INSTRUCTION IN FOREST PRACTICE IN MICHIGAN PUBLIC SCHOOLS WITH IMPLICATIONS FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Thesis Ior IIIe Degree oI Ed. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Alfred Otto Niemi 1960 This is to certify that the thesis entitled: Instruction in Forest Practice in Michigan Public Schools With Implications For Teacher Education presented by : Alfred Otto Niemi has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for 3 Ed 9 degree inEduaaltiDn Major professor <1 Date August 12, 1960 0-169 L 18 R A R Y Michigan State University INSTBUC”ICN IN FOfiEST PRACTICE IN HICHIGAN PUBLIC SCHOOLS WITH IMPLICATIONS FOR ”EACHER iDUCATION By ALFRED OTTO NIEMI AN ABSTRACT Submitted to the School for Advanced Graduate Studies of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION College of Education 1960 Approved ,- ' I ALFRED OTTO NIEMI ABSTRACT (a) Determine the recommended instructional Purpose. program for the public schools of Michigan in the forestry phases of vocational agriculture, general agriculture, and conservation; (b) determine the instruction in forestry being offered to students of vocational agriculture, general agri- culture, and conservation through Michigan public schools; (0) compare the recommended instruction in forestry with that being offered; and (d) determine the possible implica— tions of any diveraence between recommended forestry instruc- tion and present instruction for teacher education. Method. Several forestry books and other publications were used to compile a listing of forest practices deemed desirable for woodlct owners or Operators and high school students. Leaders in forestry and forestry education were asked to serve as a jury of thirty members to recommend practices for woodlot owners and high school students and to indicate the level of learning recommended for each practice. An original listing of 116 forest practices was reduced to 112 practices through various criteria. The new listing of 112 practices was then submitted to teachers of vocational agriculture, general aariculture, and/or conservation. These teachers were asked to check the prac- tices which they were teaching, and the levels to which they were teaching each practice to woodlot owners and to ALFRED OTTO NIEMI ABSTRACT two groups of high school students. Responses were received from all thirty jury members, from 139 teachers of vocational agriculture, and from 57 teachers of general agriculture and/or conservation. Compar- isons were made between the number of practices recommended and the number taught, and the levels of learning to which recommended and the levels to which they were taught. Five hypotheses were tested relative to the extensiveness of instruction and levels of learning provided, and the exten- Statistical techniques siveness and levels recommended. used included the chi—square and the t-test. Findings and interpretations. Of the 139 teachers of vocational agriculture responding, 126 were teaching at least five forest practices during the school year. Of the 57 teachers of general agriculture and/or conservation, to reported teaching at least five forest practices during the year. In a further breakdown, of the 139 teachers of vocational agriculture responding, h2 (30.2 per cent) reported they were teaching some forest practices to adults, 108 (77.7 per cent) were teaching forest practices to high school students with practical experience opportunities in forestry, and 69 (h9.6 per cent) were teaching practices to high school students without these experience opportunities. Of the 57 teachers of general agriculture and/or conservation, ALFRED OTTO NIEMI ABSTRACT none was expected to be teaching adults, 31 (Sh.h per cent) were teaching high school students with opportunity for practical experience in forestry, and 18 (31.6 per cent) were teaching forest practices to high school students without these experience Opportunities. Of the thirty jury members, fifty per cent recommended that 100 or more forest practices should be taught to woodlot owners or Operators (adults). Similarly, 100 or more practices were recommended for high school students with practical experience opportunities in forestry by one-half of the jury members. Slightly over one-half of the jury members recommended that 80 or more forest practices be taught to high school students without practical exper- ience Opportunities in forestry. Of the 112 forest practices, 39.3 per cent were recommended to be taught to an average of the ability level of learning to adults. Also, 51.8 per cent of the practices were recommended to be taught to the understanding level to adults. Of these practices, 66.1 per cent were recommended to be taught to the understanding level of learning to high school students with Opportunity for practical experience in forestry. The bulk of the 112 forest practices (90.1 per cent), were recommended to be taught to the awareness level to high school students without practical experience Opportunities in forestry. I1. Alai‘jfl I‘JD U .I. .LU III Ell 9.17.3 l’uAC'i" Ehe most revealing aspect of this study was the enormous gap that exists between what expert Opinion re- 0 commended to be taurim;anmd what was b in? taUVht to adults ( r) : and high school students. In the linht Oi ttio apparent divergence, it is both a privilege and a challenge to teach- er education to close this gap. A privilege, otca‘se expert Opinion felt that much could be done in the direction of forest practice instruct;on t reurh the public schools of nichiran. n challen e, oecause teacher-traininf institutions are the central coordinatin' arereies for the improvement of instruction in the public schools of Jichican. INS’l‘fiITC‘i 10?? IN F'Ckf‘i ‘ST T 3:13 1‘ I013 IN MICHIGAN PUBLIC SCHOOLS WITH IAPLICATIONS FOR TEACUER EDUCATION By ALFRsD OTTO NIsMI A THESIS Submitted to the School for Advanced Graduate Studies of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION College Of Education 1960 GISJEO (9/20/91 a ‘1"‘I‘ ' "r." ‘ a: 17ft :Minr. O alien) : Islam's l nuine appreciation to (D ress r \,l 0 Ike writer wishes t ex; the many people who save so willingly of their time and efforts in providinc advice and assistance in the completion of this study. Special anrreciation is expressed for his adviser, Dr. Harold A. Byram for his eneeurarenent and many suggestions. appreciation is also exrressed for the numerous suggestions and constructive criticism given by the other refiners of the writer's comrittee: Lr. Jillian B. Hawley, .Au R. heitr nudson, and Dr. Max Smith. Special thanks is also accorded fir. linton a. Carter, eerartnent of Forestry, and Er. harry a. Kesman, Aicnifian uspartment of lublic Instruction, for special assistance and stimulation in the earl: “uses of the study. ‘M ”“3 h Indebtedness is expressed to the Acrictltural Aduea- tion faculty and staff who cave of their tine in succestinc revisions for instruments used in the study. the writer on to the many Michigan teachers }.Jo nfishes to express appreciat of vocational agriculture, general agriculture, and conser— vation who cooperated in the stUdy. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION The problem Statement of purposes Need for the study Scope of the study Assumptions Hypotheses Limitations of the study Definition of terms II. RmVImN OF LITERAEURE Review of curriculum studies in other fields Studies related to approaches to selection of curricular materials Status of forestry instruction in other states Other forestry and related studies reviewed III. TBS INVESTIGATION General method of procedure and materials used Choosing the jury Instructions to the jury concerning the original checklist Final form of the checklist PAGE (IDODNNUILQNNH 12 12 15 17 21 27 29 3O 31 CHAP 'i‘,;LR Selectinr the schools to cooperate in the study Instructionstp the teachers concerninm the checklist IV. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF DATA Recommendations by the jury Number and percentage of jury recommending instruction to woodlot owners or operators Number and percentage of forest practices recommended by individual jury members Forest practices recommended to be taucht to varying levels of learnina to woodlot owners or operators and hich school students Forest practices recommended to be tausht to higher levels of learnina to woodlot owners or Operators Forest practices recommended to be taunht to high school students with experience opportunities Forest practices recommended to be taught to high school students without experience opportunities Instruction offered by teachers Number and percentage of Michinan teachers providing instruction in forest practices 35 37 37 38 39 I‘D—v {\J Li; us Ln Ln CHAPTSR PaGE Number and percentaae of teachers of voca- tional acriculture teaching varying numbers of forest practices 52 Number and percentage of teachers of seneral agriculture and/or conservation teaching 55 varying numbers of forest practices A comparison of certain forest practices taueht in Michiean and in the North 55 Atlantic Renion Number and percentase of Michigan teachers of vocational agriculture providing instruction to adult woodlot owners or operators 51 Number and percentage of teachers of voca- tional agriculture providing instruction 63 to high school students Number and percentage of Michisan teachers of general atriculture and/or conservation providing forestry instruction to high 63 school students Levels of learning provided Michiean woodlot owners or operators by teachers of vocational agriculture 69 Levels of learning provided certain Michigan high school students by teachers of 70 vocational agriculture CHAPTER vi *d a: . :7 L1»: Levels of learnina provided certain other Michipan high school students by teachers of vocational agriculture 7? Levels of learning beins provided certain Michigan high school students by teachers of general agriculture and/or conservation 73 Levels of learning provided certain other high school students by teachers of general agriculture and/or conservation 75 an analysis of jury recommendations and A A forest practices taught 79 comparison between the percentage of jury recommending and teachers of vocational aariculture teaching each forest practice to woodlot owners or Operators 80 comparison between the percentace of jury recommendinv and teachers of vocational agriculture teaching each forest practice to high school students with experience opportunities 80 comparison between the percentage of jury recommending and teachers of vocational aoriculture teaching each forest practice to high school students without experience Opportunities 82 i4. CHAPTaR EaGB Significance of the difference between the percentage Of jury recommending and teach- ers of general agriculture and/or conservation teaching forest practices to high school students with and without practical experience opportunities in forestry 83 Significance of the difference between the percentaae of jury recommending instruc- tion in forest practices to woodlot owners or operators and that recommended for both high school students with and without experience Opportunities in forestry 8h Significance of the difference between the percentage Of jury recommendina instruc- tion in forest practices to high school students with practical experience Opportunities and that recommended for high school students without these experience Opportunities 85 Significance of the difference between levels of learning recommended for woodlot owners or Operators and levels of learning provided these students by teachers of vocational aariculture 96 viii G? Li. CHAPTER ’ PA Significance of the difference between levels of learning recommended for high school students with Opportunity for practical experience in forestry and that provided these students by teachers of vocational agriculture 9? Significance of the difference between levels of learning recommended for high school students without practical experience Opportunities and levels taupht by teachers of vocational agriculture 99 Significance of the difference between levels of learnine recommended for high school students with practical experience Opportunities in forestry and levels taught by teachers Of general agriculture and/or conservation 100 Significance of the difference between levels of learninw recommended for high school students without practical experience opportunities in forestry and levels taught by teachers of Peneral agriculture and/or conservation 102 v. sum-1AM AND CONCLUSIONS 113 The summary 113 CHAPTaR Summary of forest practices recommended by the jury for woodlot owners or Operators Summary of forest practices recommended to be tauaht to high school students with and without practical experience opportunities in forestry Summary of forest practices taught by at least one—half Of the teachers of voca- tional agriculture to woodlot owners or Operators and to hiah school students with and without practical experience opportunities in forestry Summary of forest practices taught by at least one-half of the teachers Of general agriculture and/or conservation to high school students with and without prac- tical experience Opportunities in forestry Conclusions concerning hypotheses Hypothesis one Hypothesis two Hypothesis three Hypothesis four Hypothesis five General conclusions ix ‘wrn PAUL.» 113 llh 115 116 118 118 118 123 126 127 131 C RAF '1‘ SR P AGE Implications to teacher education 133 Suggested research in forestry education 1143 REFERENCES CITED 1135 APPENDIX 1M3 LIST OF TABLES 1. Forest Practices Recommended to be Taught to Woodlot Owners or Operators by All the Jury Members 11. Varying Number and Percentaae Of Jury Recom- ‘mendina the Teaching Of 112 Forest Practices to Woodlot Owners and High School Students Ill. Number and Percentage of Forest Practices Recommended to be Taught to Woodlot Owners or Operators and to High School Students by-the Jury IV. Varying Numbers of Forest Practices Recom- mended to be Tauaht to Varying Levels of Learning to Woodlot Owners or Operators and High School Students V. Top Twenty Forest Practices Recommended for Woodlot Owners and Receiving the Highest Average Level of Learning Recommendation From the Jury VI. Top Twenty Forest Practices Recommended for Selected High School Students Receiving the Highest Average Level of Learning Recommendation From.the Jury Vll. Top Twenty Forest Practices Recommended for Certain Other High School Students and Receiving the Highest Average level Of Learning Recommendation From.the Jury Vlll. Number and Percentage of Michigan Teachers of Vocational Agriculture, General Agricul- ture, and Conservation Teaching Forest Practices to Various Groups 1X. Number and Percentage of Michigan Teachers of Vocational Agriculture Teaching Varying Numbers of Forest Practices to Three Groups of Students PAGE 38 no hl #3 15 AB M9 51 53 TABLE X. Number and Percentage of Michigan Teachers of General Agriculture and Conservation Teaching Varying Numbers of Forest Practices to Two Groups of Students XI. A Comparison of Certain Forest Practices Taught by Vocational Agriculture Teachers in Michigan and the North Atlantic Region XII. Number and Percentage of Michigan Teachers of Vocational Agriculture Providing Instruction in Certain Forest Practices to Adults XIII. Number and Percentage of Michigan Teachers of Vocational Agriculture Providina Instruction in Forest Practices to High School Students With Experience Opportunities in Forestry XIV. Number and Percentage of Michigan Teachers of Vocational Agriculture Providing Instruction in Forest Practices to High School Students Without Experience Opportunities in Forestry XV. Number and Percentage of General Agriculture and/or Conservation Teachers Providing Instruction in Certain Forest Practices to Selected Michigan High School Students XVI. Number and Percentage of General Agriculture and/or Conservation Teachers Providing Instruction in Forest Practices to Certain Other High School Students XVII. Levels of Learning Provided Noodlot Owners or Adult Operators by Michigan Teachers of Vocational Agriculture XVIII. Levels of Learning Provided High School Students With EXperience Opportunities by Michigan Teachers of Vocational \ Agriculture \ XIX. Levels of Learning Provided High School Students Without Experience Opportunities by Michigan Teachers of Vocational \ Agriculture XX. Levels of Learning Provided Certain High School Students by Michigan Teachers of General Agriculture and/or Conservation xii Ph‘.‘rE 56 58 62 6h 65 Ob 68 71 72 7A 76 TABLE XXI. Levels of Learning Provided Certain Other High School Students by Michigan Teachers of General Agriculture and/or Conservation XXII. Percentage of Jury Recommending and Teachers Providing Instruction in Forest Practices XXIII. Levels of Learning Recommended by Jury and Levels Taught by Michigan Teachers of Forest Practices xiii 1" AG 33 77 87 10h CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION It has been the belief of many educators that the public schools should exert some influence toward the deveIOpment of understandings and abilities in the main- tenance, wise use, and renewal of our natural resources, esnecially our forests. In Michigan, many schools today are providing instruction in forest practice, both to adults and to high school students. The number providing this instruction, however, is difficult to ascertain. It is the belief of the writer that there is a body of for- estry understandings, abilities, and/or skills, involving application of forest practices, which public school teachers of vocational agriculture, general agriculture, and/or conservation could deve10p in students. This belief is, however, based upon the premise that teachers will be adequately trained in the fundamentals of forest practice. One of the primary purposes of this study is to investigate the possibilities of forest practice instruc- tion.in the public schools of Michigan. This chapter includes (a) statement of the problem, (b) need for the study, (c) scope of the study, (d) basic assumptions, (e) hypotheses, (f) limitations of the study, and (g) defi— nition of terms. The Problem Even though some forestry instruction or instruction in forest practices is given in many Michigan schools, no real set of principles or practices to guide the teacher have been devised for the three categories of teachers mentioned above. It is assumed that instruction in desir- able forest practices is an important part of the school curriculum.for students in agriculture and conservation. Some forest practices are more important than others and vary as to importance in different parts of the country. It would seem that an attempt to develop a desirable list- ing of forest practices to be used in the public schools of Michigan would assist persons concerned with course content in forestry and related fields. Statement of Purposes. The purposes of this study were: (1) to determine the recommended instructional pro- gram for the public schools of Michigan in the forestry phases of vocational agriculture, general agriculture, and conservation for high school students and adults; (2) to determine the instruction in forestry being offered to students of vocational agriculture, general agriculture, and conservation through the public schools of Michigan; (3) to compare the recommended instruction in forest practices with the present forest practice instruction being offered to the above mentioned students; (A) to determine the possible implications of any apparent divergence of recommended forest practice instruction and present instruction to teacher education. Need for the Study. Relatively few studies have been made in the area of forest practice instruction for the public schools of the northern states. To the knowl- edge of the investigator, no studies have been made in Michigan to ascertain the level of instruction or the kinds of instruction in forest practices which might be provided for high school students and/or adults. Furthermore, to the knowledge of the investigator, no studies have been made in Michigan to determine the forest practices taught or the level to which they were being taught. The value of forestry to the economy of the northern states was indicated when, in 1952—1955, it was chosen as one of the seven subject-matter areas to be included in the Regional Project in "Technical Skills Needed by Teachers of Vocational Agriculture."1 In this project, 139 forestry skills were found to have been included in instructions by teachers of vocational agriculture in the twelve states comprising the North Atlantic Region. These skills 1Technical Skills Needed by Teachers of Vocational ggriculture, A Regional Research Project in Agriculturalifi Education, North Atlantic Regional Conference for Super- visors and Teacher Trainers in Agricultural Education (The Interstate, Danville, 111.), 1956. generally appeared to be, however, of a manipulative type rather than forest practices. Further indication of the need for the study is the vast need for instruction in forest practices. In the mid-1950's, about #5 per cent of Michigan's forests were under the management of professional foresters. Most all of the land not managed was under private ownership. According to Strassmann,2 wood cutting was supervised by professional foresters on only 12 per cent of privately owned forests in northern lower Michigan, and on only 23 per cent of private forests were cutting practices classi- fied as good. In eastern Upper Peninsula of Michigan, only no per cent of the allowable cut on a sustained-yield basis of pulpwood species was being harvested.3 This, in turn, was resulting in decreased annual growth due to the retention of trees which were no longer growing vigorously. It was the thesis of the writer that through some program of education, the forestry practices in Michigan could be improved to the extent of supplying greater percentages of the needs of Michigan wood—using industries. 2w. Paul Strassmann, Economic Growth i3 Northern Nfichigan, General Publication No. 2, Institute for Community eve 0pment and Service, Continuing Education Service, (Michigan State University, 1958), p. 53. 3U.S. Forest Service and Michigan Department of Conservation, Timber Resources ip_the Eastern Upper Penin- SUla 2: Michigan (fansing: Michisan Department of Conserva- tion, 19 9 Pp. 3-S- At least, it should be possible to change the opinions of some 56 per cent of the private owners in Michigan's north- ern areas who believed their methods Of timber management could not be improved.“ SOOpe Of the Study. This study was aimed primarily at finding those awarenesses, understandings, abilities, and/or skills needed in forestry by the following persons: 1. Farm owners and/or Operators of woodlots; other small woodlot owners or Operators. 2. High school students with opportunity for practi- cal experience in forestry at home, in the school forest, or at other woodlots. 3. High school students without Opportunity for practical experience in forestry. Included in this study are nine areas of instruction in forest practices chosen from several forestry texts and other publications. These practices were approved by representatives of the Department of Forestry at Michigan State University as comprising a desirable segment of the field of forestry. These nine major areas of instruction included in this study are: 1. Tree identification 2. Forest boundary lines 3. Tree planting h Lee M. James, and others, Private Forest Land- W and Management ill the Northern Half 93 Miphigan's .2!§E.E§pinsula, Technical Bulletin 261 (East Lansing: AEricultural Experiment Station, Michigan State University, 1957)! p0 3h. h. Cleaning, improvement, cutting, and thinning (Woodland weeding and thinning) 5. Plantation pruning 6. Timber cruising 7. Log scaling 8. Timber harvesting and marketing 9. Miscellaneous (Insects, reproduction, nurseries, etc.) The levels of learning involved in the study included (a) the awareness level, (b) the understanding level, (0) the ability level, and (d) the skill level, The geographic area involved in this study included all secondary public schools of Michigan in which the teaching of vocational agriculture, general agriculture, and/or conservation was a part of the school curriculum at that time. Schools with "first-year" teachers were not included. Included in the jury of forestry education eXperts, to develOp a listing of recommended or suggested desirable forest practices to be taught through the public schools of Michigan, were: . l. Forestry specialists from Michigan State Univer- sity, both on-campus and Off-campus extension personnel. 2. District and regional foresters of the Michigan Department of Conservation located in both peninsulas of Michigan. 3. Professional foresters working with industries utilizing forest products in Michigan. h. Teacher educators; other educational leaders working with forest owners or in related fields. Assumptions. It was assumed by the investigator: 1. That there is a need for instruction in forest practices in the majority of Michigan communities; that this instruction can be provided, at least in part, through the ublic schools of Michigan to secondary school students and or adults. 2. That the number of forestry education authorities used in this study was sufficiently large to provide reli— able data. 3. That the jury had interpreted the fact that forest practices would be taught, provided facilities and woodlots were available, and that these practices would be taught as a part of organized classes. h. That the jury recommendations were correct in those areas of Michigan in which forest practices logically should be taught. fiypotheses. The specific theories set forth in this study were: 1. That there is a body of forestry practices upon which expert opinion will agree should be taught through the public schools of Michigan. 2. That instruction in forest practices being provided woodlot owners or Operators and high school students in the public schools of Michigan was not as extensive as that recommended by expert Opinion. (Exten- sive was used here to mean that a relatively large number of practices were recommended or taught by a relatively large percentage.) 3. That expert opinion would agree that owners or Operators of forest lands were in need of more extensive instruction in forest practices than were high school students. h. That expert Opinion would agree that high school students, with Opportunities for practical experience in forestry, were in need of more extensive instruction in forest practices than were high school students without these experience opportunities. 5. That instruction in forest practices, for wood- lot owners Or Operators and high school students in the public schools of Michigan, was not provided at as high a level of learning as that recommended by expert Opinion. Limitations of the Study. The limitations inherent in a questionnaire-type of survey-study were recognized at the outset, as were the limitations of the checklist as a tool for Obtaining data. However, in order to facilitate uniformity in categorizing the responses of the jury and teachers, it was deemed necessary to present a structured- type of checklist rather than evoke a completely free res- ponse to questions. This, in turn, aided in maintaining the listing as forest practices rather than skills of a manipulative nature. Skills were generally being held at a minimum. Other limitations in this study were: 1. The possibility that the concept of learning beyond the level of understanding or awareness may not fall within the scope of public school Offerings in forestry. 2. Whether learnings beyond the understanding level are within the scope of public school objectives may depend upon individual community educational concepts. 