PLACE IN RETURN BOX
to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

 

DATE DUE DATE our: ' DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1/” WWW“

 

MICHIGAN AGRISCIENCE TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF
SUPERVISED AGRICULTURAL EXPERIENCE PROGRAMS

By

Mohamed Hammad Hendy

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University

in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Agricultural and Extension Education

1 997

ABSTRACT

MICHIGAN AGRISCIENCE TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF
SUPERVISED AGRICULTURAL EXPERIENCE PROGRAMS

By

Mohamed H. Hendy

The purpose of this study was to determine Michigan agriscience teachers’
perceptions of selected aspects of supervised agricultural experience programs. The study
adopted the descriptive survey research method. Because the population of this study
comprised all of the Michigan agriscience teachers (n=137) in high schools and
vocational/career centers, a mailed questionnaire was thought to be the most appropriate
technique for collecting the data of this study. Data were analyzed using the Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Descriptive statistics -- ﬁ'equencies, percentages,
means, and standard deviations; and multiple regression were used in analyzing the data.

The study found that Michigan agriscience teachers supported the SAE concept in
agriscience and rated SAE as a valuable component of today’s agriscience program. They
indicated that SAE programs help students solve problems, make decisions, attain self
learning, and accept responsrbility. The majority of teachers indicated that SAE programs
were necessary for agriscience students. Thirty nine percent of the teachers indicated that
their agriscience departments required that all students have SAE programs but only 55% of

Michigan agriscience students were found to have SAE programs.

Mohamed H. Hendy

Teachers indicated that their departments provided several facilities for conducting
SAE programs and some projects in which students initiate their SAE programs. Teachers
said their schools did not provide them with vehicles for SAE visitation/supervision but
compensated them for using their vehicles.

F iﬁy-seven percent of the teachers indicated that they would like to increase the
emphasisonSAEprograms, 37%werewillingtomaintainSAEprograms,and6%wanted
to decrease the emphasis on SAE programs. Teachers indicated that they 91mm provided
asmallamountofassistaneeto students’ SAEprogramsandthoughttheYshindincreasethis
amount of assistance.

Fimlly, as a result of the multiple regression analysis, some demographic variables
wereidentiﬁedassigniﬁeantpredietorsofcertainaspectsofSAE programs. Femaleteachers
were found to be signiﬁcant negative predictors of the necessity of SAE programs. Also
comprehensive high school, as the type of high school in which teachers worked, was a
signiﬁcant negative predictor of percentage of students having SAE. On the other hand,
career center, as the type ofhigh school in which teachers worked, was a signiﬁcant positive
predictor of beneﬁts of SAE and factors affecting students’ involvement with SAE. Further,
teaching experience was a signiﬁcant positive predictor of percentage of students having
SAE. Scheduled time spent on teaching agriscience also was found to be likely a signiﬁcant

positive predictor of teachers’ philosophies toward SAE and percentage of students having

SAE programs.

Copyright by
Mohamed H. Hendy
1 997

To God for helping and giving me
the patience to accomplish this study

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to express my sincere gratitude and appreciation to the people who have helped
me reachthis milestone in my academic career. First and foremost, I thank Dr. Frank Bobbitt,
my cluirperson, whose guidance and advice were very helpful to me throughout my graduate
programatMichiganStateUniversity.Iwouldalso liketotlmnkthe members ofmy guidance
committee: Dr. Eddie Moore, Dr. Dave Krueger, and Dr. Peggy Riethmiller. Their
suggestions were most helpful. Thanks to Michigan agriscience teachers for their cooperation

througheonductingthisstudy. Speeialthankstomywifeandtomydaughters, Dinaand Sara.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

 

Page
LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................... ix
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 1
Background ............................................................................................. 1

Statement of The Problem. ...................................................................... 6

Purpose of The Study .............................................................................. 6

Research Questions .................................................................................. 7

Need for the Study ................................................................................... 9

Assumptions of The Study ...................................................................... 9

Limitations of The Study ........................................................................ 10

Deﬁnition of Terms ................................................................................ 10

Summary and Overview ......................................................................... 11

CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF LITERATURE ................................................................. 13
Introduction. ........................................................................................... 13

Theoretical Framework for The Study .................................................... 13

Philosophy, History, and Deﬁnition of SAE Programs ............................ l6
Qualityandlmportance ofSAE Programs .............................................. 21

Types of SAE Programs ......................................................................... 29

Students’ Involvement with SAE Programs ........................................... 38

Agriscienee Teachers’ Involvement with SAE Programs ......................... 43

CHAPTER III: DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ........................................................ 54
Introduction. .......................................................................................... 54

Method of The Study ............................................................................. 54

Overview of The Research Questions .................................................... 55

The Study Population - - ................................... - 57

Development of The Instrument ............................................................ 58

Data Collection ..................................................................................... 59

Non-Return Error ................................................................................. 60

Data Analysis ........................................................................................ 61

CHAPTER IV: FINDINGS OF THE STUDY ............................................................... 62
Introduction. .......................................................................................... 62

Findings Pertaining to Research Questions ............................................. 62

Research Question 1 ............................................................................. 62

Vii

Research Question 2 .............................................................................. 63

Research Question 3 .............................................................................. 66
Research Question 4 ............................................................................... 67
Research Question 5 ............................................................................... 68
Research Question 6 .............................................................................. 72
Research Question 7 ............................................................................... 75
Research Question 8 ............................................................................... 76
Research Question 9 .............................................................................. 77
Research Question 10 ............................................................................. 78
Research Question 11 ............................................................................. 80
Results of the Demographic Analysis ...................................................... 81
Research Question 12 ............................................................................. 88
Research Question 13 ............................................................................. 90
Research Question 14 ............................................................................. 92
Research Question 15 ............................................................................. 94
Research Question 16 ............................................................................. 96
CHAPTER V: SUMMARY, DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS,
CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................. 98
Introduction ........................................................................................... 98
Summary of The Study ........................................................................... 98
Discussion of Findings ...................................................... ' .................... 102
Conclusions .......................................................................................... 120
Recommendations ................................................................................ 122
Recommendations for Further Studies .................................................. 125
APPENDICES .......................................................................................................... 126
University Committee For Research Involving Human Subjects ............ 126
Survey Instrument ................................................................................ 127
Jury Committee Members of the Survey Instrument .............................. 133
First Cover Letter ................................................................................ 134
Second Cover Letter ........................................................................... 135
Third Cover Letter ................................................................................ 136
BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................ 137

List of Tables

Table Page
1. Michigan Agriscience teachers’ philosophies regarding SAE programs ................. 64
2. Michigan agriscience teachers’ perceptions of SAE beneﬁts .................................. 65
3. Michigan agriscience teachers’ perceptions of factors affecting students’

involvement with SAE programs ......................................................................... 66
4. Michigan agriscience teachers’ perceptions of the necessary of SAE .................... 67
5. Percentage of agriscience departments that have written plans regarding SAE
programs .............................................................................................................. 68
6. Agriscience departments requirement of students have SAE programs .................. 69
7. Percentage of student’s grade dependent on his/her involvement with SAE
programs .............................................................................................................. 7O
8. Percentage of students who had SAE programs according to Michigan
agriscience teachers .............................................................................................. 71
9. Percentage of students who had the different types of SAE programs .................. 72
10. Facilities provided to agriscience students by their departments ............................ 73
11. Teachers’ responses regarding provision of some type of project by their
agriscience departments ....................................................................................... 74
12. Teachers’ responses regarding the school providing them with a vehicle to
be used for SAE visitations .................................................................................. 74
13. Teachers’ responses regarding the schools compensating them for using their
vehicles in SAE visitations .................................................................................... 75
14. Percentage of out- of- class work time teachers spent supervising students’
SAE programs ..................................................................................................... 76
15. Amount of time (minutes) teachers spent with students’ SAE programs per visit..77
16. Future emphasis by Michigan agriscience teachers on their students’
involvement with SAE programs .......................................................................... 78
17. Amount of assistance gummy provided by Michigan agriscience teachers to
students’ SAE programs ....................................................................................... 79
18. Amount of assistance that shouldm provided to students’ SAE programs ............ 81
19. Distribution of respondents by age ...................................................................... 82
20. Gender of Michigan agriscience teachers .............................................................. 82
21. The highest educational degree completed by Michigan agriscience teachers ......... 83
22. Number of years respondents had been teaching agriscience ................................. 83
23. Teachers’ area of emphasis in agriscience ............................................................. 84
24. Percentage of scheduled time spent on teaching agriscience .................................. 85
25. Number of students enrolled in Michigan high schools that had agriscience ........... 86
26. Number of students enrolled in agriscience classes ................................................ 87

ix

27.
28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

Type of high school in which Michigan agriscience teachers taught ...................... 87
Stepwise regression analysis regarding the selected demographic

characteristics of Michigan agriscience teachers and teachers’

philosophies regarding SAE programs .................................................................. 89
Stepwise regression analysis regarding the selected demographic

characteristics of Michigan agriscience teachers and teachers’

perceptions of SAE beneﬁts ................................................................................. 91
Stepwise regression analysis regarding the selected demographic

characteristics of Michigan agriscience teachers and teachers’ perceptions

of factors affecting students’ involvement with SAE programs ............................. 93
Stepwise regression analysis regarding the selected demographic

characteristics of Michigan agriscience teachers and teachers’ perceptions

of the necessity of SAE programs ......................................................................... 95
Stepwise regression analysis regarding the selected demographic

characteristics of Michigan agriscience teachers and percentage of

students having SAE programs ............................................................................. 97

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Backgrcund
Agriscience in public schools lms a rich heritage of developing students’ personal

skills, as well as providing the abilities needed for agricultural employment. Students enrolled
in agriscience lave opportunities to apply the subject rmtter to real-life situations. Application
of subject matter comes about through a deliberate program of experience conducted by the
student and supervised by the teacher.

The ultimate purpose of teaching the various types of knowledge and skills in
agricultural education is to help students use newly acquired knowledge and skills in
mmingfulways. Oneofthebestwaysto ensmestudentunderstanding isto arrange for them
to make use of knowledge and skills at the time learning occurs (Manano, Pickering &
Brandt, 1990). In-school and out-of-school experiences that focus on the use of knowledge
and skills related to the instructional process represent a key component of the agricultural
education program. The supervision and evaluation of experiential learning and the eventual
recognition of students for excellence in emerience make this aspect of agricultural education
critical to the mission of the program and a cornerstone to the curriculum (Martin, 1991 ).

Experiential learning is a foundational philosophy integrated into every aspect of

agricultural education. It is espoused by most agriculture educators throughout the United

2

States am! around the world. It offers many practical applications that are used by agriculture
educators, including laboratories, internships, and work-study (Steele, 1997). Experiential
learning in agricultural education has long been recognized as an important part of the
educational process. Through practice and experience, students apply what they have learned
in real-life situations; thus, the material becomes understandable and usable. Moreover, as
students gain experience, new problems and situations arise, causing learners to seek
additional information and new ways of applying what they have learned (Cheek, Arrington,
Carter, & Randell, 1994).

Agricultmal education has a long and rich history of using an experiential education
program component. Dating ﬁ'om the days of the Supervised Farming Programs to the
current Supervised Experience Programs, two educationally sound principles have endured.
Those two principles are the supervised nature of the program and the experiential nature of
the program( Cox, 1991). The most common experiential learning element incorporated into
the curricuhnn for agricultural education at the secondary level in the United States currently
is termed the supervised agriculture experience (SAE) (Steele, 1997).

The concept of experiential learning through SAE programs has come a long way
since the early 19003. The Smith-Hughes Act of 1917 initiated federal support for vocational
agriculture in public schools and speciﬁcally mandated tint all students engage in a minimum
of six months of supervised farming. For many years afterwards, teachers worked hard to
develop and maintain SAE programs, which helped many young men and women become
established in farming. Vocational agriculture teachers also have been employed to use
opportunities to provide students with educational experience during the summer (Arrington

& McCracken, 1983 & Croom 1991).

3

Several terms have been used to describe SAE programs, these include supervised
ﬁrming program, experiential program, supervised ﬁrm practice, and supervised occupational
experience (SOB) (Smith, 1982). Also, there are different types of SAE programs ﬁom
which agriscience students can choose. Phipps and Osborne (1988) indicated that there are
three major types of SAE program. They are ownership, placement, and directed laboratory
experience programs. They added that these programs have additional components, such as
improvement projects, supplementary skills, and exploratory experiences.

SAE programs in agriscience incorporate experiential learning and direct application
ofknowledge into the student’s curriculum to enhance learning. Martin (1991) indicated that
SAE represents the ultirmte goal of education in agriculture. Putting agricultural knowledge
and skill to work in real situations is at the heart of agricultural education. Through a
successful SAE program, students develop personal responsibility, self-conﬁdence, self-
esteem, job satisfaction, human relations skills, and basic citizenship and cooperation. In
addition, students learn skills of time and money management, record keeping,
entrepreneurship, and related job skills. SAE is a vital part of the agricultural education
program It meets the goals and objectives of both the local school district and the agricultural
education program. Phipps and Osborne (1988) stated:

Comprehensive SOE programs involving a number of activities rmy and should lead

toward progressive establishment in occupations requiring knowledge and skills in
agriculture. Through a program of supervised occupational experiences, students have
an opportunity to accumulate cash savings and other capital assets. It is the
responsibility of the agriculture teacher to motivate students to develop their
programs to the extent that they will be challenging to them and will assist them in
becoming established in an occupation. (p. 315-316)

Supervised occupational experience programs are a very important part of any
vocational agriculture program Every effort should be made by instructors to

4

promote SOE programs. They are exceedingly beneﬁcial to high school students, as
well as to a community. (P. 316)

Generally, the teacher is active in experiential learning in a variety of ways. One must
become a better questioner to help students think at higher cognitive levels as they reﬂect on
a given experience. In addition, the teacher is more a ﬁcilitator than an expert transmitter of
knowledge. The teacher nurtures the student through talking with the student rather than
talking at the student. The teacher also must be able to identify where the student is in the
experiential learning process, in order to know what kinds of questions to ask. This helps the
teacher know when and how to intervene when the student needs help through a particular
stage. The teacher must also be a systematic planner. The experiential process does not leave
the student without direction. Prior planning must take into account the learning outcomes,
the learning settings, questions to be asked, and potential problems that might arise to prevent
the student ﬁom reaching his or her conclusions as a result of reﬂecting on the experience
(Grady, 1990).

Agricultural education teachers have a real challenge to reﬂect the changes in
agriculture as they coordinate SAE programs to address the needs and interests of today’s
students within classroom instruction. Today's agricultural education students come from
diverse backgrounds. Many students will have had little or no agricultural experience when
they enter the program and little or no opportunity at home to develop a traditional SAE
program (Elliot, Boone, & Doerfert, 1991). So the key to successﬁil use of SAE programs
is for the agriscience teacher to ﬁnd opportunities that enhance students’ agriscience
experiences by allowing students to put into practice the theories they have learned in the

classroom.

5

The teacher plays a substantial role by providing students with information and
guidance conducive to determining the type of program that is best suited to the objectives
the students have set for themselves. The teacher works with the students and their parents
in setting up the program by actively rmking his or her experience and expertise available for
securing necessary funds, facilities, and/or services (Smith, 1982).

To make progress in developing quality SAE programs, agricultural education
teachers need to develop cooperative relations, provide excellent instruction, and have a
sound visitation/supervision program (Case, 1984). Moreover, teachers should achieve
balance among these components, especially SAE supervision/visitation, which requires time,
equipment, and advanced arrangements in order to be successfully conducted. Nelson and
Cooper (1984) stated that:

Anirnportantpartoftheteacher’staskinconducting SAE supervision isto assure that

sufﬁcient time and resources be available for this instructional activity. The

justiﬁcation of this support can be made easier by preparing an annual report of the
student SAE accomplishments for the year. It is suggested that such a report be
circulated among administrators, board members and parents, as well as the advisory
committee. The report should include a summary of the scope of student activities

(i.e., number of livestock, acres of grain, hours of work, net income, salary earned,

etc.). It is astounding to rmny in the community to discover the signiﬁcant economic

contribution that results from instructional activities of the vocational agriculture

teacher. (p. 14)

Several studies have been conducted to determine the perceptions and attitudes of
agriscience teachers toward SAE programs. Most of these studies have indicated that the
agriscience teacher is the most important of the ingredients necessary to successful SAE
programs. Arrington and Price (1983), Berkey and Sutphin (1984), and Osborne (1988),

found tint vocational agriculture teachers generally supported the concept of SAE. Bobbitt

6
(1986) reported that vocational agriculture teachers in the United States thought that SAE

programs were more important today than in the past.

W

SAE programs are designed to help students plan, budget, make decisions, solve
problems, evaluate activities, earn awards, and keep accurate records. Moreover, SAE
programs provide the valuable occupational experiences that make education relevant (Elliot
et al., 1991). The extent to which SAE programs can provide these beneﬁts is aﬁ‘ected by
such factors as ftmding, teacher help and guidance, parent help, community inﬂuence, student
backgrounds, and teacher and student expectations of the program.

Most of above-mentioned ﬁctors affect the success of SAE programs and need to be
investigated. Because there are several differences among programs and changes have taken
place in these programs, it would not be rational to investigate all of the factors affecting SAE
programs in one study. However, a great deal remains to be discovered about teachers and
students, who are the usual subjects of educational research (Borg, 1989). Also, according
to the literature, the most inﬂuential ﬁctor affecting SAE programs is the agriscience teacher.
For those two reasons, it seemed logical to undertake a study to determine Michigan

agriscience teachers’ perceptions of SAE programs.

W
The primary purpose of this study was to determine the Michigan agriscience
teachers’ perceptions of selected aspects of SAE programs in Michigan high schools and
vocational/career centers. These aspects included (a) teachers’ philosophies regarding SAE,

(b) teachers’ perceptions of the beneﬁts of SAE, (c) teachers’ perceptions of factors affecting

7

students’ involvement with SAE, (d) teachers’ perceptions of the necessity of SAE, (e)
teachers’ perceptions of their agriscience7 departments’ policies with regard to SAE, (f)
teachers’ perceptions of their departments’ functions with regard to SAE, (g) teachers’
perceptions of SAE visitation/supervision, (h) teachers’ emphasis on student involvement
with SAE in the ﬁrture, (i) teachers’ perceptions of amount of assistance 9mm Provided
and shQukLhe provided to their students’ SAE programs. It was also investigated whether
certain demographic characteristics of Michigan agriscience teachers could be identiﬁed as

predictors of some of the above aspects of SAE programs.

Researchﬂncsticns

To attain the primary purpose of this study, the following research questions were

posed:

8. What are Michigan agriscience teachers’ philosophies regarding SAE programs?

2. What do Michigan agriscience teachers view as the beneﬁts of SAE programs?

3. What factors do Michigan agriscience teachers think affect students’ involvement with
SAE programs? A

4. Do Michigan agriscience teachers believe tint SAE programs are necessary for
agriscience students?

5. Wlmt do Michigan agriscience teachers perceive to be their agriscience departments’
policies with regard to SAE programs?

6. Wlnt do Michigan agriscience teachers perceive to be their agriscience departments’

functions toward SAE programs?

10.

ll.

8

How much out-of-class work time do Michigan agriscience teachers spend
supervising students’ SAE pro g8rarns?

How much time do Michigan agriscience teachers spend per visit in SAE
visitation/supervision?

To what degree will Michigan agriscience teachers emphasize students’ involvement
with SAE programs in the future?

How much assistance do Michigan agriscience teachers provide to students’ SAE

programs?

How much assistance should be provided to students’ SAE programs?

Five additional questiom were posed to determine whether selected characteristics of

Michigan agriscience teachers could be identiﬁed as predictors of certain aspects of SAE

programs.

12

l3.

14.

15.

16.

Can certain demographic characteristics of Michigan agriscience teachers be
identiﬁed as predictors of teachers’ philosophies regarding SAE programs?

Can certain demographic characteristics of Michigan agriscience teachers be identiﬁed
as predictors of teachers’ perceptions of the beneﬁts of SAE programs?

Can certain demographic characteristics of Michigan agriscience teachers be identiﬁed
as predictors of ﬁctors aﬁ’ecting students’ involvement with SAE programs?

Can certain demographic characteristics of Michigan agriscience teachers be identiﬁed
as predictors of teachers’ perceptions of the necessity of SAE programs?

Can certain demographic characteristics of Michigan agriscience teachers be identiﬁed

as predictors of the percentage of students who have in SAE programs?

9
Wadi

The most successful teachers are thosl 1e who have clear perceptions of where their
programs are going and have a broad range of choices concerning how to conduct their
program. Teachers’ perceptions of their educational programs play a vital role in preparing
for and carrying out those programs. SAE programs are and always have been designed to
make agricultural education practical, meaningful, and relevant to students.

Agriscience teachers play a critical role in the success or ﬁilure of students’ SAE
programs. Therefor, they should have positive attitudes and perceptions regarding such
programs. Arrington and Price (1983), Bell (1984), Bobbitt (1986), Case and Stewart (1985),
Dunham (1983), Osborne (1988), French (1983), Harris (1983), Herren (1984), Mlozi
(1983), Reneau and Roider (1986), Rhodes (1984), Smith (1982), and Wright (1989)
investigated perceptions and attitudes of agriscience teachers regarding SAE programs. Most
of these studies were conducted outside of Michigan, and no recent study has been conducted
speciﬁcally on perceptions of Michigan agriscience teachers regarding SAE programs. Thus,
there was a need to conduct a study to determine Michigan agriscience teacher’s perceptions

of SAE programs.
Asmmpﬁnmﬂhesnrdx
This study was conducted having the following assumptions:

1. It was assumed that all of the respondents engaged in agriscience programs.

2. It was assumed that all of the respondents understood their role as teachers of

agriscience .

10

It was assumed that all of the agriscience teachers were acquainted with SAE

programs.

It was assumed that the teachers’ backgrounds aﬂ‘ected their perceptions of SAE

programs.

It was assumed tint the instrument used to collect the data determined accurately the

respondents’ perceptions regarding SAE programs.

It was assumed that the agriscience teachers who participated in the study were

willing to cooperate by accurately ﬁlling out and returning the survey questionnaire.

1...“:15'

This study was conducted to determine Michigan agriscience teachers’ perceptions

of SAE programs within the following limitations:

1.

