8 2.9 14. Planning the proper use of growth regulators 2.7 1.9 15. Understanding how plant nutrients be- come available in the soil 3.2 3.4 16. Making fertilizer recommendations for specific plants 3.2 3.0 continued 140 Table 6-—Continued O.H.T. R-S.T. Dependent Variable (n=15) (n=15) l7. Mixing fertilizers for a specific ratio .3.0 2.9 18. Identifying nutrient deficiencies in plants 3.1 3.1 19. Proper handling of agricultural chemicals 3.3 3.5 20. Insects affecting ornamental plants: Identification of at least ten insects 3.3 2.5 21. Insects affecting ornamental plants: Making recommendations for control 3.3 2.7 22. Diseases affecting ornamental plants: Identification of at least five diseases 3.1 1.9 23. Controlling the greenhouse environment: Regulation of light 3.5 1.9 24. Understanding the cultural requirements of ornamental plants: Greenhouse crOps 3.3 1.9 25. Understanding the cultural requirements of ornamental plants: Nursery crOps 3.1 2.1 26. Understanding the cultural requirements of ornamental plants: 'Flants in land- scape plantings 3.3 2.5 27. Growing annual bedding plants: Trans— planting seedling 3.9 2.7 28. Cut flowers: Care Of the flowers after harvest 3.1 1.6 29. Flower arranging: A knowledge of basic principles of design 2.5 1.3 30. Flower arranging: Pricing 2.1 1.2 31. PrOpagating plants by: Grafting 2.9 2.4 continued 141 Table 6--Continued O.H.T. .R.S.T. Dependent Variable (m=15) (n=15) 32. Propagating plants by: Budding 2.6 2.0 33. Propagating plants by: Layering 3.3 2.0 34. Pruning ornamental plants 3.6 2.6 35. Balling and Burlapping ornamental plants ” 3.4 2.5 36. Advising customers concerning: Desirable varieties 3.2 2.3 37. Advising customers concerning: Costs of plants 3.0 1.8 38. Advising customers cencerning: Care after planting 3.5 2.7 39. Estimating the costs of caring for the mechanical landscaping equipment 2.4 1.7 40. Caring for mechanical landscaping equip- ment: Repairing 2.7 2.5 41. Caring for mechanical landscaping equip— ment: .Maintaining 3.3 2.7 142 Table 7. Comparison of Mean Scores for Ornamental Horticulture Teachers (O.H.T.) and Random Sample Teachers (R.S.T.) Perceived.Need for Additional Formal Education O.H.T. R.S.T. Dependent Variable (n=15) (n=15) 1. Helpfulness of more formal courses in 2. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. ornamental horticulture and related fields 4.4 4.9 More formal training in: Floriculture 4.1 4.5 . More formal training in: Woody Ornamentals 4.4 4.8 More formal training in: Botany 3.3 3.7 More formal training in: Plant Physiology 3.3 3.9 More formal training in: Turfgrass Management 4.3 4.9 More formal training in: Entomology 4.3 4.1 More formal training in: Pathology 4.2 4.0 .More formal training in: Soil Science 3.9 4.1 More floriculture training in: Cultural requirements of greenhouse crops 4.3 4.3 More floriculture training in: Control- ling the greenhouse environment 4.1 4.4 More floriculture training in: Flower Arranging 3.8 3.7 More floriculture training in: Indoor Plant Culture ' 3.9 4.5 .More ornamental training in: Landscape maintenance 3.9 4.7 More ornamental training in: Landscape design 4.3 4.8 continued 143 Table 7-—Continued O.H.T. R.S.T. Dependent Variable (n=15) (n=15) 16. More ornamental training in: Identifi- cation and characteristics of plants 3.9 4.7 17. More ornamental training in: Nursery management 4.1 4.6 18. More ornamental training in: Garden Center management). 3.9 4.0 19. Best formal education background 2.8 3.2 20. Recommend your kind and amount of formal education 1.5 1.1 21. Importance of formal courses 3.7 4.3 22. Importance of in-service training meetings 4.5 4.7 23. Importance of physical facilities 4.0 4.7 24. Importance of interested students 4.0 4.4 25. Importance of instructional materials 4.3 4.6 144 Table 8. Comparison of Mean Scores for Ornamental Horticulture Teachers (O.H.T.) and Random Sample Teachers (R.S.T.) Perception of How Helpful Occupational Experience in Specific Areas Would Be for a Person Preparing to Teach Ornamental Horticulture O.H.T. R.S.T. Dependent Variable (n=15) (n=15) 1. Work experience in: Greenhouse 5.0 4.8 2. Work experience in: Florist shOp 3.9 3.7 3. Work experience in: Nursery production 4.9 4.9 4. Work experience in: Garden center 4.5 4.7 5. Work experience in: Farming 3.2 3.9 6. Should work experience in an ornamental horticulture business be required before teaching 2.0 1.8 7. Length of work experience 2.3 1.3 'n1memew '