3. Since the checklist depends almost completely upon Opinions of the respondents, present opinions may or may not long remain consistent with future Opinions. u. With only a limited number of studies made in this Specific or related area, very few comparisons could be made; any comparisons made between Michigan and other area studies in forestry education, may only serve to reflect the relative importance of a practice or practices in a geo- graphic region. 5. Owing to the fact that variations will occur in the interpretation of words, there is a distinct possibil- ity of variation in the interpretation of definitions and/or wording. Definition Of Terms. Since words are interpreted differently by various peOple, only those words or phrases which may be subject to the most variation are defined here. Forest practice. Throughout this study, the term "forest practice" shall be interpreted as meaning the actual performance or application of knowledge in forestry, or application of knowledge related to and needed in forestry. Forestry. The scientific management of forests for the continuous production of goods and services. Vocational agriculture. A program of vocational education in the public schools designed to meet the needs of those high school students engaged in, or preparing to engage in the work of the farm. General agriculture. A program, course, or series of courses incorporating information and experience in agriculture and offered to students in schools without regard for sex, farming status or background, or vocational interest. Conservation. A program of general education in the public schools, aimed at all levels of students, and designed to encourage the wise use of natural resources in order to benefit the largest numbers of people, now and in the future. (Used only as it relates to high school stu- dents in this study.) High school students with Opportunity for forestry ggperience. High school students with opportunity for lO practical application of forest practices on the home woodlot, other woodlots, or On the school forest tract. High school students without Opportunity for forestry experience. High school students without Opportunity for practical experience on home woodlots, other woodlots, or on a school forest. Awareness level Of learning. To be conscious of a task, Object, or thing. Understanding level Of learning. TO comprehend the nmaning of, through the medium of relationships. Ability level of learning. To have the capacity of performing a task, but only to a low level of skill or expertness. §kill level of learning. Practical ability to per- form a task to the "doing level" and involving a high degree Of expertness. Other words or phrases were expected to be interpreted with slight variations, but should not materially alter the results of the investigation. The remainder Of the report of this investigation is divided into four parts, namely: (1) a review of literature pertaining to selection of curricular materials, forestry instructions in other states, and similar related studies; (2) the procedures used in the investigation, and methods used in choosing the jury and 11 teachers who cooperated in the study; (3) an analysis and discussion of data pertaining to information received from the jury and teachers; and (u) a summary and conclusions based on the analysis of all data available at the time Of completion of the investigation. CHAPTER II RSVIEW OF LITERATURE Since literature in the field of forest practice instruction for the public schools is rather Sparse, it was decided to review literature on curriculum building in other fields. This approach was used in order to find the method of procedure used and the general overall pattern of research design used to investigate these fields. This chapter is concerned with (a) a review of cur- riculum studies in other fields as it relates to this study; (b) studies related to approaches to selection of curricular materials; (c) the status of forestry instruction in other states; and (d) other forestry and related studies reviewed. Review of curripulum studies in other fields. Several methods of approach have been suggested for ascertaining the suitability of a course Of study or of principles to use as goals of instruction for the public schools. Robertson,5 in reporting on a study on the sciences for the elementary level, has indicated that at least four methods lend 5Martin L. Robertson, "The Selection of Science Prin- ciples Suitable as Goals of Instruction in the Elementary School," Science Education, Vol. 19, NO. 1, February 1935. pp. l-h 13 themselves to this approach, namely: (a) using the Opinion of exnerts as to the principles most suited; (b) use Of laymen to indicate their needs for functional understanding Of the principles; (c) the child's environment could be analyzed to reveal the needs of these principles in compre- hending it; and (d) the use Of the Opinion of experts, experienced in teaching elementary science, to select prin- ciples based on their combined judgment. The method Of procedure used by Robertson6 was to Obtain a listing of principles in science from magazines, textbooks in science, and specialized books on science. He assumed that these studies or books were apprOpriate sources Of the principles desired, and set up certain criteria for their selection. These criteria were: (a) the study must have been set up to select the principles; (b) the report should indicate the rank—order Of the materials or stress which is given each. He, therefore, used three Master's theses, other articles, and a jury composed of three leading science teachers. However, this study indicated some diffi- culty by the jury in eliminating certain borderline principles. In the same study, the author used a five-point scale to aid in choosing his list. He assumed that three was a midpoint and used only principles for his final list which received a median rating Of 2.51 to n.99. 6Robertson, lOc. cit. In selecting the materials to be included in a course in Home Management, Judy7 used the following five sources Of information: (a) examination of available texts and reference books; (b) bulletins; (0) educational maga- zines; (d) journals; and (e) courses of study in Home Management. Sixty-eight instructors in Home Management aided in the listing of 126 tOpics, which then were evalu- ated by a jury of ten experts in the field. The jury rated them on a zero to three scale and only those tOpics were chosen which were of the most importance. She assumed that the list must have been complete since no topics were added by the jury or the teachers. In the field Of curriculum building in mathematics, Boyer8 used as a source of his proposed units, at least four different areas: (a) a review Of previous studies; (b) a list of topics recommended in twelve committee reports; (c) an analysis of 101 articles in mathematics in twenty-two pOpular journals; and (d) an analysis Of twelve recent texts in mathematics. He then submitted a list of twenty-five proposed topics or units to teachers in ten different fields, and to sixteen different curriculum experts who rated them 7Helen E. Judy, "Trends and Needs in Home Management, " Contribution to Education NO. §6 é (Bureau of Publications Teacflers College, Columbia University, New York City, 1929) pp. 6‘76. 8Lee E. Boyer, "College General Mathematics For Pro- spective Secondary School Teachers," Studies in Education NO. l , (State College, Pa.: Pennsylvania State College, 1939 , pp. 1-106. 15 on a five-point scale. Other studies in which the opinion Of experts were used include a study, to determine the content of a course in literature, made by Burch.9 She attempted to find the desired content in courses in literature for junior and senior high school students. The method she used was to ascertain the values which high school students were sup- posed to gain from the study of literature. To determine this, she: (a) obtained the opinion of authorities on the subject (from bulletins, to make them more Of a concensus); (b) chose those selections considered most potent in sup- plying these values; (c) consulted with twenty courses of study in English in the California schools; (d) consulted with English bulletins for recommended courses; (e) selected sixty literary compositions of the difficulty deemed desir- able for high schools by teachers Of English; (f) then chose a sample of each to place in three different tests, adminis- tered these tests, and determined their reliabilities; and (g) finally, determined the range of difficulty of these tests. The materials thus Obtained were assumed to be appropriate for the desired levels as course content in literature. Studies related to approaches to selectign_9£ 9Mary C. Burch, "Determination of the Content Of a Course in Literature of a Suitable Difficulty for Junior ‘ log Mono— and Senior High School Students," henetic Ps cho my graphs, Vol. IV, NO. 2 and 3, Ana-Sept” IVE. pp. 69-332. 16 curricular materials. In the field of social studies, Wesley:LO has indicated that there are actually two approaches which the maker of curriculum has, especially in the social studies, namely: the experimental approach and the specu- lative approach. He has further indicated the following techniques under these two approaches: I. Experimental approach 1. Reports of national committees (most influen- tial 2. Analysis of courses of study (reliance on experience) 3. Analysis of textbooks (reliance on experience) A. Trial and error method (only in formal exper- iments) II. Speculative approach 1. Frequency of mention or space allotment (most popular) 2. Job analysis technique to chart human activities 3. Techniques of choosing on the basis of natural activities or preferences of children u. Selection of curriculum by a study of deficien- cies 5. Use of work lists as a basis 6. Use of curriculum problems or issues 7. Use of ability to make generalizations after understanding is developed 8. Base the curriculum on the Opinion of selected groups 9. Classify human activities into processes 10. Base the curriculum on qualities of a good citizen Since this present study in forestry education is designed to aid the teacher in choosing forest practices to teach, the words of Hopkinsll may have some bearing on the lOEdgar B. Wesley, "Techniques for the Selection of Curricular Materials in the Social Studies," Social Studies Egrriculum, Fourth Yearbook, Washington D.C.: National Council for the Social Studies,193u. pp. 32441;. 11Thomas HOpkins, "Curriculum Making: General," Review of Educational Researgh, Vol. 1, No. l, 1931, p. 7. 1? study: The school curriculum should prepare the child for effective participation in his immediate life and also direct his growth toward goals derived from the best conceivable standards of adult life. The school curriculum should be organized so as to promote the most effective learning proce- dures even though it means the abandonment of present school subjects. The school curriculum should be planned in advance to the extent that the teacher is given some well defined guides to his work. Many Michigan rural youth,as well as youth of other states, will engage in the work of the forest in the immedi- ate future. How other states are preparing for the future through forestry instruction is given in the next section. Status of forestry instruction in other states. Elliott12 has indicated that technical skills in forestry have a definite place in the instructional program of vocational agriculture in many communities in the United States. Of 12h randomly chosen teachers of vocational agriculture in the North Atlantic Region, about one-half of them taught some phase of forestry and used about 70 of 139 skills taught in the region. He further indicated that teachers who had acquired Specific skills and used them, had done so because there was a definite need for these skills in their reSpective communities. The fact that forestry is more important in some states than in others, and varies by communities within a 12Wallace H. Elliott, "Technical Skills Needed by TeaChers of Vocational Agriculture in Forestry," Technical Skills Needed by_Teachers 2: Vocational ggriculture, (Dan- VfiIe, 111.: The Interstate, 1956), pp.'18-20. 18 state, presents a greater problem of teacher preparation than the other subject-matter areas [in agricultur§1.13 This appears to be indicated by the fact that about one-half of the teachers involved in Elliott's study used about one-half of the skills, while the remainder of these teachers used relatively fewer. In a report of activities in the southern states,1h some forestry instruction was provided in a cOOperative way. Several agencies 000perated to provide funds and instructional help in summer Forestry Training Camp in Florida. At this camp in Florida, llu chapters of the Future Farmers of Amer- ica chose an outstanding boy to send to the camp sponsored by the Florida Forest Service, and financed by six Florida Pulp Mills of the Southern Pulpwood Association. The idea behind the plan was to help the boys equip themselves to better manage their farm woodlands. Areas of instruction in this camp included: First-Year Students 1 Tree identification 2. Forestry tools 3. Gum farming h. NUrsery practice 5. Forest protection 6. Farm.forestry 7. Timber management Second-Year Students 1. Marking trees for removal 13Ib1d., p. 18. 1uAnnonymous, "Young Foresters," Recreation, u0:u3u, Nov. 19h6. l9 2. Cruising and estimating timber stands 3. Telephone line construction and maintenance In Missouri,15 camp facilities Of the University Of Missouri were made available to no high school students at a 9,000-acre forest at Poplar Bluffs, Missouri. The boys who attended were chosen by teachers Of vocational agricul- ture, county agents, and u-H leaders and ranged in age from lu to 18 years. Roberts16 indicated that the broad coverage in the field Of forestry at this camp included: Forest protection Wildlife management and conservation Forest mensuration Practical instruction in use of logging tOOls Identification and use Of native trees and shrubs Sawmill care and Operation 7. Actual Operation Of a mill and safety instructions 8. Cruising timber and using tally sheets 9. Computing board feet in plots Of standing trees 10. Making a simple management plan for the area 11. Review of research carried on by the University of Missouri 12. Overall coverage of farm woodland management 13. Recreation OWHfunrOFJ The Missouri program appeared to be one Of the few which included wildlife aspects of forest management as a separate phase in their camp activities. Virginia camps for negro students Of high school age gave basic instruction in five different broad areas Of lSWildon E. Roberts, "Missouri Forestry Camps," American Forests, 62:16-18, September, 1956. 16Roberts, loc. cit. 20 forestry:17 Ecology and protection Reforestation Forest mensuration Forest management Forest utilization \nfirunu+a 0 TO find the effect of this camp training, a survey was conducted at the Virginia camp and the findings seemed to indicate that (a) more instruction was needed to place woodlands into more intensive management, (b) improvement was needed in machine tree planting, (c) farm forestry practices should be incorporated into young-farmer and adult-farmer classes in agriculture, and (d) sawmills and logging Operations should be utilized in teaching forestry. Forestry camps were held in several other southern states. Haynie,18 the State FFA Advisor in Arkansas, indicated that a forestry camp for negro NFA members and u-H club members was conducted in his state. This camp provided instruction in (a) forest management, (b) fire prevention, (c) tree identification, (d) fire control, and (e) law enforcement. Instructors for this camp were pro- vided by large lumbering concerns, paper industries, and state and federal forestry specialists. Forestry education received a great boost in the l7L.D. Harding, "Farm Forestry Education Receives a Boost in Virginia," Agricultural Education Maggzine, 27:138, December, 19514.. 18R.C. Haynie, "Forestry Camps Provide Education and Recreation," Agricultural Education Magazine, 28:139. Dec- ember 9 1959 e 21 State Of Georgial9 through grants to the State Board of Education for expanding forestry education in the public schools. These grants were used in three ways by the State Board: 1. TO provide in-service training workshops for teachers. 2. TO assist schools having vocational agriculture in the curriculum to obtain 10 acres of school forest land. 3. TO employ professional foresters on the State Vocational Agriculture Supervisory Staff. Carnes20 reported that at Alabama, camps were held for Future Farmers Of America boys. Six broad areas of forestry education were eXplored at these camps: 1. Identification Of trees; what type and how tO grow them; identification Of shrubs and plants. 2. Prevention and control Of forest fires; use Of fire equipment. 3, Harvesting timber; best methods Of making pulp and sawlogs; good cutting and logging practices. Utilizing and marketing forest products; selling by contract. 5. Managing timber land; volume tables; log rules; measuring instruments. 6. Farm safety and first aid; safe work habits. Other forestry and related studies reviewed. A study 19Anonymous, "The Cover Picture," Agricultural Edugg- tion Magazine, Vol. 30, NO. 12, June 1958, p. 271. 20w.w. Carnes, "Alabama Forestry Camp Teaches FFA'ers Forestry," Agricultural Education Magazine, 27:129, December, l95h. 22 by Baker21 in 1959 indicated that, on an average, some 50 teachers of general agriculture in Michigan ranked the teaching of forestry to high school students as sixth in importance among 27 areas of instruction in agriculture. At the same time, 50 high school principals placed forestry on an average of fifteenth, while 50 persons engaged in agricultural pursuits placed it twenty-third. People engaged in agriculture may have failed to see the value of forests as a farm crop, as far as the results of this study seem to indicate. In the same study,22 of the 50 persons engaged in agriculture, not one placed forestry as being of the great- est importance in the general agriculture program. However, seventeen (3h per cent) did consider forestry of the least value in the program. Of hl teachers of general agriculture, only four placed forestry as being of the greatest importance, while seven placed it as the least. About 17 per cent of these agriculture teachers indicated the need for more train- ing in forestry. Incidently, about 10 per cent of fifty-five teachers of general agriculture in the same study rated their college instruction in forestry of the greatest importance to them, while 69 per cent of forty general agriculture 21Lee 0. Baker, _ Basis For Improvinngechnical Instruc- In tion For Persons Preparing To Teach General Agriculture Michi‘ an, (Doctor's Thesis, Michigan State University, East LanSj-ngg 1959), P. 98. 221bid., pp. 89-91. 23 teachers responding indicated they had received training on the college level in forestry. The need for a close relationship between forestry learnings and agriculture in our public school programs seems to be evident from a study made by Kennedy23 in 1958. He found that, of 15h farm operations used in his study, municipal foresters appeared to need to be aware of h0.u per cent of these Operations, and understand how 35.6 per cent of these performed, and be able to perform 28.2 per cent of them. In nine of fourteen forestry jobs considered in this study, the majority of his 15 jury members stated that placement or success on the job required a knowledge of farming, indicating again a place for forestry in high school agricultural programs. The U.S. Forest Service and the state Conservation Departments of the various states have provided schools with much advice on forestry education and made publications available for school use. Cox,2u in a recent booklet designed for the nine states in the North Central Region, suggested use of the following activities as a basis for instruction in Forest Conservation: 23WilliamHenry Kennedy, A Classification of Relation- shi 8 Between Fammin and Certain Other Agricultural Uccupa- tions GIEE‘TEpTIEEE38hE‘Tbr Guidance and*Curricu1um.Develo - ment, (Doctor's Thesis, Michigan State University, East Iansing, 1958), pp. 178, 280-83. 21LCharles E. Cox, Activities For Teaching Forest Conservation, Grades 10- 2nd Year College, (U. 8. Forest iefivice, U. S. D. A., Milwaukee, Wisconsin, June, 1958): PP. - 2 II. III. IV. VI. ..... _ _.. _._.... a...» _,_. n- ._‘_._.. ._ BA The Forest Community I. Lay out a conservation trail . Establish a school forest . Tree identification . Demonstrate forest influences (through field work) F'WN Forest Watersheds 1. Demonstrate some causes of floods 2. Test rate of infiltration 3. Visit reservoir, well, and water treating plant Wildlife Habitat 1. Clipping study on forage used by big game Forest Recreation 1. Landscape survey 2. Improve public recreation 3. Planning a recreation area Forest Protection 1. Examine pastured farm woodlands 2. Operate burning-index meter Forest Management . Visit forestry installation . Examine management plans for school, municipal, or county forest Study of wood utilization Use of increment borer Improve a forest stand Measure tree diameters and tree heights Cruise timber and tally same Calculate volumes 0 O O CDNIOU'LPUJ NH O The fore—going listing of activities or series of activities were suggested for the nine states of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota, Ohio, and Wisconsin. It would appear that most of the above activities were designed for the out-of-doors, indicating that many of them might well be conducted in summer camps and workshOps of the nature used in the southern states. In the previously mentioned study by Elliott,25 eight 25Elliott, loo. cit. , ...__......, _._-_-—._... _ ..—-~..__...-:._ _,—— ._ broad areas of forestry education were listed, with 139 manipulative skills listed under each. The eight broad areas used were: 1. How to use tools and equipment 2. Managing the farm woodlot 3. Protecting the farm woodlot h. Managing a forest nursery 5. Harvesting and marketing woodlot products 5. Harvesting and managing woodlot products 7. Production of maple products 8. Miscellaneous Many of the states in which forestry instruction was provided for high school students, conducted their activi- ties either in large woodlots of colleges, on timber tracts of forest industries, or on school forests. Much of the instruction in forestry appeared to be conducted in coopera- tion with forest industries, using the facilities and forestry specialists of those agencies which profit most by the availability of a continuous flow of timber and products of the forest. Of the several methods used by researchers to deter- mine course content in the public schools, the "Opinion of authorities" in the field appeared to be used most consis- tently. The number of authorities used varied in the literature cited; from three to sixteen or more generally served as a jury. Textbooks and periodical literature formed the basis for much of the content presented to the 26 jury members for review. In most instances, the jury was requested to indicate the relative importance of items or units on a scale ranging from three to five points, and only items which rated relatively high were used as a basis of course content. The next chapter in this study is concerned with the use of the "jury of experts" technique and teachers in the field to provide data for analysis. .,___. w-I' M w -"_-- --' CHAPTER III THE INVESTIGATION Several methods of investigating the problem of forestry instruction were considered. However, it was decided to use a combination of the job analysis technique (of forestry activites), deficiencies in forestry education, and the opinion of selected groups or jury of experts. To ascertain the recommended instruction in forest practices for the public schools of Michisan, a checklist of forest practices was devised. A jury of forestry educa- tion personnel was asked to indicate the instruction they recommended to various groups of students taught through the public high schools of Michigan. This was accomplished through use of the checklist. To find the implications of the jury recommendations to present instruction and to teacher education institutions, the checklist was also submitted to teachers in the field. The checklist was first revised according to later explained criteria, and then presented for checking to teachers of vocational agriculture, general agriculture, and conservation. These teachers were thought to be providing the bulk of the high school forestry instruction in the public schools of Michigan. _I_—____ _._.—.._- —__._ .--~—_.. —. ___._, ra— -,. 28 This chapter is concerned with (a) the method of procedure and materials used; (b) choosing the jury; (c) instructions to the jury; (d) selecting schools to c00perate in the study; (e) instructions to the teachers concerning the checklist; and (f) final form of the checklist. General method of_procedure and materials used. Sev- eral investigations of a similar nature were consulted and it was found that various methods of obtaining the information concerning recommended instruction in forest practices were possible. However, due to the widely scattered nature of the forest lands in Michigan, and the consequent wide geographic distribution of forestry personnel in the state, the use of a checklist to obtain the needed information was decided upon. Likewise, owing to the widely scattered distribution of teachers, a checklist was deemed the most satisfactory means of obtaining information from them concerning their teaching programs as it related to instruction in forest practices. The development of the original listing of forest practices by a jury was considered too great a task to eXpect of them. If a free-response type of listing of forest prac- tices were asked of the jury, these would be too difficult to prOperly categorize once a listing was compiled. Through suggestions of forestry specialists at Michigan State UniVer- sity, several sources of information were used to obtain the Original list of practices.26 26’Some of the chief sources of this listing were: Carl 29 Choosing the jury. Through consultation with forestry specialists from Michigan State University, a jury of thirty- one persons concerned with forestry education or engaged directly with forestry work was chosen. Of these, thirty c00perated in furnishing information requested in the check- list. The members of the jury included:* 7 District Foresters of the Michigan Department of Conservation 3 Chief Foresters for commercial forest product concerns 3 Heads of college departments concerned with forestry education 3 Educators concerned with professional preparation of or guidance of teachers in forestry education 3 Extension specialists in forestry in Michigan Arbogast Jr., Marking Guides For Northern Hardwoods Under the Selection. System, Station Paper No. 56, (St. Paul, Minne- sota: Lake States Forest Experiment Station, 1957). C.E. Cox, What Does Forest Conservation Mean? (Milwaukee, Wiscon- sin: Forest Service, U.S.D.A., North Central Region, 1956). Everett F. Evans, Forestry For Teachers, Bulletin 38, (College Station, Texas: Texas Forest Service, A. & M. College, 19h7). F.H. Eyrie and W.M. Zillgitt, Partial Cuttings in Northern Hardwoods of the Lake States, —‘T‘Techn cal—W: etiH‘N'o". "I676“, U.S.D.A., Twashington, D.C.: United States Government Print- ing Office, 1953). R.C. Hawley and D.M. Smith, The Practice gf Silviculture, (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,'195fi). Nana in the Small Forest, Farmer's Bulletin 1989, U.S.D.A., (Washington, D.C.: United States Governement Printing Office, l9h8). w. McNeel and F. Trenk, School Forests -- A Handbook, Circular 387, Conservation Department Publication 515, (Madi- son, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin, College of Agricul- ture, 1950). R.E. SkOg, R.A. Garner, and B. Thorn, School Forests -- Their Educational Use, (East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, Department of Forestry, n.d.). R.H. Westveld and R.H. Peck, Forestry in Farm Management, (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,—I9§l). *The names of the jury members who cooperated in this Phase of the study are given in appendix A. 1 Educational consultant, Michigan Department of Conservation 1 Chief, Agricultural Education Division, Michigan Department of Public Instruction 1 Forester-in-Charge, U.S. Forest Service Experimental Station for the Lake States 1 Vice-president and manager of a woodrusing industry. 