The study focused on agriscience teachers in Michigan high schools and
vocational/career centers. I

The ﬁndings of this study pertained only to the population of Michigan agriscience
teachers descn’bed in this study.

The analysis of data was dependent on the perceptions addressed in the

questionnaire developed for this study.

Dﬁ" EI

The following terms were deﬁned in the context in which they were used in this study:

 

- z u . The actual planned application of

concepts and principles learned in agriscience. Students are supervised by agriscience teachers

in cooperation with parents/ guardians, employers, and other adults who assist them in

11

and achieving other educational goals. The purpose is to help students develop skills and
abilities leading to a career (Barrick, Arrington, Heffernan, Hughes, & Moody, 1992).
WIRprocessbywhichanindividualmakesadiﬂ’eremiation inhis or her perceptual
ﬁeld or calls to the ﬁont with a degree of clarity certain events over others. This process of
differentiating events and relationships between or among events constitutes the ﬁeld of
personal meaning for the individual at a given time (Combs et al., cited in Krueger, 1994).
W A high school program offering courses designed to prepare students
for careers in agricultural production and other ﬁelds related to agriculture.
Win; A certiﬁed instructor who teaches one or more of the following subjects
at the secondary school level: production agriculture, horticultm'e, agricultural meclﬁnics, and

forestry and natural resources.

WWW

Chapter I contains the background of the problem, a statement of the problem,
purpose of the study, research questions, need for the study, assumptions, limitations, and
deﬁnition of key terms. In the background of the problem, importance of the agriscience
program, experiential learning, SAE programs, and agriscience teacher role through SAE
were emphasized.

Chapter 11 contains a review of literature pertinent to the study. The theoretical
ﬁamework was explained, followed by writings on philosophy, history, and deﬁnition of SAE
programs. The quality and importance of SAE programs are discussed next, followed by the
types of SAE programs. Students and agriscience teachers’ involvement with SAE programs

is the subject of the ﬁfth and sixth sections respectively.

12
The study design and methodology are explained in chapter H1. The methodology is

described ﬁrst, and the research questions are restated. The study population is described, and
development of the instrument is discussed. The data-collection and data-analysis techniques
used in the study also are delineated.

The study ﬁndings are presented in chapter IV. Chapter V contains a summary of the
study, a discussion of the ﬁndings regarding each research question, conclusions drawn ﬁom

the ﬁndings, recommendations, and suggestions for further studies.

CHAPTER 11

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Intmductinn
This chapter includes a review of literature related to SAE programs. It is organized
into six sections. The theoretical framework for the study is discussed in the ﬁrst section
Philosophy, history, and deﬁnition of SAE programs are detailed in the second section. Next,
the quality and importance of SAE programs are discussed. The types of SAE programs are
explained in the fourth section. Then, students’ involvement with SAE programs and

agriscience teachers’ involvement with such programs are discussed in sections ﬁve and six

respectively.

WWW
From a philosophical context, John Dewey and other educators have emphasized the
importance of experience in education. Dewey (1916) stated, “an ounce of experience is
betterthanaton oftheory simplybecause it isonlyinexperiencethat anytheoryhasavital
and veriﬁable signiﬁcance” (P. 109).

Experiences generally occur to everyone and may be either positive or negative,
planned or unplanned, depending on the circumstances. Both positive and negative
experiences contrilnrte to the development of an individual. In all probability, people learn as
much ﬁ'om negative experiences as they do from positive experiences. Whether positive or

13

14

negative, experiences are an essential component of behavior modiﬁcation of all individuals.
They provide an opportunity for active participation in the events and activities that every
individual encounters in life.

With respect to whether all experiences are educational or not, Dewey (193 8)
indicated that the belief that all genuine education comes about through experience does not
mean that all experiences are genuinely or equally educative. For some people, experiences
are miseducative; that is, they have the effect of arresting or distorting further growth. Only
whenthelessomofexperiencecanbeexpressedasnewideaawhenthe lessons ofexperience
can be drawn, articulated, and acted upon, will development have taken place (Whitham &
Erdynast, 1982).

From an educational point of view, experiences of a positive nature are the ones
usually planned and provided to students so that they may participate actively in events or
activities (McCormick, Cox, & Miller, 1989). Therefore, experiences should be considered
as a valuable teaching tool to help students develop knowledge, skills, and abilities. Dewey
( 1938) saw teachers as inving a primary responsrhility for shaping experiences that would ﬁt
learners and lead toward growth.

Most of the theoretical underpinnings for experiential learning articulated by
agricultme educators are associated with the inﬂuence of John Dewey earlier in this century
(Steele, 1997). Dewey (1916) explained that experience, especially learning by doing, is an
important part of the educational process in vocational education. Experience provides
relevance to the theoretical and cognitive material of the classroom. Agriculture educators

responded by implementing SAE programs (Stimson, cited in Dyer & Osborne, 1996).

15

Experiential learning has long been recognized as being important to teaching and
learning in agricultural education programs. Experiential learning in agricultural education has
been provided through several means, including Future Farmers of America (FFA) activities,
land laboratories, ﬁeld trips, and SAE programs. According to Check and Arrington (1990),

Supervised agricultural experience is one of the major methods used to provide

experiential learning. SAE is deﬁned as all of the agricultural, both occupational and

non-occupational, activities outside of the class setting where students apply the
knowledge, skills, and attitudes that have been learned in the instructional program

and where supervision is provided by parents, teachers, and others. (p. 12)

McCormick et a1. (1989) indicated that agricultural experiences are those learning
experiencesofanagricultmal nature usedbyastudent who desiresto gainanunderstanding
and application about agriculture in order to satisfy personal interests and needs. These
experiences could involve:

The production of agricultural commodities, including food, ﬁber, wood products,

horticultural crops and other plant and animal products... also included is the

ﬁnancing, processing, marketing and distribution of agricultural products; ﬁrm
production supply and service industries; health, nutrition arid food consumption; the
use and conservation of ﬁnd and water resources; and related economic, sociological,
political, environmental and cultural characteristics of the food and ﬁber system.

(Committee on Agricultural Education in Secondary Schools, 1988)

Providing experience to students requires that education include, along with the
theoretical ideas and problems, experiential situations in which students can practice and
work. Dewey (193 8) believed that textbook problems most often were not real problems to
students and that school learning should be experientially active. He supported learning
experiences in which learners are directly in touch with the realities being studied, rather than
simply reading about, hearing about, or talking about these realities. When experiential

learning techniques are used as contributors to the creation of a learning environment that

maximizes learners’ skills in learning ﬁ'om their own experience, the full potential for learning

16

can be realized (Kolb & Lewis, 1986). As Dewey (1938) stated “education, in order for it to
accomplish its ends both for the individual learner and for society, must be based upon
experience-which is always the actual life-experience of some individual.” (p. 116)
Newcomb, McCracken, and Warmbrod (1986) explained the following principles for learning,
some of which are related to experience: “Learning is maximized when students “inquire into”
rather than receive “instruction” subject matter.” (p.37) and “students learn what they
practice; continued practice is usually necessary for retention of that learning.”(p. 39)

SAE programs represent an essential part of the secondary agricultural education
program, which consists of three integral components: classroom instruction, SAE programs,
and participation in FFA activities. SAE is the component that emphasizes the “learning by
doing “ mory. SAE gives students a chance to use the principles they have learned in class

and apply them to real life situations (Randell, Arrington, & Cheek, 1993).

WWW

Learning by doing is an educational principle that has directed agricultural education
for more than 60 years. This principle has been applied through various experiential learning
methods. SAE is one such method commonly used in agriscience to extend formal education
to agribusiness, ﬁrms, and other sites of agricultural activity where students apply the skills
they have already learned. They also develop new occupational skills under the supervision
of parents, employers, teachers, and/or others (Williams, 1980).

Hughes (1992) indicated that SAE is congruent with the philosophy expressed by

Phipps (1930) in the BMW and members

17

of the profession in Wm (National Summit on
Agricultural Education, 1989). According to Phipps (1988), agricultural education programs
value a) pragmatism, b) experiential learning, c) the individual student, d) vocational guidance
and counseling and e) community oriented programs. The mission statement detailed in the
Strategic Plan indicated that agricultural education supports :a) providing instruction in and
about agriculture, b) developing the whole person, c) advocating free enterprise and
entrepreneurship, d) being a part of the total educational system, and e) using a proven
education process including formal instruction, experiential learning, and leadership and
personal development.

According to the above, it is apparent that the philosophy behind SAE is that it is a
method of instruction that emphasize experiential education or learning by doing.
W

Moore (1979) traced the roots of SAE to the late of nineteenth and early of twentieth
centuries. He indicated that the names of SAE programs have changed over time, but that the
theory behind the concept has remained essentially the same. A historical overview of SAE

programs was given in

 

Experience (Barrick et al., 1992) as follows:

The valuing of experiential learning is not new to agriculture. Although the name that
represents the concept of supervised practice in vocational agricultural education has
changed many times, the actual process of a formal supervised agricultural practice
component can be traced to the early 19003.

Originally, supervised experiences were limited primarily to farming-related activities
for boys This was a time in our country’s history when all agricultural students came
ﬁ'om ﬁrrm and ranches and were destined to return home when their schooling was
completed.

Generally referred to as “home projects,”experiential education usually took the form
of a production enterprise such as livestock, poultry or crops. The purposes of these
early horrre projects were:

18

a. to provide the student with an opportunity to develop through “real”
supervised experience, the skills and knowledge required to conduct
ﬁnancially rewarding agricultural production enterprises;

b. to provide a demonstration of modern practice in agriculture to the
community;
c. to provide a means for the vocational agriculture student to begin the

establishment ofacareerirrﬁrming; and
d. to provide a basis for classroom instruction. (p. 1)

Henen (1986) stated tint, at the tmn of twentieth century, 80% of students dropped
out of the school before reaching high school. The dropout rate soared to 91% before high
school graduation. School programs of that time were described as impractical and boring.
In 1908, Samuel Gompers, President of the American Federation of Labor, appointed a
commission to study the educational situation. The commission recomnrended education for
all young people and the opportunity to learn many technical skills.

Before 1908, the need for agricultural education was apparent in all states. An early
trend in fulﬁlling this need was the establishment of dormitory schools. Early dormitory
schools were costly to establish and maintain as they attempted to emulate the land-grant
colleges of their time. The schools enrolled many students and provided a limited variety of
farm activities. The students were dissatisﬁed with the lack of practical educational
experiences these schools provided. After modiﬁcations were made in these schools, some
beneﬁcial results enrerged and formed the basis of the “home-project” concept of vocational
agriculture, which, afterwards, was known as the supervised occupational experience (SOE)
program( Boone, 1987) or the SAE programs today. SAE programs have been a major part
ofthe agriscience program since the passage ofthe Smith-Hughes Act in 1917. This act stated
that “schools shall provide for directed or supervised practice in agriculture, either on a ﬁrm

provided by the school or other ﬁrms, for at least six months per year.” As a result of this

19

legislation and the belief that SAE programs were essential if the program was to be effective,
SAE has been developed into an essential component of the agriscience curriculum. Also, an
integral relationship has been developed among SAE programs, classroom instruction,
laboratory practice and FFA activities (Cheek & Beemarr, 1984).

SAE programs have changed since Stimson (1942) developed the concept.
Temrinology used in agricultural education literature and tire proﬁciency awards offered by
the FFA have affected these changes. The terms “supervised ﬁrming practice” or “ﬁrming
practice” dominated the scene until 1963. The Vocational Education Act of 1963 guided
educators to include nonfarm agricultural occupations in their curricula. This legislation,
coupled with the realization that most students would not return to the ﬁrm, initiated the
addition of “occupational experience” to the previously mentioned terms. Terminology
changed ﬁequently during the 19603. In 1967, “supervised occupatiorﬁl experience “ was
selected as the appropriate term (Boone, Doerfert, and Elliot, 1987).

According to Doerfert, Elliot, and Boone (1989), SAE has been given the following
names since 1908: Honre Projects in 1908, Supervised Practice in 1928, Farming Programs
in 1944, Farming Programs and Occupational Experience in 1963, Supervised Experience
(including work experience) in 1966, Supervised Occupational Experience in 1967,
Supervised Occupational Experience (SOE) Programs in 1979, and ﬁnally Supervised
Agricultural Experience (SAE) programs since 1989.

It is apparent that experience is at the heart of most of the preceding concepts.
Despite the changes in the name of the concept, supervised experience programs have
remained and will continue to be an integral component of agriscience programs. The actual

process is more important than the name assigned to it.

20

DcﬁniticnnLSAE

The concept of SAE has many different operational deﬁnitions, with obvious
diﬂ'erences among states and regions of the United States. Some still equate SAE with Home
Projects, and /or Supervised Farming Programs. Others have accepted the deﬁnition in a
literal sense and use it to encompass ownership and placenrent experience, so long as the
experience involves development of agricultural knowledge, skills, and/or attitudes with an
occupational orientation. The difﬁculty with the broadened operational deﬁnition of SAE
often lms been tint tradition and convenience were allowed to narrow the perception of what
might be an acceptable supervised experience. Taken literally, the operational deﬁnition of
SAE is limitless, so long as it involves some facet of agriscience and has an occupational
orientation. Such a broad operational deﬁnition allows for adaptability and activity in
developing an individually designed and planned supervised experience program (Zurbrick,
1989).

However, SAE has several more speciﬁc deﬁnitions, some of which are given below:
Barrick et a1. (1992) deﬁned SAE as:

The actual, planned application of concepts and principles learned in agricultural

education. Students are supervised by agriculture teachers in cooperation with

parents/guardians, employers and other adults who assist them in the development and

achievement of their educational goals. The purpose is to help students develop skills

and abilities leading toward a career. ( p. 1)
Another comprehensive deﬁnition was given by Phipps and Osborne (1988):

Supervised occupational experience (SOE) programs consist of all the practical

agricultmal activities of educatronal value conducted by students outside of class and

laboratory instruction or on school released time for which systematic instruction and
supervision are provided by their teachers, parents, employers, or others. (p. 313)

21

Lee (1984) deﬁned SAE as an individually planned and continuous program to
develop the competencies needed by students for occupation entry. Check and Beeman
(1984) deﬁned SAE as planned and practical activities conducted outside of regularly
scheduled class tinre whereby students further develop and apply the knowledge, skills, and
attitudes they have learned in the vocational agricultural program. Haward and Scanlon
(1984) indicated that SAE is a nrethod of instruction that emphasizes learning by doing.

The ﬁrst two deﬁnitions given above are comprehensive ones. The ﬁrst deﬁnition
explained that SAE is a practical application of agriscience concepts and principles. It also
erquainedwhoareactuallyresponsible forconductingandsupervisingSAE prograrnsandthat
a career is the goal for which students are prepared. Phipps, in his deﬁnition, added the
educational nature of SAE programs and where and when SAE is applied.

In general, SAE is agricultural because it helps students prepare for agricultural
occupations. Also, it involves experience or learning by doing because it allows students to
apply practices and principles they have learned in the classroom and to develop new skills

and abilities.

W
A quality education is a birthright of every citizen. Some of the greatest educational
controversies, however, have focused on the deﬁnition of “quality” and how to achieve it.
For centuries, educators believed they had the answer: memorization and drill (Moore &
Moore, 1984). Agriscience educators constantly are ﬁced with new and more difﬁcult
challenges than ever before, as they seek to redeﬁne and refocus their efforts in providing a

solid educational experience that links the classroom with practical application and education

22

with industry. The most vital component of the agricultural education vehicle as it relates to
providing young people with career opportunities and a chance to explore the industry is the
SAE program (White, 1992).

Many educators throughout the United States have begun to question the quality and
nature of the experiential component of vocational agriculture programs (Reneau & Roider,
1986). Quality SOB programs are those that provide students with the greatest opportunity
for success by ensuring that the necessary prerequisites are there at the start. A poor-quality
SOE project that is beyond the scope, resources, and abilities of students is no project at all.
High-quality SOE projects have been, and should continue to be, the cornerstone of
agricultural education programs (Howard & Scanlon, 1984).

Several studies have indicated that quality SAE programs encourage and motivate
students (Boone et aL, 1987). The National Research Council (1988) recognized the
importance of SAE programs and identiﬁed several common characteristics of high-quality
SAE programs. Such programs were characterized by involved teachers, planned experiences,
adequate resources, and student placement in agribusiness and on commercial ﬁrms.
Furthermore, the council recommended that a broader range of SAE programs be
encouraged.

Quality and size of SAE programs have been found to be signiﬁcantly and positively
related to the length of teachers’ contracts, the number of supervised visits nrade by teachers,
the types of SAEs, conducted by students, travel funds available, teacher assistance with fairs
(Arrington, 1981; Arrington & McCracken, 1983; Case & Stewart, 1985). They also
signiﬁcantly and positively related to parental support and encouragement, pupil-teacher ratio,

career plans, the dependency of the ﬁmily on farm income, availability of released time

23
(Gibson, 1988). Moreover, it was found that SAE quality signiﬁcantly and positively related

to the amount of time the teacher teaches agriculture courses, years of experience, teacher
involvement in adult education programs (Straquadine, 1990), teacher priority given to SAE,
and time devoted to SAEs (Warren & Flowers, 1992).

Case and Stewart (1985) concluded that the number of class hours spent on SOE
instruction, as well as the use of SOE examples during instruction, improved SOE program
quality. Likewise, Anyadoh and Barrick (1990) and Gibson (1988) reported that there was
a positive relationship between SAE quality and the amount of classroom instruction on SAE
programs.

Morton (1980) conducted a study to determine the relationship between the quality
of SAE progranrs and achievement of students in agriscience. He explored the quality of SOE
programs, measured in terms of student income, project scope, and level of achievenrent,
using a multiple choice test designed to measure technical knowledge in production
agriculture of high school students enrolled in production agriculture. Morton observed that
there was a positive correlation between the quality scores of SOE programs and students’
achievement test scores. Also, he observed a positive correlation between achievement test
scores and opportunity to engage in SOE programs. These results led Morton to conclude
that learning by doing is inrportant for the successﬁrl education of agriscience students and
tint higher quality SAE programs are likely to result in greater achievenrent.

Research Ins indicated that often the agriscience teacher is at the root of the problem
of poor quality or nonexistent supervised experiences. Perhaps the key to the problem is tint
teachers lnve never been exposed to the procedures involved in developing and conducting

high-quality supervised experiences or tint examples of contemporary supervised experiences

24

have not been developed (Boone, 1991). Dyer and Osborne (1996) reported that teachers
may be the greatest detennirnnts of SAE program quality but that demands on teachers’ time
aﬂ’ected SAE program quality. Harris and Newcomb (1985) found that teachers who
provided high-quality SOE programs recognized the educational value of SOEs more than
did those who provided low-quality SOEs. Teachers in multi-teacher programs were likely
to place more emphasis on SOE programs (Harris & Newcomb, 1985). Gibson (1988)
reported a negative relationship between the quality of SOE programs and the number of out-
of-school activities (other than FFA) required by the teacher. Anyadoh and Barrick (1990)
and Gibson (1988) also found a negative relationship between the distance the teacher lived
ﬁ'om school and the quality ofthe SAE program

Teacher expectations also affect the quality of SAE programs. Ingvalson (1983)
reported that as teachers’ expectations rose, so did their attitudes toward SAE programs.
Dyer and Osborne (1996) reported tint teachers’ expectations strongly inﬂuenced SAE
program quality. Teachers who participated in high school SAE programs were more likely
to support and do a better job of administering those programs. Although the majority of
teachers indicated such participation, the number of teachers with SAE experience may be
decreasing. Teacher education institutions must become more active in providing beginning
teachers with the background and knowledge needed to effectively administer SAE programs
and to adapt experiential learning activities ﬁom SAEs to the classroom.

Several studies have found a relationship between the facilities provided for
conducting SAE programs and the quality of such programs. Anyadoh and Barrick (1990)
concluded tint a signiﬁcant positive relationship existed between availability of school

facilities and the quath of SAE programs. Beeman (1967) reported that a nnjority of

25
agricultural education teachers and school administrators agreed that schools should provide
land to agriculture programs for instructional use. Dyer and Osborne (1996) concluded that
school-site lab ﬁcilities are essential if teachers are to provide quality SAE programs for
today’s students. Both teachers and administrators agreed that schools should provide SAE
facilities. With an increasing number of students living in suburban and urban areas, the
responsibility and opportunity to provide quality SAE projects is quickly shifting ﬁ'om
program partners to the school. In planning for agricultural education programs, school
systems should provide adequate lab ﬁcilities (both production and non production oriented)
for students to conduct quality SAE programs.

The concept of SAE has stood the test of time and nnde a difference in the lives of
many students. SAE programs, which are designed to meet the educational needs of the
students, should continue to be an integral part of today's vocational agriculture programs.
Vocational agriculture teachers must learn ﬁ'om past experience and provide opportunities
for tireir students to gain concrete, real-life experiences in the my ﬁcets of the agricultural
industry through quality SAE programs (Boone et al., 1987).

SAE progranrs apply the learning-by—doing principle which, is a proven method of
instruction that has been used since the beginning of vocational education. Agriscience
educators encourage SAE as an important component of agriscience programs.

Most state plan, in the USA, for vocational education indicate all students enrolled

in vocational agriculture will have supervised occupational experience as a part of

their instruction program. (Amberson, 1967, p. 80)

Supervised occupational experience programs are a very important part of any

vocational agricultural program. Every effort should be nnde by instructors to
promote supervised occupational experience programs. They are exceedingly
beneﬁcial to high school students, as well as a conrrnunity. Having good supervised
occupational experience programs is one of the best ways of giving agricultural
education and teachers of agriculture ﬁvorable publicity and making agricultural

26

courses a permanent part of a community's secondary school educational program.

Supervised occupational experience programs are attractive, interesting, and

educatiornl to students, parents, and others. On the other hand, if teachers do not do

an effective job with SOE programs, there nny be much unfavorable criticism of the

program of vocational education in agriculture. (Phipps & Osborne, 1988, p. 316)

Peterson and McGreight (1973) stressed the importance of SAE programs, asserting
tint SAE programs:

1. Are an extension of the classroom instruction for ﬁrm, ranch, or oﬂlﬁrm

agricultural occupations.