1 Work Unit Conservationist, U.S. Soil Conservation Service 1 Michigan Conservation School director 1 Director of Forestry Division, Michigan Department of Conservation 1 Forester, U.S.D.A., Forest Service 1 Director, State Forest Experimental Station 1 Regional Forester, Michigan Department of Conserva- tion 1 Assistant Supervisor, U.S. Forest Service Instructions to the_jury concerning the original checklist. The original listing of forest practices was compiled and then categorized into nine broad areas of instruction and submitted to a thirty-member jury. The jury was instructed to check those practices which they recom- mended to be taught to various groups and to various levels of learning. They were also asked to appropriately reduce or change the checklist through screening on their part. The jury was further asked to assume that teachers in the PUblic schools of Michigan would be teaching one or more of three types of students: (a) farm woodlot owners or Opera- tors, (b) high school students flith opportunities for Practical experience in forestry, and (c) high school 31 students without practical experience opportunities in forestry.* The jury was also asked to assume that teachers presently were, or would be, adequately prepared to teach forest practices on a level commensurate with needs of the small woodlot owners or operators. They were further asked to assume that provisions would be made in the public schools to allow for the instruction of adults (especially by teachers of vocational agriculture). The jury was asked to indicate by check, those prac- tices which they thought should be taught to each of three groups of students and to indicate the level of learning to , which these students should be taught. Five choices were provided in the checklist: (a) no instruction recommended, (b) awareness level of instruction, (0) the understanding level of instruction, (d) the ability level, and (e) the skill level. These levels were assigned a value of zero to four.** Final form of the checklist. After presenting the original checklist to the jury of thirty for additions, reductions, or other screening, the original 116 forest practices were reduced to 112 practices. This was accom- Plished by the use of the following three criteria: ‘ *For a c0py of the letter requesting persons to 3:;ve on the Jury and a copy of the cover letter accompanying e Checklist, see appendices B and C respectiV61Y- **See appendix D for a sample of the original check- list as sent to the jury. 32 1. Retain only those forest practices which were recommended as a part of one or more of the instructional programs of the public schools, and by at least 50 per cent of the jury members. 2. Remove those practices which the jury considered as repeat practices or which were obviously a repeat item. 3. Remove those practices which were considered to be of a mechanical nature requiring manipulative skills only. Through these three criteria, the list was reduced to 112 practices, and then presented to the teachers for their indication of instruction being offered. It was recognized that certain difficulties were inherent in the attempt to separate the manipulative skills from other learnings. Although only one practice was removed as a result of crite- rion one or two above, three practices were removed from the list because they were of a distinctly mechanical nature rather than a forest practice. In borderline cases, certain practices were retained since they were considered of impor- tance by the jury. The three manipulative skill items removed from the original list were: "construct a planting bar," "sharpen pruning saws," and "construct a Biltmore stick." The one practice which the jury considered a repeat item was "prune crOp-trees to recommended spacing." Some jury members added practices in the early part Of the checklist, but these were found to be repeat items re in later portions of the checklist. These practices we i ce no not included in the revised list for the teachers. 3 n ssumed new forest practices were added by the jurY: it was a h. ur that the list was complete or considered adequate by t.e 3 y . _ . -.,--_—-- H . «H-m "‘ 33 for instructional use by teachers using only a portion of their teachinr time for instruction in forestry.* Because of the large number of professional peOple included in the jury, it was assumed from the outset that the checklist was a‘reliable instrument for determining the forest practices which should be taught. However, to further check on the reliability of the checklist, twenty randomly chosen practices were administered to twenty students of forestry, and a re-take of the checklist was given about ten days later. These students were asked to assume the rank of jury member and were not told at the time of first checking that the checklist would be administered a second time. Through a chi-square test on these items, it was found that there was no significant difference, at the one per cent level, in the responses made during the first and second checkings. Selecting the schools to cooperate in the study. It was assumed that the bulk of the instruction in forest practices in the public schools of Michigan was being given by the teachers of vocational agriculture, teachers of general agriculture, and/or teachers of conservation. It was further assumed that the teachers of vocational agricul- ture were most likely providing the instruction to adults. Therefore, teachers of general agriculture and conservation *For a c0py of the checklist sent to teachers of vocational aariculture and teachers of general agriculture and/or conservation, see appendices G and H respectively. - Inn—— ____._ _-_._—._.__. “M .-_ —. 3h were not asked to indicate the instruction provided by them for woodlot owners or operators. Approximately 1&9, or 60 per cent of the vocational agriculture teachers were teaching adults during the school year 1958-59, the year this portion of the study was made.* A list of schools providing instruction in vocational agriculture was obtained from the Agricultural Education Division of the Michiran Department of Public Instruction. The list of schools providing instruction in general agricul- ture and conservation was obtained from a listing made by the Michigan Curriculum Committee in Agricultural Education.*% Since a large percentage of these latter two teacher groups either alternated their instruction by semesters or by alternate years, these teachers of reneral agriculture and conservation were placed into one group and treated as a single group throughout the study. These two groups of teachers, teachers of vocational agriculture and teachers of general agridulture and/or conservation, were presented with the revised checklist and asked to indicate the forest practices in which they had provided instruction during the past four years. They were also asked to indicate the levels of learning to which they *Data used here wemaobtained from the office of the Chief,Agricultura1 Education Division, Michigan Department of Public Instruction. **For a listing of the schools providing instruction in vocational agriculture, and for those providing instruc- tion in general agriculture and/or conservation and who responded to the checklist, see appendices I and J respec- vely. . flaw—La—u—F. ”Ho-“*— 35 were aiming their instruction. They were asked to include the four year period inasmuch as many of the programs were geared to a two, three, or four year basis. Instructions to the teachers concerning the checklist. A mimeographed letter, with individually addressed letter- head and self-addressed, stamped enveIOpe was sent to each of the 207 teachers of vocational agriculture, and to each of the 127 schools thought to be teaching general agriculture and/or conservation. The teachers of vocational agriculture were instructed to check those forest practices which they were now teaching, or had taught during the past four years.% They were asked to indicate this by a check mark, for adult students as well as for high school students with and without Opportunity for practical experience in forestry. In addi- tion, they were asked to indicate the level of learning to which they felt instruction had been provided. In order to clarify the levels of learning and to assist the teachers in their decisions, definitions of the levels of learning were given in the instructions to the teachers.%% The teachers of general agriculture and/or conservation were given the same instructions except for the omission of the adult owner or operator group. The same definition of *The 207 teachers of vocational agriculture who were contacted included.only those who had taught more than one year of vocational agriculture and included.only one teacher to a department. ‘33-’4- wop a copy of the cover-letter sent to the teachers with the checklist, and follow-up, see appendices E and F. 36 terms were included with the instructions in order that all teachers be provided with the same base from which to determine the levels of learning taught. A listing was compiled of forest practices which were recommended for instructional use by at least one-half of the jury for at least one of the three student groups. These would comprise the forest practices listed on the checklist to teachers and recommended for instructional use in the public schools. To determine the significance of the difference in the percentage of jury recommending each practice to the three student groups, the "t" test was used. To determine the difference in levels of learning recommended for the three groups of students, testing by means of the chi-square distribution was used. The same procedures, significance of the difference between percent- ages and chi—square distribution, were used to determine the divergence between the number of practices recommended and taught, and levels of learning recommended and taught respec- tively. The data from.the teachersvmre assembled and trans- ferred to a master tally-sheet for analysis, and for a comparison with the data from the jury. The next chapter is concerned with the analysis and discussion of this data. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF DATA This chapter is concerned with the presentation of the analyses of the various practices recommended by the jury and Of the instruction in forest practices provided by the teachers. The data received from the forestry Jury and the teachers were tabulated and compiled into tables. In case of many of the practices, the small number of teachers providing instruction made it of limited value for purposes of calculating percentages or for making other types of analyses. Recommendations by the jugy. This portion Of the study is concerned with (a) the number and percentage of the jury who recommended the teaching of certain forest practices to woodlot owners or Operators, and to high school students; (b) the number and percentage of forest practices recommended to be taught to owners or Operators, and to high school students; (c) the levels of learning recommended for each student group; (d) a listing of the practices recom— mended to some level by the largest percentage of the jury; and (e) a listing of the forest practices recommended to be taught to the highest levels by the jury. -——-—_._—‘._~_. ._. M . -- v.._-. _ if” 38 Only those practices which were recommended to be taught by the largest percentage of the jury, and to the higher levels of learning, are discussed here. Complete data will be found in Tables XXII and XXIII, pages 87 and 10h. Number and percentage of jury recommending instructigg to woodlot owners or gperators. The thirty jury members were unanimous in their choice of eight practices to be taught to some level to woodlot owners or operators. In Table I, these eight practices are listed in consecutive order from the checklist. TABLE I FOREST PRACTICES RECOMMENDED TO BE TAUGHT TO WOODLOT OWNERS OR OPERATORS BY ALL THE JURY MEMBERS Forest Practices Per Cent Jury Recommending 1. Identify the commercially important hardwoods in Michigan 100 7. Identify common trees and shrubs adapted for wildlife feed and cover 100 9. Run a compass line through a forested area 100 16. Locate a forest area by legal description 100 3A. Learn crop tree method Of weeding 100 35. Recognize seedlings from sprouts 100 39. Learn the amount to remove in thinning 100 105. Recognize the value of farm forests as a crap 100 ——~ ‘ Table II shows that four forest practices were recom- mended by all of the jury members to be taught to high school 39 students with practical experience opportunities in forestry. These practices were numbers 1, 7, 10, and 35, or "identi— fying the commercially important hardwoods in Michigan," identifying common trees and shrubs for wildlife," "locating a corner post in a forested area," and "recognizing seedlings from.sprouts." These relative numbers Of practices recom— mended by varying numbers Of jury are indicated in Table II. NO practices were recommended by all the jury members to be taught to some level of learning to high school students withgufijpractical experience Opportunities. Number and percentage of forest practices recommended by individual_jury members. While Table II indicates the varying number of practices recommended by varying numbers Of jury members, a breakdown of the recommendations of individual jury members is more revealing. It can be seen from Table III that five members Of the jury recommended the teaching Of all 112 forest practices to some level to woodlot owners or Operators. Four members Of the jury recommended that all practices be taught to some level, both to high school students wi£h_practical experience Opportunities in forestry and to those without such Opportunities. 0f the thirty jury members reporting, fifteen recom- mended that 100 or more practices be taught to some level Of learning to woodlot owners or Operators. Similarly, fifteen jury members also recommended that 100 or more practices be taught to high school students with practical experience Opportunities. However, only nine recommended that 100 or MO TABLE II VARYING NUMBER AND PERCENTNEE OF JURY RECOMMENDING THE TEACHING OF 112 FOREST PRACTICES TO WOODLOT OWNERS AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS Number and Percentage Following Number Of Forest Practices Of Jury Recommending Recommended to be Taught to: Forest Practices High School Students:* Number Percentage Woodlot - With Without Owners Opportunity * Opportunity for Experience for Experience 30 100.0 8 u 0 29 96.7 l6 l3 2 28 93.3 2a 16 u 27 90.0 10 17 3 26 86.7 6 8 7 25 83.3 in 9 a an 80.0 6 11 7 23 76.7 6 6 9 22 73.3 9 8 9 21 70.0 3 u h 20 66.7 1 h 9 19 63.3 1 2 10 18 60.0 3 2 9 17 56.? u L; e 16 53.3 1 3 10 15 50.0 0 l 6 1h #6.? 0 0 5 13 10.3 0 0 LL 12 no.0 0 0 2 11 36.7 0 0 2 *High school students included in this table were students with Opportunity for practical experience in forestry and also students withgup these Opportunities. Note: This table should be read as follows: 30 jury nembers, or 100 per cent, recommended the teaching Of 8 forest practices to woodlot owners; h practices tO high school students with Opportunity for experience in forestry; and.no practices were recommended to be taught by 100 per cent Of the jury to high school students without these experience Opportunities. 81 TABLE III NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF FOREST PRACTICES RECOMMENDED TO BE TAWGHT TO WOODLOT OWNERS OR OPERATORS AND TO HE}H SCHOOL STUDENTS BY THE JURY Identity Number and Percentage Of Practices Recommended For: of Jury Woodlot High School Students Member Owners or With Opportunity *Without Opportunity Operators for Practical for Practical Experience Experience NO. x: NO. ~£:_ No. % 1 112 100.0 112 100.0 112 100.0 2 112 100.0 112 100.0 112 100.0 3 98 87.5 98 83.9 5 8.5 8 88 75.0 72 6 .3 59 52.7 5 66 58.9 65 5 .O 63 56.3 6 112 100.0 112 100.0 112 100.0 7 111 99.1 111 99.1 109 97.3 8 83 78.1 83 78.1 83 78.1 9 96 85.7 93 83.0 26 23.2 10 75 66.9 65 58.0 23 20.5 11 111 99.1 111 99.1 111 99.1 12 108 96.8 108 96.8 106 98.6 13 91 81.3 91 81.3 59 52.7 18 111 99.1 111 99.1 88 78.6 15 88 75.0 86 76.8 86 76.8 16 87 77. 60 53.6 60 53.6 17 56 50.0 30 26.8 19 16.9 18 106 98.6 106 98.6 78 69.6 19 78 66.1 78 66.1 65 58.0 20 112 100.0 110 98.2 89 83.8 21 91 81.3 91 81.3 90 80.8 22 101 90.2 102 91.1 97 86.6 23 77 68. 75 66.9 31 27.7 28 100 89.3 100 89.3 95 88.8 25 76 67.9 70 62.5 17 15.2 26 112 100.0 112 100.0 112 100.0 27 111 99.1 111 99.1 111 99.1 28 95 88.8 95 88.8 83 78.1 29 108 96.8 108 96.8 107 95.5 30 111 99.1 111 99.1 78 69.6 Totals 2871 2781 2286 ~_* Averages 95.7 85.8 92.7 82.8 78.9 66.9 82 nmre practices be taught to high school students without these experience Opportunities. Incidentally, the same jury members who recommended the 100 or more practices for the owners or Operators did likewise for the high school students p159 practical experience Opportunities. Not evident in Table II, but indicated in Table III, is the fact that an average of 95.7 forest practices were recommended by the jury to be taught to some level to woodlot owners or Operators; also that an average of 92.7 and 78.9 practices were recommended for high school students with and without practical experience Opportunities respectively. These individual figures do not, however, indicate the relative levels Of learning to which the various practices were recommended to be taught. These levels are indicated in the next section Of this chapter. Forest practices recommended to be taught to varying levels of learning to woodlot owners or Operators and high school students. Table IV shows a breakdown of the relative levels of learning to which the 112 forest practices were recommended to be taught to the three groups of students. The values one, two, and three were assigned as the‘midpoint in the three levels of learning which comprised the bulk of the recommendations. It appears that, with the majority of practices, the jury recommends these practices to be taught to the understanding level to high school students w;§fl_ practical experience Opportunities, and to the awareness level to students without these experience opportunities. 93 TABLE IV VARYING NUMBERS OF FOREST PRACTICES RECOMMENDED TO BE TAUGHT TO VARYING LEVELS OF LEARNING TO WOODLOT OWNERS OR OPERATORS AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS Average Levels For the Following Number Of Practices: of Learning Recommended TO Woodlot ITO High SEhOOl Students: by the Jury Owners or Operators With ~Without Opportunity Opportunity for Experience for Experience 3.51 to 8.00 Skill level 0 O O 2.51 to 3.50 Ability level 88 20 1 1.51 to 2.50 Understanding 58 7h 9 level 0.51 to 1.50 Awareness 10 18 101 level 0.00 to 0.50 Not recommended 0 O l to lowest level Note: This table should be read as follows: practices were recommended to be taught to the ability level by the jury to woodlot owners or Operators; 2O practices were recommended to be taught to the same level to high school students with opportunity for practical experience in forestry, and 1 practice was recommended to be taught to the ability level to high school students without these experience opportunities. ML The chi-square technique for determining the signifi- cant difference for the values in Table IV was employed. The difference between the jury recommendations for owners or Operators and that for high school students with Opportu- nities for practical experience was found to be significant at the one-percent level. However, the difference was not sufficient to be construed as meaning that the two groups necessarily be taught to different levels Of learning. This is based on the fact that twenty Of the practices recommended for these high school students were recommended to be taught to the ability level. This was also the highest level to which recommendations were made for woodlot owners or opera- tors. The difference between the recommendations for high school students Hithgnt opportunities for practical forestry experience was highly significant when cOmpared to the recommendations for the other two groups of students. This difference is quite obvious through visual inspection of the three columns of numbers in Table IV. Forest_practices recommended to be taught to higher levels Of learning to woodlot owners or operators. Of the twenty practices listed in Table V, all were recommended.by twenty-six or more Of the thiny jury members to be taught to some level of learning. Only practices numbered 1. 9, 16, and 105 were recommended to be taught to some level by all thirty jury members to woodlot owners or operators. From.Table V it can be seen that practice number 105, TABLE V TOP TWENTY FOREST PRACTICES RECOMMENDED FOR WOODLOT OWNERS AND RECEIVING THE HIGHEST AVERAGE LEVEL OF LEARNING RECOMMENDATION FROM THE JURY 85 Forest Practices Average Level* Recommended 105. Recognize the value Of farm forests as a farm crOp 3.37 103. Obtain assistance from.forestry specialists when needed 3-23 1. Identify the commercially important hardwoods in Michigan 3.17 108. Recognize times when forestry specialists should be requested 3.17 6. Identify tree species best adapted for Christmass tree production 3.13 25. Heal in nursery stock on arrival 3.13 16. Locate a forest area by legal description 3.10 29. Plant by the slit method 2.97 30. Plant trees by the hole method 2.97 50. Cut limbs flush with trunk Of tree 2.97 . Learn points of the foresters compass 2.96 5. Identify tree species best adapted for pulpwood production in Michigan 2.93 26. Plow furrows for planting on contour 2.93 57. Prune Christmas trees for best form 2.93 9. Run a compass line through a forested area 2.87 87. Choose right tools for pruning 2.87 76. Compute standard cords in a stacked pile Of pulpwood 2.87 88. Recognize wolf trees for removal 2.87 28. Plant seedlings in the furrow 2.83 51. Cut limbs at maximum.of 2" at base in softwoods, 1%" in hardwoods 2.83 learning. *All practices listed in the table were recommended to be taught to woodlot owners to the ability level Of The average levels were determined.by multiplying the frequency Of checking by the midpoint scores of O to h, and dividing the sum Of these scores by 30 (number of members in the jury). 86 "recognizing the value of farm forests as a farm crOp," received the highest average level Of learning recommendation from the jury. It would appear that the jury felt that the aid of forestry specialists also was Of prime importance to the woodlot owners or Operators. The remainder of the top twenty practices were concerned primarily with identification, planting, and care Of the woodlot. Even though eight forest practices were recommended to be taught to some level to woodlot Owners by all thirty jury members, three Of these did not receive high enough average level of learning recommendation to be included in the tOp twenty of Table V. These three were practices 38, 35, and 39, "learning crop-tree method Of weeding," "recog- nizing seedlings from sprouts," and "learning the amount to remove in thinning." They received the respective learning level recommendations of 2.63, 2.67, and 2.53. This indicates they were recommended to be taught to the ability level. The ability level was considered to include all values from 2.51 to 3.50. For a listing of the levels to which all practices were recommended, see Table XXIII, page 108. Forest practices recommended to be taught to high _ghool students with experience Opportunities. Except for practices 57, 88, and 51, all practices in the leading twenty recommended to be taught to the highest levels for woodlot owners, were also included among the top twenty for high school students High practical forestry experience opportu- nities. Replacing these three practices were practices 15, U7 3, and 21. These tOp practices, and the average level Of learning recommended for each, are found in Table VI. Forest practices recommended to be taught to high school students without experience opportunities. Of the forest practices recommended to these students without experience Opportunities, except for four practices; namely, practices 112, 1h, 7, and u, all practices in the leading twenty were the same as those recommended for students with experience Opportunities. These four practices replaced practices 3, 26, h7, and 76 Of Table VI. Table VII indicates that Of the leading twenty prac- tices recommended for high school students without experience Opportunities, only one was recommended to be taught tO the ability level to these students. Nine were recommended tO be taught to the understanding level, while the other ten practices were recommended to be taught to the awareness level. Generally, the overall jury recommendations indicated that 7h or more forest practices need to be taught to some level to all these groups of students involved in this study. The next section is concerned with the extent and levels Of instruction which were being provided by two categories Of Michigan teachers. Instruction Offered by teachers. This phase Of the study is concerned with the extent Of instruction in forest practices provided by Michigan teachers Of vocational “ __-.. M- R8 TABLE VI TOP TWENTY FOREST PRACTICES RECO MENDED FOR SELECTED HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS RECEIVING THE HIGHEST AVERAGE LEVEL OF LEARNING RECOMMENDATION FROM THE JURY r; Forest Practicew Average Level** Recommended \1. Identify the commercially important hardwoods in Michigan 2.97 78. Learn points Of the foresters compass 2.97 \105. Recognize the value Of farm forests as a farm crop 2.97 ‘25. Heal in nursery stock on arrival 2.87 \lOu. Recognize times when forestry specialists should be requested 2.83 ‘6. Identify tree species best adapted for Christmas tree production 2.80 '*l6. Locate a forest area by legal description 2.80 103. Obtain assistance from forestry specialists when needed 2.77 “15. Read a State Conservation Department map 2.70 ‘28. Plant seedlings in the furrow 2.70 ‘29. Plant by the slit method 2.70 \30. Plant trees by the hole method 2.70 «~50. Cut limbs flush with trunk Of tree 2.70 ~5. Identify tree species best adapted for pulpwood production in Michigan 2.60 .9. Run a compass line through a forested area 2.60 3. Identify the common undesirable hardwoods in Michigan 2.57 21. Recognize non-forest land 2.57 26. Plow furrows for planting on contour 2.53 M7. Choose right tools for pruning 2.53 76. Compute standard cords in a stacked pile Of pulpwood 2-53 *These forest practices were recommended tO be taught to high school students with Opportunities for practical experience in forestry. **All practices listed in the table were recommended by the jury to be taught tO the ability level Of learning. Average level scores were computed as in Table III. M9 TABLE VII TOP TWENTY FOREST PRACTICES RECOMMENDED FOR CERTAIN OTHER HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS AND RECEIVING THE HIGHEST AVERAGE LEVEL OF LEARNING RECOMMENDATION'FROH THE JURY Average Level%* Recommended Forest Practicesa 103. Obtain assistance from forestry specialists when needed 2.63 8. Learn points Of the foresters compass 2.h3 105. Recognize the value Of farm forests as a farm crOp 2.33 15. Read a State Conservation Department map 2.13 10h. Recognize times when forestry specialists should be requested 2.10 1. Identify the commercially important hardwoods in Michigan 2.00 16. Locate a forest area by legal description 1.93 6. Identify tree species best adapted for Christmas tree production 1.87 112. Recognize the relationship between trees, soil, and water supply 1.87 30. Plant trees by the hole method 1.57 1h. Learn standard map symbols l-h? 25. Heal in nursery stock on arrival l.h7 . Identify tree species best adapted for pulpwood production in Michigan l.h3 7. Identify common trees and shrubs adapted for wildlife feed and cover 1-h3 21. Recognize non-forest land loh3 28. Plant seedlings in the furrow i.h3 29. Plant by the slit method oh3 h. Identify Michigan trees best adapted l h0 for nursery reproduction 1.h0 9. Run a compass line through a forested area 1.37 50. Cut limbs flush with trunk Of tree . *These forest practices were recommended tO EZtIEZTht to high school students without Opportunities for pr exPerience in forestry. .s. including number 30 in enAll practices preceeding andht to the understanding the table were recommended tO be taug h as level Of learning, except for practice numbe: loiveggég lzvel recommended tO be taught to the ability leve . scores were computed as in Table V. 50 agriculture, general agriculture, and/or conservation. A partial comparison was also made between the instruction in forest practices provided in the North Atlantic Region and in Michigan by teachers Of vocational agriculture. The extent Of instruction provided in Michigan was indicated for three groups Of students. 