2. Encourage the use of approved practices.

3. Promote closer cooperation and relationships between agribusiness and teachers.

4. Inform teachers about situations of students.

5. Make effective teaching in a real-life situation.

6. Help students see a need for relevant instruction.

The importance of SAE to secondary agriscience programs was evident in a study
completed by McGhee and Check (1988). They found that ninth-and tenth-grade students
who participatedirrSAEpmgrannlndsigrﬁﬁcamlyhighermeanachievement test scoresthan
students who indicated that they did not participate.

Williams (1977) conducted a study to determine the importance of SAE programs by
agriscience students in production agriculture in Iowa. His results reﬂected diﬂ‘erences
according to the type of experience program conducted by the student: ownership, placement,
or simulated. However, he found tint ownership, placement, and simulated SAE programs
were equally effective in developing skills tint are important in agricultural occupations. The

two highest rated occupational skills rated highest by all three SAE types were (a) the

27
importance of the honest work and (b) the development of acceptable personal and work
habits.

Pelton (1985) found that agricultural education students in North Dakota perceived
their SOE programs to be valuable. These students thought selected aspects ofSAE programs
were important. The students who lived on ﬁrm or ranch tended to perceive the aspects of
SAEprogrannasbeingnnreimportanttlnndidtinsewholived inatown, city, orruralarea
other than a ﬁrm.

Pals (1988) found that 749 vocational agriculture students in Idaho thought the ﬁve
greatest beneﬁts of SOE were:

1. Provided opportunity to learn on their own.

2. Promoted acceptance or responsibility.

3. Developed independence.

4. Developed pride in ownership.

5. Learned to appreciate work.

Wright (1989) conducted a study to assess the perceived importance ofthe economic
impact of SAE programs in Oklahonn communities. He found tint the teachers perceived
leadership development, work habits, development of students’ self-conﬁdence, skill
development, and record keeping as being ”very important.” Even though teachers rated SAE
income as having of "some importance," they perceived the potential of losing SAE income
ﬁ'om their communities as having a ”high impact on local economies."

Supervised practice is helpfirl to students in nnny ways. It provides opportunities for
them to work, earn money, achieve a degree of ﬁnancial independence, and assume greater

responsibility. Students in work experience programs perform under the supervision of a

28

teacher, employers, and parents in establishing desirable work habits. Students’ abilities in
cooperation, initiative, human resources, and ﬂexibility also are developed. Supervised
practice also enables students to develop specialized areas of experience that nny not be
available in the group setting of the classroom (McCracken, 1984). Williams (1979) found
that SOE programs were beneﬁcial to students, not only in the development of knowledge
and skills, but also in the development of desirable occupational and educational attitudes and
values.

SAE beneﬁts not only agriscience students, but also those who are directly involved
with the students in these programs such as teachers, parents, and employers. Hughes (1992)
indicated that SAE programs are designed to provide numerous beneﬁts to students,
agriculture teachers, and others. SAE beneﬁts agriculture teachers by (a) ﬁmiliarizing them
with new technologies and practices, (b) promoting positive school/community relations, (c)
promoting parental involvement in the education process, ((1) motivating students, and (e)
keeping instruction relevant and practical. Pals and Slocombe (1989) assessed the beneﬁts
of SAE programs as perceived by students, parents, employers, and agriculture teachers.
Students reported that the greatest beneﬁts were the development of behavioral attitudes,
values, and hunnn relations skills. Parents, employers, and agriculture teachers also
collectively identiﬁed the development of behavioral attitudes, values, and hunnn relations
skills as irrrportant beneﬁts resulting from students participation in experience programs. Only
enrployers perceived the opportunity to earn income while in school as one of the greatest ﬁve
beneﬁts.

Rawls (1982) found tint parents of vocational agriculture students recognized the

educational and occupational beneﬁts derived ﬁ'om SOE programs and would generally

29

support educational programs if they could see the beneﬁts provided to their sons and
daughters. Rawls recommended that preservice and inservice agricultural education sessions
should be initiated to design and implement programs that include parental involvement.

Kruckenberg and Williams (1980) studied employers participating in placement
. programs in Iowa. They found that (a) 100% of the employers thought the program was
beneﬁcial to their business and would employ students in the future, and (b) 60% of former
placement-program students were employed in agricultural occupations and an additional
30% were continuing their education beyond high school.

In general, SAE can bridge the gap between school and work by providing
opportunities for application and transfer of knowledge. Whereas classroom experiences
enhance students’ understanding of principles, genuine understanding and problem solving
occur when students are ﬁced with real problem situations that are solved only by application
ofprinciples. ThenSAEprogramsmakethe instructioninanagricultural course practical and
meaningful to the students. Thus, it is imperative that students understand the importance of

diﬂ°erent activities and how SAE programs ﬁt into the total agriscience progranr.

W

Secondary agriscience prograrrn have become more ﬂexible by offering semester and
trisernester courses. SAE programs need to be adapted to these ﬂexible offerings (Pals, 1989).
Because there are nnny different approaches, occupations, and student backgrounds and

frequently there are no standard answers in organizing SAE programs, there are different

opinions concerning types of SAE programs.

30

Peterson and McCracken (1973) stated tint there are four primary types of supervised
training: supervised farming or ranching, laboratory programs, ﬁrm placement, and
supervised cooperative programs. Each of these types could also be coordinated with
activities in home improvement and occupational skills development.

Key (1977) and Lee (1980) indicated tint there are nnny types ofSAE programs, but
they can be categorized into a few groups. The ﬁrst involves students owning and nnnaging
agricultural enterprises such as livestock, crops, or agribusiness. The students actively invest
their own money, time, and labor in planning, directing, and marketing the product of their
toil. Each plnse of the operation is a joint effort involving not only the students but also their
parents and the vocational agriculture teacher. The second method of providing SAE
opportrmities places students in agricultural operations that they do not own, although they
performnnnyofthesamedutiesasiftheywereowners. Undersuchaprogram, students nny
work in agribusirresses, on ﬁrms, or on facilities provided by the school. The last type of
program is the simulated SOE. Here, students are provided the opportunity to use school
facilities such as the classroom, shop, or laboratory to gain experience in performing tasks
found in agricultural industries. Again, students are closely supervised and directed by the
agriscience instructor.

In general, the most common types of SAE, are ownership and placement programs
(Cheek & Beennn, 1984). McCracken (1984) added another type to these two types. He
explained tint supervised occupational experience programs can be one of three types, these
are: ownership programs, placement programs, and improvement and skill projects. Phipps
and Osborne (1988) identiﬁed three nnjor types of SAE. These are ownership, placement,

and directed laboratory experience. They added that there are some additional components

31

of SAE programs such as improvement projects, supplementary skills, and exploratory
experience. However, the major types and additional components of SAE programs are
discussed in the following paragraphs:

1. Whip; The SOE ownership program is the oldest and most traditional type of
SOE. It involves students having personal ownership, either complete or partial, of materials
and other inputs required for an enterprise (Cheek & Beennn, 1984). Ownership programs
can provide excellent opportunities for students to make decisions and apply instruction.
Students are involved ﬁnancially and own all or a portion of the enterprise or business.
Amberson 1967) stated: “The ownership program’s basic values are that it gives students
pride of ownership and helps them appreciate the need for management experience. By taking
part in ownership programs, students nny grow into entrepreneurs” (p. 81).

SOE ownership programs often include individually owned productive enterprises,
such as livestock, ﬁeld crops, vegetables, fruits, bedding plants and so forth Group
productive enterprises, in which the enterprise is owned and nnnaged by a group of students
rather than an individual, are also a type of ownership program. Finally, non-farm
entrepreneurship projects are another type of SAE ownership program. In this case, a student
or a group of students owns and nnrnges an agribusiness for a proﬁt.

In general, ownership programs can present considerable ﬁnancial risks to students.
Therefore, teachers need to provide direct supervision as students plan, initiate, and nnnage
ownership SAE programs. These students often become established in agricultural
occupations on a part-time or ﬁll-time basis as a result of their SAE programs (Phipps &

Osborne, 1988).

32

SAE ownership programs always have been changed and developed consistent with
the changes that have taken place in agriscience programs and the agricultural industry.

Traditionally, agricultural education programs consisted of ownership agricultural
experience progrann in livestock and crop production. Today, with expansion of the
agricultural industry and declining number ofﬁrmers and ranchers, the nature of
entrepreneurship programs has changed. Entrepreneurship SAEs can be developed
not only in production agriculture, but in agricultural sales and service, forestry,
marketing, agricultural mechanics, agricultural processing and other areas. (Barrick
et al., 1992, p. 29)

Although the ownership SOE program is generally associated with production
agriculture, the idea is equally applicable in the other taxonomy areas in agribusiness.
Students are currently using ownership SOE program concepts successfully in
horticulture, nnchanics, production agriculture, and forestry. (Amberson, 1967, p.
81)

SAE ownership programs also play a vital role in helping students gain employment
in an agricultural ﬁeld. Mick (1983) found tint high school vocational agriculture programs
were doing a better job of preparing students with ﬁrm backgrounds and ownership types of
SOEs for employment in agricultural occupations than were other programs.

2. Placement: A second nnjor type of SAE programs, according to Phipps and
Osborne (1988) is the SAE placement program. They wrote:

In this type, students earn and nnrnge wages and have opportunities to extend and

apply current agricultural knowledge and skills. They nny be placed in agricultural

production settings or in agricultural business and industry. SOE placement programs
have grown to become a very important and appropriate type of SOE program for

agriculture students. (p. 318)

Although the SAE placement program was indicated as the second nnjor type of
SAE program, Amberson (1967) stated:

Placement program in production/agribusiness is not a second choice to ownership.

Rather, for many students it is a more appropriate means for employment in an

agricultme/agribusirels occupation. Initially, a placement program can provide career

exploration in the ﬁeld in which a student feels he/she has an interest. Even for
students with a career goal of self-employment, placement is often the most feasible

33

Way to gain experience, due to an initial lack of capital or opportunity to pursue
ownership SOE programs. (p. 81)

Barrick et a1. (1992) commented:

Placement programs involve the placement of students on ﬁrms and ranches, in

agricultural businesses, in school laboratories, or in community ﬁcilities to provide

a “learning by doing” atmosphere. Ideally, this atmosphere will enable students to

develop competencies that permit entry and/or advancement in their chosen

occupatiornl ﬁeld. Placement programs may be conducted in any of the instructional
areas under the umbrella of agricultural education. Usually, they will be conducted

“outside of the classroom instruction” time. ( p. 33)

So, through SAE placement programs, students work for others on a ﬁrm, in school
laboratories beyond regular class time, or in the community for pay or only for experience.
Doerfert (1992) indicated that the purpose of SAE placement programs is for students to
gain practical experiences needed to alter or advance in their chosen occupational ﬁeld. These
students use facilities and other resources provided by employers, schools or community
organizations to develop essential employment competencies.

Cooper (1984) indicated tint placement programs have the following strengths:

1. Close student supervision

2. High levels of project quality.

3. Immediate feedback on business decisions.

4. Monetary returns for the school agriculture program.

5. Monetary returns for the student.

6. Clear and immediate evidence to school ofﬁcials tint the program is preparing

students for wage earning and job entry.

7. Practical experience with business rrnchines.

8. Practical experience with business methods such as advertising publicity.

34

SAE placement programs are one vehicle teachers can use to provide agriscience
students with experience in an array of agricultural occupations. Before students participate
in these programs, however, Slocombe (1984) recommended tint they need to learn the what,
why, and how of SOE placement programs. Fmther, ire said tint teachers must provide group
instruction that will help students identify the opportunities tint are important to them and
prepare plans for becoming involved. Vocational activities also should be included in all SOE
placement progrann. Agriculturalandrntmalresomcesstudentswho select aplacement type
of program can choose between paid and unpaid experience programs. For ﬁnancial reasons,
nrost students will select a paid experience program. However, students should be advised
tint selecting an experience program solely on the basis of monetary returns might not be the
best decision.

Placement projects dennnd ﬂexibility in meeting the needs of today's agriscience
students. Because there is a choice involved in placement programs, agriscience teachers
should help students select and develop an SAE placement program related to their
occupational objectives. To prepare students effectively for these programs, teachers nrust
have the content and the procedures to do the job.

3. W: The third nnjor type ofSAE program, according
to Phipps and Osborne (1988), is the directed laboratory experience. They wrote:

Students with this SOE program are placed in school-owned or community ﬁcilities

at a time other than during regular school hours. Directed laboratory experience often

provides concentrated skill development and strengthens the connection between
instruction and SAE. Greenhouses and laboratories such as arboreturns, ﬁeld crops,
and animal laboratories, nurseries, woodlots, turfgrass plots, ponds, and vegetable
plots, provide excellent settings for SOE directed laboratory experience programs.
The key to worthwhile directed laboratory experience is planning and supervision by

the teacher. Directed laboratory experience activities must go beyond the learning
experiences provided in regular classroom and laboratory instruction. Directed

35

laboratory experience as a SOE program is the most appropriate and beneﬁcial to

students with limited opportunities for SOE programs involving ownership and

placement. ( p. 318)

The agriculture profession has, from its inception, used laboratories in the school and
community as vehicles for implementing the principle of learning by doing. Traditionally,
agriculture teachers have used laboratories for student practice as the application stage of irr-
class instruction. Laboratory use for SOE programs has not been as popular a practice among
teachers in the past. Nevertheless, laboratories, whether they are used for in-class instruction
or SOE, enhance the teaching and learning process and develop competencies needed for
placement in agricultural careers. The best use of laboratories occurs when they closely
replicate the agricultural work place in terms of equipment, design and operation (Sutphin,
1984).

SAE laboratory programs are the opportunity nnny young people with a keen interest
in agriculture are searching for in their secondary vocational education training (Pearson,
1984). A land laboratory is an ideal location for providing supervised experiences for students
andteachersbecauseitinstheﬁcilitiesandlandnecessaryto meetthebasic requirementsof
many agricultural activities and it is easily accessible (Cheek & Arrington, 1984).

There is evidence tint land laboratories are providing opportunities for students to
develop SAE programs. Leising, Wolﬁam, and Zilbert (1982) found tint 18.7% of the
vocational agriculture students in California were using the greenhouse for SAE projects,
18.9% of the students were using the land laboratory for land projects, and 16% of the
students were using the school barn for projects. Arrington (1983) found that almost one-
fourth of the 1983 vocational agriculture graduates had conducted SAE activities on the

school land laboratory facilities.

36

4. Additionalmmmnems: Phipps and Osborne (1988) stated, “no SOE program is

complete until improvement projects and supplementary skills have been incorporated into
it. These phases of SAE provide further opportunities for development and transfer of
agricultural skills and help "roundout" the SOE program” (p. 319). McCracken (1984)
indicated tint improvement and skill development projects may be used as SOEs. These

additional components are descrrbed below:

WM: These projects involve a series of related activities requiring

a relatively long time to complete. Irrrprovement projects are undertaken to increase the value
and/or appearance of a home or production and business setting. Improvement projects also
are aimed at improving agricultural practices or upgrading environmental conditions so that
production eﬂiciency is increased. Newcomb et a1. (1986) stated:

Improvement projects may be developed by students to improve the efﬁciency of an
enterprise or an entire business, the appearance or real-estate value of the ﬁrm or
place of business, or the appearance, value, comfort, and convenience of the student.
This type of project is usually ﬁnanced by parents or an employer with no degree of
ownership by the student. Some examples are:
-Garden improvement.
-Lawn improvement.
-Home landscaping improvement.
-Home shop irnprovenrent.
-Nature trail development.
-Sheep enterprise improvement.
-Home painting.
-Honre library development.
-Business product display improvement.

Sinrilar improvement projects can be used by most students in applying
instruction. For example, following a unit of gardening, students could be encouraged
to apply the instruction by lnving an irnproverrrent project on gardening. (p. 229, 230)

With respect to the relationship between improvement activities and the other SAE

programs, Barrick et a1. (1992) wrote:

37

Improvement activities do not replace exploratory, entrepreneurship, or placement

SAE. Instead, they complement the Supervised Agricultural Experience and help build

citizenship. Improvement activities are a part of all SAE programs and are included

in the program plans. Improvement activities are generally classiﬁed activities tint
have a large scope and nny involve a series of jobs or activities. These activities nny
or nny not have a set time for completion but are generally considered to be in effect
for the duration of the particular course of study to which they are related.

(Experiencing Agriculture, 1992 p. 29)

Waking: These activities are performed for the purpose of developing
skills unrelated to the student's SOE ownership, placement, directed laboratory experience,
or improvement projects. In contrast to irnprovenrent projects, supplementary skills consist
of single jobs or activities. Supplementary skills should be a part of every student’s SAE
program because they provide experiences that broaden skill development and application of
approved practices.

Supplementary projects are done by students to learn speciﬁc skills. They enable

students to broaden their experiences beyond ownership, placement, and improvement

projects. The skills or competencies, are usually performed to learn tasks needed for
agricultural occupations. (Newcomb et al., 1986, p. 230)

W: An important ingredient of SOE programs for all students
studying agriculture, regardless of their career goals, is exploratory experience. An
exploratory experience is a study visit with workers in production agriculture, ornamental
horticulture, forestry, cornervation, agricultural services, agricultural processing, agricultural
mechanics, or professiornl agriculture (Phipps & Osborne, 1988). Barrick et a1. (1992) stated
tint exploratory SAE programs provide opportunities for students to develop an awareness
and further understanding of careers in agriculture or to increase their awareness and
understanding of the food and ﬁber system.

Two types of exploratory SAE programs are career exploration and agricultural

literacy. Career exploration is designed to increase students’ awareness of agricultural careers.

38
Agricultural literacy is designed to develop students’ agricultural literacy and thus emphasizes
increased knowledge about agriculture. Agricultural literacy programs comprise of a series
of experiential learning activities designed to accomplish one or more of the following ﬁve
objectives (Barrick et a1, 1992):

1. Developing an understanding of ethical and environmental issues related to

agriculture.

2. Developing the ability to grow and care for plants and animals.

3. Developing an understanding of the relationship between agriculture and diet.

4. Developing an appreciation of national and interrntional economic and trade

systems.

5. Developing an understanding of issues relating to agricultural policy of the federal

government.

From the preceding discussion, it is apparent that there are several types of SAE
programs ﬁom which students can select, but the key to successful selection is the agriscience
teacher. Agriscience teachers must be creative and ﬂexible when helping students select and
conduct their SAE programs. Also, the SAE should not viewed as requirement for class
credit, but rather as an opportunity for students to maximize their learning and opportunity

for placement and advancement in an agricultural occupation.

Si ’11 ll? .. . 'lSEEE
Students tend to learn nrore and better when they are actively involved in the learning

process. Active participation is essential for learning, especially in experiential and practical

progranrs. As McCormick et a1. (1989) stated, “Active participation on the part of students

39

helps to reduce abstractness in learning new knowledge, skills, and attitudes. SAE should be
considered as a valuable teaching tool to help students develop knowledge, skills, and
attitudes” (p. 10).

Considering students’ needs and interests is essential in helping them be involved in
experiential and real life situations.

The actual degree of involvement in agricultural practice can vary ﬁom casual

observation all the way to actual "hands-on" participation. The scope of agricultural

experiences should depend , to a large extent, on students’ needs, interests, and career

goals. Supervised agricultural experience would be the most appropriate for students

involved in educational programs about agriculture. (McCormick et al., 1989, p. 10)

SAE programs systenntically involve students in real-life agricultural experiences tint
are planned and supervised as a part of the agriscience program. Several studies Mve
concluded that there was a relationship between students’ participation and involvement in
SAE and their acquiring knowledge and other values. Cheek et a1. (1994) found that there
was a moderate correlation between students’ participation in SAE and their academic
achievement. However, such participation was not signiﬁcant in explaining a signiﬁcant
portion of the variance in student achievement. Arrington and Check (1990) concluded tint
there was a signiﬁcant positive relationship between the scope of SAE and academic
achievement for students in the tenth grade, but not for those in the ninth grade.

Morris and Williams (1984) found that students who participated in animal/crop
ownership SOE programs scored signiﬁcantly lower on self-image than those who had not
Md such experience. This ﬁnding may be partially explained by the amount of responsibility
associated with ownership SOE programs, especially in the early stages. Rewards ﬁom
animal/crop ownership nny be nrore long-term in nature. Morris and Williams also found also

tMt students who had SOE programs that featured farm employment away ﬁom the home

40

Md higher self-esteem than those who did not Mve such experience. They added that
employment can provide immediate rewards tMt are highly observable to students. Such
rewards can nnke individuals feel good about wMt they are doing and about themselves.
Lee (1984) investigated the relationship between student’s perceived skill
development and characteristics of SOE programs. The ﬁndings indicated that there were
differences between students’ perceived level of skill proﬁciency with regard to livestock
types that were part of the SOE program and their proﬁciency for other livestock types.
Students who had various types of livestock as part of the SOE program rated their level of
skill proﬁciency signiﬁcantly higher for those types than for other types of livestock.
Slocombe (1983) found signiﬁcantly higher knowledge scores were achieved by: (a)
students living on a ﬁrm tlnn those living in a city or town, (b) students with production SOE
programs tinrr those with on-ﬁrm SOE placement programs, (c) students with occupational
aspirations in production agriculture than those who were undecided about their occupational
aspiratiorn, and ((1) students who planned to continue their formal education than those who
did not. Also, he found that students who desired employnrent experience in production
agriculture had a more positive attitude toward placement programs than did those who were
interested in agricultural processing. Students with off-farm SOE programs achieved
signiﬁcantly higher program planning scores than did those without SOE programs.
Students’ involvement and participation in SAE programs were aﬂ’ected by several
factors. Sutphin (1984) reported that (a) the diversity of student agricultural occupational
interests, (b) the increasing number of students ﬁom urban and suburban backgrounds, (c) the
decline in the number of ﬁrms, and (d) the tight economy were some of the barriers to

involving every vocational agriculture student in an SOE program.

41

Geerdt (1985) found tMt (a) teacher commitment to supervised occupational
experience programs, (b) community understanding of FFA and SOE programs, (c) local
program with an extended contract for on-site instruction, and (d) parent/guardian or
employer support of agricultural education were the nrost important ﬁctors associated with
students’ participation in SAE programs. He also found tMt (a) teacher success with SOE
programs before entering teaching, (b) size of community, (c) other vocational/mecMnical
course oﬁ‘erings in school, and (d) parent’s/guardian’s or employer’s previous vocational
agriculture experience were the least irrrportarrt ﬁctors associated with students’ participation
in SOE programs.

Foster (1984) conducted a study to identify factors limiting students’ participation in
SAE programs in Nebraska, as perceived by vocatiornl agriculture instructors in the state. He
found that the 10 highest rated ﬁctors identiﬁed as limiting participation in SOE were:

- Students dislike nnintaining SOE program records.

- Students’ participation in sports is excessive.

- Current loan interest rates are too high

- Money available for students to ﬁnance SOE is limited.

- Agribusinesses are hiring fewer student learners.

- Parents’ ability to help with ﬁnancing is limited.

- Agribusinesses needed for placement in the community are limited.

- No facilities are available for non traditional SOE programs.

- Students’ participation in activities other tMn sports is excessive

- No school land-laboratory is available.

42

On the other hand, the researcher formd tint the ﬁve factors Mving the least effect on
limiting students’ participation in SOE were:

- The local education association discourages after school activity.

- The vocational agriculture instructor Ms Md limited teaching experience.

- Conmrunity members’ attitudes about vocational agriculture are negative.

- Community members’ attitudes about SOE programs are negative.

- Students from aﬂluent ﬁrnilies do not need the employment.

Dtmham (1983) found tint signiﬁcant ﬁctors related to students’ involvenrent in SOE
programs included (a) times visited by the teacher, (b) activity in the FFA, (c) plans to enter
an agricultural occupation, (d) p0pulation of the home area, (e) assistance ﬁom the teacher
with SOE programs, (f) grade point average, and (g) occupation of parents.

Bell (1984) investigated students’ involvement in SOE and FFA. He found that (a)
the number of semesters, students were enrolled in vocational agriculture did not strongly
affect their involvement in SOE programs, (b) the type of program in which students were
enrolled affected their involvement in SOE and FFA, and (c) the instructors’ perception of
necessary program cinracteristics did not affect the extent of students’ involvement in either
SOE or FFA.

Students’ involvement and participation in SOE Mve been found to vary ﬁ'om state
to state. In Florida, Arrington and Price (1993) found tint 68% of the agriculture students
Md undertaken an SOE program for one year out of four, but only 42% Md contracted for
four years. They also found that 24% of students had been involved in placement programs.
In areas I and II in Texas, Harris and Newcomb (1985) found tint 58% of the agricultural

education departments had SOE programs. Dunham (1983) found that 80% of agricultural

43
education students in Utah Md SOE programs in 1982. Berkey and Sutphin (1983) reported

tint one-fornth of the vocational agriculture programs in New York failed to Mve a written
SAE program plan for students; leof these programs included freshnnn students in SOE
programs; and of the students involved in placement programs, only 27% Md accumulated
more tMn 300 hours of experience. In North Carolina, Miller (1980) indicated that teachers
estinnted that only 58% of their students Md SAE programs.

The number of students per class and their background can encourage teachers to Mve
and supervise SAE for their students. Anderson (1983) found that teachers with more
students per class were signiﬁcantly more likely to Mve SOE programs than were teachers
withfewerstudentsperclass. Healso foundtMt teacherswithmore students fromruraland
small town areas were signiﬁcantly more likely to Mve SOE programs. Duninm (1983) found

tint about 54% of teachers reported conducting programs in which at least 75% of students

participated in SAE programs.

5 .. I l ’I l ETISEEE

Agriscience teachers’ involvement is very intensive and far reaching in SAE programs
because they play critical roles in promoting and nnnaging successful student experiences.
Agriscience teachers are responsible for guiding students in selecting, planning, and
developing appropriate SAE programs, as well as supervising students on a regular basis.
Hence, agriscience teachers should insist that SAE programs are well planned in terms of
students' occupational goals. Further, teachers need to provide individual instruction speciﬁc

to the agricultural experience. They also should provide regular supervision of students' SAE

44 .
programs, develop cooperative relationships, and Mve a sound visitation program in order
to ensure students’ progress in SAE programs.
Phipps and Osborne (1988) stated, “The success or ﬁilure of the supervised
occupational experience programs is largely dependent on the efforts of the teacher of

agriculture" (p. 322-323). Phipps and Osborne also described the responsrhility of the teacher

as follows:
1. Teacher should provide systenntic instruction on SOE program.
2. Teacher should encourage high standards for the program.
3. Teacher should understand wMt is meant by a good SOE program.
4. Teacher should visit each program ﬁequently and give helpful assistance to
the student, the parents, and the enrployer.
5. Teacher should guide students in career planning.
6. Teacher should assist in identifying and developing SOE opportunities within

the school and community. (p. 323)

Osborne and Reed (1984) indicated that, to be successfirl, vocational agriculture
teachers rrrust believe that SOE programs will give their students increased enthusiasm for a
speciﬁc area of agricultm'e, better skills for practical application, and new learning or insight
into tint area of study. Osborne and Reed explained that, to attain this success, the teacher
should perform ﬁve essential roles: planner, ﬁcilitator, supporter, evaluator, and
diagnostician.

As a planner, the vocational agriculture teacher decides nnny things about the SAE
program that will play an important part in its overall success. The SAE program should be
positive and as close as possible to fail-safe, especially for the beginning student. To
accomplish this, the time ﬁame for each segment of the program should be small, perhaps
quarterly, rather than yearly. To assist students in planning their SAE programs, the

agriculture teachers need to provide systematic instruction throughout the school year

45

(Banick et al., 1992). It is also helpful to consider the needs and interests of the students, the
needs of the agricultural industry, and availability of resources when helping students plan
their SAE programs (Barrick et al., 1992). As a facilitator, the teacher helps students
recognize what they would like to accomplish and how. If the students are unable to identify
a SAE project, particular projects should be not assigned. Instead, several ideas should be
presented to them for their consideration. Also as a ﬁcilitator, the teacher must place the right
student in the right spot, with the right equipment and supplies, and with the skills and
knowledge to do the job well. As a supporter, the teacher provides encouragement and
support. When students encounter problems with their SAE programs, they need to feel the
to share those concerns with the teacher. The teacher as evaluator is also a familiar role. A
thorough evaluation gives students some feedback for planning an expanded SAE program
the following year. Involving students in the education process should be a part of the total
SAE experience. The teacher as diagnostician is a professional at work-analyzing the needs,
and weaknesses of particular students.

Osborne and Reed (1984) added tMt teachers who carry out the ﬁve functions of
planning, facilitating, supporting, evaluating, and diagnosing will nnke SOE programs more
tinnjustarequirernerrt. Theywillbecomeatrueextension ofthe classandtire entire learning
process and ensure the vocational nature of agricultural education programs.

Tire literature indicated tint the most inﬂuential factor affecting SAE programs is the
agriscience teacher. The literature further suggested tint teacher activities affecting SAE
programs can be classiﬁed into three categories: (a) developing cooperative relationships, (b)

developing instruction, and (c) providing-on-site visitation/supervision.

46
1) W: In developing cooperative relationships
through SAE, the teacher might wish to employ some of the following activities (Case, 1984):
a. Seek advice ﬁ'om a local advisory council as to the need and opportunities for
placement SOE programs for vocational agriculture students.
b. Secure support ﬁom the local school administration and board of education. This
can be done by keeping the administration informed about all ﬁcets of vocational
agriculture.
c. Secure the support of parents and employers by involving them in identifying
competencies to be learned by students. This can be accomplished by developing a
written agreenrent among the parents, the employer, the student, and the teacher that
speciﬁes competencies, activities, and responsibilities of those involved. In addition,
group meetings should be held to inform parents and employers about SOE programs.
(1. Develop a good public relations program. A good understanding of the SOE
program by the general public is a necessity. Schools often are criticized because
students are out ofthe classroom; the general thought is that students are not learning
unless they are within the conﬁnes of a classroom.
e. Conduct ﬁequent visits to students, parents, and employers. Visitation may be the
nrost effective means of developing understanding and cooperation. The teacher is put
in a positive role of providing needed advice and establishes rapport with the
community. In this regard, Phipps and Osborne wrote, “Cooperative relationships
among an instructor, the parents, the employers, and the student Mve a very
important bearing upon the eﬂ’ectiveness of the instruction. They are basic to all

teaching and must be secured” (p. 214).

47

BMW: Classroom instruction is one of the nnjor functions of the
agriscience teacher. To motivate students and help them understand and develop SAE
programs, organized instruction is essential. Instruction must be based on identiﬁed and
validated agricultural competencies. Students must Mve a thorough understanding of the
career opportunities available to them and how they can gather the necessary experience to
seem the occupation of their choice (Case, 1984). The teacher must be organized and
prepared each day in order to provide adequate classroom instruction Technical information,
combined with a knowledge of students’ needs, is essential for relevant instruction.

”WW On—site visitation provides the teacher with
knowledge about the students’ progress and problems. This irrfornntion is useful in planning
and conducting relevant classroom instruction, which, in turn, aids the development of quality
SAE programs. Students, parents, and employers need to be involved in the
visitation/supervision process. All need to Mve a thorough understanding of the purpose of
visitation/supervision Visits need to be carefully planned and skillfully conducted in order to
maximize the educational beneﬁts.

Swortzel (1996) reported tint probably the greatest responsibility of agriscience
teachers is supervision. MaCracken (1975) commented that the success or ﬁilure of SAE
programs for students depends, to a large degree, on the effectiveness of supervision by the
teacher. Although supervision is intended to provide individual instruction to students, it can
also develop essential cooperative relationships with employers and parents/guardians
(Barrick et al., 1992). Watkins (1981) reported tint the nnjority of agricultural employers in
her study believed tint students beneﬁtted from teacher visits to the work site. Harris ( 1983),

Gibson (1987), and Anyadoh (1989) all reported positive relationships between the number

48
of supervisory visits and the quality of supervised experience programs. Without supervision,
supervised experience programs would be like schools without teachers (McMillion &
Auville, 1976).

Swortzel (1996) added that various researchers Mve concluded tint proper and
adequate supervision must occur for SAE programs to be successful. Osborne (1988) found
tint teacher involvement in planning and supervision was linked to the nature of supervised
progrann and student backgrounds. Students ﬁorn ﬁrnn with traditiornl programs were more
likely than others to receive the needed assistance. Osborne also found that teachers on
extended contracts were more heavily involved in planning and supervision strategies. Herren
and Cole (1984) found that teachers should Mve at least one period for SOE-program
supervision. Further, they noted that teachers should maintain accurate records on mileage,
student progress, and recommendations, and that the teacher is only the person who can do
an effective job of SAE program supervision.

Assisting students through their SAE programs is also an essential responsibility of
the agriscience teacher. Slocomb( 1984) stated, “The nnjor responsibility for the vocational
agriculture teacher is to assist students in selecting and developing supervised occupational
experience programs” (p. 9).

Williams (1980) identiﬁed ﬁve ways teachers provide assistance to students in the
SOE activity. They aid students by (a) assisting in record keeping on SOE programs, (b)
providing encouragement for the SOE programs, (c) summarizing the records for the SOE
programs, (d) learning skills in agriculture, and (e) setting educational goals in agriculture.
Reneau and Roider (1986) stated tMt vocational agriculture teachers Mve played an

important role in students' acceptance of and involvement with SOE programs.

49

Williams (1979) found that students perceived tMt they received more signiﬁcant
assistance from their parents than from teachers with 16 of 30 assistance items. These 16
items were related to development of interest in agriculture, providing resources for
agricultural production projects, producing and nnrketing agricultural products, and making
business nnnagement decisions. On the other hand, the same students perceived that they
received signiﬁcantly more assistance ﬁomteachers than their parents with 9 of30 assistance
itenn. These nine itenrs were related to providing encouragement, keeping and using records,
developing plans, setting goals for SOE, and evaluating SOE programs.

Teachers’ attitudes and perceptions regarding SAE programs Mve been found to Mve
a positive inﬂuence on the quality of SAE programs. Several studies Mve been conducted to
determine the attitudes and perceptions of agriscience teachers regarding SAE programs.
Reneau and Roider (1986) found that vocational agriculture teachers who Md a more positive
attitude toward SOE programs Md a higher proportion of students with SOE programs in
their current vocational agriculture program. Rhodes (1984) found tint (a) SOE programs
were widely supported by vocational agriculture teachers in Arizona; (b) the stronger a
teacher’s conviction of the value and need for SOE programs, the greater the rate of student
participation; (c) teachers with a strong philosophical belief in the value and need for SOE
programs did things tint increased student participation. Smith (1982) found tMt vocational
agriculture teachers in Oklahonn agreed tint (a) SOE programs should be carried on outside
the regular classroom, ('3) SOE progrann helped prepare students for an agricultural vocation,
and (c) SOE progrann were necessary for the adequate education of students in agriculture.
Mlozi (1983) found that, in West Virginia, vocational agriculture teachers' beliefs in the

importance of SOE programs and in their own ability to supervise were not considered

50

problems preventing proper supervision. On the other hand, excessive paperwork, few farm
students in vocational agriculture, excessive ﬁnrily nmnbers, and ﬁmily dennnds on their time
were perceived as adversely inﬂuencing teachers’ supervisory efforts.

Herren (1984) found tint teachers who were working in programs with a strong
emphasis on SOE saw SOE programs as helping nnke an agricultural program more
vocational. These teachers believed that students should Mve SOE programs and that the
vocational agriculture teacher should be the one to supervise those programs. However,
these teachers were not interested in giving SOE programs or supervision, even considering
the effects of the economic recession.

Harris (1983) reported that teachers believed SOE programs to be an integral and
important part of agriscience. Teachers in low-quality programs placed a low emphasis on
making supervisory visits and requiring SOE progrann of their students. Conversely, teachers
with high-quality SOE programs recognized the irrrportance of those programs and had
positive attitudes toward supervision. In addition, he found signiﬁcant positive relationships
between teachers’ perceptions of the importance of SOE and attendance at the state
agriscience teachers' conference, and number of teachers and students in the department.

Hembree (1983) conducted a study to determine agriculture teachers’ perceptions
of SAE programs in areal Texas agriscience departments. He found that 85% of the teachers
required SOE programs and 85 percent indicated voluntary participation from 70% to 100%
of the students. The major objectives of SOE programs ranked highest by the teachers were
empMsis on character building, enhancement of classroom instruction, and management
skills. Duan (1983) found that about 54% of teachers reported conducting programs in

which at least 75% of the students participated in SOE.

51

French (1983) reported tMt teachers in neither the top nor the bottom schools
recognized their SAE programs as strong. Regular visits to students’ homes were
characteristic of teachers from top schools. Also teachers from top schools perceived their
principals as being supportive of the SAE program.

Harris and Newcomb (1985) found that:

1. Teachers in areas I and II of Texas believed that SOE is an integral part of

agriscience and that production agriculture students should Mve SAE programs.

2. Teachers in areas I and II of Texas supported the concept of SAE programs.

Furthermore, the extent to which they were supervising SAE programs was greater

tMn tMt reported in other recent studies ﬁom different parts of the country.

3. The quality of SAE programs was positively related to teachers’ views of the

irrrportance of agricultural experience and their attitudes toward supervision of SOE

programs.

4. Characteristics of teachers tint were examined in this study did not begin to explain

the variance in teachers’ views of the importance of SOE programs, their attitudes

toward supervision, or the quality of programs.

Wright (1989) found that teachers did not perceive SOE income as a primary goal in
their programs. It was apparent tint the teachers perceived an awareness among students,
adnrinistrators, and community leaders concerning economic literacy and the impact of
agriculture as well as the importance of students’ SOE income to the local economy.

Bell (1984) found that agriculture instructors teaching in two-year semesterized

programs and those teaching in programs semesterized for at least three years differed

52
signiﬁcantly in their perception of 2 of 14 selected SOE program cMracteristics and on 2 of
13 selected FFA program characteristics.

Vocational agriculture teachers will be more effective in creating relevant supervised
experiences for their students if they encounter similar experiences during their preservice
preparation. In other words, if agriculture teachers are better prepared to conduct high-quality
supervised experiences, the welfare of agriscience students will be enhanced (Elliot, et a1,
1991). Berkey and Sutphin (1984) found tint a nnjority of the teachers in their study Md not
conducted an SOE themselves, nor had taken a college course that primarily addressed SOE.
Teachers had not written policies and plans for conducting SOE programs in their schools or
stressed record keeping to their classes, but they perceived SOE as an important component
of the agriscience program. Berkey and Sutphin reconrmended that adoption of state
guidelines and procedures, along with in-service program, was needed.

Osborne (1988) found tMt majority of Illinois agricultural production teachers Md
limited fornnl training in providing SOE programs. In general, teachers tended to report a
need to strengthen their SOE knowledge base. Reneau and Rioder (1986) reported tint
vocatiornl agriculture teachers who Md a SOE program in high school Md a more positive
attitude toward SAE programs and a higher portion of students with SAE programs than did
their counterparts who Md not a SOE program in high school. Arrington and McCracken
(1983) indicated that 12 month teachers (who spent one year in an agriculture program in
high school) provided more personalized instruction, as indicated by a higher degree of
participation with ﬁirs and more supervisory home visits.

This means tMt teacher education students typically are expected to apply the

principles they learn in their classroom instruction on their own. Therefore, agriscience

53

teacher education programs must contain supervised experience components in which

prospective teachers can learn how to develop, conduct, and supervise experience programs.

Summary

The review of precedent literature was presented to introduce the theoretical
ﬁamework for the study to explain the importance of experience in education generally and
in agriscience speciﬁcally. Most of the underpinnings for experiential learning articulated by
agr'ncience educators are associated with the inﬂuence of John Dewey earlier in this century.
Agriscience educators Mve responded by implementing SAE programs.

The review of literature, moreover, pointed to the importance of assessing the
following issues: a) the philosophy, history, and deﬁnition of SAE programs, b) quality and
importance of SAE programs, c) types of SAE programs, (1) agriscience student involvement
with SAE programs and, e) agriscience teacher involvement with SAE programs. These
topics were drawn ﬁom the articles and studies tint helped in the development of the research

questionnaire which was used to determine Michigan agriscience teachers’ perceptions of

SAE programs.

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

Introduction
The primary purpose of this study was to determine Michigan agriscience teachers’
perceptions of selected aspects of SAE programs in Michigan high schools and
vocational/career centers. The research design and nrethodology used to achieve this purpose
are described in this chter. The method used in the study is explained ﬁrst, followed by an
overview of research questions. The study popuntion and data-collection instrument are then
discussed. Data-collection methods and the issue of non-return error are discussed. Last, the

techniques used to analyze the data are described.

Methodnftheﬁnrdx

The descriptive survey research method was used in this study. Good (1963) stated,
“Descriptive studies nny include present ﬁcts or current conditions concerning the nature of
a group of persons, a number of objects, or a class of events and may involve the
procedures of induction, analysis, classiﬁcation, enumeration, or nreasurenrent” (p. 244).
In the ﬁeld of education, according to Borg (1981):

Most descriptive research can be roughly classiﬁed as either survey research or

observational research. Survey research typically employs questionnaires and

interviews in order to determine the opinions, attitudes, preferences, and perceptions
of people of interest to the researcher. (Borg, 1981, 130)

54

55
Ary, Jacobs, and Ramvieh (1996) explained four ways or methods by which data are

collected in survey research: personal interview, telephone interview, nniled questionnaire,
and directly administered questionnaire. Because this study intended to collect data from all
Michigan agriscience teachers, a mailed questiomnire was thought to be the most appropriate
method for this study.

Compared to other survey research techniques, a nniled questionnaire is likely to be
less expensive. It is simply mailed to the respondents with a minimum of explanation. A
mailed questionrnire also nny place less pressure on respondent for an immediate response.
Wiren respondents are given anrple time to ﬁll out the questionnaire, they can consider each
point carefully rather than replying with the ﬁrst thought that comes to mind (Selting, 1965).
Another advantage of a nniled questiomnire is tint respondents nny Mve greater conﬁdence
about their anonymity and thus feel freer to express views they fear might be disapproved of

or might get them into trouble.

U . [E l D .

The prinnry purpose of this study was to determine Michigan agriscience teachers’
perceptions of selected aspects of SAE programs in Michigan high schools and vocational
centers. Eleven research questions were posed to guide the collection of data to achieve this
purpose. Also selected demographic characteristics of the teachers were collected through
the study questionnaire, and ﬁve additional research questions were posed to determine
whether those demographic characteristics could be identiﬁed as predictors of the teachers’

philosophies regarding SAE and their perceptions of beneﬁts of SAE, factors affecting

56

students’ involvement with SAE, the necessity of SAE, and the percentage of students who

Mve SAE programs. The research questions are as follows:

1.

2.

10.

ll.

12.

What were Michigan agriscience teachers’ philosophies regarding SAE programs?
What did Michigan agriscience teachers view as the beneﬁts of SAE progrartrs?
WMt factors did Michigan agriscience teachers think affect students’ involvement
with SAE programs?

Did Michigan agriscience teachers believe that SAE programs are necessary for
agriscience students?

Wint did Michigan agriscience teachers perceive to be their agriscience departments’
policies with regard to SAE programs?

Wint did Michigan agriscience teachers perceive to be their agriscience departments’
ﬁrnctions with regard to SAE programs?

How much out-of-class work time did Michigan agriscience teachers spend
supervising students’ SAE programs?

How much time did Michigan agriscience teachers spend per visit in SAE program
visitation/supervision?

To wMt degree will Michigan agriscience teachers emphasize student involvement
with SAE programs in the future?

How much assistance did Michigan agriscience teachers provide to students’ SAE
programs?

How much assistance should be provided to students’ SAE programs?

Could certain demographic characteristics of Michigan agriscience teachers be

identiﬁed as predictors of teachers’ philosophies regarding SAE programs?

l3.

14.

15.

16.

57

Could certain demographic cMracteristics of Michigan agriscience teachers be
identiﬁed as predictors of teachers’ perceptions of the beneﬁts of SAE programs?
Could certain demographic characteristics of Michigan agriscience teachers be
identiﬁed as predictors of factors affecting students’ involvement with SAE
programs?

Could certain demographic characteristics of Michigan agriscience teachers be
identiﬁed as predictors of teachers’ perceptions of the necessity of SAE programs?
Could certain demographic characteristics of Michigan agriscience teachers be

identiﬁed as predictors of the percentage of students who participate in SAE

programs?

WWII.

The population of this study included all of the agriscience teachers in Michigan high

schools and vocatiornl/career centers. To identify all of these teachers, a current list (for the

1996-1997 school year) of their names and addresses was obtained ﬁom the Department of

Agricultural and Extension Education at Michigan State University. A total of 137 agriscience

teachers constituted the population for this study.