0f the 207 teachers Of vocational agriculture con- tacted, only 139 reSponded for a total Of 67.1 per cent returns. This was after a follow-up by card and personal contact with several teachers involved. For the 127 teachers Of general agriculture and/or conservation contacted, the returns were even less with only fifty—seven or uh.9 per cent responding. The next table shows the number Of teachers who reported teaching forest practices. Number and percentage Of Michigan teachers providing instruction in forest practices. Table VIII indicates that the bulk Of instruction was given to high school students, especially to those with an Opportunity for practical experi- ence in forestry. Of the 139 teachers of vocational agriculture who reported, 77.7 per cent Offered instruction in forest practices to these high school students. Also, h9.6 per cent Of these same teachers provided instruction to high school students without these experience Opportunities, Teachers Of general agriculture and/or conservation, assumed tO be teaching only high school students in day classes, were providing instruction in forest practices to high school students with and without practical experience 51 .mwmmn Lech oumqaepfim so nopnoSom opennepam no :0 cowaoshumca o>HO>ca has anowpm>aomnoo ap\o:m caspasowamm Heaocem haves: wasoam need one*# .noowvomaa phenom o>wm can» need no madness» one mswaaoaoa newness» anon» condos“ measmfim ceases 0.Hm ma ©.m¢ we a.em am n.ee nos Iain N.Om me 9:00 pom ponesz *nHNWflZM maenowoe nowpwzomcoo Lemmas casuH50Hnw< Hopscou 4tmsfisoaee neonates no mnemoamo pcoo mom nenasz and fl 5 whosomoe caspasowam< Hm:Ofipmoo> hupmeaom :H cocoa anoaxo HmOfipomaQ you auannahoano escape: encepspm doonom swam haemoaom ca oocewneaxo HMOfipowaa sou specspaomao can: «accuses Hoonem swam snowmacao so mamczo poapooz wasp< mpopmnoao no muoszo poapoo: adsp< ammaomo mDOHm<> OB mmoHBommmzoo 324 .mmDBADUHmO¢ aammzme .mmneaeoaeoa aaoneaooe so mmmmoame zaeonaz no moaezmommn nza emmsez HHH> mqmL5m newness» one he newsmp coon mcw>en no Oopaoama one: moonpomao phenom o: moan: :fi.mHOOsOm Hmso>om was asoam 4 op 0 one cw u0O9HOCH# m.e e e.m ma n.mm mm m.m m m.e e ~.mm ea anemones ea cocoa nacdxo HeOfipOmsQ you hpwguaoado £6an mucouspw Hoonom swam e.e as e.e~ em e.em an e.e as e.“ a e.e~ em .eeeaeenXe. hapmopom HmOfiaomaa pom knaGSpLOQaO spa: museospm Hoonom swam m.m m m.m m o.e Ha e.m e a.e Ha e.me mod ntoeenoao no mueczo poapoo: wasp< a .02 a .02 a .02 a .oz a .02 m .02 was as em as as es em on em as on ea e on a as es 0 unease Awmaflzv names“. nooauompm phenom mo omwpcmoaom one aonfisz madam R395 mazmoaew mo mmbomo mmmmh OH mMQHeo oszo mo mmmmoom one: uzopm a on 0 one an pmosflecH* m.m m o.e e m.ma a m.m m m.m m o.mo em anemones ea cocoa thanks HoOfiwoeaa you hnwssphoaao escape: convenes Hoonom swam m.ea 0H m.ma e m.m m m.oa o m.m m e.ae em seenoeoe ea oocofipoQXo HeOflpomaa toe seaesenoooo sea: nauseous HOOzOm swam R 002 R .02 R 002. R .02 fi 002 R 002 NHH op om. mm»oa 04 on on om 0H Op OH 0 on m he on o enmsoe Amuenomou mmnuzv anmswe seaflpomam phenom mo omwpsooaom use sonasz wcaom mosoao ILHIH Ml“ mezmmmfim mo mmDQmU 039 Oh mmoHao¢Mm swamom mo mammzbz ozHMm<> 02Hmommmzoo 92¢ MMDBADonU< Aoapn on across cacoqv wficfifi. H.nm we 0.4o om AHm>Hpao CO xooum hemmed: ca Hmomv Hw>waaw so xooam hummus: mo sumo m.b o m.mp mm Asonasm one an nova» onwamv emswaooom nonfisoo aseadmcwsa 0.NH 0H 0.0N 5m Aamfi pace lasagna :Ofipm>aomnoo opwpm m omomv one o poem n.04 Om N.w: no aaficwwdzewz cw echoed» dash one mooozoaen «0 :oaumoauapCOOHv seen» no sowpooamwacopH m wqwnceoa .02 a mswnoeea .Oz 133% wanna eases tests 3.8.... Acmoav chomm 0Haz Hm ono<9 mm0H90H em Access msaasmeos you mean» opospafim w mmsv xOApm osoapHHm a mean: ¢.mm mm o.wa mm Axowpm mafiamcm wOH m enav xowwm waaaoom wOH a mafia: m.ma mm b.bm um Amawooo: no posses moustache samoqv mosses m::Oh madness o.mm mm H.mm we Adm>osoa pom moose mac: newswooomv noon» mac: wqw>osom u mangoeoe .02 m meanness .Oz an... 5 cofimom 33%me 5.32 as. gamma! nooapoepm umoaom Aoossaeeoov Ha mamas fl 60 instruction. Michigan teachers involved in this study were Offering instruction on "tree planting in the furrow" in 63.3 per cent Of the schools, while the regional group Of teachers were Offering instruction in "transplanting Of conifer seedlings" in 7.3 per cent Of their schools. This comparison assumes that conifer seedlings are generally planted in the furrow since most plantings are made on sandy soils and in relatively dry soils. This comparison between the Michigan study and the regional study may be Of limited value since the regional study was made between the years 1952 and 1955 and reported in 1956. Many changes may have been made in the instruc- tional programs Of the North Atlantic Region since the regional data were compiled. Furthermore, an attempt to compare the practice Of "planting trees for windbreaks" with "plan or plant a wind- break" may involve a problem Of interpretation. Without knowing the specific instructions given tO teacher-respondents as to whom.was being taught, etc., it was impossible to ascertain whether levels to which the teaching was aimed by the regional group had any effect on the regional data used here. Other forest practices which appear to have been taught by a larger percentage Of Michigan teachers Of vocational agriculture than by the teachers Of the North Atlantic Region include: reading a map, caring for nursery stock on arrival, pruning, removing wolf trees, weeding, and 61 using a Biltmore stick. Number and percentage of Michigan teachers of voca- tional agriculture providing instruction to adult woodlot owners or Operators. Table XII shows the number and percentage Of teachers of vocational agriculture who provided instruction in the tOp twenty forest practices taught to woodlot owners or Operators. An item analysis Of the total 112 forest practices included in the checklist to teachers will be found.in Tables XXII and XXIII, pages 87 and 10h. These practices are presented in a continuous table, from practice one through 112, without regard for the relative percentages who taught the practices or the relative levels to which they were taught. Of all the practices taught to adult Owners by teachers Of vocational agriculture, practice number 103, "Obtaining assistance from.forestry specialists when needed," was taught by the largest percentage, 26.2 per cent. This same practice was recommended by twenty-nine,or 96.7 per cent, Of the jury for woodlot owners or Operators. Also, all twenty practices listed in Table XII, except for practices 31, 28, and 19, had been recommended to be taught tO woodlot owners by at least 90 per cent Of the jury. All twenty Of the practices listed as being taught to woodlot owners or Opera- tors, were recommended by at least 75 per cent or the Jury. Practices numbered 105, and 7, included among the top twenty in Table XII, were recommended to be taught tO woodlot owners by 100 per cent Of the jury. (See Table I. page 38) TABLE XII NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF MICHL}AN TEACHERS AGRICULTURE PROVIDING INSTRUCTION IN CERTAIN FOREST PRACTICES TO ADULTS% 62 OF VOCATIONAL Number Per Cent Practices (N=126) 103. Obtain assistance from forestry specialists when needed 33 26.2 105. Recognize the value Of farm forests as a farm crOp 32 25.h 10h. Recognize times when forestry specialists should be requested 29 23.0 6. Identify tree species best adapted for Christmas tree production 27 21.h 57. Prune Christmas trees for best form 25 19.8 112. Recognize the relationship between trees, soil, and water supply 2h 19.0 32. Plan or plant a windbreak 2h 19.0 A. Identify Michigan trees best adapted for nursery reproduction 23 18.3 7. Identify common trees and shrubs adapted for wildlife feed and cover 22 17.5 31. Plant trees and shrubs for wildlife feed and cover 22 17.5 22. Select desirable species for soil and site 21 16.7 25. Heal in nursery stock on arrival 21 16.7 111. Identify and control the common insects on.conifers found locally 21 16.7 2. Identify the common undesirable shrubs and brush invading hardwoods 20 15.9 21. Recognize non-forest land 20 15.9 26. Plow furrows for planting on contour 20 15.9 28. Plant seedling in the furrow 20 15.9 5. Identify tree species best adapted for pulpwood production in Michigan 19 15.1 19. Identify land as wildlife land by the Michigan Land Judging Sheet 19 15.1 20. Recognize common forest soil types 19 15.1 27. Plant trees on the furrow slice 19 15.1 H7. Choose right tools for pruning 19 15.1 *These forest practices were taught by the larger percentages Of teachers tO adult owners or Operators. More than twenty practices were listed to include all practices taught by 19 teachers. These percentages do not include teachers who taught less than five practices. 63 Number and percentage of teachers of vocational agriculture providing instruction to high school students. Table XIII indicates that all practices included in the top twenty practices taught by these teachers to adults, except practices 11, 2, 5, 27, and M7, were also included in the top twenty taught to high school students gith Opportunity for practical experience in forestry. Both high school students with and without practical experience opportunities were provided with approximately the same forest practice instruction by the larger percentage of teachers of voca- tional agriculture. When comparing Table XIII and XIV, it is seen that only practices A and 23 of Table XIII were replaced by practices 111 and 30 in Table XIV. Tables XIII and XIV show that the teachers of vocational agriculture were teaching practices concerned with identification of species and soil, planting, and obtaining assistance when needed. A listing of the number and.percentage of teachers who provided instruction in forest practices to the various student groups can be found in Table XXII, page 87. NUmber and_percentage of Michigan teachers of general ggriculture and/or conservation_providing forestry instrgg- tion to high school students. Table XV gives the number and Percentage of teachers of general agriculture and/or conser- vation who provided instruction to high school students gigh Opportunity for practical experience in forestry. The leading practice taught by these teachers was the same as TABLE XIII 6A NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF MICHIGAN TEACHERS OE VOCATIONAL AGRICULTURE PROVIDING INSTRUCTION IN FOREST PRACTICES TO HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH EXPERIENCE OPPORTUNITIES IN FORESTRYw Practice Number Per Cent (N=l26) 6. Identify tree species best adapted for Christmas tree production 95 75.h 21. Recognize non-forest land 90 7l.h 25. Heal in nursery stock on arrival 89 70.6 28. Plant seedlings in the furrow 88 69.8 22. Select desirable species for soil and site 86 68.3 26. Plow furrows for planting on contour 85 67.5 105. Recognize the value of farm forests as a farm.cr0p 85 67.5 18. Classify land as forest land by the Michigan Land Judging Sheet 8h 66.7 20. Recognize common forest soil types 8h 66.? 32. Plan or plant a windbreak 8h 66.7 57. Prune Christmas trees for best form 83 65.9 . Identify Michigan trees best adapted for nursery reproduction 82 65.1 7. Identify common trees and shrubs adapted for wildlife feed and cover 82 65.1 19. Identify land as wildlife land by the Michigan Land Judging Sheet 82 65.1 31. Plant trees and shrubs for wildlife feed and cover 82 65.1 29. Plant by the slit method 81 6h.3 103. Obtain assistance from forestry specialists when needed 81 6u.3 10h. Recognize times when forestry specialists should be requested 81 6h.3 112. Recognize the relationship between trees, soil, and water supply 81 6h.3 23. Select desirable age and stock size 78 61.9 M *These practices were taught by the larger percentages of teachers of vocational agriculture to high school students with practical experience Opportunities in forestry. These Percentages do not include teachers who taught less than five practices. 65 TABLE XIV NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF MICHIGAN TEACHERS OF VOCATIONAL AGRICULTURE PROVIDING INSTRUCTION IN FOREST PRACTICES TO HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITHOUT EXPERIENCE OPPORTUNITIES IN FORESTRY% Practices Number Per Cent (N=l26) 105. Recognize the value of farm forests as a farm crop 56 hu.u 6. Identify tree species best adapted for Christmas tree production 55 83.7 18. Classify land as forest land by the Michigan Land Judging Sheet 5h h2.9 25. Real in nursery stock on arrival 53 h2.1 28. Plant seedlings in the furrow 52 h1.3 26. Plow furrows for planting on contour 51 h0.u 112. Recognize the relationship between trees, soil, and water supply 51 h0.h 103. Obtain assistance from forestry specialists when needed 50 39.7 29. Plant by the slit method 89 38.9 31. Plant trees and shrubs for wildlife feed and cover R9 38.9 10h. Recognize times when forestry specialists should be requested #9 38.9 19. Identify land as wildlife land by the Michigan Land Judging Sheet AB 38.1 57. Prune Christmas trees for best form u8 38.1 22. Select desirable species for soil .and site as 36.5 32. Plan or plant a windbreak M6 36.5 30. Plant trees by the hole method an 3h.9 21. Recognize non—forest land A3 3u.1 7. Identify common trees and shrubs adapted for wildlife feed and cover R2 33.3 111. Identify and control the common insects of conifers found locally h2 33.3 20. Recognize common forest soil types to 31.7 *These forest practices were taught by the larger percentages of teachers of vocational agriculture to high school students without practical experience opportunities in forestry. These percentages do not include teachers who taught less than five practiceS. 66 TABLE XV NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF GENERAL AGRICULTURE AND/OR CONSERVATION TEACHERS PROVIDING INSTRUCTION IN CERTAIN FOREST PRACTICES TO SELECTED MICHIGAN HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTSA Practice Number Per Cent __ g_ (NzuO) 6. Identify tree species best adapted for Christmas tree production 28 70.0 7. Identify common trees and shrubs adapted for wildlife feed and cover 28 70.0 1. Identify the commercially important hardwoods in Michigan 27 67.5 25. Real in nursery stock on arrival 26 65.0 5. Identify tree species best adapted for pulpwood production in Michigan 25 62.5 20. Recognize common forest soil types 2h 60.0 h. Identify Michigan trees best adapted for nursery reproduction 23 57.5 21. Recognize non-forest land 23 57.5 22. Select desirable species for soil and site 23 57.5 28. Plant seedlings in the furrow 22 55.0 105. Recognize the value of farm forests as a farm crOp 22 55.0 112. Recognize the relationship between trees, soil, and water supply 21 52.5 29. Plant by the slit method 21 52.5 15. Read a State Conservation Department map 20 50.0 2. Identify common undesirable shrubs and brush invading hardwoods l9 h7.5 31. Plant trees and Shrubs for wildlife feed and cover 19 h7.5 32. Plan or plant a windbreak l9 h7.5 33. Compute survival percentage in a planting of seedlings 19 h7.5 39. Learn the amount to remove in thinning l9 h7.5 A7. Choose right tools for pruning l9 h7.5 *These forest praCtices were taught by the larger percentages of teachers of general agriculture and/or conservation to high school students with Opportunities for Practical experience in forestry. These percentages do not include teachers who were teaching less than five practices to these students. 67 the leading practice taught by teachers of vocational agriculture. This was practice number 6, "identifying tree species best adapted for Christmas tree production." This practice was taught by 70.0 per cent of these teachers as was practice number 7, "identifying common trees and shrubs adapted for wildlife feed and cover." Practices 1, 25, and 5 were reported as being the next most often taught by these teachers of general agricul- ture and/or conservation. Practices 1 and 5 involve identification of hardwoods and pulpwood species, and practice 25 was concerned with healing in nursery stock on arrival. It would appear that these teachers were first concerned with identification, soils suited for tree planting, and actual planting Operations. This would also seem to be indicated by the choice of practices 20, 21, 22, and 28 among the ten most often taught by these teachers. It is interesting to note that ten Of the tOp twenty practices recommended by the jury to be taught to these high school students in Table VI, pagelflS, were also included among the top twenty practices taught by these teachers of general agriculture and/or conservation, and reported in Table XV. Table XVI shows the number and percentage of these same teachers who provided instruction in forest practices to high school students without these experience Opportuni- ties. Ten of the practices listed in this table were also included in the tOp twenty forest practices recommended by 68 TABLE XVI NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF GENERAL AGRICULTURE AND/OR CONSERVATION TEACHERS PROVIDING INSTRUCTION IN FOREST PRACTICES TO CERTAIN OTHER HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS* Practice Number Per Cent (N240) 32. Plan or plant a windbreak 15 37.5 1. Identify commercially important hardwoods in Michigan 1h 35.0 6. Identify tree species best adapted for Christmas tree production 1h 35.0 105. Recognize the value of farm forests as a farm crop 1h 35.0 A. Identify Michigan trees best adapted for nursery reproduction 13 32.5 7. Identify common trees and shrubs adapted for wildlife feed and cover 13 32.5 22. Select desirable species for soil and site 13 32.5 112. Recognize the relationship between trees, soil, and water supply 13 32.5 3. Identify common undesirable hardwoods in Michigan 12 30.0 5. Identify tree Species best adapted for pulpwood production in Michigan 12 30.0 21. Recognize non-forest land 12 30.0 30. Plant trees by the hole method 12 30.0 20. Recognize common forest soil types 11 27.5 31. Plant trees and shrubs for wildlife feed and cover 11 27.5 N3. Learn approximate Spacing in age classes 10 25.0 57. Prune Christmas trees for best form 10 25.0 58. Use a Biltmore stick for measuring trees 10 25.0 10h. Recognize times when forestry specialists should be requested 10 25.0 107. Recognize male trees and female trees; male and female cones 10 25.0 2. Identify the common undesirable shrubs and brush invading hardwoods 9 22.5 *These practices were taught by the larger percentages of teachers of general agriculture and/or conservation to high school students without practical experience Opportuni- ties in forestry. These percentages do not include teachers who were teaching less than five practices to these students. 69 the jury in Table VII, page M9. While the jury appeared to consider practice number 103, "obtaining assistance from forestry specialists when needed," as being the most impor— tant, these teachers did not include it among the top twenty practices taught. Instead, they chose practice number 32, "plan or plant a windbreak," as their leading practice. However, the number teaching this practice was not signifi- cantly greater than those teaching practices numbered 1, 6, or 105. Table XVI indicates that these teachers felt that identification, care of planting stock, and planting were among the desirable practices to teach these students without practical experience Opportunities. Levels of Instruction Provided by Michigan Teachers This portion of the study includes (a) the levels of learning in forest practices provided Michigan woodlot owners or operators by teachers Of vocational agriculture; (b) the levels of learning provided two groups of MiChigan high school students by teachers of vocational agriculture; and (c) the levels of learning provided by Michigan teachers of general agriculture and/or conservation to two groups of MiChigan high school students. Levels of learning provided Michigan woodlot owners 93 Operators by teachers of vocational agriculture. When the levels to which teachers were providing instruction in —.~-—d--__..u‘-—m~ A”, 70 forest practice are considered in addition to the percentage providing the instruction, information on the teachers becomes more revealing. Comparison of Table XVII with Table V shows that twelve practices of the top twenty recommended to be taught to higher levels of learning to adults by the jury were also included among the tOp twenty practices for levels taught by teachers of vocational agriculture. Also, seventeen of the tOp twenty practices taught by the larger percentage of teachers of vocational agriculture were included among the tOp twenty practices for levels taught by the same teachers to woodlot owners or operators. Levels of learning provided certain Michigan high school students by teachers of vocational agriculture. Table XVIII indicates that practice 28, "planting seedlings in the furrow," was taught to the highest level of learning of all practices taught by teachers of vocational agriculture to high school students Egth experience Opportunities. Eleven of the forest practices included in this table of the top twenty taught by these teachers, were also included among the tOp twenty for levels recommended for these students by the jury in Table VI, page A8. When comparing Table VI with Table XVIII, it is noted that practices 1 and 8 are completely absent from the top twenty for levels taught by these teachers. These two practices were the leading two among the tOp twenty practices recommended for these students by the jury. TABLE XVII LEVELS OF LEARNING PROVIDED WOODLOT OWNERS OR ADULT OPERATORS BY MICHD}AN TEACHERS OF VOCATIONAL AGRICULTURE Number Average Practices Teaching Level AA (N=l26) Taught* 6. Identify tree Species best adapted for Christmas tree production 27 .65 103. Obtain assistance from forestry specialists when needed 33 .62 105. Recognize the value of farm forests as a farm crOp 32 .60 32. Plan or plant a windbreak 2A .5A 10A. Recognize times when forestry specialists should be requested 29 .5A 25. Heal in nursery stock on arrival 21 .h8 57. Prune Christmas trees for best form 25 .A8 26. Plow furrows for planting on contour 20 .EA 28. Plant seedlings in the furrow 20 .AA 27. Plant trees on the furrow slice 19 .Al 21. Recognize non-forest land 20 .A0 112. Recognize the relationship between trees, soil, and water supply 2A .80 5. Identify tree species best adapted for pulpwood production in Michigan 19 .39 18. Classify land as forest land by the Michigan Land Judging Sheet 20 .39 29. Plant by the slit method 18 .39 31. Plant trees and shrubs for wildlife feed and cover 22 .39 50. Cut limbs flush with trunk of tree 17 .39 22. Select desirable species for soil and site 21 .38 19. Identify land as wildlife land by the Michigan Land Judging Sheet 19 .37 30. Plant trees by the hole method 17 .37 111. Identify and control the common 21 .37 insects of conifers found locally *These were the top twenty (actually twenty—one) practices taught to woodlot owners as to levels of learning aimed at. excluded. Teachers teaching less than five practices were 72 TABLE XVIII LEVELS OF LEARNING PROVIDED HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH EXPERIENCE OPPORTUNITIES BY MICHIGAN TEACHERS OF VOCATIONAL AGRICULTURE* Number Average Practices Teaching Level (N=126) Taught 28. Plant seedlings in the furrow 88 2.1h 25. Heal in nursery stock on arrival 89 2.11 6. Identify tree species best adapted for Christmas tree production 95 2.10 29. Plant by the slit method 81 1.97 18. Classify land as forest land by the Michigan Land Judging Sheet 8h 1.92 26. Plow furrows for planting on contour 85 1.86 19. Identify land as wildlife land by the Michigan Land Judging Sheet 82 1.85 57. Prune Christmas trees for best form 83 1.78 7. Identify common trees and shrubs adapted for wildlife feed and cover 82 1.71 22. Select desirable species for soil and site 86 1.71 105. Recognize the value of farm forests as a farm cr0p 85 1.71 21. Recognize non-forest land 90 1.70 32. Plan or plant a windbreak 8 1.6h 23. Select desirable age and stock size 7 1.56 N7. Choose right tools for pruning 7h 1.56 50. Cut limbs flush with trunk of tree 66 1.56 31. Plant trees and shrubs for wildlife feed and cover 82 1.5h 103. Obtain assistance from forestry specialists when needed 81 1.5h lOu. Recognize times when forestry specialists should be requested 81 l.h6 112. Recognize the relationship between trees, soil, and water supply 81 1.h5 —_ ”These average level scores are based on an arithme- tic average of the levels of learning provided by Michigan teachers of vocational agriculture to high school students with practical experience Opportunities in forestry. These averages were computed as in Table XVII, for these tOp prac- tices for levels taught. Note: Teachers who taught less than five forest Practices were not included in the calculations for average levels taught. 73 Except for practices h7 and 50, the t0p twenty practices for levels taught to these high school students were identical with the tOp twenty for percentage of teachers providing instruction in forest practices to these students gith experience opportunities. Instead, practices 20 and u were among the tOp twenty taught by the larger percentage of teachers involved, but were not taught to sufficiently high levels to be included in Table XVIII. Levels of learning provided certain other Michigan high school students by teachers of vocational agriculture. Of the tOp twenty practices taught by the larger percentage of teachers of vocational agriculture to high school students without practical experience opportunities, all but three practices were also included among the top twenty for levels of learning provided these same students. Only practices 50, 27, and h7 of the leading twenty for levels taught were not among the leading twenty for number or percentage Who taught these practices. Table XIX gives the top twenty practices for levels taught to these students by teachers of vocational agriculture. Eleven of the top twenty for levels taught by these same teachers were also among the top twenty practices recommended.by the jury of authorities for these students. Levels of learning provided certain Michigan high gghool students byiteachers of general agriculture and/or ggnservation. 