Ary et al. (1996) indicated tMt with mailed questionnaire, it is possible to include a

large number of subjects as well as subjects in diverse locations. Therefore, all 137 agriscience

teachers in Michigan were selected as the population for this study. In selecting these

agriscience teachers, it was assumed that they all were certiﬁed in agriscience and had SAE

programs in their departments.

58
Wm

Asurveyquestionnairewasusedasthennininstrtunent forcollecting the data forthis
study. The questionnaire was developed after reviewing the literature and studying other
instruments that ind been used to measure the perceptions of agriscience teachers regarding
related agriscience issues in general and SAE programs in particular. Previously used
instruments included those of Dyer and Osborne (1995), French (1983), Foster (1984),
Geerdt (1985), Herren and Cole (1984), Osborne (1988), Pals (1988, 1989), Rawls
(1982), Smith (1982), Stewart (1991), and Sutphin (1984).

The questionrnire items were designed to answer the research questions and were
grouped accordingly. The questions addressed teachers’ philosophy regarding SAE programs,
beneﬁts of SAE programs, ﬁctors affecting students’ involvement with SAE programs, the
necessity of SAE progrann, agriscience departments’ policies with regard to SAE programs,
agriscience departments’ functions with regard to SAE programs, SAE visitations, teachers’
future ernplnsis on students’ involvement with SAE programs, and teachers’ assistance with
students’ SAE programs.

The types of responses for the questions were formed using the Likert-type scale,
“yes” or “no,” and short subjective ﬁll-in the blank responses. The ﬁrst three sections of the
questionrnire contained statements concerning teacher philosophy regarding SAE programs,
beneﬁts of SAE, and ﬁctors affecting students’ involvement with SAE programs. Section
four concerned whether teachers thought SAE programs were necessary. Section ﬁve
contained items to determine teachers perceptions concerning selected policies of their
agriscience departments toward SAE programs. Items in section six elicited teachers

perceptions regarding selected functions of agriscience departments toward SAE programs.

59

Section seven concerned the percentage of teachers’ out-of-class work and amount of time
spent per visit in SAE visitation/supervision. Section eight was intended to identify teachers’
emphasis on students’ involvement with SAE programs in the future. The last section
concerned the amount of assistance tMt teachers currently provided to students’ SAE
programs and wMt they should provide. Other items concerned some demographic
characteristics of Michigan agriscience teachers (Appendix B).

The questionrnire was distributed to a jury of agricultural education professors in the
Department of Agricultural and Extension Education at Michigan State University
(Appendix F), to evaluate it and verify its content and face validity. Some of their suggestions
and cinrrges were incorporated into the ﬁnal draft of the questionnaire before distributing it
to the study subjects.

To determine the reliability of the questionnaire, it was distributed to a group of
internship students who represented Michigan agriscience teachers. Their responses were
analyzed using Cronbach’s alpM coefﬁcients in the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
(SPSS). The reliability coefﬁcients were between .74 and .93, which were deemed acceptable

for this study.

DataEcllection
To collect the data for this study, the questionnaire was mailed to all of the
agriscience teachers in Michigan high school and vocational/career centers. A cover letter,
with an endorsement by the agricultural education consultant for the State of Michigan and
the cMirperson of the guidance committee, describing the purpose of the study was attached

to the questionnaire (Appendix C). These nnterials, with an addressed and starrrped return

6O

envelope, were sent to all Michigan agriscience teachers in high schools and vocational/career
centers through the school year of 1996/97. In general, to reach the nnxirnum percentage of
returns in a nniled questionrnire survey, planned follow-up mailings are essential (Ary et al.,
1996).

Despite the large number of research studies reporting techniques designed to

improve response rates, there is no strong empirical evidence favoring any techniques

other than the follow-up and the use of monetary incentives. A well planned follow-up
is more tlnn a reminder service. Each mailing provides a fresh opportunity for the

researcher to appeal the rettun of a questionnaire. (Dillnnn, 1988)

However, through this study, two follow-up mailings were conducted. Afterwards,
nomesponderrts were telephoned to enhance the return rate. The ﬁrst follow-up was sent two
weeks after the original mailing, and the second follow-up was sent about two weeks after
the ﬁrst follow-up. Each follow-up nniling included a new cover letter, a replacement
questionnaire, and another addressed and stamped return envelope. In the follow-up cover
letter, the teachers were told tMt their completed questionnaires had not been received and
the importance of their responses to the study’s usefulness. The respondents also were told
to ignore the request if they Md already nniled the questionnaire. Two weeks later after the
second follow-up nniling, phone calls were conducted to teachers who Md not responded to

the survey.

Nemretumencr
Ary et al., (1996) identiﬁed several factors tMt Mve been found to inﬂuence the
return for a nniled questionnaire. Common factors are (a) the length of the questionnaire,
(b) the cover letter, (c) the attractiveness of the questionnaire, (d) ease of completing the

questionnaire and mailing it back, (e) interest aroused by the content, (0 use of a monetary

61

incentive, and (g) the follow-up procedures used. In this study, most of the above mentioned
factors were taken into account to avoid non-return error.

After the original nniling of the questionnaire and the two follow-up mailings and the
reminder telephone calls (according to Dillrrnn, 1978), 102 of the 137 questionnaires had
been returned for a response rate of 74.4%. Of tMt number, 95 questionnaires were usable
and seven were returned without responses. The teachers who returned those seven
questiomnires indicated tint they did not Mve SAE progranrs in their schools. In comparing
sorrre demographic characteristics of the late respondents to those of early respondents, there
were no signiﬁcant differences between them. Thus, 74.4% was considered as an applicable

return rate.

DataAnalntis.
The data gathered in the study were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the
Social Sciences (SPSS). Descriptive statistics such as frequencies, means, standard
deviation, and percentages were used to analyze the overall perceptions of all participants
who responded to the questionnaire. Multiple regression analysis was used to determine
whether any of selected demographic characteristics of Michigan agriscience teachers could
be identiﬁed as predictors of certain aspects of SAE programs. The ﬁndings are presented in

CMpter IV

CHAPTER IV

FINDINGS OF THE STUDY

Introduction

This chapter contains an analysis of the data collected with the survey questionrnire
in relation to the research questions pertaining to Michigan agriscience teachers’ perceptions
of selected aspects of SAE programs.

The responses to the questionnaire items were organized according to the research
questions. Frequencies, means, and standard deviations were used to analyze the overall
perceptions of the respondents completed and retumed the questionnaire. Multiple regression
analysis was used to determine whether any of selected demographic characteristics of the
teachers were signiﬁcant predictors of selected dependent variables: teachers’ philosophies
regarding SAE and teachers’ perceptions of the beneﬁts of SAE, ﬁctors affecting students’
involvement with SAE, the necessity of SAE, and the percentage of students who participated

in SAE.

E' 1' E . . l B l D .
Researchﬂusstionl
What were Michigan agriscience teachers’ philosophies regarding SAE programs?
The questionnaire contained 14 items concerning teachers’ philosophies regarding
SAE programs. Teachers were asked to respond to each statement on a six point scale

62

63
ranging ﬁom ﬁrmly disagree (1) to ﬁrmly agree (6). The higher the mean score for each
statement, the greater teachers’ agreement with tMt item.

As shown in Table 1, Michigan agriscience teachers’ mean ratings of their
philosophies regarding various aspects of SAE programs ranged ﬁ'om 3.51 to 5.27. The three
highest rated statements were (a) I am supportive of the SAE concept in agriscience (mean
= 5.27, SD = .74) , (b) SAE is a valuable component of agriscience programs (mean = 5.19,
SD = .75), and (c) Helping every student plan and conduct an SAE program is diﬂicult (mean
= 5.02, SD = .95). On the other Mnd, the three lowest rated statements were (a) SAE
programs should be planned with a potential for proﬁt (mean = 3.51, SD = 1.26), (b)
Agriscience teachers should not establish minimum standards for the scope of individual SAE
programs (mean = 3.85, SD = 1.48), and (c) Extra class credit should be provided for

students completing SAE programs ( mean = 3.87, SD = of 1.51).

Win12
What did Michigan Agriscience teachers view as the beneﬁts of SAE programs?

The questionnaire contained 15 statements concerning teachers’ perceptions of the beneﬁts
of SAE programs. Teachers were asked to respond to each statement on a six-point scale
rangingﬁomﬁrmlydisagree(l)to ﬁrmlyagree(6). Theirigher the meanscore foreach item,
the greater the teachers’ agreement with tint statement.

As sirown in Table 2, Michigan agriscience teachers’ mean ratings of the beneﬁts of
SAE ranged from 4.50 to 5.3 7.The three highest rated statements were (a) SAE programs
provide opportunity to solve problems (mean = 5.37, SD = .53), (b) SAE programs provide

opportunity to make decisions (mean = 5.30, SD = .54), and (c) SAE programs provide

64

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 1

Michigan agriscience teachers’ philosophies regarding SAE programs.
Statement N >‘< 8D
I am supportive of the SAE concept in agriscience. 95 5.27 .74
SAE is a valuable component of agriscience programs. 95 5.19 .75
Helping every student plan and conduct an SAE program is 94 5.02 .95
difﬁcult.
I promote SAE programs in my agriscience classes. 95 4.90 .90
Improvement, exploratory, or supplementary skills should 94 4.82"I 1.26
be a part of SAE programs.
I am conﬁdent in my ability to help students carry out SAE 95 4.65 1.11
programs
The SAE concept is workable in today’s agriscience. 95 4.64* 1.21
I often use real problems met by students in their SAE 92 4.58 1.01
programs
Every SAE program should include ownership, placement, 94 4.40 1.24
or laboratory experience.
I Mve diﬂiculties motivating students to conduct SAE 95 4.35 1.07
programs.
Agriscience students should be required to conduct SAE 95 4.23" .73
programs.
Extra class credit should be provided for students 94 3.87 " 1.51
completing SAE.
Agriscience teachers should establish minimum standards 95 3.85" 1.46
for the scope of individual SAE programs.
SAE programs should be planned with a potential for proﬁt. 95 3.51 1.26

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scale: Firmly Disagree =1, Disagree = 2, Slightly Disagree = 3, Slightly Agree = 4, Agree
=5, and Firmly Agree = 6.

"‘ Converted ﬁom the negative values. These statements were negatively stated in the
study questionnaire (Appendix B) so tMt their mean scores were converted to be ranged
with those of positive statements.

65
opportunity for self learning (mean = 5.26, SD = .61. On the other hand, the lowest rated

statement was “SAE programs help students earn money while in school” (mean = 4.50, SD

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

= .96).

Table 2

Michigan agriscience teachers’ perceptions of SAE beneﬁts.
Beneﬁts of SAE programs N x SD
SAE programs provide opportunity to solve problems. 95 5.37 .53
SAE programs provide opportunity to make decisions. 95 5.30 .54
SAE programs provide opportunity for self learning. 95 5.26 .61
SAE programs promote acceptance of responsrhility. 95 5.23 .82
SAE programs develop self-conﬁdence. 95 5.17“ .82
SAE programs develop independence. 95 5.17 .66
SAE programs provide motivation to learn. 95 5.11 .72
SAE programs help make agriscience practical. " 95 5.10 .90
SAE programs help prepare for agricultural occupations. 95 5.07 .72
SAE programs encourage record-keeping. 95 5.04 .78
SAE programs encourage use of business procedures. 95 4.98 .77
SAE programs help set educational goals. 95 4.79“ .88
SAE programs develop ability to marnge money. 94 4.70 .81
SAE programs aid in choosing an occupation. 95 4.68“ 1.02
SAE programs help students earn money while at school. 95 4. 50* 9.6

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scale: FirmlyDisagree- =1,Disagree= 2, SlightlyDisagree= 3, Slightly Agree= 4, Agree =5,
and Firmly Agree= 6.

"' Converted ﬁ'om the negative values. These statements were negatively stated in the study
questionnaire (Appendix B) so tint their mean scores were converted to be ranged with those
of positive statements.

66
W

What ﬁctors did Michigan agriscience teachers think aﬂ’ect students’ involvement
with SAE programs? '

Teachers were asked to rate 16 statenrents concerning ﬁctors affecting students’

involvennnt with SAE programs. The rating scale was the same as for research questions 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tighzrs’ perceptions of factors affecting student involvement with SAE programs.
Statement N 52 SD
Facilities available for SAE programs. 94 4.82 .97
Agriscience teacher commitment to SAE programs. 94 4.53 1.90
Parent ability to help with ﬁnancing SAE programs. 94 4.49 1.01
Money available for students to ﬁnance SAE programs. 93 4.41 1.10
Employer support. 95 4.40 1.04
Teacher expectations of students. 95 4.36 1.17
Agriscience teacher perceptions of necessary program 94 4.29 1.05
characteristics.

School-land laboratory available for student use. 94 4.22 1.33
The decline in the number of ﬁrms. 95 4.22 1.37
Students dislike nnintaining SAE program records. 93 4.22 1.10
Agriscience teacher experience. 93 4.18 1.27

, The agricultural background of students. 95 4.14 1.24
Teacher success with SAE programs prior to entering 93 4.02 1.16
teaching process.

Students participation in activities other than sports is 93 3.88 1.35
excessrve.

Community attitudes about SAE programs. 93 3.88 1.22
Size of community. 94 3.48 1.33

 

 

 

 

 

 

Firmly Disagree =1, Disagree = 2, Slightly Disagree = 3, Slightly Agree = 4, Agree =5,
and Firmly Agree = 6.

67

and 2. The higher the mean score for each factor, the greater the teachers’ agreement with
that ﬁctor. A3 drown in Table 3, Michigan agriscience teachers’ mean ratings of these ﬁctors
ranged from 3.48 to 4.82. The three highest rated ﬁctors were (3) Facilities available for SAE
programs (mean = 4.82, SD = .97), (b) Agriscience teacher commitment to SAE programs
(mean = 4.53, SD = 1.90), and (c) Parent ability to help with ﬁnancing SAE programs (mean
= 4.49, SD = .01). On the other hand, the lowest ﬁctor rated was “size of community” (mean

= 3.48, SD = 1.33).

Researohﬂuostiona

Did Michigan agriscience teachers believe tMt SAE programs are necessary for
agriscience students?

To answer this research question, the teachers were asked, “Do you feel tMt SAE
programs are necessary for adequate education of students in the ﬁeld(s) of agriscience?”

All 95 teachers responded to this question As shown in Table 4, 69 teachers (72.6%)
indicated tint SAE programs were necessary, and 26 teachers (27.4%) indicated that such

programs were IlOt necessary.

Table 4
Michigan agriscience teachers’ perceptions of the necessity of SAE programs

 

 

 

Response Frequency %
Yes 69 72.6 .
No 26 27.4

 

 

 

 

 

Total 95 100.0

 

68
Researchﬂuestionj

What did Michigan agriscience teachers perceive to be their agriscience departments’
policies toward SAE programs?

Five items were on the questionrnire focused on this research question. Each is stated
below, along with the pertinent results:
1. Did your department Mve a written plan outlining SAE program requirements which
students must fulﬁll?

Ninety-four teachers responded to this question As shown in Table 5, 26 teachers
(27.7%) indicated tint their agriscience departments Md written plans outlining SAE program
requirements which their students must fulﬁll, whereas 68 teachers (72.3%) indicated that

their departments did not Mve such plans.

 

 

 

 

Table 5

Percentage of agriscience departments tMt Mve written plans regarding SAE programs.
Response Frequency %
Yes 26 27.7
No 68 72.3
Total 94 100.0

 

 

 

 

 

2. Did your department require tMt all students enrolled in the agriscience program Mve
SAE programs?

Ninety-four teachers responded to this question As shown in Table 6, 37 teachers
(39.4%) indicated that their agriscience departments required tMt all students Mve SAE
progrann. On the other hand, 57 teachers (60.6%) said that their agriscience departments did

not require tMt all students Mve SAE programs.

69

Table 6
Agriscience departments’ requirement of students Mve SAE programs.

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency %

Yes 37 39.4
No 57 60.6
Total 94 100.0

 

 

 

 

3. WMt percentage of the student’s grade is dependent on his/her involvement with SAE
programs?

Ninety-three teachers responded to this question. As shown in Table 7, the largest
group of 44 teachers (47.3%) indicated that no percentage of a student’s grade was
dependent on his or her involvement with an SAE program The second highest percentage
of teachers (21.5%) indicated that 10% of the student’s grade depended on his or her
involvement with an SAE programs. Another 18.3% said that 20% of a student’s grade was
dependent on his or her involvement in an SAE program. Moreover, several teachers
indicated different percentages of a student’s grade was dependent on his or her involvement

with an SAE program (Table 7).

70

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pidgﬁge of student’s grade dependent on his/her involvement in SAE programs.
Percentage of grade Frequency %
0 44 47.3
10 20 21.5 *
20 17 18.3
25 5 05.4
30 2 02.2
40 1 01.1
50 1 01.1
60 2 02.2
100 1 01.1
Total 93 100.0

 

 

 

 

s=11.13

4. What percentage of students Md SAE programs in your department?

Eighty nine teachers responded to this question As shown in Table 8, the largest
group of 17 teachers (18.9%) indicated tMt ﬁom 91% to 100% of their students Md SAE

programs. Moreover, teachers in diﬁ’erent categories indicated different percentages of their

students Md SAE programs (Table 8). The general mean was 54.80%.

 

71

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ragtime of students who Md SAE programs according to Michigan agriscience teachers.
Percentage Frequency %
0 2 02.2
1 - 10 13 14.5
11- 20 6 06.6
21- 30 12 13.4
31- 40 7 07.7
41- 50 3 03.4
51- 60 6 06.6
61- 70 . 6 06.6
71- 80 10 11.3
81- 90 7 07.8
91- 100 17 18.9
Total 89 100.0
it = 54.8

5. What percentage of students Md the following different types of SAE programs:
ownership, placement, laboratory, improvement, exploratory, and supplementary?
Eighty-seven teachers responded to this question As shown in Table 9, Michigan
agriscience teachers indicated tint 23.26% of students had SAE ownership programs, 23.23%
Md SAE placement programs, 19.37% Md laboratory programs, 8.56% Md SAE

improvement programs, 11.36% Md SAE exploratory programs, and 11.37% Md SAE

supplementary activities.

72

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ezrclzngtage of students enrolled in the different types of SAE programs.
Types of SE programs N %
Ownership 87 23.26
Placement 87 23.23
Laboratory 87 19.37
Improvement 87 8.56
Exploratory 87 11.36
Supplementary 87 11.37

W

Wint did Michigan agriscience teachers perceive to be their agriscience departments’
functions with regard to SAE programs?

Four items were included to collect the data with which to answer this research
question They are stated below:

1. Did your agriscience department provide the following ﬁcilities for students to conduct
their SAE programs: greenhouse, animal facilities, crop land, science lab, tree nursery, or
others?

As shown in Table 10, 50.5% of the teachers indicated tint their agriscience
departments provided greenhouses to students for conducting SAE programs. Moreover,
33% of the teachers indicated arrirrnl ﬁcilities, 44.1% indicated crop lands, 55.3% indicated
science labs, 26.6% indicated tree nurseries, and 30.9% indicated other ﬁcilities. Teachers
sometimes indicated tMt more than one type of facility was provided.

With respect to other facilities provided by agriscience departments, ﬁve indicated

forests, ﬁve indicated ﬂoral shops, four indicated landscaping, four indicated aquiculture,

73

three indicated hydroponics, three teachers indicated nature centers, three indicated woodlots,

two indicated grounds, one indicated an agricultural mecMnic lab, and one indicated a garden

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

center.
Table 10
Facilities provided to agriscience students by their departments.
Facilities provided for students. Response Frequency %
Greenhouses Yes 48 50.5
No 47 49.5
Anirrnl ﬁcilities ' Yes 31 33.0
No 63 67.0
Crop land Yes 41 44.1
No 52 55.9
Science Lab Yes 52 55.3
' No 42 44.7
Tree nursery Yes 25 26.6
No 69 73.4
Other facilities Yes 29 30.9
No 65 69.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Did your agriscience program provide some type of project, such as animal chain, in
which students initiate or participate in an SAE program?

Ninety-three teachers responded to this question As shown in Table 11, 30 teachers
(32.3% ) indicated that their agriscience programs provided some projects in which students

initiated or participated in SAE programs.

74

Table 11
Teachers’ responses regarding provision of some type of project by their agriscience

departments.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency %
Yes 30 32.3
No 63 67.7
Total 93 100.0

 

 

3. Did the school provide you with a vehicle to be used for SAE program visitations?
Ninety-three teachers responded to this question As shown in Table 12, 13 teachers

(14%) indicated tint their schools provided them with vehicles to be used for SAE program

visitations whereas 80 teachers (86%) indicated that their schools did not provide them with

vehicles.

Table 12

Teachers’ responses regarding the schools providing them with a vehicle to be used for SAE
program visitations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency %
Yes l3 14
No 80 86
Total 93 100

 

D. Did the school compensate you for use of your vehicle for SAE program visitations?
Eighty-eight teachers responded to this question As shown in Table 13, 62 teachers
(70.5%) indicated that their schools compensated them for the use of their vehicles. On the

other Mnd 26 teachers (29.5%) indicated that their schools did not compensate them.

75

Table 13
Teachers’ responses regarding the schools compensating them for using their vehicles in SAE
visitations. ‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency %

Yes 62 70.5

No 26 29.5

Total 88 100.0
WM

How much out-of-class work time did Michigan agriscience teachers spend
supervising students’ SAE programs?

In an attempt to answer this research question, teachers were asked: “Approxinntely
wMt percentage of your out-of-class work is spent supervising students’ SAE programs?”

Seventy-eight teachers responded to this question As shown in Table 14, the largest
group of 29 teachers (37.2%) indicated that they spent ﬁom 1% to 10% of their time as out-
of-class work. The second highest percentage of teachers (20.5%) indicated that they spent
hour 11 to 20 percent. Moreover, several teachers indicated diﬂ’erent percentages of out-of-
class work. In general, Michigan agriscience teachers on average spent 15.88% of their

teaching time as out-of-class work supervising students’ SAE progranrs.

76

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

gme of out- of- class work time teachers spent supervising students’ SAE programs.
Percentage of out-of-class work Frequency %
0 14 17.9
1 - 10 29 37.2
11- 20 16 20.5
21- 30 9 11.6
31- 40 2 02.5
41- 50 6 07.7
51- 60 0 00.0
61- 70 1 01.3
71- 80 0 00.0
81- 90 1 01.3
Total 78 100.0
52 = 15.88
W
How nruchtime did Michigan agriscience teachers spend per visit in SAE visitation/
supervision?

In an attempt to answer this research question teachers were asked: “WMt was the
average (approximate) amount of time spent with students’ SAE program per visit?

Seventy-seven teachers responded to this question As shown in Table 15, the largest
group of 20 teachers (25.9%) indicated that they spent ﬁom 21 to 30 minutes per visit. no
percentage of a student’s grade was dependent on his or her involvement with an SAE

program Moreover, several teachers indicated different amounts of time tint spent per visit.

77

The average time Michigan agriscience teachers spent on SAE visitations per visit was 31.70

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

minutes.
Table 15
Amount of time (minutes) teachers spent with students’ SAE programs per visit.
Amount of time (nrinutes) spent per visit Frequency %
0 16 20.8
1 - 10 1 01.3
11- 20 9 09.1
21- 30 20 25.9
31- 40 6 07.8
41- 50 14 18.2
51- 60 11 14.3
61- 70 0 00.0
71- 80 0 00.0
81- 90 1 01.3
90- 100 0 00.0
100-110 1 01.3
Total 77 100.0
2 = 31. 70
W2

To what degree did Michigan agriscience teachers emphasize student irrvolvenrent
with SAE programs in the ﬁxture?

To gather infornntion with which to answer this question, teachers were asked: “In
the future, do you plan to increase, maintain, or decrease, the level of involvement of your

students with SAE programs?

78
As shown in Table 16, all 95 teachers responded to this question. F lily-four teachers
(56.8% ) indicated that they planned to increase, 35 teachers (36.9%) indicated tMt they
planned to nnintain, and 6 teachers (6.3%) indicated tMt they plarmed to decrease the level
of their students’ involvement with SAE programs in the future . ‘
Table 16

Future emphasis by Michigan agriscience teachers on their students’ involvement with SAE
programs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency %
Increase 54 56.8
Maintain 35 36.9
Decrease 6 06.3
Total ' 95 100.0
WWW did Michigan agriscience teachers provide to students’ SAE
programs?

The questionnaire contained 13 items regarding the amount of assistance teachers
currently provided to students’ SAE progranrs. Teachers were asked to respond to each item
in terms of the amount of assistance currently provided to students’ SAE programs.
Responses were given the following numerical weight: none = 1, small = 2, some = 3, large
= 4, and great = 5.Thus, the higher the mean score for each item, the greater the amount of
assistance teachers currently provided to students’ SAE programs. Table 17 shows the
amount of assistance that was currently provided to students’ SAE programs in various

capacities. Mean scores ranged from 2.21 to 3.02. The three highest rated areas of assistance

were (a) selecting the proper type of SAE programs (mean = 3.02, SD = .83), (b) planning

79

of SAE programs (mean = 2.96, SD = .86), (c) development of incentives for SAE programs

(mean = 2.93, SD = .83).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aﬂirit7of assistance 91m provided by Michigan agriscience teachers to students’ SAE
programs.

Items N 52 SD
Selecting the proper type of SAE programs. 80 3.02 .83
Plarming of SAE programs. 78 2.96 .86
Development of incentive for SAE programs. 78 2.93 .83
Evaluating SAE programs. 81 2.86 .96
Keeping records for SAE programs. 79 2.78 .89
Developing long-range plans for SAE programs. 78 2.69 .86
Managing SAE programs. 76 2.65 .99
Making general decisions. 74 2.58 .89
Developing parental agreement. 78 2.51 1.02
Financing SAE programs. 79 2.40 1.18
Providing counseling on reinvestment of proﬁt. 80 2.31 1.02
Providing transportation for SAE program activities. 79 2.22 1.01
Developing budgets for SAE programs. 76 2.21 .91

 

 

 

 

 

 

ScalezGreat=1,Large=2,Some=3,Small=4,andNone=5

On the other hand, the areas of assistance with the lowest mean ratings were
(a) developing the budgets for SAE programs ( mean = 2.21, SD = .91), (b) providing
tramportation for SAE activities (mean = 2.22, SD = 1.01), and (c) providing counseling on
reinvestment of proﬁt (mean = 2.31, SD = 1.02). Generally, Michigan agriscience teachers
indicatedtint,withtheexceptionofthe ﬁrst area, theycjmmhrprovidedasnnllamount of

assistance in each area

80

Researchﬂuostionll

How much assistance should be provided to students’ SAE programs?

Teachers responded to the same 13 items as in research question 10, but this time in
terms of irow nruch assistance should}: provided. Tire same ﬁve-point scale was used. Again,
the higher the mean score for each item, the greater the amount ofassistance teachers thought
should be provided to students’ SAE programs.

Table 18 shows the amount of assistance that teachers thought shomguze provided to
students’ SAE programs. Means ranged from 3.14 to 3.84. The three highest rated areas of
assistance were (a) development of incentive for SAE (men = 3.84, SD = .74), (b) planning
SAE programs (mean = 3.80, SD = .73), and (c) selecting the proper type of SAE programs
(mean = 3.66, SD = .80). On the other hand, (a) providing transportation for SAE activities
(mean= 3.14, SD=1.10), and b) ﬁnancing SAE programs (mean = 3.15, SD = 1.14) were
the lowest rated areas of assistance. In general, Michigan agriscience teachers indicated that

all of the listed areas of assistance shouldhe provided to “some” degree.

8 1
Table 18

Amount of assistance tMt 311mm provided to students’ SAE programs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Items N x SD
Development of incentive for SAE programs. 85 3.84 .74
Planning of SAE programs. 87 3.80 .73
Selecting the proper type of SAE programs. 87 3.66 .80
Keeping records for SAE programs. 84 3.61 .95
Developing long-range plans for SAE programs. 88 3.55 .96
Evaluating SAE programs. 88 3.55 1.04
Developing parental agreement. 86 3.42 .98
Managing SAE programs. 83 3.41 1.00
Developing budgets for SAE programs. 89 3.39 1.02
Providing counseling on reinvestment of proﬁt. 85 3.36 1.01
Making general decisions. 87 3.28 .95
Financing SAE programs. 85 3.15 1.14
Providing transportation for SAE program activities. 86 3.14 1.10

 

Scale: Great= 1, Large = 2, Some = 3, Snnll=4,None= 5

Blle 1.5].

The questionrnire contained nine items regarding selected demographic characteristics

of Michigan agriscience teachers. These demographic characteristics were age, gender,

highest educational degree completed, number of years teaching, agriscience area of

empinsis, percentage of time spent on teaching agriscience, number of students enrolled in

high school, number of students enrolled in agriscience classes, and type of school in which

teachers taught. A description of the teachers according to these demographic characteristics

is presented in the following pages:

 

82

Michigan agriscience teachers ranged in age ﬁom 23 years to 59 years. The mean was

41.86 years (Table 19).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 19
Distrrhution of respondents by age.

Age in Years Frequency %
21 - 25 9 06.3
26 - 30 9 08.4
31 - 35 9 09.5
36 - 40 16 16.9
41 - 45 19 20.0
46 - 50 19 20.0
51 - 55 10 10.5
56 - 60 8 08.4
Total 95 100.0

5? = 41.86
Gender

Of the 95 teachers who participated in the study, 69 teachers (72.6%) were rrnles and
26 teachers (27.4%) were females (Table 20).

Table 20
Gender of Michigan agriscience teachers.

 

 

 

Gender Frequency %
Male 69 72.6
Female 26 27 .4

 

 

 

 

 

Total 95 100.0

 

83
I] Hi El . 11: C l 1

Of the 95 teachers, 39 teachers (41.1%) indicated that the highest educational degree

they Md completed was a bachelor’s degree. Fifty-one teachers (55.6%) Md earned a

master’s degree, and ﬁve teachers (5.3%) Md earmd a spec'nlist degree (Table 21).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Titlhlzhest educational degree completed by Michigan agriscience teachers.

Degree Frequency %
Bachelor 39 41.1
Master 51 55.6
Specialist 5 05.3
Total 95 100.0
NllmthofleatsIeoohina

Michigan agriscience teachers’ number of years of teaching ranged ﬁom a minimum

of 1 year to a maximum of 35 years. The mean was 15.76 years (Table 22).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 22
Number of years respondents Md been teaching_agriscience.
Years of teaching N %

1 - 5 18 18.9
6 - 10 20 20.0
11 - 15 9 09.5
16 - 20 14 14.7
21 - 25 15 15.8
26 - 30 11 11.6
31 - 35 8 08.4
Total 95 100.0

 

 

 

 

>—( = 15.76

 

 

84
lelHi'°

Michigan agriscience teachers Md various areas of emphasis; some indicated more
than one area. Eighty one teachers (85%) indicated agriscience, 23 teachers (24.2%) indicated
greenhouse, 18 (19%) indicated landscape, 18 teachers (19%) indicated ﬂoriculture, 5
teachers (5.3%) indicated agricultural mechanic, and 14 teachers (14.7%) indicated other
areas of empMsis (Table 23). For other areas of emphasis, two teachers indicated nature
center, two indicated natural resources, two indicated equine science, one indicated turf, one
indicated science on agriscience, one indicated agronomy, one indicated environmental

science, one indicated crops, one indicated forestry, and one teacher indicated agricultural

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

communication

Table 23

Teachers’ area of emphasis in agriscience.
Area of empMsis Frequency %
Agriscience 81 85.0
Greenhouse 23 24.2
Landscape 18 18.9
Floriculture 18 18.9
Agricultural Mechanic 5 05.3
Other areas 14 14.7

 

 

 

 

"' Teachers could choose more than one area at the sanre time.

B ESllllI'S 11.5..

The percentages of scheduled time Michigan agriscience teachers indicated they spent

on teaching agriscience varied from 15% to 100%. The mean was 73% (Table 24).

 

85

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

game of scheduled time teachers spent on teaching agriscience.

Percent of scheduled time Frequency %
1 - 10 0 00.0
11 - 20 6 06.5
21 - 30 2 02.1
31 - 40 7 07.5
41 - 50 12 12.9
51 - 60 5 05.4
61 - 70 6 06.5
71 - 80 12 12.9
81 - 90 3 03.2
91 - 100 40 43.0
Total 93 100.0

)7 = 73%

 

The number ofstudents enrolled in high schools tint Md agriscience varied ﬁom 44

to 2800. The mean was 678.5 students (Table 25).

86

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nautirlszrsof students enrolled in Michigan high schools tMt Md agriscience.
Number of students Frequency %
1 - 200 5 5.7
201 - 400 24 27.3
401 - 600 18 20.4
601 - 800 15 17.1
801 - 1000 11 12.5
1001- 1200 4 04.5
1201- 1400 4 04.5
1401- 1600 2 02.3
1601- 1800 0 00.0
1801- 2000 2 02.3
2001- 2200 2 02.3
2201- 2400 0 00.0
2401- 2600 0 00.0
2601- 2800 1 01.2
Total 88 100.0
52 = 724.21

lllfSlElll'!" [21

According to the 95 who participated in this study, the number of students enrolled

inagrisciencevariedfromaminilmnnofll toamaximumof200. Themeanwas72 students

(Table 26).

87

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 26
Number of students enrolled in agriscience classes.
Number of Students Frequency %
1 - 25 9 09.6
26 - 50 25 26.6
51 - 75 24 25.5
76 - 100 15 16.0
101 - 125 13 13.8
126 - 150 6 06.4
151 - 175 0 00.0
176 - 200 2 02.1
Total 94 100.0
x = 73
Whom

Of the 95 teachers, 60 teachers (63.2%) indicated they were teaching in
comprehensive high schools, 27 teachers (28.4%) indicated they were teaching in career
centers, and 8 teachers (8.4%) indicated they were teaching in comprehensive high schools

tint are designated career centers (Table 27).

 

 

 

 

 

¥:Ib)lC:2O7fhigh schools in which Michigan agriscience teachers taught.

Type of high school Frequency %
Comprehensive high school 60 63.2
Career Center . 27 28.4
Conrprehensive high school tint designated career 8 8.4
center

Total 95 100.0

 

 

 

 

 

88

Based on the denrographic characteristics of Michigan agriscience teachers collected
through the questiomnire, ﬁve additional research questions were investigated in this study.
Multiple regression analysis was performed to determine the best prediction models for
explaining the variance in teachers’ philosophies regarding SAE, perceptions of beneﬁts of
SAE, necessity of SAE, and percentage of students who Md SAE. Twelve independent
variables were included using the Stepwise regression method and at the .l alpM level. The
following results were obtained concerning prediction models between the demographic

variables and the dependent variables.

W

Could certain demographic characteristics of Michigan agriscience teachers be
identiﬁed as predictors of teachers’ philosophies regarding SAE programs?

As shown in Table 28, the best model consisted of the two demographic
characteristics: gender and scheduled time spent on teaching agriscience. In other words,
gender and scheduled time spent on teaching agriscience were found to be signiﬁcant
predictors of teachers’ philosophies regarding SAE programs. Gender produced a negative
regression coefﬁcient with teachers’ philosophies regarding SAE programs. Thus, according
to the numerical values assigned to the two gender groups (nnle = 1, fennle = 2), female
teachers had lower philosophies regarding SAE programs. Male teachers could be predicted
to Mve higher philosophical beliefs toward SAE programs.

On the other hand, the scheduled time spent on teaching agriscience produced a
positive regression coefﬁcient with teachers’ philosophies regarding SAE programs. Tint is,
the more time teachers spent on teaching agriscience, the higher were their philosophies

toward SAE programs.

89
Table 28

Stepwise regression analysis regarding the selected demographic characteristics of Michigan
agriscience teachers and teachers’ philosophies regarding SAE programs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source of Variance DF Sum of Squares Mean square F Sig. F
Regression 2 .964 .482 3.92 .048
Residual 84 10.194 .123
Variables in the equation
Variable b R R2 Beta t-value Sig. t
Gender -.17 .21 .05 -.20 -1.95 .054“
Scheduled time spent on .002 .29 .09 .20 1.92 .058‘I
Intercept 3.96 24.94 .000
* Signiﬁcant at .1 level
Variables not in the equation
Variable Beta t-value Sig. t
Age of respondents .002 .021 .983
Highest educational degree conrpleted:
1. Bachelor’s degree .010 .111 .911
2. Master’s degree -.011 -.009 .993
3. Specialist -.021 -.221 .826
Years teaching .039 .339 .736
Number of student enrolled in high school .093 .373 .710
Number of students enrolled in agriscience classes .091 .814 .418
Type of high school in which teachers teach
1. Comprehensive high school .049 .442 .660
2. Career center .047 .435 .665
3. Comprehensive high school that designated career -.14 -1.348 .181
center

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 28 shows tint two demographic characteristics explained a total of 9% of the
variance associated with teachers’ beliefs toward SAE programs. According to R2 values and

changes in R’, gender explained 5% and the scheduled time explained 4% of the variance

90

associated with teacirers’ philosophies toward SAE programs. The predicted model could be
calculated as follows.

Y = b0 + bl xr + b2 x2

Where: Y = Predicted value

bo = Intercept

bl Xi = Gender

b2 x2 = Scheduled time spent on teaching agriscience.

As shown in Table 28, none of the remaining independent variables (variables not in

the equation) explained a signiﬁcant proportion of the variance in teachers’ philosophies

regarding SAE programs.

Wm

Could certain demographic characteristics of Michigan agriscience teachers be
identiﬁed as predictors of teachers’ perceptions of the beneﬁts of SAE programs?

As shown in Table 29, the demographic characteristic of career center, as a type of
high school in which agriscience teachers taught, was found to be the only variable to ﬁt the
model. In other words, the variable of career center was found to be a signiﬁcant positive
predictor of teachers’ perceptions of SAE beneﬁts. Thus, teachers who worked in career
centers had higher perceptions of SAE beneﬁts.

Table 29 shows tMt the model Md a multiple R value of .20 as a correlation
coefﬁcient between the two variables and a total R2 value of .04 accounting for 4% of the

variance in teachers’ perceptions of SAE beneﬁts. The prediction model could be calculated

as follows:
Y = bo + bl x l
where: Y = Predicted value
bo = Intercept

bl Xi = Career center

91

Table 29 also shows tMt none of the remaining independent variables (variables not

in the equation) explained a signiﬁcant proportion of the variance in teachers’ perceptions of

SAE beneﬁts.

Table 29

Stepwise regression analysis regarding the selected demographic characteristics of
Michigan agriscience teachers and teachers’ perceptions of SAE beneﬁts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source of Variance DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Signi. F
Regression 1 1.01 1.11 4.11 .04
Residual 92 22.68 .25
Variables in the uation
Variable b R R2 Beta t. value Sig. t
Career center .23 .20 .04 .21 2.03 .045' '
Intercept 4.62 , 22.66 .000
"‘ Signiﬁcant at .1 level
Variables not in the equation

Variable Beta t-value Sig. t
Age of respondent -.074 -.720 .473
Education

1. Bachelor’s degree .087 .826 .410

2. Master’s degree -.085 -.824 .418

3. Specialist .005 .050 .960
Years teaching -.072 -.71 1 .479
Scheduled time spent on teaching agriscience .165 1.595 .114
Number of students enrolled in high school .046 .436 .664
Number of students enrolled in agriscience classes .096 .894 .374
Type of high school

1. Comprehensive high school -.009 -.050 .960

2. Comprehensive high school tMt is designated .005 .050 .960

career center

Gender -.043 -.416 .679

 

 

 

92
ResearchﬂusslionJA

Could certain demographic characteristics of Michigan agriscience teachers be
identiﬁed as predictors of ﬁctors affecting students’ involvement with SAE

programs?

As shown in Table 30, the demographic characteristic of career center, as a type of
high school in which agriscience teachers taught, was found to be the most positive predictor
of teachers’ perceptions of ﬁctors affecting students’ involvement with SAE programs. Thus,
teachers who worked in career centers Md higher perceptions of ﬁctors aﬂectmg students’
involvement with SAE programs. The model had a multiple R value of.26 asa correlation
coefﬁcient between the two variables and Md a total R2 value of .07 accounting for 7% of
the variance associated with perceptions of factors affecting student involvement with SAE
programs. The prediction model could be calculated as follows:

Y = bo + bl Xl

where: Y = Predicted value
bo = Intercept
bl Xi = Career center

Table 30 also shows also that none of the remaining independent variables (variables
not in the equation) explained a signiﬁcant proportion of the variance in teachers’ perceptions

of ﬁctors affecting student involvement with SAE programs.

93

Table 30

Stepwise regression analysis regarding the selected demographic characteristics of Michigan
agriscience teachers and teachers’ perceptions of factors affecting students’ involvement with
SAE programs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source of Varran' ce DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Signi. F
Regression 1 2.424 2.424 6.263 .014
Residual 84 32.509 .387
Variables in the equation
Variable b R R2 Beta t. value Sig. t
Career center .39 .26 .07 .263 2.503 .045“
Intercept 3.50 12.407 .000
* Signiﬁcant at .1 level
Variables not in the egation

Variable Beta t-value Sig. t
Age of respondent. .086 .882 .413
Education

1. Bachelor’s degree .022 .207 .837

2. Master’s degree -.007 -.065 .949

3. Specialist -.034 .328 .743
Years teaching .132 1.260 .211
Scheduled time spent on teaching agriscience -.045 -.416 .678
Number of students enrolled in high school .133 1.185 .239
Number of students enrolled in agriscience classes .127 1.166 .247
Type of high school

1. Comprehensive high school .268 1.556 .123

2. Comprehensive high school tMt is designated -.165 -l.556 .123

career center

Gender -.043 -.416 .679

 

 

 

 

 

 

94
WW

Could certain denrographic characteristics of Michigan agriscience teachers be
identiﬁed as predictors of teachers’ perceptions of the necessity of SAE programs?

As shown in Table 31, the demographic characteristic of gender was found to be the
best predictor. In other words, gender was found to be a signiﬁcant negative predictor of
teachers’ perceptions of the necessity of SAE programs. Thus, according to the numerical
values assigned to the two gender groups (nnle =1, female =2), fennle teachers had lower
perceptions of the necessity of SAE than did nnle teachers. Table 31 shows tMt the model
had a multiple R value of .21 as a correlation coefﬁcient between the two variables and Md
a total R2 value of .04 accounting for 4% of the variance associated with teachers’

perceptions of the necessity of SAE programs. The prediction model could be calculated as

follows:
Y = b0 + bl x1
where: Y = Predicted value
bo = Intercept
bl xr = Gender

Table 31 also shows also tint none of the remaining independent variables (variables
not in the equation) explained a signiﬁcant proportion of the variance in teachers’ perceptions

of the necessity of SAE programs.

95
Table 31

Stepwise regression analysis regarding the selected demographic cMracteristics of

Michigan agriscience teachers and teachers’ perceptions of the necessity of SAE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

programs.
Source of Variance DF Sum of squares Mean square F Sig. F
Regression 1 .77 .77 3.93 .050
Residual 92 18.03 .20
Variables in the equation
Variable b R R2 Beta t. value Sig. t
Gender of respondents -.20 .21 .04 .20 -1.98 .050“
Intercept .98 7.1 1 .000
* signiﬁcant at .1 level
Variables not in the equation

Variables Beta t-value Sig. t
Age of respondent -.077 -.714 .477
Education

1. Bachelor’s degree -.011 -.104 .917

2. Master’s degree .015 .150 .881

3. Specialist -.110 -.107 .915
Years teaching -.080 -.723 .471
Scheduled time spent in teaching agriscience -.073 -.712 .478
Number of students enrolled ill high school -.006 -.061 .951
Number of students enrolled in agriscience classes .085 .811 .420
Type of high school

1. Comprehensive high school -.154 -1.511 .134

2. Career center .113 1.084 .281

3. Conrprehensive high school that is designated .089 .866 .389

career center

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

96

Researchﬂuestionlo

Could certain demographic characteristics of Michigan agriscience teachers be
identiﬁed as predictors of the percentage of students who participate in SAE

programs?