0f the top practices, as to levels, taught 7h TABLE XIX LEVELS OF LEARNING PROVIDED HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITHOUT EXPERIENCE OPPORTUNITIES BY MICRIGAN TEACHERS OF VOCATIONAL AGRICULTURE* Number Average Practices Teaching Level (N=126) Taught 18. Classify land as forest land by the Michigan Land Judging Sheet 5h 1.22 25. Heal in nursery stock on arrival 53 1.22 28. Plant seedlings in the furrow 52 1.17 19. Identify land as wildlife land by the Michigan Land Judging Sheet h8 1.13 6. Identify tree species best adapted for Christmas tree production 55 1.12 29. Plant by the slit method A9 1.10 26. Plow furrows for planting on contour 51 1.0u 105. Recognize the value of farm forests as a farm crOp 56 1.02 57. Prune Christmas trees for best form h8 .98 112. Recognize the relationship between trees, soil, and water supply 51 .93 32. Plan or plant a windbreak A6 .91 103. Obtain assistance from forestry specialists when needed 50 .91 30. Plant trees by the hole method NA .87 31. Plant trees and shrubs for wildlife feed and cover A9 .87 50. Cut limbs flush with trunk of tree 37 .87 10h. Recognize times when forestry specialists should be requested M9 .87 22. Select desirable species for soil and site R6 .85 27. Plant trees on the furrow slice 39 .85 A7. Choose right tools for pruning 39 .79 21. Recognize non—forest land M3 .75 111. Identify and control common insects of conifers found locally N2 .75 *These were the top twenty (actually twenty-one) prac- tices based on the levels of learning provided by teachers of vocational agriculture for high school students without Opportunity for practical experience in forestry. The average levels taught were determined as in Tables XVII and XVIII. Teachers who taught less than five practices were excluded. 75 by teachers of general agriculture and/or conservation, twelve were also included among the tOp levels recommended by the jury for high school students with experience Oppor- tunities. Tables XX shows also that of the tOp levels taught by these same teachers, sixteen practices were included in Table XV as comprising the majority of the tOp twenty practices taught to these students by the larger percentage of these same teachers. From.Table XX, it can be seen that the leading four practices listed were taught to the understanding level by the average teacher of general agriculture and/or conserva- tion. The other seventeen practices listed were taught to the awareness level. Levels of learning pgovided certain other high school students by teachers of general agriculture and/or conserva- 2333. Of the top practices listed in Table XXI for levels taught by teachers of general agriculture and/or conservation to high school students githggt experience Opportunities, ten were included among the top twenty levels recommended by the Jury in Table VII, page M9. When comparing these top levels taught with the practices taught by the larger percentage of these same teachers, seventeen of these tOp level practices were also listed in Table VII. Generally, practices taught by the larger percentage of these teachers wenaalso taught to the higher levels of learning, as pertains the top twenty practices. Nine of the practices listed in Table XXI were taught 76 TABLE XX LEVELS OF LEARNING PROVIDED CERTAIN HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS BY MICHIGAN TEACHERS OF GENERAL AGRICULTURE AND/OR CONSERVATION* Number Average Practices Teaching Level (N=h0) Taught 30. Plant trees by the hole method 15 1.93 6. Identify tree species best adapted for Christmas tree production 28 1.75 25. Heal in nursery stock on arrival 26 1.63 5. Identify tree species best adapted for pulpwood production in Michigan 25 1.58 28. Plant seedlings in the furrow 22 1.50 1. Identify the commercially important hardwoods in Michigan 27 1.u5 29. Plant by the slit method 21 loh5 16. Locate a forest area by legal description 13 1.36 50. Cut limbs flush with trunk of tree 18 1.35 105. Recognize the value of farm forests 22 1.35 7. Identify common trees and shrubs adapted for wildlife feed and cover 28 1.33 20. Recognize common forest soil types 2h 1.30 32. Plan or plant a windbreak 19 1.25 112. Recognize the relationship between trees, soil, and water supply 21 1.25 h. Identify Michigan trees best adapted for nursery reproduction 23 1-23 31. Plant trees and shrubs for wildlife 1 2 feed and cover 19 1°23 21. Recognize non-forest land 23 1-20 M7. Choose right tools for pruning 19 1.18 57. Prune Christmas trees for best form 18 . h8. Prune according to d.b.h., height: 1 1 15 and species 7 ‘ 22. Select desirable species for soil 23 1.15 and site *These were the top twenty (actually twenty-one) prac- tices based on levels of learning provided by tiaChfiglef general agriculture and/or conservation for big :0 forestry students with practical experience Opportunities n t for . Average levels were computed as in Table XVII: eggegess than the use of no as the divisor. Teachers who taug five practices were excluded. LEVELS OF LEARNING FRO STUDENTS BY MICHIGAN TEACHERS OF TABLE XXI AGRICULTURE VIDED CERTAIN 0TH 77 ER HIGH SCHOOL GENERAL AND/OR CONSERVATION .— Number Average Practices Teaching Level __2 (N=hO) Taught ll2. Recognize the relationship between trees, soil, and water supply 13 .75 6. Identify tree species best adapted for Christmas tree production In .60 22. Select desirable species for soil and site 13 .60 32. Plan or plant a windbreak l5 .58 5. Identify tree Species best adapted for pulpwood production in Michigan 12 .55 30. Plant trees by the hole method 12 .55 1. Identify the commercially important hardwoods in Michigan 18 .53 7. Identify common trees and shrubs adapted for wildlife feed and cover 13 .53 105. Recognize the value of farm forests as a farm crOp In .53 h. Identify Michigan trees best adapted for nursery reproduction 13 .50 3. Identify the common undesirable hardwoods in Michigan 12 .h8 l9. Identify land as wildlife land by the Michigan Land Judging Sheet 7 .145 21. Recognize non-forest land 12 ohs 28. Plant seedlings in the furrow 9 .h3 31. Plant trees and shrubs for wildlife 8 feed and cover 11 - 3 58. Use a Biltmore stick for measuring trees 10 .33 20. Recognize common forest soil types 11 . .107. Recognize male trees and female trees; MO male cones and female cones 10 . 2. Identify the common undesirable 38 shrubs and brush invading hardwoods 9 .38 27. Plant trees on the furrow slice 13 .38 57. Prune Christmas trees for best form - *These were the tOp twenty (actually twenty-026g forest practices based on levels or learning prziigeto Ztu- teachers of general 89P1°UIture and/or conserva In forestry. dents without practical experience opportunitiiiceS were Teachers who taught less than five forest prac excluded. 78 to an average of the awareness level, while the other eleven or twelve practices listed were taught below the awareness level by the average teacher involved. 79 An Analysis of Jury Recommendations and Forest Practices Taught This portion of the study is concerned with (a) a comparison of the number and percentage of forest practices recommended by the jury with the number and percentage taught by teachers; (b) a comparison of levels of learning recom- mended by the jury with levels which were taught by teachers; (0) a comparison of the percentage of forest practices recommended and levels recommended to be taught to woodlot owners with that recommended for high school students; and (d) a comparison of percentage and levels recommended to be taught to high school students with_0pportunities and that recommended for students without these experience opportu- nities in forestry. These comparisons were made in order to determine the adequacy of public school instruction in forest practices when compared with authoritative opinion. Through a compari- son of the percentage of the jury recommending and percentage of teachers providing instruction in each of the forest practices, a determination of the significance of the differ- ence was obtained. The formulaeused for finding the standard error of the difference and "t" value were:29 g G‘pl " Pz= ______plql +3312... t: M 7 p2 N1 I"2 0P1 " P2 2C3Smith, G. Milton, A Simplified Guide To Statistics, (N. Y.: Rinehart & Company, Inc., TULS) pp. 58:63. 80 A comparison between thegpercentage of jury recom- mending and teachers of vocational agriculture teachinggeach forest practice to woodlot owners or operators. The signifi- cance of the difference was calculated between the percentage of jury members recommending each practice and the percentage of teachers of vocational agriculture teaching each practice. It was found that there was a significantly larger percentage of the jury recommending each practice to woodlot owners or operators than there was teachers of vocational agriculture teaching them» The practices having the smaller percentage difference were practices 85, with a h9.h per cent difference, and practices 83 and 109, each with a 51.1 per cent difference. These percentage differences for woodlot owners can be determined from.Table XXII, page 87, by simple subtraction in the columns headed I. In determining the significance of the difference between these percentages, practice 85 had a "t" value of 5.51, also much beyond the one per cent level of confidence. All other practices were recommended by as large or larger percentage difference as the practices tested for significance above. Therefore,it was concluded that in all cases, a significantly larger percentage of the jury recom- mended each practice than was being taught by teachers of vocational agriculture to woodlot owners or operators. A comparison between the percentage of jury_recom- Egpding and teachers of vocational agriculture teaching each 81 forest practice to high school students with experience opportunities in forestgy. Through the computational procedure indicated on page 79, the significance of the difference between the percentage of jury recommending and teachers teaching these high school students was determined. The null hypothesis in this case was that there is no differ- ence between the percentage of jury recommending and the percentage of teachers of vocational agriculture teaching forest practices to the high school students indicated. The limits set for accepting and rejecting this hypothesis were "t" values of less than 1.96 and larger than 2.58 respec- tively.' Except for practices 18, 19, 57, and practices 28 and 31, there was a significant difference, beyond the one per cent level of confidence ("t" value over 2.58), in the percentage of jury recommending and the percentage of teachers of vocational agriculture teaching each forest prac- tice to high school students with practical experience opportunities in forestry. The null hypothesis was accepted for three practices, since there was no significant differ- ence between the percentage of jury recommending and these teachers teaching practices 18, 19, and 57, with "t" values of 1.13, .89, and 1.67 respectively. However, the significance of the difference in Percentages for practices 28 and 31 remained doubtful, with "t" values of 2.28 and 2.27 respectively. A comparison of all other percentages resulted in "t" values greater than 82 2.58. This was the one per cent level of confidence for rejection of the hypothesis that there was no significant difference in the percentage of jury recommending and these same teachers teaching practices to the students involved. Therefore,it was concluded, with the jury percentages much greater in all but five practices, that expert Opinion recommended more extensive instruction in ferest practices than had been provided by teachers of vocational agriculture to high school students yiphipractical experience opportuni- ties in forestry. Percentages for all practices are found in Table XXII, page 87. Percentage differences can be determined by subtraction in the columns headed II. A comparison between thegpercentage of jury recom- sending and the teachers of vocational agriculture teaching each forest_practice to high school students without experi- ence opportunities in forestgy. Through an analysis of the significance of the difference between percentage of jury recommending instruction and teachers of vocational agricul- ture teaching each practice to high school students without practical experience opportunities, it was found that there was a significantly greater percentage of jury recommending these practices. However, for practices 18 and 27, the difference in percentages was of doubtful significance. The "t" values for these two practices were 2.h6 and 2.2a respectively. Therefore,it was concluded on the basis of the results, that the jury recommended more extensive instruction in these 83 forest practices than had been provided by teachers of vocational agriculture for high school students without practical experience opportunities in forestry. The percentage difference can be determined by subtraction in the columns headed III, in Table XXII, page 87. This comparison was even more noteworthy when it was revealed that thirteen of the practices recommended by the jury were recommended by less than one-half of the members. These practices were numbered 6h, 65, 66, 71, 75, 85, and practices numbered 97, 98, 99, 101, 102, 109, and 110. From these recommendations, it would appear that the majority of the jury members did not feel that cruising of timber, or computing of board feet in logs by use of the log scaling stick were the type of activities for students without practical experience Opportunities in forestry. Nor did they feel that certain management aspects of growing or reproducing conifers were in the scope of instruction to these same high school students. Significance of the difference between the percentage Qfgjury recommending and teachers of_general agriculture and/or conservation teaching forest practices to high schogl gtudents with and without practical egperience opportunities ipgforestgy. Through an item analysis of each practice, it was revealed that a significantly greater percentage of the. jury recommended each practice to these two groups of high school students when compared with the instruction provided 8h by the teachers of general agriculture and/or conservation. This difference was significant beyond the one per cent level of confidence for all forest practices listed in Table XXII. Therefore,it was concluded that expert Opinion recommended more extensive instruction in forest practices to high school students, 333p and without practical experi- ence opportunities in forestry, than was provided by teachers of general agriculture and/or conservation. Significance of the difference between the percentage of jury recommending instruction in forest practices to woodlot owners or operators and that recommended for both high school students with and without experience Opportuni- ties in forestry. Through an item analysis of the 112 forest practices, it was revealed that there was no signifi- cant difference, at the one per cent level of confidence, between the percentage of jury recommending instruction in each practice to woodlot owners or operators and to high school students with practical experience opportunities in forestry. Therefore,it was concluded that expert opinion would agree thatifor all practical purposes,woodlot owners and select groups of high school students should receive the same extent of instruction in forest practices. The differ- ence in percentage of jury recommending the practices to the three groups can be found by comparing columns I, II, and III under jury recommendations in Table XXII, page 87. However, when comparing the significance of the 85 difference between the percentages of jury recommending instruction to woodlot owners or operators and that recommended for high school students without practical experience Oppportunities, results indicate that in 61 of the 112 forest practices, the differences were not signifi— cant. There was doubtful significance between the percentages in case of 32 of the practices; and with 19 practices, the differences were significant at the one per cent level of confidence. It could,therefore,be stated that for the majority of the 112 practices, the Opinion Of experts indicated no significant difference in the instruction recommended for woodlot owners or operators and that recommended for high school students without practical experience Opportunities. These recommendations, however, do not take into consideration the differences in the relative levels Of learning recommended by the jury. Significance of the difference between the percentage offijury recommending instruction in forest practices to high gphool students with practical eXperience opportunities and that recommended for high school students without these gxperience Opportunities. When comparing the jury recomp mendations for high school students High and those without practical experience Opportunities in forestry, 7h practices were recommended by a larger percentage Of the jury to high school students Eith practical experience Opportunities; however, the percentage differences were not significant at the one per cent level of confidence. ‘g-fi- __- _-. .——___._ 86 Also, 32 practices were similarly recommended by a larger percentage of jury for the same students, but the significance Of the difference was doubtful. Six of the practices were recommended by a significantly larger percentage of the jury for high school students yi§h_prac- tical experience opportunities, when compared with the percentage recommending them for students without these experience Opportunities. These percentage differences were found by comparing columns II and III under jury recommendations in Table XXII, page 87. From these results, it appears that about two-thirds Of the forest practices were recommended to be taught by practically the same percentage of jury members tO these two groups of high school students. Only practices 10, 35, 39, 60, 61, and 6h were recommended by a significantly larger percentage of the jury for students giph practical experience Opportunities in forestry. It would appear that the jury felt that certain practices concerning corner posts, thinning, cruising, and estimating of board feet were needed more by selected high school students who 23$ Opportunities for practical experience in forestry than were those without these Opportunities. 87 o.mH 0.0m mom o.oH 0.5 5.00 0.0m b.0m camp m.houmosom . . . .. . Hoops m sameness use om: .NH m NH m mm n ma q Hm H b m.m5 m.mm b.0m . consumec . . . . , cache bases» new gauge w comm .HH m ad m an s m 0 ea H.s 0.0m o.ooa >.em wows connotes . . . e a“ anon geckos e opooQH .0H. 0 ma m hm m CH wood m.o 0.0m b.o® 0.00H mess cosmonom m. . s smacks» ocaa mmeaaoo m cam .w ha m um m.oa N.NN m.o m.ma b.0a 5.00 meeqsoe m. . e.pepmouom 029 MO nunaom speed .m an 0 cs m.mm H.me n.5H m.mm o.ooa o.ooa assoc use ence unease“: com avenues . . . unease new moon» :OEEOO humpGOvH .5 0 mm o 05 >.m¢ ¢.mu 4.HN m.mo b.0m b.pm :OHuoscoca coup unspmfisno pom . . . penance anon mewocum eon» keepccpH .0 O Om m we m.ea s.mm H.ma 5.0m m.mo m.me sameness ca :oaposeopa eoozaasa soc m. . pepumpe anon meaooom coup hmepcopH .m mm m mm 4.mm H.mo m.ma b.0m b.0m 5.00 :Ofiaosnouoou agents: pom concave . . anon moons sameness acapsoeH .e O Om O md Memfl 000d FoNH Momw qum MoMO CQWHSOfiz CH mUOOZUHGS m. . oanmpfimoucs cosaoo on» hmapcopH .m «N m S is a: an: 0.8 a? «as $8322 assess fits a 8:2. . . . canwsamcncs 208500 on» kmaacopH N 0 mm m as e.e~ N.Mm n.4H s.so o.ooa o.OOH sewage“: ca meoozetme peep . unease haaefiescssoo one hmaasepH H HMM¢..2WH HHHA HH V H HHH HH H I oNan Omuz ”wwwenponmoo a0\e:e caspasufiam< madmsossowom .IIIIiWLNWWLWLHmmwmwwlllllmmmmmmmwmblll. .hhfim mo #:00 non neufipomnm H ssE. as E Hu “1%! llI'l ammoaeoeaa season 2H zoasoseamZH ozHoHsoma mammoaae nae ozHazmzzooaa HHxx mqmficam .Nq . . . no xOOpm havens: ca awe: .mN 0.0m m 0 0N 4 we 5 m m.m0 m.mm m.mm xoopm .me . . . hummus: mo newsman ouflsmooem .em m m 4 mm 0 H0 m ma m.m5 0.00 m.mm cuwm xooam .N n.5m . . . 0cm owe managemep wooden .mm m em m we 5 ea m.ms m.mo m.me mean use deem 0.0m n.5m . . . sow mcfiooae OHnthmop wooaom .NN n.5N 0.00 M.¢m ¢.H5 0 ma 0.00 m.mo m.m5 puma uncuomunoc ouacwooem .Hm an s we H.ma s.em m.ma m.ma mamas n.5a . . . Haom awesom ceases cuasmoocm .om m em H mm H m0 H.mH p.00 m.me b.0s pecan mesmese ease sameness one a m. . . . as name oceans“: as used sqascoea . a 5H 0 0m 0 N: 5 00 m.mH 5.00 5.05 0.00 ueonm mcfimpsw used sewage“: on» . . . hp used ammaom as used hmfimmeao .mH W.WM m.0¢ H.HH 0.0m H.5 0.05 5.00 0.0m mess pepmosom e as: .5H mm 4 mm e.me s.s 0.00 s.em o.ooH coapaasomme . . Hemoa 50 megs phenom e opeooq .0H m ea 0 cm H.HH e.m~ a.s 0.0a s.ea s.ea ems ccmspswama . . :Ofipmshcmcoo mpepm m seem .mH m.o~ «.me m.ma s.mm s.m v.0» 0.0m m.mm maonaan ass sameness chaos .qa «H 0 mm H.ma a.em m.oa s.es 0.0a s.ea mots . copmopom a mo ommesow use cpsnsoo ma MWM..ZVHH HHHfi0mHHH V H HHH A MH 0 H ,I huz O nuz :Ofipm>uomnoo AO\vcm caspasowsm< :OHvoshpenH madncoEEooom accepeeum muse me 9:00 new caspasoacm< Hmaccoo HwCOprco> WfipofiammH mpoFoeeB modlllllllullIlllIlllllllI‘l‘l‘llllullIll‘l: :mEIIIIl‘IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIu Anofinducoov HHNN mAmosos on assess mwmammwmw .5m m c N; m o O c m n Mom 0 PM o N NW. 0 ”CM «EOM « H5. mom. 000M “ON; JemN MON. MOM“ 000m 0 QHEHSQ fiMQMHMQLQ 00. wcHUhOOOQ oz 9% em as am as as W% seszthmh.fis3€§8asm H.HH . . 5. 5 . . Hams o .9 ouficmooom .5m OcmH m o d 0N F m Momm ”08H 0 OOH m$50kmmgwfi3 WQGQO U003. ONfiCMOOQm 00m 50 0.MN m. 05 0.00H cam mmcwapoom ouficmooom .mm m ON; 0 Q...‘ m 9 MH Nee Na 0 mahflfiuom: . m m 50 m. 0 0 05 m.m5 HO ponama couplmono apnea .00 m 5N m.5q .0m 5.00 0.5a . mmcaaeoom mo mcapceaa a so o 0 mm H.m© n.5H M.05 0.00 m.m¢ owaCQOAmQ Hw>fi>h5m mpfimaoo .mm o om m 05m 0 OF Me mm m. mm memhnnfiz Q O'CQHQ ho :flnm o m m. . 5 4m . . ho>oo N mm m «m 5 mm n ma see note mcaaeaaz m.NN 0.mm 5.0m m.40 m.4H m.mm 0.05 m.M5 com ensunm new meet» one . m.H¢ 0.50 5.mH Mumm 0.05 m.m5 posses 0H0: on» he moose anew” .WM HHH HH MN; 500m 500% 3°hoHfipUOSQWE OHHW 059 ND pgflnm emm co A0¢nuzv HHH HH H H m was CH mmCfiHcoom asmam .wN HQ.eshoecoo cO\0:m A0NHnuzv HH HH H . onspazofipm< fiancee epsuH=Ofism< so Aomnuzv .tl O HGCOH¢MOO> “JMHMWMGH MEH020EEOO®m HO HCOD km 5 noowuoeam we aposppmcH masseuse mo coco pom Aeoscaccoov HHxx mamas 9O 93 9.3 H.mm . . . 0.N o 0 5 00 m 5H 0 05 0.00 m.M5 Show amen . N m. . . 900 «mean mmsamflsno Aueonmv mcsam .50 0.0 0 0 5H 5 m 5.00 0.05 0.05 Hospcoe haoceo cecnso>o 0 0.0m . . . 50 Hosacoo 09390005 :fieecfisz .0 a 5 5 0H 5 5 0.50 0.05 5.05 goose: oped aflacmowomne enam>ISMfis haso 0.N 0.5N H.Ha 5. N . ensue .mowoemm poozchwn mqfinahq 0H .00 0 0 0 0.00 0.05 5.05 mwsasoao op awe: msasssm con: 40 0.5 0.0 . . . season canon non 0:0 0 adepqdez . m 0 5H H mm m 0H 0.05 0.05 0.05 .9: scan 00 maenuoco so czoao cbfia M0 0.5 0. . . mo HHwSIoco can» once 00: o>oEom . mm m 0H 0 0m H.HH 5.00 5.00 5.00 .g.n.e 0{at 00000: 0.0 0.0m . . oeha O» mcwosooom neosptmoso onshm .N0 0 ma 5 05 m.oa 5.00 m.mm 5.0m snoozetme as =ma .eoospaon ”w Hm . . . omen pm =N mo Essfixwa we ahead 0 . m.w~ w.0w 0.5m 0.~0 0.5a 5.00 5.05 5.05 out» co sass» new: suede eased 0:0 .00 0.NH .0 0 5H m.H¢ 0.5 0.05 0.05 0.05 oneness moustache essence Op macaw .50 0 we m.m~ 0.00 5.~H 0.00 m.m5 5.55 weaves. 0cm 0. . .vnwwo: .:.Q.o Op wcflchooom madam .00 .5a 0.50 5.00 5.00 H.0H 0.00 5.05 5.05 mcwcsad you eaoop names omooso .50 0 ON 0 N4 5.0a 0.50 0.0H 0.00 5.05 0.05 soavospouoen Houses: 0 «H see moose ems. canaaamme maacmooum .00 . 0.0% m.MH #omN 0.5 O. m. m. mOmdeO QNHm 0 0 00 mm mm on mcdpaooce wcwomamomawmw .00 .NH .ma n.4a “.mm 5.5 0.0 m. m.m0 n.0am to . 0 mm noom 20 can» 09 ansose speed 40 HHH HH HHH HH H HHH HH H 875 genes 8T2: cowvw>honcoo uO\u:m cssudsowame cofloosuumcH meanneseoemm onspH500sm< Hecocow He:oapeoo> husw me 0:00 pom emefipomsm mcmuoafifi 2 ones» i Aeescwpaoov Haas mqm 0 000 .00 0.NH 0.00 0.0 H.0H 0.0 0.00 5.00 0.05 05505550 55 50020 5HHS 0 000 .N0 5.5 0.50 5.5 5.55 0.0 5.50 5.55 5.55 0050 .000 00050.000 0 :5 0005 05000 0:0 05055500 .H0 0.0H 0.0N 0.0 5.HH 5.0 5.00 5.00 0.00 0050 0>550550005505 m :5 pOH5 0000 550553050 0 p50 0x050 .00 0.0N 0.00 5.5 0.0H 0.0 0.00 0.00 5.00 050505050 005» 055550005 500 05055H00 0 000 .50 0.55 0.00 5.0 0.55 0.5 5.05 5.55 5.05 0000» 005005505 pom x0500 oposuHflm 0 000 .00 HHH HH HHH HH H HHH HH H 30.1.20 $57.5 853,0 cow50>aomcoo 50\050 0559H50500< 5050055505H 055550550000 0050H50550< Hmpocoo H05O5umoo> 5550 no 5500 505 000500055 500055505H 05050005 no 0500 505 50005502000 5555 50005 92 m.N 0.0N 0.0 5.0 0.0 5.50 5.00 5.00 0055 055555 000 55 500550355 50>0 055 :05 :5 mega 50500 .05 .55 05 05505555 0» 0>505 00 50050 50 500555 000 0055500 .50 0.05 0.55 5.5 0.55 0.0 5.00 5.05 0.05 55555555 0:5 .50505 .5o0550255 5o5 005555 oa5m 55055 .55 0.55 0.55 5.55 5.05 5.5 0.05 5.55 5.55 50555005 no 55050-0550 00 055050005 0>0505 00 50050 0502 .50 0.55 0.05 0.5 0.05 0.0 5.00 0.05 5.05 50505505 23050 go 5050055 00 055050000 0>0505 00 50050 0502 .00 0.05 0.05 5.55 5.05 0.5 5.55 0.05 5.05 5505 go .5550 .5555 00 055050005 0>o505 00 50050 0552 .55 0.0 0.55 0.5 0.0 0.5 5.50 5.00 5.50 0055 055005 0 55 50555555 050 «50505 «500550 3305 50 5050 55550 000 0055500 .05 0.5 0.55 0.5 0.55 5.5 5.00 5.50 5.55 0555 5555055 5 55 00035555 50 50500 000 0055500 .55 0.55 0.00 5.55 0.55 5.05 5.55 5.55 5.55 00935555 50 0555 0000005 5 55 50500 05005505 0055500 .05 0.5 0.55 5.5 5.05 5.5 5.05 5.00 5.00 050 5555 50 00 550053 00 505 5 :5 poo5 05000 050 0055505 .05. 0.05 0.55 5.55 0.55 5.5 5.50 5.50 5.55 5505 :5 5000500 505500 on» 055050005 .05 0.05 0.05 5.0 5.05 0.0 0.00 0.00 5.55 50555 005 50005 50 505 w 55 .05 .00 005 050 55050 0055500 .m5 0.05 0.00 5.5 5.05 5.5 5.00 5.00 0.05 0005 05500 55 5000500 005 0055500 50 00555050 .N5 0.05 0.05 5.0 0.55 5.0 5.00 5.55 5.55 50505 5555500 505 5 on: .55 It, 555 55 555 55 ;;5 . 555 55 5 Ao0uzv 5055.13 85.16 50500>505500 50\055 05505505500 50500550555 055050550000 05505505500 5050500 5550505005 5550 50 0500 505 500500555 05500550555 55000009 50 0500 505 II! If!!! 5005550500v HHXX mqm<9 93 m.> 0.0m o.m H.ma m.q m.Mm v.00 m.mu mouwu Hanan saw: omxoopmnm>o pap umnaflpzmm now: ooxooumpouzs conz monsoooopm mcfippso may mafiahopoo .40 o.m 0.0m m.o 5.0H m.¢ m.mm p.00 5.05 «mag» Ham zoo: umxoopmgmnc: 2on3 nohsooooua mafippzo unfleuopon .mm “.5 0.0m H.5 m.pfi a.m m.mm b.oo m.m5 mmuflm Ham goo: coxoopmpmbo can: oudoooopo mqupno on» ocasnmpoa .No o.m 0.0N o.m o.mH m.m b.0m 0.0» 5.05 woman Hausa go“: ooxoopmnonfis «honsapzmm nufiz voxooomuo>o can: monsoooona mawapso msu ocflauopma .Ho m.5 m.>H m.¢ m.ma m.¢ owoo m.m> m.mm mcfiuboumm assfixms pom :oamw anonymoao on oawp man mafishopoa .om 0.0H m.nm m.HH N.om m.© m.mo 0.0m m.mm oaofim 02a cw oo>homoo con: muozpos mcfippao ucouommwo on» oufinwooom .ww m.bH o.mm o.mm n.0m H.b 0.05 0.00 5.00 Hm>oEon how moohp maoz ouwcwooom .mm m.NH o.mm m.oa $.0N H.b 0.0m 5.0% m.mm Hw>oaoa pom mmCflHQmm hpfiHMSU noon ouwcmooom .bm m.NH m.NN m.mH m.om >.m m.mo 0.09 u.om ocwpm 56pm Hd>oson you noHoQ huwamsv noon ouwcmooom .om m.m n.5H m.q m.m a.m m.m¢ m.mm m.mm ouom goo .n.o.v garm momup cw mono Hmmmn .um .wm 0H swapcfima op o>moa op mocha mo gonad: osu opsasoo .mm mam 0.8 ms 3v mi 0.8 N23 0.8 8% 3&3 cap cw .:.n.o :mam macho cw mono Hmmwn .pm .wm ma afiwpcwma op o>moH op noon» mo hogan: esp opsoaoo .dm 5! HHH .HH H HHH 2 H Agnzv Swami Acmnzv :ofipm>homcoo p0\ocw oASpH50flum< cofiposhmeH wCfiocosEooom ops» asoflgm< ngocoo mafiaoshpmnH whosowoe mo acoo pom Hmcoflpmoo> hush mo pcoo pom mooflpompm 14‘1"! I? Acoscfiucoov HHxx mqm.o¢ 0.00 0.00 msfippso gmpom axooan yo mmwhpm cw cofiposcogaou cw owwewo chanoQXo ouficmooom .HOH m.u m.Nm o.m o.aa m.¢ 0.0m m.mo 0.05 mowwflcoo CH wcwppso nopwm opmswmvm ma :owposoohmop ma onflsuopoa .OOH m.v m.vH m.m a.b m.m 5.0m m.mm p.0m onwdwm mcwmno ozp mxooao how vamp» uomwcoo m poo oxmum .oo 0.0H m.mm m.4 0.5 N.m 0.0d 0.0m 0.00 mnwppdo qwupm how campm m poo hog .mm m.bfl “.mm «.0 «.ma m.4 m.m¢ 5.00 b.0o unmom “chance m ca pcoammmqwe oaofl» oocwopoSm mo tonnes m moao>oo .50 . . . . H N.m b.0m 0.0m 0.0m mcfiuuzo pom homey vcwpm m 0 0H 0 om m ¢ 0 H so noozaasa mo uaefi» asp measumpmo .oa o.m 0.0N AYNH o.¢m m.¢ 0.00 b.0m 0.00 p50 cowpooaom Cfi oo>osou moonp Haom on Sean: a“ Show cam aokaa odompwmogq pmos on» mawsumpoo .mm HHH HH HHH [WW H HHH Hm. H 3.2-5 Aom‘mflzv Sm... zv cofipm>uomcoo uo\n:m ououaaownm< :ofipospamzH mcwncoaaooom updoHSoHom< Hmoocoo Hmcofipmoo> hand mo ammo you moowaompm \mGApozppmcH mpmnomoe mo ammo pom xizun IHH, ll Anmscfipcoov HHxx mqmona ono: o no unosomop cap no @200 non coopocdc mace oafizz. unogmnoao no unoczo poaoooz coaposnpmzfi coocoEEoomn anon mnp mo pcoo non Apocfi: mad oowpomna now "as .oammp wasp SH omusaocw ono: woowpomnm onos no o>fim pnmsmp on: mnmzoMop haze . mucouspm Hoonom swan opnuHHH mhnpmonon ca cocofianXo Hmofipom Hwonpoana gsonpnz no non nmnpfiqspnoaao napH:0finmm Hmcofiumoo> now oowuomna mun» :w 3» omon on oasonm magma mane .nodpwcsonomao oocoflnmaxo sun: vamUSpm Hoonom swan oaguHH monoponoqo no mnoczo poaoooz ounuH “hex on» so oommn ma magma mwcb* «.mm «.mm «.04 m.¢o o.ma n.om o.om 0.0» naaasn umpm: us» .Hnom “momnp coozpon Qanmcofipmaon 02p maficmooom .NHH .o m.m¢ m.mm 0.5m F.0H m.mw 0.00 0.00 hHHMooH wagon mnoMficoo no mpoomcw o N :08500 039 Honpcoo vow hmwpcmoH .HHH . . . . ©.m m.m¢ 0.00 o.ov hnmmns: m u m mm 5 NH m hm oonp mafia m swapcwma cam ucmam .OHH . . . . .m o.o¢ m.mm n.0m cofiposoonaon Honsum: m b m mm a u n NH 0 adafixds now moawa nomam o>me op pnmfio: Hmoofl on» ocfienopoa .ooa . . . . . m.m 0.00 0.00 coon hnomnsc now mmcoo m 5H 0 OJ A AA m mm a b o pooaaoo op oaap mnp ocfisnopoa .moa . . . . . .Om m.m> m.mu mocoo camamm vow mmcoo cams ”among 0 mm 0 mm o Na 0 qm H m o mamaow ocm moonp came madamooom .5OH HHH HH HHH HH H HHH Hm: H a; omfiw...< army; w>nmucoo no vcm . o mmwwasoanw< amnmnoo Hmcofiumoo> answ mo puma nmm moowpomnm manposnpmsH anonomoe mo p200 nom AUmzzfipnoov anx mqmm.m o¢.N mono . . oonmoaom m a“ poem pounce m 0pmooq .OH mm 0 mu 0 mm.o H4oo 0H.o 04.H oo.N hm.m mono . . . ompmouom m smsonnp mafia nnmgaoo a cam .a mm.o om.o 5H.o hm.o mo.o m:.N um.m b¢.N unmasoo m.uopnopom on» we mended unwed .m mm 0 mm H as.o as.H em.o me.a sm.~ mm.m uo>oo use some oeaaeawz toe eoegmem wanna» use moon» £05500 hwapcouH on 00.0 mu.H NH.H OH.N no.0 um.a om.m ma.m cowoOsUOQQ ooh» mmapnwuno how penance amen modommm ooh» knapcooH .0 mm.o mm.H em.o sa.a mm.o me.a oe.~ mo.~ eawasoaz ca cowaoseotd coozmasd you uopamom amen newsman eon» hmwpcmoH .m Om.o mm.a om.o 0H.H ¢<.o 04.H m¢.N mm.N cofivosoOpmou hummus: you nmpmmvm peep nooks :mmHnOHz hwfipceoH .¢ w4.o mm.o mm.o NO.H mN.o >N.H hm.m mu.m :mmwnoa: :H ncoozvum: . oanmufimoocs soaaoo esp knapsocH m mm.o mo.o ee.o No.0 Hm.o sa.a ma.m om.m accesses: mcaem>ew nests a unsung . oabmpwmmocs coesoo on» knapcoww N he 0 0 e o o e o gmHSOfiz Cfl mgo3vhm£ 9c 0 m o 3 H. R o a a R o 8 N a. N S m Lass assesses as tweaoa H HHH HH HHH HH H saHHH HH H a Seuss Swans; Smnzv afluw>noncoo ao\ccm caspasowpw< voocoasooom neofipempm oASpHsofiam< Hmaocmc :H Hmcowemoo> :H magnumuq mo nae>oq oeuw>onm w:acu¢eq.a¢.nwu>oq mmoaeoamm ammaoa so mammoame zaonon_sm Basses masses aza seas Hm amnzmzzoomm u2Hzm0>hzm on» opuasoo .mm 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00000000: 0 00000 00 0000 .00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00000 000 0000 emwdvaflz 000 0950:» 0:0 00000 acmam .Hm 00.0 00.0 00.0 0.0.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 000000 0000 000 00 00000 00000 .00 00.0 0.0.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0.0.0 00.0 00.0 000000 0000 000 00 00000 .00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 000000 000 00 000000000 00000 .00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00000 300000 000 00 00000 00000 .00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0000000 00 00000000 000 0000000 0000 .00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0000000 00 00000 0000000 00 0000 .00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00000 0000000 00 0000000 000000000 .00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0000 00000 000 000 000000000 000000 .00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0000 000 0000 new 0000000 oanmnwmoc pooaom .NN 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0000 000000-000 000000000 .00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00000 0000 000000 000000 000000000 .00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00000 0000000 0000 00000002 000 00 0000 0000000: 00 0000 00000000 .00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00000 0000000 0000 00000002 000 00 0000 000000 00 0000 00000000 .00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0000 00000000 0 00: .00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00000000000 00000 00 0000 000000 0 000000 .00 om.o MH.H b~.o MN.H 0H.o mH.N 00.N 00.m Q08 0005000002 cowpm>0omcoo onmpm 0 000m .00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0000000 000 00000000 00000 .00 000 00 1.0...00......0l0 llllllllull0 000 00 1.10 F 8.30 0000“ 5 800.5 :0000>hen:oo ao\u:d oaanazo00w< voccosaooom gadaoau? Hwhvcoo SH HQGOHAMOO> 2H wfingfl HO uHm>QH nooapowhm .00 >000 ms :00- o a o>- Avoficfiunoov HHHNx qu 0:0 .5000 .mowomaw op w:avpooom m:0::0:0 00000 on 0:00 000:0000m 0:00003 00000 on 0:00 000:mooom 00050 :o:3 00000 0003 ou«:mooom 00:00:» 5000 00:00:000 000:0000m 0:00093 00 00:00: 000050000 :00»: .m4 .00 .00 .00 .mm .mm .0m .0m .mm 0““ 00.0 mmoo mm00 m000 NN.O mood Om.H mm.N 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 wo.o m00H wm.o 5m00 mH.o no.0 mm.N mo.~ mH.o mH.H om.o NH.H mm.o 5H.H MM.N >0.N mmoo 0N0H $5.0 om0H mmoo 5N0H mm0N hm.N MN00 OO.H N500 50.0 0H00 5H.H >4.N um0N mH00 mboo HN00 dm00 0H00 Om00 m>.H bb.d mH00 mmoo mN00 no.0 dfioo hm00 mm.H mO.N Om00 mm00 Omoo wm00 maoo 00.0 mm.H b®.H mN00 Omoo 4H0O 0:00 OH.O m000 MH.N 5m.N 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 no.0 Om00 ¢H00 m¢.o HH00 ow00 000H ON.N m000 mm00 bN.O m500 NH00 m00H ON.N Mm.N m000 muoo mN.O deco mH00 Omoo m00N Om.N no.0 mmco 0H00 N000 MH.O mm.o mw0H OH.N 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 I 000 00 000 00 0 000 00 0 00.0qu 0000.020 0000.5 :0000>000:oo 0o\0:0 00:00:00004 000:0:50000 00:0w:00:m< 0000:0o :H 00:00pwoo> :H m:0:0000 mo 000>oq uovfi>onm :0:hwoq mo nambmq 00000000: H [IIHI'I I'll Ill“ Abo::fipcoov HHHNN m4m<9 107 m4.0 04.0 04.0 04.0 «0.0 00.0 00.4 00.4 nonfisgo 4040 mo .04... m cw nmmfimpo 00pm 030 0900860 .mo mH.0 04.0 50.0 04.0 00.0 00.0 00.4 00.4 0.40.. 0404. m :w nomfisho mega 0:» 0050500 .00 ma.0 mm.0 0H.0 0H.H 0H.0 no.0 00.H 0H.m umeHm» mmwpu cw pawn unwon mafipnaaoo :H magma maaao> on: .mo mH.0 mm.0 0H.0 mm.0 00.0 00.0 m0.N mm.m mafimfispo ca 900:0 hflamp w 00: .N0 MH.0 mm.0 0H.0 4m.0 00.0 m0.H 0N.N 0m.m scam chow numfimaoco w 20 noon Unmon ms» ouwsaumm .Ho MH.0 mm.o wpmqummunoh m a“ voam macaw» whom numamuoco a 9:0 oxwum .00 nm.0 00.0 “4.0 00.0 HH.0 00.0 no.4 04.0 muopmamfin mop» wcaudnmoa you numnfiawo 0 mm: .mm m4.0 «0.0 4~.0 «4.0 04.0 00.4 mm.m 00.0 mocha mafipzmmma pom xowum ogosaawm m mm: .mm wm.0 0H.H mm.0 mb.a 04.0 0N.H 04.N mm.m show 0003 now mmmnp nmagnfipso Ahmmnmv manna .0m No.0 00.0 00.0 mm.0 no.0 0w.0 >4.H m0.H Hoppcoo hmocwo ummnu0>o an achpcoo mnduMfioa swapCfimz .om m0.0 00.0 MH.O mm.o 4H.O um.o Ob.H Oo.H hmpnw3 mama awnimmwomam vfiaw> Swan maco waspa .mwfiooam vOQZUpmn wCfizanm MH .mm 00.0 00.0 04.0 mm.0 04.0 00.0 05.4 00.4 ”0040000 04 4x0: 00000.0 can: nonpon 00:00 ton mac 0 :wmpcfimz .:m 04.0 00.0 04.0 00.0 Hm.0 0m.H 00.0 0m.m 04000: .000 00 mawnnmco go 020.. w>fia mo «Hmnnwco :03» whoa no: m>0fi0m .Mm 00.0 00.0 44.0 00.0 mm.0 m0.4 04.m 04.0 .:.p.0 po\0:m 4404.: coup on mcwuuooom uuouulmouo mcdpm .Nm I HMW4 ZWH HHH A HH H HHH HH Am. nu Nanuz 4" cowpw>homcoo n0\0:w ouNpHSOHWm¢ vowmmsauwmm mpzpadowuw< Hmpmcmo :H Hacowpmoo> GH wawcumoa Ho mam>oq moufipomhm vmcu>opm mafiCmemwmo 0Hm>mq HHH Aumzcfigcoov HHHxx 00049 108 00.0 mm.0 «0.0 00.0 No.0 00.0 mm.m 0N.4 0045 045500 0 :4 00544500 050 000405 0502540300 mo 0050 40002 020 0055500 .00 00.0 00.0 04.0 00.0 44.0 00.4 04.0 00.0 0440 0040040 0 54 00035455 no 00500 020 0055500 .00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 04.0 04.4 00.0 00.0 00020400 50 0440 00x0000 0 :4 00500 05002000 0055500 .00 m4.0 md.0 00.0 «m.0 00.0 bm.0 m4.4 mm.4 050 4445 no mm 542043 00 004 0 04 0005 00000 000 0000000 .00 mm.0 00.0 mN.0 40.0 44.0 00.4 04.N 00.N 0mo4 :4 0000500 505500 020 0545M000m .40 04.0 00.0 04.0 40.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00400 004 40004 50 004 0 :4 0000 05002 90: 0:0 0005m 0055560 .m0 04.0 00.0 04.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 8.0 00.0 0000 0008 24 0000000 mo4 0055560 50 09054¢mm .N0 04.0 00.0 04.0 04.0 04.0 00.0 00.4 00. 00400 0044000 004 0 000 .40 04.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 44.0 00.4 00.0 00.0 0400 :4 4000400050004 000 000 .0 4004000 502245om 00455 04400 020 an w04 0 . 54 .pm .02 05054XO5500 020 0055500 .00 mm 0 00.0 44.0 00.0 04.0 00.0 04.4 00.4 00040 040000 04 0004000 050505054 045500 2050520 0500 505 0005 203050 00054505500 020 0055500 .00 04.0 mm.0 44.0 4N.0 00.0 00.0 m0.4 00.4 0004550 045500 0050 :0 54 .05 .00 40000 000004000 000 0000000 .00 m4.0 Mm.0 04.0 04.0 no.0 00.0 00.4 00.4 004550 045500 020 52 00020005505 0050 40000 020 0055500 .00 m4.0 0m.0 00.0 04.0 m0.0 00.0 no.4 00.4 004550 0200505 -500 0 m54x05 50 002005 0 050 504 .00 444 44 444 44 44'», .444, 44 4 0 84",: 30405 80.10 04p0>500500 50\020 055p45045m< 0005055000m .wm004504500 4050500 54 405040000> 54 000400055 Istithw. >0 . M54550.-- 0 040>.|.l||. 'I"...1 ‘ m2425004 50 040>04 ‘1'": I‘ll ullllllll .‘Ill’g lull II I ‘Ill'l’l’ 4005:4ucoov H4444 m4m50020 5023 0002005 0540050 050500040 020 004500000 40>0505 500 00050 0403 004500000 4050505 500 0m544000 0044050 5000 004500005 05000 5050 40>0505 505 00400 0044050 0000 004500005 0500 500 .2.2.0 0030 00000 54 0050 40002 .00 .00 04 54005405 00 0>004 00 00050 00 50255: 020 0050500 0040 040000 000 04 .0.0.0 :0.“ 00000 54 0050 40002 .00 .00 «4 54005405 00 0>004 00 00050 00 502555 020 0050500 0040 040500 020 54 502540300 50>0 050 :04 :4 0050 40002 .05 .00 00 54005405 00 0>004 00 00050 00 502555 020 0050500 . 00544000 050 400400 0502540300 500 004544 0040 55004 00455005 50 00040|0040 00 054000000 0>0505 00 00050 5502 50404000 53050 50 0040000 00 054050000 0>0505 00 00050 550: 5500 50 .4450 .5045 00 054050000 0>0505 00 00050 x50: .00 .mm .mm .00 oflm .mm .00 .mm .N0 .40 05504504504 4050500 54 04.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.4 00.4 04.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 04.0 00.0 00.4 00.4 mwno mmno «0.0 00.0 04.0 00.4 00.0 00.0 04 0 mm 0 m~.0 40.0 04.0 00.0 00.4 00.0 04.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 04.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 04.0 00.0 00.0 00.4 00.4 00.0 00.0 00.0 04.0 00.0 00.0 00.4 00.4 00.0 00.0 04.0 04.0 00.0 00.0 00.4 00.4 00.0 40.0 04.0 00.0 00.0 00.4 00.4 04.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 04.0 00.0 04.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 04.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 04.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 40.0 00.0 40.0 00.4 00.0 00.0 444 44 444 44 4 444 ”441. 4 00 40.4qu 4004",; 400.05 400>500500 50\050 05504504500 00050550000 405040000> 54 05455004 50 040>04 0004>050 05455004 00 040>04 40000400000 44444 04000 000400050 110 mH.o mm.o Ha.o ma.o no.0 05.0 o~.H m¢.a mcfippso noumm oxooan go mawpgm ca coaaozv legacy :fi omemv enamoaxo «fiacwoomm .HOH oa.o mq.o 00.0 ma.o 00.0 mp.o um.H oo.H upmMficoo a“ mafiauso pogmm oawsdovw ma :oaposvopaoh Ha csfispopoa .OOH ma.o mm.o no.0 mH.o no.0 ha.o 0H.H 0m.a ohmsvm ncwmno esp axooan ca p50 cooznopHoSm xooan you vampm ummwcoo w vac oxdum .ao mH.o cm.o Ha.o pa.o :o.o mm.o 5H.H mo.a wcfippso gapam you snag» m pso 5mg .mm mw.o no.0 mH.o mm.o 00.0 00.0 mN.H Mm.a acmpw homacoo :fl acoEommama vaowm cocwwpmdm mo cozavs w unwenouoa .bm mH.o mm.o oa.o oH.o no.0 p>.o mo.H oo.m mcapuso you nude“ acmuu a a“ noozaasa go oaoflh on» oQfiEpmpuo .00 no.0 04.0 ow.o mq.o 90.0 um.o bo.a mm.m ado cowpomaom cw co>oaop momma Have op Loan: cw snow vcm uvxpma oanmpfimopm nmoa cadauopoa .mo OH.o m4.o 00.0 4N.o oa.o om.o Om.H mn.a woman Hawsm saw: voxoopmpm>o can pmpefipzmn nafiz cvxoopmpovcz cos: mondvoOOpa mzwguzo ocfiEhmaoo .¢o mo.o m4.o mo.o 4N.o oa.o om.o mq.H mu.a nouwm Ham spa: uoxooamgocca cos: mousvooona mcapgso ocasfiopoa .ma OH.o «4.0 00.0 pm.o no.0 mn.o O4.H mo.H mmNfim Haw new: coxoopmpobo cos: unsvvoopm mcfiwuao osu newshoyoo .N0 no.0 mq.o no.0 mm.o mo.o um.o Mm.a bu.H noufim HHmEm spa: noxoOpmuoqu .ponfifipzmm saw: coxoogmpw>o :05: 3.38089 $3390 an» vcflimpon .Hm HHH HH HHH HH [AH HHH HH H 8.55 33",: 8m» 5 coaum>homnoo ~0\ucm caspasowum< Uovamaaooom ohsszowpma prmc m 2H, Hmcowpmoo> :H vova>0hmxmmdcpmuq o uao>oq wcwcumoq mo uHo>oA nonfipompm Acoscfipcoov HHHxx mqmmH 0:B* m>.o m~.H no.0 n+1H 04.0 hm.a >4.N >4.N hangsm pwpmz vcm .Haom «amok» coozpmn QHLmGOfipmHmp ms» onwcwoovm .NHH cm.o 09.0 mu.o 5N.H um.o 50.0 ma.m o¢.m haamooa case“ upmmficoo go manomcfi 208800 on» Houucoo ucm hmapcmcH .Haa oa.o mo.o om.o 00.0 50.0 mb.o >m.a mm.a zpwmgac may» mean a campcfima cum #:mam .OHH mo.o 00.0 ¢H.O ¢~.o HH.o 00.0 o~.H pm.H cOfigoscopamp amusuwc ESEHXdE pom wmafig puma» m>mmH op pnmfimn ammo“ ms» mcfispogoa .woa om.o mb.o NN.O Om.o ma.o 0H.H oo.m mo.m vmmm hummus: pom owcoo pomaaoo op mafia mna mswahmuma .moa 0400 Mmoo mNoO Fdoo 4:00 mmoo FMoH FMoH M®COO OHMEGH ficm OHQE mmvmhnfl camfimm ucm mmmpp mama mnacmouwm .uoa mH.o om.o om.o Mm.o Hm.o FH.H om.H mm.a wpfim go .owm .mmfioogm pom momgp Hmdnscs ham amazempma hppmmpom poachm mpg on whoamp new oawcmoomm .ooa mm.o mm.H No.H H>.H 00.0 mm.m no.m >m.m mouo apwm w mm mpmopom 89mm mo msam> mnp ouacmoomm .moa mm.o mH.H pm.o o¢.H #m.o oa.m mm.m 5H.m ompwmscmp mp canon» memfiamaomam hugmmaom can: nmswv madcwoomm .aoa mm.o mo.a Ho.o Jm.a No.0 mo.~ bu.~ mm.m owcmmc can: numflamfiowaw hhpmmpom scum mocmpnfimmw camuno .mOH om.o m4.o 50.0 ha.o ¢o.o 05.0 O4.H o>.H mummacoo Ga mcwpuao uopmm Umcmmc a“ soap nonvouama Hmaoamaphm can: m:«3pmpma .NOH HHH HH HHH HH H HHH HH H Ao¢uzv Aomfiuzv Aomnzv nowpm>homcou h0\u:m op:aH=ownm< voucoEEoonm canvasownm< Hmumcoo :H HwGOflpmoo> :H mcwchmoq mo uao>oq nonfivomhm voua>oumkmcacumoq mo nao>oq Awoscflucoov HHHxx mqmHm swap mmmH pnwsmp 033 mpmnomoe .GOHpm>hmmcoo po\vcm musz90Hpmm Hapocom mo mumnomop mnu.pom 04 cam .mp5pH50Hpmm Hmcowpmoo> mo upmnomma mna you oNH .mwmum>m khan ms» you on an voUH>Hv mum: 4 on o no mmsHm> 0:9 cam anocmSUopm mo unannopg 0:9 mo 85m mze .Hm>mH HHme map on" 4 mHm>mH haHHHnm on» ouuum “Ho>mH mchcmpououad onp opuum «Hm>oH unocmhwzw mnp op cowpozhpncwnuH “QOHpOSAunsH onuuo umGHBOHHou msu co Ummmn «4 on o omus> mg; mp umHonozo ms» CH axoono Ho hocoswmum map mafithHquE CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The major purpose of the study was to find a recom- mended program in forest practice instruction for the public schools of Michigan. Recommended instruction was determined through a survey of forestry education authorities. The extent and level of instruction offered was determined through a survey of the public school teachers most likely teaching forest practices. The findings of the study are briefly presented to serve as a basis for conclusions. This chapter presents a brief summary of the forest practices recommended for woodlot owners and high school students. Also presented is a short summary of practices taught to high school students and woodlot owners by teachers of vocational agriculture, general agriculture, and/or conservation. Some conclusions based on the findings and the implications to teacher education and supervision are presented. Finally, suggestions for additional research are presented. The Summary Summary of forest practices recommended by the jury v—fl'.“;‘_:_.. 11a for woodlot owners or operators. Since all of the practices listed on pages 87 to 95 were recommended by at least one-half of the jury to be taught to some level of learning to woodlot owners or operators, no re-listing of these prac- tices will be made here. Reference to Table XXII will indicate the percentage of jury recommending each practice to woodlot owners or Operators, compared with the percentage of teachers providing instruction to the same students. Summarygof forest practices recommended to be taught to high school students with and without practical egperi— ence opportunities in forestry, As seen in Table XXII, page 87, all 112 forest practices were recommended to be taught to some level of learning to high school students 352E practical experience Opportunities by at least fifty-percent of the jury. Since these practices are listed in the table, no re-listing is made here. Of the 112 practices listed in Table XXII, thirteen were not recommended to be taught to high school students Ei£§223_practical experience in forestry by at least one—half of the jury. These thirteen practices were not checked by the majority of the jury as constituting a part of a recom- mended instructional program. ise. 6h. Compute the area cruised in a strip cru 65. Compute the area cruised in a series of plot cruises. o6. Lay out a method of mak 71. Use a log scaling stick. 75. Compute the board feet in a log to within 5% of mill cut. e to maintain 10 sq. ft. basal area in trees 2- ing a ten—percent cruise. 115 97. DeveIOp a method of sustained yield management in a conifer stand. 98. Lay out a stand for strip cutting. 99. Stake out a conifer stand for block shelterwood cut in blocks two chains square. Recognize exposure damage in reproduction in strips or blocks after cutting. Determine when artificial reproduction is needed after cutting in conifers. 109. Determine the ideal height to leave slash piles for maximum natural reproduction 110. Plant and maintain a pine tree nursery. 101. 102. Summgpyiof forest practices taught py at least one-half of the teachers of vocational agriculture to wood- lot owners or qperators and to high school students with and without practical experience Opportunities in forestpy. Table XXII shows that none of the 112 forest practices was taught by at least one-half of the teachers of vocational agriculture to woodlot owners or Operators. In fact, only three practices, namely 103, th, and 105, were taught by at least one-fourth of these teachers to woodlot owners or operators. However, twenty-six practices were taught by at least one-half of these teachers to high school students with practical experience Opportunities in forestry. These practices were: 1. Identify commercially important hardwoods in Michi- gan. h. Identify trees best adapted for nursery reproduction. 5. Identify trees best adapted for pulpwood produc- tion. 6. Identify trees best adapted for Christmas tree production. 7. Identify trees and shrubs for wildlife feed and cover. 18. Classify land as forest land by Michigan Land Judging Sheet. 116 19. Identify land as wildlife land by the Michigan Land Judging Sheet. 20. Recognize common forest soil types. 21. Recognize non-forest land. 22. Select desirable species for soil and site. 23. Select desirable age and stock size. 25. Heal in nursery stock on arrival. 26. Plow furrows for planting on the contour. 28. Plant seedlings in the furrow. 29. Plant by the slit method. 30 Plant trees by the hole method. 31. Plant trees and shrubs for wildlife feed and cover. 32. Plan or plant a windbreak. A7. Choose right tools for pruning. 50. Cut limbs flush with trunk of tree. 57. Prune (shear) Christmas trees for best form. 103. Obtain assistance from forestry specialists when needed. Recognize times when forestry specialists should be requested. 105. Recognize the value of farm forests as a farm crop. lll. Identify and control common insects of conifers found locally. 112. Recognize the relationship between trees, soil, and water. 101+- As seen in Table XXII, none of the forest practices was taught by at least one—half of the teachers of voca- tional agriculture to high school students without practical experience Opportunities in forestry. However, twenty-six practices were taught by between one-fourth and one-half of these teachers to the same high school students indicated. Summary of forest practices taught by at least gpe-half of the teachers of_peneral agriculture and[or conservation to high school students with and without pgactical experience Opportunities in forestpy. Of the 112 forest practices listed in Table XXII, fourteen prac- tices were taught by at least one-half of the teachers of general agriculture and/or conservation to high school 117 students with Opportunity for practical experience in forestry. l. h. 5. 6. 7. 15. 20. 21. 22. 25. 28. 29. 105. 112. These practices were: Identify the commerically important hardwoods in Michigan. Identify trees best adapted for nursery reproduc- tion. Identify tree species best adapted for pulpwood production. Identify tree species best adapted for Christmas tree production. Identify trees and shrubs adapted for wildlife feed and cover. Read a State Conservation Department map. Recognize common forest soil types. Recognize non-forest land. Select desirable species for soil and site. Real in nursery stock on arrival. Plant seedlings in the furrow. Plant by the slit method. Recognize the value of farm forests as a farm crop. Recognize the relationship between trees, soil, and water. Of the 112 practices, 7h were taught by between one-fourth and one—half of these same teachers to the same high school students. With only 57 of 127 schools thought to be teaching general agriculture and/or conservation responding to the forest practices list, and only no of the 57 providing instruction in at least five forest practices, the percentages may not be representative of this category of teachers in Michigan. Between one-fourth and one-half of these same teachers were providing instruction in 17 of the 112 forest practices to high.school students without practical experience Opportu- nities in forestry. \ wi However, none of the practices was being taught by at least one-half of these teachers of general agriculture and/or conservation to high school students —-——-— thout practical experience opportunities in forestry. 118 Conclusions Concerning Hypotheses This portion Of the study is concerned with the hypotheses listed on page seven. These hypotheses were tested for validity through the use of two statistical procedures: the significance of the difference between two percentages through the use of the calculation of the standard error of the difference between two percentages, and the critical ratio, or "t" value. The chi-square test of homogeneity was the other procedure utilized. gypothesis one. There is a body of forestry practices upon which expert opinion will agree should be taught through the public schools of Michigan. This hypothesis was consid- ered to be valid if at least one-half of the jury of thirty forestry education experts recommended at least one-half of the 112 forest practices to at least one of the three groups of students taught through the public schools of Michigan. This hypothesis was considered to be valid, since all 112 forest practices were recommended to be taught by at least one-half of the jury to both woodlot owners or Opera- tors and to high school students with Opportunity for practical experience in forestry. Also, all but thirteen of the 112 forest practices were recommended to be taught to high school students without practical experience Opportu- nities. hypothesis two. Instruction in forest practices 119 provided woodlot owners or Operators and high school students in the public schools in Michigan is not as extensive as that recommended by expert opinion. This hypothesis was consid- ered to be valid if a significantly larger percentage of jury recommended instruction in more than one-half of the forest practices than was the percentage of teachers providing instruction to the three groups of students. This hypothesis was considered to be composed of five parts, each requiring a separate analysis and proof of validity. These parts and the results were as follows: 1. Instruction in forest practices provided woodlot owners or Operators by teachers of vocational agriculture is not as extensive as that recommended by expert Opinion. This sub-hypothesis was considered to be valid if a significantly larger percentage of the jury recommended more than one-half of the practices as compared to the percentages of these teachers teaching the practices to woodlot owners or Operators. All of the 112 practices were recommended to be taught to woodlot owners by at least one—half of the jury. None of the 112 forest practices was taught to woodlot owners by at least one—half of the 126 teachers of vocational agriculture. All of the 112 practices were recommended by a significantly larger percentage of jury members. Therefore, this portion of hypothesis number two was considered valid. 2. Instruction in forest practices provided high school students Kipp practical experience opportunities in forestry by teachers of vocational agriculture, is not as extensive as 120 that recommended by expert opinion. All of the 112 forest practices were recommended to be taught to these high school students by at least one—half of the jury members. Since only 26 of the practices were taught by at least one-half of the teachers of vocational agriculture to these high school students, it was concluded that the jury recommended more extensive instruction than that provided by these teachers. This is further supported by the fact that the percentage Of jury recommending, in all but five practices, was significantly greater than the percentage of these teachers who provided instruction to this group of high school students. Therefore, this sub-hypothesis was considered valid. 3. Instruction in forest practices provided high school students without practical experience Opportunities in for- estry by teachers of vocational agriculture, is not as exten- sive as that recommended by expert Opinion. All but thirteen forest practices were recommended by at least one-half of the jury members to be taught to high School students without practical experience opportunities in forestry. None of the forest practices was taught by at least one-half of the teachers of vocational agriculture to these students. All but two of the forest practices were recoms mended by a significantly larger percentage of the jury when compared with the percentage of these teachers who provided instruction to the students involved. It was concluded, therefore, that present instruction 121 in forest practices provided high school students without practical experience Opportunities in forestry by Michigan teachers of vocational agriculture, was not as extensive as that recommended by expert Opinion. Therefore, this portion of hypothesis number two was considered valid. h. Instruction in forest practices provided high school students Eith_practical experience Opportunities in forestry by teachers of general agriculture and/or conserva- tion, is not as extensive as that recommended by expert Opinion. All 112 forest practices were recommended by at least one-half of the jury to be taught to these high school stu- dents. Fourteen of the 112 forest practices were taught by at least one-half of these teachers to the high school students indicated. An analysis of each practice showed that a significantly larger percentage of jury recommended each practice when compared with the percentage of teachers of general agriculture and/or conservation who provided this instruction. It was concluded, therefore, that present instruction in forest practices provided high school students gggg practical experience Opportunities in forestry by teachers of general agriculture and/or conservation, was not as extensive as that recommended by expert Opinion. Therefore, this sub-hypothesis was considered valid. 