As shown in Table 32, the best model consisted of three demographic characteristics:
comprehensive high school, gender, and years teaching. In other words, these three
independent variables were found to be signiﬁcant predictors of the percentage of students
who Mve SAE progrann. Two demographic variables, gender and comprehensive high school
produced negative regression coefﬁcients. Thus, female teachers and teachers who worked
in a comprehensive high school Md a lower percentage of students who Md SAE. On the
other hand, the demographic variable of “years teaching” produced a positive regression
coeﬂicient. Thus, the more teaching experience for teacher, the higher percentage of students
who have SAE programs. Table 32 shows tMt these three variables explained a total of
16.8% of the variance associated with the percentage of students who Mve SAE programs.
According to the R2 values and cMnge in R2, comprehensive high school explained 8.1%,
gender explained 4.9%, and teaching experience explained 3.8% of the variance associated
with the percentage of students who Mve SAE programs. The prediction model could be
calculated as follows:

Y=bo+blx1+b2 x2+b3xs
where: Y = Predicted value
bo = Intercept
bl x1 = Comprehensive high school

b2 x2 = Gender
b3 xs = Teaching experience

97

Table 32 also shows tMt none of the rennining independent variables (variables not
in the equation) explained a signiﬁcant proportion of the variance in the percentage of
students Mve SAE programs.

Table 32

Stepwise regression arnlysis regarding the selected demographic characteristics of Michigan
agriscience teachers and percentage of students Mving SAE progranrs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source of Variance DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Sig. F
Regression 3 16798.32 5599.44 5.70 .001
Residual 85 83475.19 982.06
Variables in the equation
Variable b R R2 Beta t-value Sig. t
Comprehensive high -15.74 .286 .081 -.225 -2.24 .027“
school
Gender -13.89 .362 .130 -.181 -1.69 .093“
Teaching years .70 .409 .167 .204 1.93 .056’
Intercept 18.94 5.13 .000
* Signiﬁcant at .1 level
Variables not in the equation

Variable Beta t-value Sig. t
Age -.067 -.401 .689
Education

1. Bachelor’s degree. .024 .210 .834

2. Master’s degree. -.016 -.151 .880

3. Specialist. -.009 -.088 .930
Scheduled time spent on teaching agriscience. .160 1.524 .131
Number of students enrolled in high school. .108 1.027 .307
Number of students enrolled in agriscience. -.131 -1.088 .279
Type of high school:

1. Career center .115 .662 .059

2. Comprehensive high school tint designated -.074 -.662 .059

career center.

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER V

SUh/IMARY, DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

Introduction
This chter contains a summary of the study, a discussion of ﬁndings, conclusions
drawn from the ﬁndings, recommendations based on the ﬁndings and conclusions of the

study. The chter is concluded by some suggestions for further studies.

SummoﬂIheStudx
Agriscience in public schools Ms a rich heritage of developing students’ personal

skills, as well as providing the abilities needed for agricultural employment. Agriscience
students Mve opportunities to apply the subject matter to real-life situations. Application of
subject matter comes about through a deliberate program of experience conducted by the
student and supervised by the agriscience teacher. SAE programs systematically involve
students in real-life situations involving agricultural experiences that are planned and
supervised as a part of the agriscience curriculum.

Several studies Mve been conducted around the United States to describe the status
of SAE programs and to determine the perceptions of students, parents, employers, and
agriscience teachers regarding those programs. The studies concerning agriscience teachers’
perceptions of SAE programs found the agriscience teacher as one of several ﬁctors aﬁ'ected

98

99

the success of such programs. Because of the key role of the agriscience teacher and the

changes that Mve taken place in agriscience programs in general and SAE programs in

particular, it was logical to undertake a study concerning Michigan agriscience teachers’

perceptions of SAE programs.

The main purpose of this study was to determine Michigan agriscience teachers’

perceptions of selected aspects of SAE programs. To achieve this main purpose, several

research questions were investigated through the study. Because some demographic

characteristics of Michigan agriscience teachers were collected through the study

questiomnire, ﬁve additional research questions were conducted and investigated through the

study. However, all research questions are listed below:

1.

2.

What were Michigan agriscience teachers’ philosophies regarding SAE programs?
What did Michigan agrisceince teachers view as the beneﬁts of SAE programs?
Wint ﬁctors did Michigan agriscience teachers think affected students’ involvement
with SAE programs?

Did Michigan agriscience teachers believe that SAE programs are necessary for
agriscience students?

Wint did Michigan agriscience teachers perceive to be their agriscience departments’
policies with regard to SAE programs?

What did Michigan agriscience teachers perceive to be their agriscience departments’
functions with regard to SAE programs?

How much out-of-class-work time did Michigan agriscience teachers spend

supervising students’ SAE programs?

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

100
How much time did Michigan agriscience teachers spend per visit in SAE program
visitations?
To what degree did Michigan agriscience teachers emphasize students’ involvement
with SAE programs in the future?
How much assistance did Michigan agriscience teachers provide to students’
SAE programs?
How much assistance should be provided to students’ SAE programs?
Could certain demographic characteristics of Michigan agriscience teachers be
identiﬁed as predictors of teachers’ philosophies regarding SAE programs?
Could certain demographic cMracteristics of Michigan agriscience teachers be
identiﬁed as predictors of teachers’ perceptions of the beneﬁts of SAE programs?
Could certain demographic characteristics of Michigan agriscience teachers be
identiﬁed as predictors of ﬁctors affecting students’ involvement with SAE
programs?
Could certain demographic characteristics of Michigan agriscience teachers be
identiﬁed as predictors of teachers’ perceptions of the necessity of SAE programs?
Could certain demographic cMracteristics of Michigan agriscience teachers be
identiﬁed as predictors of the percentage of students who pmticipate ill SAE
programs?

This study was conducted within the limitations of focusing on agriscience teachers

in Michigan high schools and vocational/career centers. Analyzing the data was dependent

on the perceptions addressed in the questionnaire developed for this study.

101

Through this study it was assumed tMt all Michigan agriscience teachers could
currently perceive their role as agriscience teachers, were engaged in an effective agriscience
program, acquainted with SAE programs and cooperated to complete and return the
questionnaire. It was also assumed that the instrument used for data collection determined
adequately the perceptions of the study population regarding SAE programs.

Since the philosophy behind supervised agricultural experience programs is
experiential learning or learning by doing, a theoretical ﬁamework was presented at the
beginning of review of literature. This theoretical ﬁamework concerned Dewey’s opinions
and other ideas about experience generally and experiential learning through agriscience
speciﬁcally. Moreover, the review of literature focused on philosophy, history, and deﬁnition
of SAE programs, quality and importance of SAE programs, types of SAE programs,
agriscience students’ and teachers’ involvement with SAE programs.

Adescriptivesurveyresearchmcthodwasusedincarryingoutthis study. Because the
population of this study comprised all of the Michigan agriscience teachers (11 = 137) in high
schools and vocational/career centers, a mailed questionnaire was thought to be the most
appropriate method for collecting the data of this study. The questionnaire was developed
following a review of literature and instruments related to agriscience in general and to SAE
programs in particular.

Data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS).
Frequencies, means, standard deviations, and percentages were used to analyze the overall

perceptions of all respondents. Multiple regression analysis was used to determine whether

102

any of the selected demographic characteristics could be identiﬁed as predictors of certain

aspects of SAE programs. The study ﬁndings are discussed in the following section.

II . EE' 1'

WELLWMt were Michigan agriscience teachers’ philosophies
regarding SAE programs?

Michigan agriscience teachers philosophically supported the SAE concept and
indicated it as a valuable component of agriscience. Moreover, they viewed it as a workable
concept and promoted it in their agriscience classes. They also agreed on ownership,
placenrent, laboratory, improvement, exploratory, and supplementary skills as types of SAE
programs. Some of these results agree with those from Osborne’s (1988)study in Illinois.
Osborne concluded tint Illinois vocational agriculture teachers were very supportive of the
SAE concept and indicated that SAE is a valuable component and promoted it in their
vocatiornl agriculture progrann, but they felt neutral toward the types of SAE. In the current
study, Michigan agriscience teachers indicated that they were conﬁdent about providing
assistance to students. However, helping every student plan and conduct a SAE program was
derrnnding, and they Md difﬁculties motivating students. Osborne found that Illinois teachers
were conﬁdent about helping students but felt neutral toward helping every student conduct
SAE programs. He also found that teachers cited lack of student motivation as the nnjor
problem they encountered when helping students plan and conduct SAE programs. Whereas
Cole and Herren (1983) found that Oregon agriscience teachers disagreed with the statement
that “SAE programs should not be required for all students,” Michigan teachers in this study

indicated that all agriscience students should be required to conduct SAE programs.

103

W2: What did Michigan agrisceince teachers view as the beneﬁts of
SAE programs?

Michigan agriscience teachers agreed on several beneﬁts of SAE programs, including
solving problems, making decisions, self-leamirlg, acceptance of responsibility, developing
independence, motivation to learn, and use of business procedures. SAE programs were also
considered to be useful in preparing for agricultural occupations, choosing an occupation,
managing money, setting educational goals, helping students earn money while in school,
encouraging record-keeping, and developing self-conﬁdence. The results of this research
question were consistent with those of Pals (1988). He found that parents, instructors, and
employers rated 30 SAE beneﬁt items, including most of the beneﬁt items presented in the
current study, higher than 5 (average beneﬁt). The results of this question also were
consistent with the SAE beneﬁts reported in W
W (Barrick et al., 1992).

Generally speaking, SAE programs are designed to help students plan budget, make
decisions, solve problems, evaluate activities, earn awards, and keep accurate records.
Moreover, these programs provide the valuable and occupational experiences that make
education relevant (Elliot et al., 1991). Through SAE programs, students “learn by doing”
and apply agricultural knowledge and skills learned ill the classroom, and laboratory in an
“away ﬁom the classroom” setting. This helps to “bridge the gap” between education and
employment and results in a thorough more deeply found learning experience. SAE also
provides beneﬁts to teachers, employers, agricultural education programs, communities and

the agricultural industry (Barrick et al., 1992).

104

WW3: WMt factors did Michigan agriscience teachers think aﬁected
students’ involvement with SAE programs?

Michigan agriscience teachers slightly agreed with several ﬁctors thought to affect
students’ involvement with SAE programs. They agreed with the ﬁctors (a) money available
for students to ﬁnance SAE, (b) parent ability to help with ﬁnancing SAE, (c) ﬁcilities
available for SAE, (d) school land-laboratory available, and (e) students dislike maintaining
program records. Foster (1984) found tint Nebraska agriscience teachers indicated these ﬁve
ﬁctors were among the ten ﬁctors most affecting students’ participation in SAE programs,
but he found “community attitudes about SAE programs” to be one of the ﬁctors least
affecting students’ participation in SAE— the same result as ill this study regarding that ﬁctor.
Whereas Foster found “student participation ill activities other than sports is excessive” to be
one of the ten ﬁctors most aﬁ’ecting participation in SAE, Michigan agriscience teachers
slightly disagreed on that ﬁctor. On the other Mnd, whereas Foster found “agriscience
teacher experience” to be one of the ﬁve ﬁctors least affecting students’ participation in SAE,
in this study, it was one of the highest rated ﬁctors aﬁ'ecting students’ involvement with SAE
programs.

Findings from the current study were consistent with those from Sutphin’s study
(1984). Sutphin found “the increasing number of students ﬁ'om urban and suburban
backgrounds,” and “the decline in the number of ﬁrms” to be ﬁctors aﬂ’ecting students’
involvement with SAE programs.

Bell (1984) indicated tint the ﬁctor “agriculture instructor perceptions of necessary
program cinracteristics” affected students’ involvement with SAE and FFA. However, in the

current study, Michigan agriscience teachers slightly disagreed with that ﬁctor.

105

Findings fromthe cm'rent study also agreed with those from Gebhardt’s (1985) study.
In particular, “teacher commitment to SAE” and “employers’ support” were found to aﬁ’ect
students’ involvement with SAE programs. Geerdt concluded that “size of community”
was one of the least important ﬁctors affecting students’ participation in SAE programs--tile
same result as in this study. Geerdt also concluded that “teacher success with SAE
programs prior to entering the teaching process” was one of the least important factors
affecting students’ participation in SAE. Michigan teachers, in this study, agreed with that
factor.
Finally, there was an agreement between this study and French’s (1983) study
concerning the ﬁctor “teacher expectations of students,” which was found to aﬁ‘ect students’

involvement with the SAE programs. Dyer and Osborne (1996) also reported that teacher
expectations strongly inﬂuenced the quality of SAE programs.

W: Did Michigan agriscience teachers believe tint SAE programs

are necessary for agriscience students?

When Michigan agriscience teachers were asked to determine whether they thought
SAE programs were necessary for agriscience students, the nnjority (69 teachers or 72.6 %)
indicated that SAE programs were necessary. Smith (1982) found tint 97.2% of Oklahoma
vocational agriculture teachers thought that SAE programs were necessary for their students.
In general, the concept ofSAE Ms stood the test oftime and has made a diﬁ’erence in the
lives of many students. SAE programs, designed to meet students’ educational needs, should
continue as an integral part of today’s agriscience program. Agriscience teachers must learn
ﬁom past experience and provide opportunities for their students to gain concrete, real

experiences ill the nnny facets of the agricultural industry through quality SAE programs.

106

Newcomb et al. (1986) indicated that the need for supervised practice in agriscience was
established because of students’ improved learning, personal development, and occupational
development.

W: What did Michigan agriscience teachers perceive to be their

agriscience departments’ policies with regard to SAE programs?

Of the Michigan agriscience teachers who participated in this study, 27 .7 % indicated
that their agriscience departments had written plans outlining SAE requirements. This
percentage was lower than those in other studies. Foster (1984) found that 40% of Nebraska
agriculture teachers said that their departments had written SAE policies, and Smith (1982)
found that 68% of Oklahoma vocational agriculture teachers had written plans for SAE
progrann. Boone et al. (1987) found tint 25% of the agricultural education programs in New
York did not have an SAE written plan for students. However, they noted tlnt a carefully
written pnn for SAE program is one of several standards mentioned by Maltby (1928) and
is still applicable in today’s agriscience program.

Thirty-nine percent of Michigan agriscience teachers indicated that their agriscience
departments required all students enrolled in agriscience programs to have SAE progrann.
Although only 39% of departments required students to have SAE programs, teachers
thought that all agriscience students should be required to have such programs. They agreed
with the statement that “agriscience students should be required to conduct an SAE
program.” Smith found that 75% of Oklahonn vocatiornl agriculture teachers indicated that
their departments required all students enrolled in agriscience to have SAE programs.

Amberson (1967) explained that most state plans for vocational education indicated tint all

107

students enrolled in vocational agriculture should have SOE as a part of their instructional
program.

In Michigan agriscience departments, it was found-that an average of 11.13% of the
student’s grade depended on his or her involvement with an SAE program. This result was
similar to that in Osborne’s (1988) study. He found that most Illinois vocational agriculture
teachers allotted 10% of the student’s grade for SAE programs. In Smith’s (1982) study,
Oklahoma vocational agriculture teachers indicated that 26.8% of a student’s grade was
dependent on his or her involvement with SAE programs. In this study, Michigan agriscience
teachers believed tlnt extra class credit should not be provided for students completing SAE
programs.

It was also found tlnt 55% of Michigan agriscience students had SAE programs.
Studies in other states found different percentages of students with SAE programs. In
Missouri, Stewart (1991) reported that, in 1982/83, 82% of Missouri secondary agriculture
students completed experience programs, compared with 86% in 1987/88. Foster (1984)
found that 90% of agricultural education students participated in SAE programs. Penrod
(1984) found that, in New York, less than 30% of students in high school vocational
agricultural programs 1nd SOE programs. In Areas I and II In Texas, Harris (1983) found
tlnt 58% of the departments reported 100% of the students with SAE programs.

Concerning the diﬂ‘erent types of SAE programs, it was found that 23.26% of
Michigan agriscience students had SAE ownership programs, 23.23% had SAE placement,
19.37% had SAE laboratory, 8.56% had SAE improvement, 11.36% had SAE exploratory,
and 11.37 had SAE supplementary programs. This ﬁnding was consistent with Phipps and

Osborne’s (1988) contention that ownership, placement, and laboratory experience represent

108

the three major types of SAE programs and that improvement, exploratory, and
supplementary represent the additional components of SAE programs. So, according to the
above percentages, nrore students were involved with the major types of SAE prograrrrs than
in the other components in Michigan agriscience departments. Although teachers indicated
that higher percentages of students had the nnjor types of SAE programs, they supported
each of the above mentioned six types of SAE programs. They agreed with the statements
“Every SAE program should include ownership, placement, or laboratory experience” and
“Improvement, exploratory, and supplementary skills should be a part of SAE programs.”
Hence, they positively perceived and agreed with the six types of SAE programs. Michigan
agriscience teachers’ support of the major types as well as the additional components of
prograrrn was consistent with Phipps and Osborne’s (1988) point of view that “no SOE
program is corrrplete until improvement projects and supplementary skills have been
incorporated. The addition of these phases of supervised occupational experience provides
further opportrmities for development and transfer of agricultural skills and helps ‘round-out’
the SOE program” (p. 319). They added tint exploratory experience is an important
ingredient of SOE programs for all students studying agriculture, regardless of their career
goals.

Otherstudiesfounddiﬁ‘erent resultswith respecttopercentagesofstudentswhohad
the diﬁerent types of SAE programs. Stewart (1991) reported tint between 1982/83 and
1987/88, the number of Missouri agriculture students corrrpleted only ownership programs
decreased from 66% to 44%. During that time, he reported, the number of students
participating in both ownership and placement programs increased from 12% in 1982/83 to

20% in 1987/88. Agriscience teachers in other states required students to complete certain

109

types of SAE programs. Osborne (1988) reported that of those teachers who required SOE
programs, 36.8 % required ownership or placement projects and 47% required improvement
practices or supplementary skills.

Finally, although the percentages for this research question seemed to be low
conparedtotheresuitsofotherstudiestheywerecornistent among themselves. Becausethe
majority of Michigan agriscience departments did not have written plans and did not require
all students to have SAE programs, it is logical that there would be low percentage of
students who had SAE programs generally and different types of SAE speciﬁcally.

W: What did Michigan agriscience teachers perceive to be their

agriscience departments’ functions with regard to SAE programs?

When Michigan agriscience teachers were asked to indicate the facilities their
departments provided to students, 55.3% indicated that their students were provided with
science labs, 50.5% indicated greenhouses, 44% indicated crop land, 33% indicated animal
facilities, 26.6% indicated tree nurseries, and 40% indicated other facilities (nature
area/center, grounds, aquaculture, hydroponics, forest, ﬂoral shap/lab, woodlots, agricultural
rnechaniclab,nndscaping,andgardencenter). Otherstudies founddiﬂ'erent percentagesand
relationships between facilities provided for conducting SAE programs and quality of SAE
prograrrn. Miller (1980) reported that North Carolina agriscience teachers indicated that three
facilities were commonly used to provide simulated SAE opportunities. These three facilities
were greenhouses, land laboratories, and nnd laboratory equipment, which were identiﬁed
by 38%, 50%, and 58%, of the teachers, respectively. Anyadoh and Barrick (1990) concluded
that a signiﬁcant positive relationship existed between availability of school facilities and the

quality of SAE programs. Beennn (1967) reported that a nnjority of vocational agriculture

110

teachers and school administrators agreed tint schools should provide land to agriculture
programs for instructional use. Dyer and Osborne (1996) concluded that school-site lab
facilities are essential if teachers are to provide quality SAE programs for today’s students.
Both teachers and administrators agreed that schools should provide SAE facilities. They
added that, with an increasing number of students living in suburban and urban areas, the
responsibility and opportunity to provide quality SAE projects is quickly shiﬁing ﬁorn
program partners to the school. In planning for agricultural education programs, school
systems should provide adequate lab facilities (both production and nonproduction oriented)
for students to conduct quality SAE programs. 0

Also, 32.3% of Michigan agriscience teachers indicated that their agriscience
programs provided some projects in which students initiated SAE programs. In Oklahonn,
Smith (1982) found that 49.5% of agriscience teachers reported that a project existed within
their departments whereby students might participate or initiate experience programs.

With respect to transportation provided for SAE visitations, the nnjority of Michigan
agriscience teachers in this study indicated that their schools did not provide them with
vehicles to be used for SAE visitations but compensated them for using their own vehicles.
Smith (1982) found tint 97% of vocational agriculture teachers in his study indicated that
they were provided a pickup for their use in visiting student projects. In general, Case (1983)
stated that provision of adequate travel ﬁmds for SAE visitation/supervision was one of

several eﬂbrts found to improve SAE quality.

W1 How much out-of-class work time did Michigan agriscience
teachers spend supervising students’ SAE programs?

111

Michigan agriscience teachers indicated that 14.57% of their teaching time was spent
as out-of-class work in SAE visitation/supervision. This percentage was less than that cited
in Smith’s (1982) study. He found that Oklahoma vocational agriculture teachers spent

23.78% of their time as out-of-class work spent in visiting/supervising students’ SAE
programs.

WM: How much time did Michigan agriscience teachers spend per

visit in SAE visitation/ supervision?

Michigan agriscience teachers indicated tint they spent an average of 31 minutes per
visit through their out-of-class work with students’ SAE programs.

In relation to questions 7 and 8, which focused on SAE visitations, Phipps and
Osborne (1988) indicated that the number of supervisory visits made per year will vary,
depending on the teacher load, the nature of SAE, and the travel budget. In this study,
because the majority of Michigan agriscience teachers indicated that their schools did not
provide them with vehicles for SAE visitations and just 55% of the students had SAE
programs, it nny be logical that the average percentage of teachers’ out-of-class work spent
in SAE visitation/supervision was only 14.57%. In general, out-of—class work, through SAE
visitation/supervision, is essential for conducting and developing SAE programs. Watkins
(1981) reported tint the nnjority of agricultural enrployers in her study believed that students
beneﬁtted by teacher visits to the work site. Anyadoh (1989), Gibson (1987), and Harris
(1983) all reported positive relationships between the number of supervisory visits and the
quality of supervised experience programs. Dyer and Osborne (1996) reported tint the
quality and size of SAE programs had been found to be signiﬁcantly and positively related to

the number of supervised visits made by teachers.