5. Instruction in forest practices provided high school students without practical experience Opportunities 122 in forestry by teachers of general agriculture and/or conservation, is not as extensive as that recommended by expert opinion. All but thirteen forest practices were recommended to be taught by at least one-half of the jury to high school students without practical experience Opportunites in forestry. None of the 112 forest practices was taught by at least one-half of the teachers involved. Through an analysis of each practice, a significantly larger percentage of jury recommended each practice to these high school stu- dents than was taught by the teachers of general agriculture and/or conservation. It was concluded, therefore, that present instruction in forest practices provided high school students without practical experience opportunities in forestry by Michigan teachers of general agriculture and/or conservation, was not as extensive as that recommended by expert opinion. There- fore, this last portion of hypothesis number two was considered valid. It was generally concluded that the instruction in forest practices which was given to woodlot owners or Operators and to high school students in the public schools of Michigan, was not as extensive as that recommended by eXpert Opinion. A significantly larger percentage of the Jury recommended instruction in more than one-half of the forest practices than was the percentage of teachers Providing such instruction to the three groups of students. 123 It was concluded, therefore, that hypothesis number two was valid in total. Hypothesis three. Expert Opinion will agree that Owners or Operators of forest lands are in need of more extensive instruction in forest practices than are high school students. This hypothesis was considered valid if a significantly larger percentage of the jury recommended instruction in more than one-half of the forest practices to woodlot owners or Operators than to high school students with and without practical experience Opportunities in forestry. This hypothesis was considered to involve two parts, each requiring a separate analysis. These two parts and the results of each analysis were as follows: 1. Expert Opinion will agree that owners or Operators of forest lands are in need of more extensive instruction in forest practices than are high school students with practical experience opportunities in forestry. Through an analysis of all 112 forest practices, it was revealed that there was no significant difference, at the one per cent level or at the five per cent level of confidence, between the percentage of jury members recom- mending each practice to woodlot owners or operators and to high school students with practical experience Opportuni- ties in forestry. The validity of this hypothesis was not established. 12h Expert Opinion did not agree that owners or operators of forest lands were in need of more extensive instruction in forest practices than were high school students with prac- tical experience opportunities in forestry. 2. Expert Opinion will agree that owners or operators of forest lands are in need of more extensive instruction in forest practices than are high school students without practical experience Opportunities in forestry. Of the 112 forest practices, 61 practices showed no significant difference in the percentage of jury recommending instruction in forest practices to woodlot owners or opera- tors and that recommended for high school students without practical experience Opportunities in forestry. In case of 32 practices there was doubtful significance, while in only 19 practices was the difference significant at the one and five per cent levels of confidence. It was concluded, therefore, that in more than one-half of the 112 forest practices, there was no signifi- cant difference in the extent of the instruction recommended for woodlot owners or Operators and that recommended for high school students without practical experience opportunites in forestry. This was indicated only if the comparison of percentages could be construed to mean a comparison in extent of instruction. Since it was not the purpose of this study to compare levels of learning recommended for the three groups of students, no comparison was made for each practice. However, 125 a chi-square analySis was made to determine the significance of the difference between the average levels of learning recommended for woodlot owners or operators and that recom- mended for high school students with and without practical experience Opportunities in forestry. By use of the figures in Table IV, page #3, it was learned that there was a significant difference at both the one and five per cent levels of confidence in the levels of learning recommended for all three groups of students. Instruction was recommended to higher average levels of learning in significantly larger average numbers of forest practices to owners or Operators than to high school students with or without practical experience Opportunities in for- estry. Likewise, instruction was recommended to a higher average level of learning in a significantly larger average number of forest practices to high school students with_than to high school students without practical experience Opportu- nities in forestry. When the levels of learning recommended by the jury. are combined with the numbers of the jury recommending these practices, a significantly larger average number of forest practices are recommended to be taught to higher levels of learning to woodlot owners or Operators than to either high school students with or without practical experience Opportu- nities in forestry. However, in keeping with the hypothesis and the percentages being compared, it was concluded that the _. .. ._ ~ _ ‘r...1‘u= .'--_-"__,_’ -...-r_..¢I-—‘_. : $.2va ,' , - :_. “ma-“pr *fi-.h~— ._. - .—- - _ H——' -— out 126 validity of the hypothesis was not established. Expert opinion did not agree that owners or operators were in need of more extensive instruction in forest practices than were high school students without Opportunities for practical experience in forestry. Hypothesis four. Expert opinion will agree that high school students with opportunities for practical experience in forestry are in need of more extensive instruction in forest practices than are high school students without these experience Opportunities. This hypothesis was considered valid if a significantly larger percentage of the Jury recommended instruction in more than one-half of the forest practkzes to high school students with_than to high school students without practical experience Opportunities in forestry. Only six of the 112 forest practices were recommended by a significantly larger percentage of the jury for high school students EEEQ practical experience Opportunities than for those without these experience opportunities. For 32 of the practices, the significance of the difference was doubt- ful, and for the remaining 7h practices the difference was not significant at the one or five per cent levels of confidence. It was concluded that expert Opinion did not agree that high school students gith Opportunity for practical eXperience in forestry are in need of more extensive instruc— tion in forest practices than are high school students 127 without these experience Opportunities. The validity of this hypothesis was not established. hypothesis five. Instruction in forest practices for woodlot owners or Operators, and for high school students in the public schools of Michigan, is not provided at as high a level of learning as that recommended by expert opinion. This hypothesis was considered valid if a signifi- cantly higher average level of learning was recommended by the jury, for the three groups of students, than was provided by the teachers in more than one-half of the forest practices. Levels of learning are given in Table XXIII, pages ion—112. This hypothesis was considered to be composed of five parts, each requiring a separate analysis. These five parts and the results of the analyses were: 1. Instruction in forest practices, for woodlot owners or operators, is not provided at as high a level of learning by Michigan teachers of vocational agriculture as that recommended by expert Opinion. In case of all 112 forest practices, chi-squares showed that there was a significant difference in the levels recommended by the jury and the levels taught by these teachers. A visual check of the figures under column I of Table XXIII, pages 10h-112, shows that in all 112 practices, the jury recommendations were to higher levels of learning than that taught by teachers of vocational agriculture to woodlot owners or Operators. Therefore,it was concluded 128 that instruction provided by teachers of vocational agricul- ture was not at as high a level of learning as that recommended by expert Opinion for woodlot owners or operators. This portion of hypothesis number five was considered valid. 2. Instruction in forest practices, for high school students glth practical experience opportunities in forestry, is not provided at as high a level of learning by teachers of vocational agriculture as that recommended by expert Opinion. In all but thirteen forest practices, chi—square tests indicated that the jury of forestry experts recommended a significantly higher average level of learning to high school students with_practical experience Opportunities than that taught by teachers of vocational agriculture to these students. Four of these practices, namely 6, 19, 28, and 57 showed no significant difference between the levels recommended by the jury and levels taught by the teachers of vocational agriculture. Doubtful significance was indicated for the differences in practices 22, 26, 27, 31, and 32. Four practices, namely 18, 20, 21, and 23 were significantly different at the five per cent level, but not at the one perczent level of confidence. The chi-square test indicates homogeneity, or lack of it, only. However, it can be seen that practices 18 and 19 both were taught to higher average levels of learning by these teachers than that recommended by the average jury 129 member. These comparisons were made from an analysis of the levels recorded under the columns headed II in Table XXIII, page 10h. It was concluded that instruction in forest practices for high school students with_practical experience Opportu- nities in forestry was not provided at as high a level as that recommended by expert Opinion. This second portion of hypothesis number five was considered valid. 3. Instruction in forest practices, for high school students without practical experience opportunities in forestry, is not provided at as high a level of learning by teachers of vocational agriculture as that recommended by expert opinion. Through chi-square tests, it was found that all 112 forest practices were recommended by the jury to be taught to significantly higher average levels of learning than that taught by teachers of vocational agriculture to high school students without practical experience Opportunities in forestry. Visual check of Table XXIII, pages Ion-112, shows jury levels are consistently higher than levels taught by teachers. Therefore,it was concluded that instruction in forest practices provided high school students without practical experience Opportunities in forestry by Michigan teachers 0f vocational agriculture, was not provided at as high a level of learning as that recommended by expert Opinion. Therefore, this portion of hypothesis number five was 130 considered valid. u. Instruction in forest practices for high school students Eith_practical eXperience Opportunities in forestry, is not provided at as high a level of learning by teachers of general agriculture and/or conservation as that recom- mended by expert Opinion. In all but ten forest practices, chi-square tests indicate that the jury of experts recommended a signifi- cantly higher average level Of learning to these students than that taught by the forty teachers of general agriculture and/or conservation. In one practice, namely 98, there was no significant difference in the level of learning recom- mended and that taught by these teachers. In one practice there was doubtful significance in the difference in level, namely 97. Eight practices showed homogeneity or were not significantly different in the levels recommeded by the jury and that taught by the teachers of general agriculture and/or conservation. These practices were numbers 6, 2h, 27, 28, 31, 71, 99, and 109. Therefore,it was concluded that instruction provided high school students with practical experience opportunities in forestry by teachers of general agriculture and/or conservation was not provided at as high a level of learning as that recommended by expert Opinion. Therefore, this portion of hypothesis five was considered valid. 5. Instruction in forest practices for high school students without practical experience opportunities in 131 forestry, is not provided at as high a level of learning by teachers Of general agriculture and/or conservation as that recommended by expert opinion. In all but four forest practices, chi-square tests indicate that the jury recommended a significantly higher average level of learning to these high school students than was taught by the teachers of general agriculture and/or conservation. The difference in levels can be seen in the columns headed III in Table XXIII, page 10,. In one practice, namely number 107, the difference was not significant, or the levels recommended and the levels taught by these teachers were homogeneous. Three practices, namely, 27, 05, and b9, showed a significant difference at the five per cent level but not at the one per cent level of confidence. From these results, it was concluded that instruction in forest practices provided high school students without practical experience opportunities in forestry, was not provided at as high a level of learning by the forty teachers of general agriculture and/or conservation as that recommend- ed by expert opinion. Therefore, this portion of hypothesis number five was considered valid. General Conclusions If the jury used can be considered as an authority, the following conclusions can be made: 1. There is a body of forest practices which should H HR, R) be taught through the public schools of dichigan to woodlot owners or Operators, and to high school students with_and without practical experience Opportunities in forestry. 2. Noodlot owners or operators of Michigan are in need of instruction in forest practices to an average level of learning which is not significantly different from the average level of learning needed by high schoOl students with practical experience Opportunities in forestry. 3. doodlot owners or operators, and high school stu- dents of Michigan who have practical experience opportunities in forestry, are in need of instruction in forest practices to higher average levels of learning than are high school students without practical experience Opportunities. The findings of the study would also suoport the following generalizations: l. Woodlot owners and high school students of Michigan were receiving forest practice instruction which was not as extensive as that recommended by expert opinion. 2. fhere is no significant difference in the number of forest practices which should be taught to Michigan wood- lot owners Or Operators and the number of practices which should be taught to hiGh school strients with_or without practical experience Opportunities in forestry. 3. Expert Opinion did not agree that high school students with oprortunity for practical experience in forestry were in need of more extensive instruction in forest practices than were high school students without 133 these experience opportunities. h. A sianificantly larger percentace of Michivan teachers of vocational agriculture were teachine forest practices to high school students wigh practical experience Opportunities than to woodlot owners or operators, or to hiah school students without these experience Opportunities. 5. The percentage of flichisan teachers of aeneral agriculture and/or conservation who tauaht forest practices to high school students with opportunity for practical ex- perience in forestry, was different from the percentage who taueht students wdthout t ese experience Opportunities. How- ever, the difference was of doubtful significance. 6. Instruction in forest practices provided woodlot owners or Operators, and high school students £252.33d wigwow£_practical experience Opportunities in forestry by Michidan teachers of vocational agriculture, general aaricul- ture, and/or conservation, was not at as hieh a level of learning as that recommended by expert Opinion. Implication to Teacher Education The most conspicuous revelation Of this study was the enormous cap between what expert Opinion recommended to be taught and what was beine taueht to adults and hieh school students. fhis was concluded after assumina that teachers Of vocational aariculture, general aericulture, and/or conservation were most likely providina the bulk of forest practice instruction to adults and hioh school 13a students through public school programs in Michigan. In the light of this apparent divergence, it would seem to be both a privilege and a challenge to teacher education to close this gap. A privilege, because expert opinion felt that much could be done in the direction of forest practice instruction through the public schools of Michigan. A challenge, because teacher-training institutions are the central coordinating agencies for the improvement of instruction in the public schools of Michigan. The time to act has arrived. The fact that the importance of forestry varies from community to community, and from school district to school district within the State of Michigan, presents an enormous problem in the pre-service preparation of teachers. There- fore, it would appear to be most feasible to defer much of the preparation in forest practices either to special summer school offerings or until the teachers can be reached through in-service training programs. Special summer sessions would be designed to educate DPOSpective teachers, as well as some in-service teachers, who intend to teach in areas having a need for instruction in forest practices. In-service programs would serve these teachers who have finished their formal education, but who desire to acquire abilities, or additional abilities, in forest practice instruction. These in-service sessions and ‘ -ran 6 sPecial summer sessions would necessarily become long g ' ration cooperative ventures. They would involve maximum coope 135 between teacher trainers, extension service personnel, and personnel from wood-using industries. Would all of the 112 forest practices recommended by more than one-half of the forestry jury necessarily be taught to teachers each year? Would all of the 112 forest practices necessarily be taught to teachers to a "doing level" through this special training? It would be rather presumptuous to expect teachers, who will spend only a portion of their time teaching forest practices, to have sufficient interest and time to learn many of the more difficult aspects of forest practice instruction. However, much of the less difficult could be taught to the understanding or ability level to teachers. Since 102 of the 112 practices were recommended by the jury to be taught to one of these two levels to woodlot owners or Operators, it would seem impera- tive that teachers learn these practices at least to the understanding or ability level, but over a period of time. Also, 7h practices should be tam—Tht t0 the understand- ing level to high school students with Opportunity for Practical experience in forestry. Then teachers would necessarily need to learn these practices to at least the same level of instruction. Students without these experience Opportunities were recommended to receive the bulk of the instruction to the awareness level. Since there is need for a starting point in the improvement of instruction to adults and high school students, it would seem imperative that some of these forest practices 136 be taught to high school teachers on a pre-service basis, others on an in-service basis. The practices recommended most often by the jury for adults and hieh school students would best be taught the first year to teachers through field work, summer camps, and other in-serviee meetings on an area basis. Pre-service instruction should run concur- rently, later supplemented by in-service instruction at a time which is nearer the actual need for the instruction. The practices which should be taught to teachers at the outset, since they were recommended for adults and high school students by the larger percentage of jury members, are found grouped in the listing which follows. These prac- tices are expected to be utilized, where applicable, in the public school program for high school students and adults as soon as understandings and abilities are acquired by teachers. The practices listed were either not taught as extensively and/or to as high a level of learning 33 that recommended by expert Opinion. First—Year Instruction to Teachers Pre—Service Areas (Summer Campl, In-Service I. Tree Identification 1. Identify important hardwoods and soft— wood species x x 2. Identify common undesirable hard- woods, brush, and shrubs x x 3. Identify trees and shrubs for wildlife x x feed and cover Areas II. Forest Boundary Lines III. IV. 1. Pace a chain and twenty chain dis- tance Compute the acreage of a forested area Read a Conservation Department map Locate a forest area by legal description Map a forested area Tree planting 1. Woodland Weeding (Clean- Recognize common forest soil types Recognize non-forest land Select desirable species, age, and stock size Heal in nursery stock Plow furrows for planting on the contour Plant trees by the slit and hole method Plan or plant a windbreak Compute survival percentage in a plantation ing) and Thinning l. Recognize seedlings 2. 3. from sprouts Recognize time to start thinning Recognize dominant, codominant, inter- mediate, and suppres- sed trees Plantation Pruning l. 2. 3. Choose right tools for pruning Prune according to d.b.h., height and species Pre-Service (Summer Campl Prune to desired crOp- tree numbers 137 In-Service VI. VII. VIII. IX. Pre-Service Areas (Summer Camp) 138 In-Service A. Cut limbs flush with trunk of tree x 5. Remove not over one-half of crown or tree height 0. Shear Christmas trees for best form x Timber Cruising 1. Use a Biltmore stick and calipers for measuring tree diameters x 2. Estimate the board-feet in a one-fifth acre plot 3. Use a tally sheet in cruising Log Scaling 1. Compute the board feet in a log by the Doyle Rule, Scribner Decimal C, and the Interna- tional %" Rule x 2. Compute the stand- ard cords in a pile of pulpwood Timber Harvesting and Marketing 1. Recognize poor quality poles and saplings for removal from stand 2. Recognize "wolf trees" for removal Miscellaneous 1. Recognize the need and obtain assistance from forestry special- ists when needed 2. Recognize the value of farm forests as a farm crop 3. Determine the time to collect cones for nursery seed 139 The first-year program included the practices recom- mended by the larger percentage of jury members. These practices were generally not taught as extensively, or to as high a level of learning as that recommended by the opinion of authorities. These practices were reworded and regrouped to prevent repetition of wording. Whether they should be taught in a pre-service or an in-service program depends upon the time of year when the practices can best be taught. Both pre-service and in-service programs in forest practice instruction would best be held as special summer sessions or summer camps. At these Special summer camps, key community leaders among woodlot owners or operators and other industry-sponsored owners and youth could join teachers in camp activities. These community leaders then could serve as special forest practice instructors for neighborhood groups. This would serve to develOp an awareness of the vast, untapped potential of our small woodlots. Even though much of the work in forestry requires specialized training, these summer camps and other programs for teachers and others would benefit both the forestry specialist and the woodlot owner alike. Not until an awareness of the value of the smallest of woodlots has been realized, will the owners seek specialized assistance. The suggested program of forest practice instruction for the second year of pre-service, in-service, and summer work for teachers is given in the listing which follows. _'._'-_t._!- _ , .— ‘ ‘ .—_ - 1&0 Later, teachers of vocational agriculture would logically provide the instruction for woodlot owners and other adult groups in cooperation with forestry specialists. Follow-up on instruction would be provided by the teachers of voca- tional agriculture. In addition to teachers of vocational agriculture, the teachers of general agriculture, conserva- tion, and teachers in related fields would provide instruction in forest practice to high school students. II. III. IV. Second-Year Instruction to Teachers Areas Forest Boundary Lines 1. 2. 3. 1+. Run a compass line through a forested area after learning points of compass Locate a corner post in a forested area Use and maintain a steel foresters tape Learn standard map symbols Tree Planting l. 2. 3. Recognize classes of nursery stock Plant seedlings in the furrow Plant trees and shrubs for wildlife feed and cover Woodland Weeding (Clean- ing) and Thinning l. 2. 3. Lk. Learn crOp-tree method of weeding Recognize weed trees and when to start removing them Learn amount to remove in thinning, in good or poor sites Learn how to protect edge of stand Summer Camp In-Service X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X VI. VII. VIII. Areas Summer Camp 5. Consider tolerance of species and desir- able seed trees when thinning 6. Learn spacing in age and size classes Plantation Pruning 1. Cut limbs at mathun of 2" at base in soft- woods, %" in hardwoods Timber Cruising l. Stake out a one-fifth acre plot in a repre- sentative area 2. Use a volume table in computing board feet in trees tallied 3. Compute the area cruised in a strip cruise, or area repre- sented in a sample cruise Log Scaling 1. Compute log defects in board feet and gross and net scale 2. Recognize common defects in logs Timber Harvesting and Marketing 1. Mark trees to remove according to risk, cull, form, species, crown, position, size-class, or maturity 2. Learn size limits for sawtimber, poles, and saplings 3. Recognize different cutting methods when observed in the field h. Determine time to clear-cut aspen for maximum sprouting 5. Determine most profit- able market for trees removed in selection cut lul In78ervice 1&2 areas Summer Camp» In-Service 6. Determine yield of pulpwood in a stand ready for cutting x x IX. Miscellaneous 1. Identify and control common insects of conifers found locally x x 2. Recognize the relation- ship between trees, soil, and water supply x x Even though recommended by more than one-half of the forestry jury, all 112 practices would not likely be taught to adults or high school students through the public school program. That is, not all practices would be taught unless taught by a qualified forester. Even those practices which would be taught, would best be taught first to woodlot owners or operators as soon as teachers acquired sufficient abilities through in-service programs or summer camps. However, these practices taught to adults should also be taught to high school students who have Opportunity to use the abilites learned. Furthermore, these practices should be taught to about the same level of learning to both groups of students. Every effort must be made by school administrators to provide adequate time and compensation for teachers desiring to learn forest practices to a level commensurate with the need. Provision must be made for flexibility in use of teacher and pupil time in the daily and yearly schedule of activities. Above all, provision must be made for adequate blocks of time for experimenting with methods Of integrating home woodlot visitation and supervision with lh3 class instruction. Every effort should be made to improve the production from our forests, our most valuable renewable resource. Suggested Research in Forestry Education As a result of the review of literature and through the procedures involved in this investigation, certain additional research appears to be needed in forest practice instruction, or closely related areas. Some of the research which is suggested as a result of this study include the following: 1. Investigate the relationship between the economic importance of forests and the relative extent and quality of instruction in forest practices provided in the various farm economic areas of Michigan. 2. Study the training in forest practices provided teachers of vocational agriculture, general agriculture, and conservation by the various institutions of higher learning in the North Central States, with the relative effectiveness on forest practices in the school service areas. 3. Investigate the relative merits of pre-service and in-service training in forest practices in the Lake States. A. Study the feasibility of adding the course "voca- tional forestry" into the public schools of the Lake States through results of pilot programs conducted for adults and high school students of forestry. 5. Discover and develop means of evaluating the 1&1; relative effectiveness of varying methods of forest practice instruction over a short-term period. 6. Investigate the amount and quality of forest practice instruction offered to adults and to high school age persons through agencies other than the public schools. 7. Develop methods and procedures for supervising forestry education in the public schools of Michigan through the State Department of Public Instruction. REFERENCES CITED PRIMARY REFERENCES arbogast, Carl Jr., Marking Guidgg For Northern Hardwoods Under The Selection System. Station Paper No. 56, Lake States Forest Experiment Station. St. Paul, Minnesota: U. S. Forest Service, December, 1959. 20 pp. Baker, Lee 0., "A Basis For Improving Technical Instruction For Persons Preparing To Teach General Agriculture In Michigan," unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, 1959. 15c pp. Cox, Charles E., Activities For Teaching Forest Conservation, Grades 10 to 2nd-year College, Milwaukee, Wisconsin: U. S. Forest Service, June, 1958. 52 pp. , What Does Forest Conservation Mean? Resource Materials for Teaching Conservation in Minnesota, Wiscon- sin, and Michigan. Milwaukee, Nisconsin: U. 3. Forest Service, March 1956. 80 pp. Elliott, Wallace H., "Technical Skills Needed by Teachers of Vocational Agriculture in Forestry," Technical Skills Needed by Teachers 9: Vocational Agriculture. Danville, III.: The Interstate, 1956. 35 pp. 1 Eyrie, F. H., and w. M. Zillgitt, Partial Cutting§_in_Northern Hardwoods of_the_Lake States, Technical Bulletin No. 1076. Washington, D. C.: Superintendent of Documents, United States Printing Office, September, 1953. 12h pp. Hawley, Ralph C., and David M. Smith, The Practice of Silvi- culture, New York: John Niley and Sons, Inc., 195E. 525 pp. Managing The Small Forest, Farmer's Bulletin No. 1989, Washington, D. C.: United States Printing Office, l9h8. 61 pp. McNeel, Wakelin, and Fred Trenk, School Forests -- A Hand- book, Circular 387, Conservation Department Publication No. 61h. Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin, College of Agriculture, 1950. 2k pp. Skog, Roy E., haymond Garner, and Burton Thorn, School Forests -- Their Educational Use, Michigan State Univer- sity, Cooperative Extension Service, Department of Forestry, East Lansing, n. d. MO pp. 1R6 Smith, G. Milton, g Simplified Guide.Tg Statistics, New York: Rinehart and Company, inc., 19u6. 169 pp. Strassmann, W. Paul, Economic Growth lg_Northe§n_Michigan, General Publication No. 2, Institute for Community Development and Service, Continuing Education Service, Michigan State University, East Lansing, 1958. 61 pp. Timber Resources in The Eastern Upper Peninsula 93 Michigan, U. S. Forest Service and Michigan Department of Conser- vation, Lansing, 1958. 9 pp. Walker, Helen M., and Joseph Lev, Statistical Inference, New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1953. 510 pp. Westveld, R. H., and R. H. Peck, Forestry in Farm Management, New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., I95 . 0 pp. SECONDARY REFERENCES Boyer, Lee E., "College General Mathematics For Prospective Secondary School Teachers," Studies in Education, No. 17, State College, Pa.: Pennsylvania StZie College, 1939. pp. 1-106. Burch, Mary C., "Determination of a Content of the Course in Literature of a Suitable Difficulty for Junior and Senior High School Students," Genetic Psychology Mono ra hs, h:169-332, No. 2 and 3, August-September, I958. " Carnes, W. W., "Alabama Forestry Camp Teaches FFA'ers For- estry," Agricultural Education Magazine, 27:129, December, l95h. Department of Public Instruction, Lansing, Michigan. Letter from Harry E. Nesman, Chief, Agricultural Education, March 11, 1960. Evans, Everett F., Forestry For Teachers, Bulletin 38. College Station, Texas: Texas Forest Service, A. & M. College, July, 19h7. 73 pp. Harding, L. D., "Farm Forestry Education Receives a Boost in Virginia," Agricultural Education Magazine, 27:138, December, 195k. Haynie, R. C., "Forestry Camps Provide Education and Recrea- tion," Agricultural Education Magazine, 28:139, December, 1959. * Hopkins, Thomas, "Curriculum Making: General," Review 33 Educational Research, 1:7, No. 1, 1931. 1&7 Judy, Helen E., "Trends and Needs in Home Management," Contribution 22 Education, No. 365. New York: Columbia University, Teachers Coliege, Bureau of Publications, 1929. pp. “6'76. Kennedy, William Henry, "A Classification of Relationships Between Farming and Certain Other Agricultural Occupa- tions With Implications for Guidance and Curriculum DevelOpment," unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Mich— igan State University, East Lansing, 1958. 510 pp. Roberts, Wildon E., "Missouri Forestry Camps," American Forests, 62:16-18, September, 1956. Robertson, Martin L., "The Selection of Science Principles Suitable As Goals of Instruction in the Elementary Schools," Science Education, 19:1-h, No. 1, February, 1935. Technical Skills Needed §y_Teachers 9£_Vocational Agricul- ture, A regionai Research Proiect in’Agricultural Edfication, North Atlantic Regional Conference for Supervisors and Teacher Trainers in Agricultural Educa- tion. Danville, 111.: The Interstate, 1956. 35 pp. "The Cover Picture," Agricultural Education Magazine, 30:271, No. 12, June, 1955. w Wesley, Edgar B., "Techniques For the Selection of Curricular Materials in the Social Studies," Social Studies Curric- ulum, Fourth Yearbook, National Councii for the Sociai Studies, 193k. pp. 32-uu. "Young Foresters," Recreation, h0:h3h, November, 19h6. _.____.‘.._..- —_-=_ . r—~ M- . ._4.- APPENDIX lh8 1&9 APPENDIX A LISTING OF JURY MEMBERS Carl Arbogast Jr., Forester-In—Charge, Forest Experiment Station, Dukes, Michigan Jack Auden, Chief Forester, Abitibi Corporation, Alpena, Michigan John L. Arend, Forester, USDA, U. S. Forest Service, 201 Conservation Building, Michigan State University Lester Bell, Extension Forester, Michigan State University Roland Blair, Chief Forester, American Boxboard Company, Fyler City, Michigan Robert Borak, District Forester, Alpena State Forest, Alpena, Michigan George S. Butler, Head, Department of Agriculture and Conser- vation, Northern Michigan College, Marquette, Michigan Linton A. Carter, Department of Forestry, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan Robert Dando, Soil Conservation Service, Marquette, Michigan Maurice Day, Dunbar Forest Experiment Station, Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan George Devine, District Forester, Crystal Falls, Michigan Raymond A. Garner, Assistant Professor, Agricultural Education, Michigan State University James Halbach, District Forester, Newberry, Michigan Fred Haskin, District Forester, Traverse City, Michigan Leslie A. Hillberg, District Manager, Kimberly-Clark of Michigan, Munising, Michigan F. J. Hodge, Forestry Division, Michigan Department of Conservation, Lansing, Michigan Donald Meaders, Assistant Professor, Agricultural Education, Michigan State University Harry E. Nesman, Chief, Agricultural Education Division, Department of Public Instruction, Lansing, Michigan Ralph Olmstead, Regional Forester, Michigan Department of Conservation, Lansing, Michigan Roger M. Rasmussen, District Forester, Gaylord, Michigan Edward Ray, State Conservation School, Higgins Lake, Roscommon, Michigan Carl Samuelson, Chief Forester, Kimberly-Clark of Michigan, Marquette, Michigan Clayton Schooley, District Forester, Ishpeming, Michigan Earl Seybert, Chairman, Forestry Subcommittee, Agricultural Education Curriculum Committee, Elsie, Michigan Roy Skog, Forestry Extension Specialist, Michigan State University Rodney R. Smith, Educational Consultant, Michigan Department of Conservation Terrill D. Stevens, Head, Department of Forestry, Michigan State University 150 Bernard M. Stout, Assistant Supervisor, U. S. Forest Service, Ironwood, Michigan W. Lionel Tate, Manager, Hartwood Industries, Hart, Michigan George Wheeler, Head, Department of Agriculture, Central Michigan University, Mt. Pleasant, Michigan 151 APPENDIX B LETTER REQUESTING PERSONS TO SERVE ON JURY Dear Because of your varied experience in the field of forestry, conservation, or agriculture, you have been chosen as a possible member to serve as one of a Jury of Experts to review a checklist of forestry understandings, abilities, and/or skills deemed desirable as a part of the secondary education for high school students in vocational agriculture, general agriculture, and/or conservation. This checklist has been developed from the latest texts and other forestry publications for the purpose of finding minimum instruction recommended for high school students in courses offered in Michigan. Please indicate if you will be willing to serve in the capacity suggested. Your willingness to serve would be greatly appreciated since it would help clarify a vital aspect in forestry instruction--the part high schools should play in this instructional program. You will be asked merely to check those items and levels of learning which you feel apprOpriate in a high school program. Please return your answer in the enclosed self-addressed envelope. If you are willing to serve, the checklist will be sent to you shortly. Sincerely yours, Alfred C. Niemi Department of Teacher Education Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan I am willing to serve on the jury . Name I cannot serve on the jury . Mailing ' Address (Please tear off and return this section to: Alfred O. Niemi, Agricultural Education Service, School of Education, Michizan State University, East Lansing, Michigan) “-A _‘.— ‘ 152 APPENDIX C COVER LETTER ACCOMPANYING CHECKLIST TO JURY February 15, 1959 Dear Thank you for your recently indicated willingness to serve on a jury to review a checklist on forestry education. It is greatly appreciated since it will help to clarify a vital aspect in forestry education--the part high schools should play in this instructional program. It is suggested that this checklist be apprOpriately reduced or changed through screening on your part. This will be indicated by your check, or lack of check, in the spaces provided. It is further suggested that the assumption be made that teachers presently are, or would be adequately prepared to teach forestry on a level commensurate with the needs of the small farm woodlot Operators or other small woodlot owners. You are asked to check only those items, by checking the level of learning, which you feel apprOpriate for the three groups ofvwxxflot Operators or prospective Operators, It is further assumed that provision would be made in the public schools for the operation of adult classes on a continuing basis commensurate with the time needed to adequately proceed with the program. However, high school students will receive this instruction as a part of their classes in vocational agriculture, general agriculture, and/or conservation. to check items only on one of four levels of terminology is id in your decision: Since you are asked of learning, the following clarification included for your convenience or as an a l--to be conscious of g task, object, 1. Awarene§§_leve ___ or thing. 2. Und rstanding level-~to comprehend the meaning of e LL tfirafigh the medium of reIatIOn— ShipSo ' task . Ability level--to have the capaCi§y_£g,Eg§£2£fl‘§‘____: 3 but not to any degree of skill or expertness. 153 u. Skill level--practical abilit t2 the "doing level" andinvoleng a degree of expertness. When completed, please return the checklist to me in the enclosed stamped, self-addressed enveIOpe. Your cooperation in this study is greatly appreciated. Sincerely yours, Alfred C. Niemi Department of Teacher Education Michigan State University ”zoaeozmemza mo mOH Haaxm . H33 323a . Hm>ma wCflpcmpwpopCD . Ho>OH mmmcosmz< . .posflmmp we COHpoom some mo one who pa mama“ HmCOfipflopm OU< .pcwsmp wCHwn muchSOm mo Qsopm some you neocofiaooon moanseoa mo Hm>OH on» omeHpcfi op q so «m «N .H voxpma woman esp :fi 63v xowco m woman ommeam "mzoaboamemZH hppmmgom Cfi conceaomxo now 0: m mOHESpsOQQO no masoospm H on no APPENDIX D m :fi OOCOHL "hex :4de "QMBmQHQZH oszmgmA mo Ad>md are OH mad mquMA OZHKOAAOm Mme DB onsme mm Dazomm BmHAzommo ZOHBOH Hafixm Hm>oa zpfiawn< Hw>oa mcflocmpmgoucp Hm>oa nmocva3< AS mm A phenom mm puma Sawmmwao ca cosmHndeo now on ass: sweeppoaao sews oocmflpoaxw pow no; SOfiCSppoado npfiz HO>tH Haflxm fiesta engages Ho>ea waocepmsopc: Ho>oa mmecusm3< mpCopSDm Hoogom s Olpso Lo AS Cfl 00:0fipoaxe you 0: npflz oesoHLeQXe pow Spandppoamo zpfiz sow hpficsppoaao cpfik mucopspm Hoozom LO Q: He>ma Haflxm H33 3 234‘ He>oa wcflucmpmpovss Hv>oa nmocouw3< .4 .m .N ,4 cw confinement Low spficspgoaao on new: oocmwpmgxm pom Hesptoaao new: new mudgpnonao 53 3:35pm Hoozom no Amv Ho>ma H.336 Hm>ma auwaan< Ho>ma gflocmpupeocp HO>oH amongst; :H 00:0flLOQXo you oocmfluoaxo you spaueppoago 0: new: spaceuaoeao as“; you huflQSppOQQO spa: mucopspm Hoozon no on mama CHIInOHOOQm 05Hm>lnmfln haze q Ho>ca HHfixm .: Ho>oH spaaana .m Hm>oa wcfipcwpnpooCD .N Ho>oa mnucopm3< 1H 160 :H convagmmxm pom OOCOfipmmxo new on .32. 3238.50 fig; il‘llllll of .{tvui‘ . IA . .888: c.5538 Low hpflGSQLOQQO Spwz menopSOm Hoonow no AS HmCOflmeLoucH one one o Hmfiflooo gosnfipom .mHSL canon 029 hp woa w ca uneaopocfi oaafimm smacpzp chow hog Ho>oa Hafixm H23 332‘ Ho>oa mcflpswpmhopcs Ho>oa mnemouw3< 161 sun oosowpoaxo how 0982088 pom hpdgfiomdo o: 59.3» mpwcsfioqmo 53...? pom hufigfioaao saw: masoczpm Hoonom .8 A3 .m w>050e~ O p 0> 050% ”ORG H033” 3.3m .4 H83 323”. . Hos/OH mcfiucmumpopc: . Ho>oH mmocopm2< . LJ 4 all: q?" _. 7, ,WHA- lea mopflo poo so causes a Susanna pom comma anonymoao ca cede esp mafiapmpoo vaowu on» ma vo>ponno 50:3 avenues mcwppso vsopvmmwv esp ouficwooom Hm>osou you cocoa» maozz on“: comm .ma Hm>oaou ca cocowumaxo you unassupoaoo on spa: OOQONQOQNO pom spaeauuoeeo sass mezmnaam geomom mch you owcwaamn hufiaesw goon ouwcmooom .oa ocean scum Hm>oaou you moaoa.hpwamsc goon ouwnwooom .0 once you .n.n.p =4IN noon» aw «one Hench .pm .vm OH caduceus op o>moa on neck» mo popes: esp opsasoo .m pea oH_E~m on» 2w .nwn.c gain cocky :a done Hanan .pm .Gm ma sampcfima o» o>woa op woman no hogan: on» casgsoo .5 scan «Hosea one as honsapzeu uo>o use =OH cw done Hanan .vu .on Op :Hwacama on r: o>mma on among mo pansy: can ousasoo .o umzwaqwn use «nodoa _ .uonsapzwa pom npfisfia one» enema .m ‘Jnmmwspms so oumaouoswn 1| _ on wsaoaooow o>ofimp on noon» xpez .4 .r. N a m _ N H 4 m N H _ unmazmzzoomm.02Hzmmq pnouom unmnom cw cocoapo x0 anonom§ "among 053950..“ 8.5. OH. 9535 you unassuuoaqo ape: nacovsua Hoonou nuclpso so nuasc< Ho>ca HHfixm Hesoa suflawn< Ho>oa msacsdpuaocca .4 .m .N "mom mmoeoa «.meopeze .H mmmzzo zmo Con: mocmfipwdxm now you hpflzdppoaao nu hpflcdpgoaoo spa: wOCOndum Lo HO>OH Hawxm Hw>mH hpfiafih< Ho>ma mafipcwpmpopcb Hm>wa mmmzmhm3< Aod léu cw oocowpeaxm pom ooceflgogxc sow andpuoamo 0: saw: hpficdpLOQQo zpflz moons Hmdmscs and aaoccompoa hpumopom LOQOLQ ossnomxo pod mnflcdpsoaao Lafiz mpcmespm Hoocom so Ho>oa HHme H23 .3234 am>oa wcwocmunpepcs HO>OH mmocopm3< SC In-J 165 .m amazes: ESEHXdE pom mOHwQ nmmam He>mH Hafixm .4 H93 3234. . m He>wa mcwucmumpouc: .N "hex H0>OH mmocopm3< .H Low hpflcdpLomno nae: mucoospm H00:0m so :a cocofinmdxo pom mocmfiLeQXw sou howcsphoqmo o: spflz huficspp0an Sofia ANS 166 APPENDIX E COVER LETTER TO TEACHERS Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan April a, 1959 Due to the developing interest in farm forestry in Michigan, and the realization that trees are a crop, I am.presently making a study in forestry education. This study involves a survey which includes the cOOperation of all Michigan teachers of vocational agriculture, general agriculture, and conservation. YOu will probably find this checklist of value in deveIOping or revising your own course of study. I am.enclosing a checklist of forestry learnings which are thought to be of much value to high school students and/or adults and am asking that you take about thirty minutes of your time to check it. If you are not presently, or have not taught a phase of forestry listed during the past four years, merely place a check in the space marked zero for that item; but if you are teaching or have taught it, place a check either in the space marked 1, 2, 3, or a for each group of students being taught. As an aid in clarification of the levels of learning, and to assist you in your decision, the following definitions are included: 0. I am not teaching, or have not taught this. 1. Awareness level-~tg'bg_conscious of a task, or thing. 2. Understanding level--tg comprehend the meaning 2f, 3. Ability level--to have the capacity to erfom a task, But not to any degree 0? skill or expertness. h. Skill level-~practical abilit to the "doing level" and’invOlem a certain degree of expertness. When completed, please return the checklist to me in the enclosed stamped, self-addressed envelope. Your OOOperation in this survey is greatly appreciated. 167 Sincerely yours, Alfred C. Niemi Part-Time Instructor Agricultural Education To teachers of agriculture and conservation: This inquiry by Mr. Niemi is a pioneering effort since no study of this type, so far as we can learn, has ever been made in this country. Many teachers have expressed a desire for the information which this study can reveal, with your cooperation. We commend it to you for serious consideration. H. M. Byram, Professor Agricultural Education APPENDIX F FOLLOW-UP CARD TO TEACHERS Michigan State University April 25, 1959 Dear Teacher of Conservation and/or Agriculture A few weeks ago, a forestry checklist was sent to you to find the extent of forestry instruction in Michigan public schools. If you have returned yours, please ignore this notice and accept my thanks for your cOOperation. However, if you have not returned the checklist, a few minutes of your time to check it will be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Sincerely, Alfred O. Niemi Part—Time Instructor Teacher Education 168 (l) :AORE STRY EDUCATION CHECKLIST Directions: Please place a check in the space marked 1, 2, 3, or A to indicate the level of learning to which each group of students is being taught. If it is not being taught, place a check in the space marked zero (0). 0. Not teaching this Key: 1. Awareness level . Skill level 2. Ihderstanding level LEVELS OF LEARN ING: Samples: AREAS OF INSTRUCTION: I. Tree Identification in Mi com on and brush hardwood s in Mi 1: he III. Tree 0 pe rcent age of 3 . Ability level AM PRESENTLY TEACHING, OR HAVE TAUGHT AT SOME TD/lE DURJNG THE PAST FOUR . AND TO THE LEVEL OF LEARNING MDICATEDz HIGH SCHOOL ST UDEN T S t o out—of— w h s sindents experience rtun ray 1 " ' experiw O pportunity fore 5M? m fo estr 01‘ I‘ y Orestry “Ff D r: 3 AT SOME TIME DURING THE PAST FOUR 0. Not teaching this ING INDICATED: 1. Awareness level To FARM OWNERS Key: 2. Understanding level HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 3. Ability level or he Skill level school students or experience with opportunity forestry experi- for forestry es in experience LEVELS OF LEARNING: 1 2 3 to cies form, and vigor o 3 , intermediate and trees 3 as a sites natural "in TGeS d.b.h. more crown or onemhalf of tree he next to we es,pmme y v ue cies ~- in late winter a . a diameters a one- acre lot in a sentative area a acre ot a board feet in area a cruise area in a of lot cruise a a ten— t cruise area repre e es board in an a growth rate per acre through sample increment borings in sample plots 7“ w _ , , 7 _ fi¥fi— —___“_W‘__.,.l_l—_————————~~r—l—o~—_ LR, ____—__.____————me——_——————_W*————-*~ —' AT SOME TIME DURING THE PAST FOUR 0. Not teaching this 1. Awareness leVEl Key: 2. [hderstanding level 3. Ability level 1;. Skill level To FARM OMNERS no sp- or school students opportunity for forestry experience experience a forestry or exper1~ ce in orestry LEVELS OF LEARNING: l 2 3 a log by the le rule, Scribner C, and the International Inch rUIe a or gross local 1 in a 1 rules of mill sl Timber Harvesting and Marketing area remove or form remove TGMOVG OT and to maintain 70 Sq. ft. basal area in 10" and over sawtimber in the sample 0t number rees to maintain 15 Sq. ft. basal area/ acre in. trees 5~9Ii d..b.h° in the . Compute the number of trees to leave to maintain 10 sq. ft. basal area in tld ‘ poor 5 for quality saplings "wolf f aspen for maximum when ove rstocked sawtimber , but procedure when When Procedure when sawtimber but understocked overstocked . profitable market and form in which to sell trees to be removed in select AT SOME TIME DURING THE PAST FOUR . Not teaching this TO THE OF LEARNING INDICATED: . Awareness level To FARM O ERS 0 Understanding level MN HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 0 Ability level Adults or out..of . a Skill level school students experience 9 with opportunity forestry experi- for forestry in experience stry OF LEARNING: VIII. Timber Harvesting & Marketing (con't.) SoftWOOds for a me in conifer stand a er OI" fidtmwwdcm;NIMOwstm>dmms uare re 0 Re exposure repro- ductiOn in strips or blocks after on after in conifers ce fOrestry cialists when 5 he v ue f as a . repo proper forestry personnel any unusual trees . rees emale t . ime cones for n e he slash piles for maximum natural a n . Common insects of conif . On trees, soil, and water supply Name Title of Position School III (l) FORESTRY EDUCATION CHECKLIST AM PRESENTLY TEACHING, OR HAVE TAUGHT AT SOME TIME DURING THE PAST FOUR AND TO THE LEVEL OF LEARNING INDICATEDs Directians: Please place a check in the space marked 1, 2, 3, or I; to indicate the level of learning to Which each group of students is being taughto If it is not being taught, place a check in the space marked zero (O)o 0. Not teaching this 3. Ability level Key: 1. Awareness level h. Skill level 2. Ihderstanding level HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS experien ce fore stry expe rim in orestry I123h 3 LEVELS OF LEARNING: Samples: AREAS OF INSTRUCTION: I. Tree Identification in Iii common bs and brush hardwood s pe reent age of o n 5 SOME TIME DURING THE PAST FOUR 0. Not teaching this ING INDICATED: 1. Awareness level 20 Understanding level HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 3. Ability level ha Skill level or experience forestry experi— ce in LEVELS OF LEARNING: cies, f and vigor ' 3 intermediate trees 5 as a sites natural t ll m I’eeS or dab h: more or onewhalf of tree he next to $6 es,pmme v ue cies ~- in late winter a a diameters a one acre ot in a re sentative area a acre ot a feet in area , area of ot a t cruise board f in an a growth rate per acre through sample increment MmhssnismmwvflMs 0. Not teaching this 1. Awareness level 2. Ihderstanding level 3 Ability level A. Skill level LEVELS OF LEARNING: a log by the le rule, Scribner Decimal C, and the International Inch rule a or gross local rules of mill sl Timber Harvesting and Marketing area remove or form eS remove or and to maintain 7O Sq. ft. basal area in 10" and over sawtimber in the sample ot number rees to maintain 15 sq. ft. basal area/ acre in. trees 5-9" d.b.h. in the . Compute number of trees to leave to maintain lO Sq. ft. basal area in II d. poor 3 for quality saplings "wolf f . methods . aspen for maximum when overstooked Wit sawtimber, but pr 0 cedure when when pro cedure when underst ocked sawt imber but overstocked profitable market and form in which to sell trees to be removed in select AT SOME TIME DURING THE PAST FOUR no op- experience . forestry or experi- ce in orestry AT SOME TIPE DURING THE PAST FOUR a Not teaching this TO THE . Awareness level 0 Understanding level 0 Ability level a Skill level OF LEARNING: VIII. Timber HarVesting & Marketing (can‘t.) Softwoods f a me in conifer stand a or a er or flatmwdeMLnIMcwstM)dmms uare s . % emmmme mpm— duction in strips or blocks after after in conifers ce om fOrestry dflifiSWMn cogn s ore he v ue o f s as a . repo proper forestry personnel any unusual trees for a ma rees female t . ime cones for n he slash piles for maximum natural ion a ree n comm on insects of conif 0 re on trees, soil, and water supply Name Title of Position School ‘1 OF LEARNING INDICATEDs HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS or experience forestry or experi- in stry APPENDIX I SCHOOLS RESPONDING TO GENERAL AGRICULTURE OR CONSERVATION CHECKLIST (At least 5 practices taught) Allegan High School Alma High School Arcadia High School Baldwin Public Schools Baraga Township Schools Bear Lake Public Schools Bellaire Public Schools Birch Run Area Schools Chassell High School Coleman High School DeTour High School Dye Community School (Flint) Elk Rapids High School Escanaba Senior High School Frankfort High School Grass Lake High School Graveraet High School (Marquette) Gwinn High School Harrison Community School Hematite Township Schools (Amasa) Honor Public Schools Houghton Lake High School Kalkaska High School Kingsford High School LaSalle High School (St. Ignace) Les Cheneaux Community School (Cedarville) Merritt Consolidated Schools Montrose Township Schools Nahma High School Norway High School Perkins High School Port Austin High School Republic High School Richland Community Schools Rock River Township Schools (Chatham) Royal Oak Dondero Tekonsha High School Trenton High School Vestaburg Community School Vulcan High School 173 APPENDIX I (Continued) SCHOOLS HESPONDING TO