112

Agriscience teachers need to balance their time between classroom instruction and
out-of-class work. An important part of the teacher's task in conducting SAE supervision is
to ensure that suﬂicient time and resources are available for this instructional activity. Dillon
(cited in Waren & Flowers, 1993) stated that agriscience teachers who are conducting a full-
day school program, complete with FFA and SAE phases, should be eﬂicient managers of
time in order to serve all students.

W112: To what degree did Michigan agriscience teachers emphasize

student involvement with SAE programs in the future?

The majority ofMichigan agriscience teachers in this study indicated that they planned
to maintain or increase their emphasis on student involvement with SAE programs in the
ﬂame. Smith (1982) also found that Oklahoma vocational agriculture teachers indicated tint
they planned to maintain or increase their emphasis on student involvement withe SAE
programs. Miller (1980) reported tint when North Carolina agriculture teachers were asked
about emphasizing the place ofSAE in the ﬁrture, 50% ofthe teachers said that it could be
increased. Tire results for this research question were consistent with the teachers’ previous
agreement with statements regarding their philosophies toward SAE programs, beneﬁts of
SAE programs, and the necessity of SAE. Because agriscience teachers had positive
perceptions regarding their philosophies toward SAE, the beneﬁts of SAE, and the necessity
of SAE, it is logical that they would plan to maintain on increase students’ involvement with
SAE programs in the future.

WM How much assistance did Michigan agriscience teachers
currently provide to students’ SAE programs?

113

Michigan agriscience teachers indicated that they currently provide a “small” amount
of assistance to students’ SAE programs. This assistance related to the areas of incentive for
SAE programs, planning, parental agreements, long-range plans, budgeting, ﬁnancing,
managing, keeping records, counseling, transportation, evaluation, and making decisions.
Teachers rated a) selecting the proper type of SAE, b) planning of SAE, and c) development
of incentives for SAE as the three highest areas of assistance they currently provided to
students’ SAE programs. The ﬁrst area of assistance was provided in “some” amount,
whereas the second and third areas were provided in “snnll” amounts. Smith (1982) found
that Oklahoma vocational agriculture teachers thought that development of incentives for
SAE, planning, keeping records, counseling, transportation, and evaluation were the areas in
which they currently provided a “large” amount of assistance. He also found that selecting
the proper type of SAE, parental agreement, long-range plans, budgeting, ﬁnancing,
managing, and general decisions were the areas in which they currently provided a

“moderate” amount of assistance.

Researchmestionjl: How much assistance should be provided to students’ SAE
programs?

Michigan agriscience teachers thought that they should increase the amount of
assistancetheyprovideto students’ SAEprograms. Theyalso ratedthe same threeareas they
rated highest in question 10 -- development of incentives for SAE, planning of SAE, and
selecting the proper type of SAE as the three highest areas that shanLb: provided to
students’ SAE programs. In general, teachers thought that all areas of assistance should be
provided in “some” amount instead of the “small” amount of assistance tint they currently

provided.

114

Several studies have been concerned with the assistance provided to students through
conducting SAE programs. Williams (1980) identiﬁed ﬁve ways teachers provide assistance
to students in the SAE activity. Teachers aid students by: a) assisting in record keeping on
SAE programs, b) providing encouragement for the SAE programs, 0) sumrrnrizing the
records for the SAE programs, d) learning skills in agriculture, and e) setting educational
goals in agriculture. Reneau and Roider (1986) stated tint vocational agriculture teachers
have played an important role in students' acceptance of and involvement with SAE programs.
Williams (1979) foundtlnt studerrtsreceived signiﬁcarrtlynrore assistance with 16 of30 items
ﬁom parents than ﬁ'om teachers. These 16 items were related to development of interest in
agriculture, providing resomees for agricultural production projects, producing and marketing
agricultural products, and making business management decisions. On the other hand, the
same students perceived tint they received signiﬁcantly more assistance ﬁ'om teachers than
parents with 9 of 30 items. These nine items were related to providing encouragement,

keeping and using records, developing plans, setting goals for SAE, and evaluating SAE

programs.

WM: Could certain denrographic characteristics of Michigan

agriscience teachers be identiﬁed as predictors of teachers’ philosophies regarding

SAE programs?

When all 12 independent variables were included using the stepwise regression
method at the .1 alpha level, the best model consisted of the two demographic characteristics
(independent variables), gender and scheduled time spent on teaching agriscience. The two
variables were found to be signiﬁcant predictors of teachers’ philosophies regarding SAE

programs. Whereas gender was found to be a signiﬁcant negative predictor, scheduled time

115

spent on teaching agriscience was found to be a signiﬁcant positive predictor of teachers’
philosophies regarding SAE programs. Thus, according to the numerical values assigned to
the two gender groups (nnle = 1, female = 2), the female agriscience teachers had lower
philosophies regarding SAE pro grams and male teachers could be predicted to have higher
philosophies regarding those programs. Further, the more the percentage of time spent on
teaching agriscience, the more positive were teachers’ philosophies regarding SAE programs.

In this study, fennle agriscience teachers were found to have less teaching experience,
less scheduled time spent on teaching agriscience, and fewer students enrolled in agriscience
than their rrnle counterparts. So perhaps these female teachers had not philosophically
developed the principles and components of SAE programs as much as the male teachers.
This, consequently, could be reﬂected in their attitudes and beliefs toward SAE programs.

Concerning time spent on teaching agriscience, to be a signiﬁcant positive predictor
of the teachers’ philosophies regarding SAE may be logical. When agriscience teachers spend
a high percentage oftheir time on teaching agriscience, they can be involved in all aspects of
the agriscience program, including SAE programs; consequently, this can be reﬂected in their
philosophies toward SAE programs. In general, time spent on teaching agriscience can aﬂ’ect
the quality of SAE which is basically dependent on classroom instruction, cooperative
relationships, and on-site visitation/supervision. Straquadine (1990) found that the amount
of time spent on teaching agricultural courses was signiﬁcantly and positively related to SAE
quality.

3W3: Could certain demographic characteristics of Michigan

agriscience teachers be identiﬁed as predictors of teachers’ perceptions of the beneﬁts
of SAE programs?

116

When all 12 independent variables were included using the stepwise regression
method at the .1 alpha level, the demographic characteristic career center, as one of the high
school types in which agriscience teachers taught, was found to be a signiﬁcant positive
predictor of SAE beneﬁts. Thus teachers who worked in career centers had higher
perceptions of SAE beneﬁts. Because the philosophy behind SAE programs is experiential
learning or learning by doing, this may be more successfully applied in career centers.
Consequently, the beneﬁts for participants my be more evident in those centers than in other
high school types. Career centers originally were designed to ensure tint students have the
opportunity to become aware of all occupational areas and explore preferred areas W.
In career centers also, students were provided the opportunity to develop general employment
skills and abilities speciﬁc to their selected occupational area.

By looking at SAE, we ﬁnd that it is “supervised” because it needs the supervision
of others, it is “agricultural” because it helps prepare for occupations in agriculture, it is
“experience” because it focuses on learning by doing and allows students to apply practices
and principles learned in the classroom and to develop new skills and abilities (N ewcomb et
al., 1986). When all of these components have their place in career centers based on
supervision, practice, and experience, teachers can successfully apply them while attaining
students’ vocational/career goals and beneﬁts.

WM Could certain demographic characteristics of Micirigan

agriscience teachers be identiﬁed as predictors of factors affecting students’

involvement with SAE programs?

When all 12 independent variables were included using the stepwise regression

rnetirod at the .1 alpha level, demographic characteristic career center, as one of high school

ll7

types in which agriscience teachers taught, was found to be a signiﬁcant positive predictor of
factors aﬂectmg students’ involvement with SAE programs. Thus, teachers who worked in
career centers had higher perceptions of factors affecting students’ involvement with SAE
prograrm. As nnntioned in question 12, the philosophy behind SAE programs is experiential
learning or learning by doing. Consequently, SAE programs are affected by several factors
for applying learning by doing principle. Those factors may be more touched for agriscience
teachers in career centers than in other types of high schools.

WM: Could certain demographic characteristics of Michigan

agriscience teachers be identiﬁed as predictors of teachers’ perceptions of the

mcessity of SAE programs?

When all 12 independent variables were included using the stepwise regression
method at the .1 alpha level, the demographic cinracteristic gender was found to be a
signiﬁcant negative predictor of the mocssity of SAE. Thus, according to the numerical
values assigned to the two gender groups (nnle=l, female=2), female agriscience teachers
were less likely to perceive the necessity of SAE programs. As mentioned in the discussion
of Question 12, female teachers of agriscience were found to have less teaching experience,
less scheduled time spent on teaching agriscience, and fewer students enrolled in agriscience
thantheirmalecourrterparts. Thus, femaleteacherswiththese characteristics perhapsdidnot
recognize the importance and necessity of SAE programs like male teachers did. These
characteristics can aﬁ‘ect the agriscience teachers’ role in agriscience generally and in SAE
speciﬁcally. With regard to fennle teachers of agriscience, Knight (1987) found that female
teachers of agriscience in Ohio had no experience as agriscience students, had an average of

four years of teaching experience, spent four hours per week on SAE programs, and were

118

interested in pursuing advanced degrees in agriscience. Cano and Miller (1987) found that
female teachers of agriscience were signiﬁcantly younger and had signiﬁcantly fewer years of
teaching experience than rrnle teachers, but these characteristics were not signiﬁcantly related
to their overall job satisfaction.

W Could certain demographic characteristics of Michigan

agriscience teachers be identiﬁed as predictors of the percentage of students who have

SAE programs?

When all 12 independent variables were included using the stepwise regression
method at the .1 alpha level, the best model consisted of the demographic characteristics,
comprehensive high school, gender, and years of teaching agriscience. These three variables
were foundto be signiﬁcant predictors ofthe percentage ofstudents who had SAE programs.
Whereas the variables comprehensive high school and gender were found to be signiﬁcant
negative predictors, the variables years of teaching agriscience was found to be a signiﬁcant
positive predictor of the percentage of students in SAE programs. Thus, teachers who
worked in comprehensive high schools and fennle teachers had a lower percentage of
students with SAE programs. On the other hand, the more years teaching agriscience, the
highertlre percentage ofstudentswithSAE progrann. Regarding the amount ofthe variance
explained by each variable separately, the variable of comprehensive high school explained
8.1%, gender explained 4.9%, years of teaching explained 3.8% of the variance in teachers’
perception of percentage of students who had SAE programs. Because female agriscience
teachers were found to have less teaching experience, less scheduled time spent on teaching
agriscience, and fewer students enrolled in agriscience, perhaps they were not able to help

students be involved with SAE programs like male teachers were. In addition, the nature of

119

SAE programs is different ﬁom those of other nnjors or programs in science. SAE programs
to be successfully conducted and developed, need planning, decision making, supervision and
visitations, and cooperation among the teacher, student, employer, and parents. These tasks
and others need experience to be developed. For example, SAE supervision occurs in
instructional visitations with students at home, with the employer and students at the place
of employment, and working individually with students to set goals and resolve problems
(Barrick et al., 1992). Male agriscience teachers seemed to perform these tasks more easily
than female teachers.

Concerning comprehensive high schools, their inving a signiﬁcant negative
relationship with the percentage of students who had SAE programs could be logical when
it is corrrpared with other types of high schools such as career centers and high schools that
are designated career centers regarding agriscience program generally and SAE programs
speciﬁcally. In comprehensive high schools, agriscience programs often are elective for
students, lnve limited instructional time, and might not lnve enough facilities or projects for
students to initiate and apply their SAE programs as is possible in career centers.

With respect to years of teaching, agriscience teachers with more teaching experience
can recognize the importance of SAE and, consequently, help students be involved with SAE
progrann. So the positive relationship between years of teaching and percentage of students
who had SAE could be logical. Michigan agriscience teachers in this study thought that
teaching experience was one of several factors that aﬁ‘ected students’ irrvolvenrent with SAE
programs. Anyadoh and Barrick (1990) found that quality and size of SAE programs were
signiﬁcantly and positively related to the amount of time the teacher taught agriscience

courses and years of experience. Grady (1985) found a signiﬁcant diﬂ'erence in the job

120

satisfaction of agriscience teachers with varying amounts of teaching experience. As the
number of years of teaching experience increased, job satisfaction also increased.
Conclusions

Based on the on the ﬁndings of this study, the following conclusions were drawn:

1. Michigan agriscience teachers philosophically indicated that SAE programs were
formd to be valuable, workable, supported, and promoted in Michigan agriscience programs.
Several types of SAE prograrrrs were supported, such as ownership, placement, laboratory
experience, irrrprovernent, exploratory, and supplementary skills. SAE programs also were
found to be required for all students enrolled in agriscience programs.

2. Michigan agriscience teachers viewed SAE programs as being beneﬁcial for
agriscience students in several areas, such as solving problems, making decisions, self-
learning, acceptance of responsibility, developing independence, motivation to learn and use
of business procedures. SAE programs also were indicated to be useful in preparing for
agﬁcultml occupation choosing an occupation. Imaging money, setting educational goals.
helping students earn money while in schooL encouraging record-keeping, and developing
self-conﬁdence.

3. Several factors were found to aﬁ‘ect students’ involvement with SAE programs.
Some of these factors concerned areas related to agriscience teacher, such as teacher
experience, teacher commitment, teacirer success with SAE before entering teaching, teacher
perceptions of necessary program characteristics, and teacher expectations of students. Some
factors related to parental help and employer support also were found to affect student
involvenrerrt in SAE progrann. Other factors rented to areas such as money available, school-

land laboratory available, number of farms, student agricultural background, facilities

121

available, and students’ participation in other activities. All these factors, according to
Michigan agriscience teachers, affected students’ involvement with SAE programs;

4. According to the teachers participated in this study, SAE programs were necessary
for agriscience students. At the same time, Michigan agriscience departments did not require
that all students enrolled in agriscience have SAE programs although teachers thought these
programs should be required for all agriscience students. Generally, over 50% of Michigan
agriscience students had SAE programs.

5. Michigan agriscience departments provided several facilities such as greenhouses,
science labs, animal facilities, crop land, and tree nurseries in which to conduct SAE
programs. At the sanre time, they did not provide enough agriscience projects for students
to initiate their SAE programs. Also high schools that included agriscience programs did not
provide most teachers with vehicles to be used for SAE visitations, but they conrpensated
them for using their own cars. The above statements, except compensating teachers for use
of their vehicles, were consistent with teachers’ agreement with statements related to money,
facilities, and school-land laboratory available for SAE progranrs. These factors have been
found to aﬂea students’ involvement with SAE programs.

6. The nnjority of Michigan agriscience teachers conducted out-of-class work with
students’ SAE prograrrnbutinasrnallamount. Theyalso indicatedthatthey spent about one-
halfhour per visit in SAE visitation/supervision.

7. Michigan agriscience teachers expected the level of student involvement with SAE
to increase in the future.

8. Several areas of assistance were 91m Provided in a “small” amount and should

he provided in “some” amount by Michigan agriscience teachers. These areas rented to

122

incentive for SAE programs, planning, parental agreement, long-range plans, budgets,
ﬁnancing, managing, keeping records, counseling, transportation, evaluation, and making
decisions. Only in the area of “selecting the proper type of SAE programs,” teachers currently
provided sorrre amount of assistance and indicated tint they should provide the same amount.

9. This study indicated signiﬁcant predicted relationships between some demographic
characteristics of Michigan agriscience teachers their perceptions of certain aspects of SAE
program. Gender was found to be a signiﬁcant negative predictor of teachers’ philosophies
toward SAE, perceptions of the necessity of SAE, and percentage of students who had SAE.
Also, conrprehensive high school, as the type of high school in which teachers worked, was
formd to be a signiﬁcant negative predictor of the percentage of students who had SAE. The
variable career center was found to be a signiﬁcant positive predictor of beneﬁts of SAE and
factors affecting students’ involvement with SAE programs. Also, teaching experience was
found to be a signiﬁcant positive predictor of the percentage of students who had SAE.
Scheduled time spent on teaching agriscience also was found to be a signiﬁcant positive
predictor of teachers’ philosophies regarding SAE and the percentage of students who had

SAE programs.

Winn:
Based on the ﬁndings and conclusions from this study, the following
recorrrrrrendations were developed:
1. SAE prograrrn provide valuable learning opportrmities for agriscience students, and
agriscience teachers are responsible for motivating their students to conduct and develop

strong SAE progrann. Although Michigan agriscience teachers philosophically indicated tint

123

they were conﬁdent about their abilities to help students conduct SAE programs, they
indicated that helping every student is difﬁcult and they had diﬂiculties motivating students
to conduct SAE programs. Agriscience teachers should make SAE programs serve as a
motivatiornl tool. Wiren teachers introduce the concept of SAE to students, they should offer
a thorough understanding of the SAE philosophy, how it relates to the agriscience program,
and awareness of the career opportunities available to students. Teachers also, through SAE
visitations, should praise students for their accomplishments.

2. Because agriscience students will work in their communities as an educated labor
force, agriscience teachers should work with parents, employers, and teacher educators to
develop a relationship between the SAE programs and local communities. This relationship
should help teachers become acquainted with conrrnunity needs and interests and,
consequently, ensure positive community support of and attitudes toward SAE programs.

3. SAE programs involve several components such as establishing minimum
requirenrerrts for SAE, supervising SAE, and evaluating SAE. To perform these components
and others, agriscience teachers should be provided with written policies or plans as
guidelines to use in directing SAE progranrs. Each student also should have a written plan for
his or irer SAE. Tint plan should be reviewed with students by agriscience teachers, parents,
and employers.

4. One of the rrrost interesting and challenging parts of the total agriscience program
continuous to be SAE programs. Thus, Michigan agriscience departments should require all
students enrolled in agriscience have SAE programs. Facilities, projects, and funds are
essential elements for conducting, developing, and completing SAE programs. Adequate

facilities, projects, and instructional materials should be provided to agriscience departments

124

and frequently to students and teachers. State supervisors of agriscience should facilitate
providing funding support and resources for agriscience programs that include SAE as an
integral part of the prograrrr. Travel ﬁrnds and transportation should be provided to
agriscience teachers to conduct SAE visitation/supervision.

5. The on—site visitations for SAE programs provide teachers with knowledge of
students’ progress and problems. Therefore, agriscience teachers should be given adequate
time for visiting and supervising SAE programs. The visits should be careﬁrlly planned,
prepared, and arranged in advance with the students. Agriscience teachers should pay more
attention to beginning students by oﬁering them additional on-site visitations/supervision and
to students with SAE problems by visiting them promptly and ﬁ'equently.

6. Much of the potential for successful SAE programs resides with agriscience
teachers. These teachers play a critical role in planning, selecting, developing, ﬁnancing,
managing, counseling SAE prograrrrs. They also participate in developing long-range plans
for SAE, keeping records, and developing parental agreement. Therefore, they should give
more attention to the amount of assistance that they currently provide and that they should
provide the above mentioned areas.

7. SAE progrann that are applied in comprehensive high schools sirould be given more
attention by the scirool district by providing thcilities and equipment, labs, transportation, and
enough time for agriscience teachers to conduct SAE visitation/supervision.

8. Finally, teacher education in agriscience represents the ﬁrst place in which
agriscience teachers are prepared. Thus, teacher education program should:

a. Present the curriculum tint includes a tireoretical background about the rnture and

' purpose of SAE and the basic principles applied through SAE programs.

125

b. Help teacher education students in agriscience visit schools that apply SAE
programs and participate in conducting, developing, and supervising SAE programs.

c. Prepare and facilitate in-service education programs on SAE for agriscience
teachers in the state. These in-service programs can acquaint teachers with the changes tint
constantly are taking place in SAE programs. In-service programs also can familiarize
teacirers with the new technologies and agricultural practices to be applied in the agriscience
program generally and in SAE speciﬁcally.

(1. Conduct orientations and meetings for school personnel, students, parents, and
employers to acquaint them with the role of SAE in agriscience programs and how they can

cooperate with each other in conducting and supervising SAE programs.

5 . E E l 5 1
Based on the ﬁndings, conclusions, and recommendations ﬁ'om this study, the
following suggestions are nnde for further studies:

1. Similar studies need to be conducted regarding other subjects, parents and
employers, to determine their perceptions of SAE programs in Michigan.
2. Factors affecting students’ involvement and participation in SAE programs in

Michigan need to be investigated.

3. Studies need to be conducted on agriscience departments’ policies and functions
with regard to SAE programs.
4.The eﬁ‘ectiveness of SAE .visitation/ supervision in Michigan agriscience programs

needs to be studied and investigated.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE FOR
RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMAN SUBJECTS

126

MICHIGANSTATE
UNIVERSITY

April 1. 1997

10: Frank Bobbitt
s09 C Agriculture Hall

: 1R3 : 97-170
R3 7112!: HICKIGAN’AGRISCIINC! reacases' PIRCIPTIONS OP
‘ SUPERVISED AGRICUUTUIAL EXPERIENCE PROGRAMS

esvrslcu asonesren: {/3
areacvar'nars: 03/31/91

The University Oomittee on Research Involving Int-an Sub ects' (nearest
review of this project is complete. I am pleased to adv so that the
rights and welfare of the human subjects appear to be adequately
rotected and methods to obtain informed consent are a ropriate.
gherefore. the OCRIBS approved this project and any ions listed

sentient UCIIES a revel is valid for one calendar year. beginning with
the apprgeel date shown above. Investigators planning to
continue a project be one year must use the green renewal
form (enclosed with original a rovel letter or when a
project is renewed) to seek te certification. There is a
maximum of four such expedite renewals ssible. Investigators
wis ' to continue a project beyond the time need to submit it
again or complete review.

IlVIIIaII: course must review an changes in rocedures involving human
subjects. rior to in tiation of the change. If this is done at
the time o renewal. please use the en renewal form. To
revise an a roved protocol at an o r time during the year
send your wr tten request to the Chair. requesting revised

approval and referencing the project's IRE # and title. Include
in {our request a description of the change and any revised
ins ruments. consent forms or advertisements that are applicable.

teasers: Should either of the fell arise during the course of the
work. investigators must noti UCIIBS promptly: (1) problems
(unexpected side effects comp aints. e c.) involving unan
subjects or (2) changes in the research environment or new
information indicating greater risk to the human sub'ects than
existed when the protocol was previously reviewed and approved.

If we can be of any future help. please do not hesitate to contact us
at (517)355-2180 or IA! (51714 2- 171.

Sincerely.

vid 3. "right, 2h. .
UCRIHS Chlir
D8W:hod

cc: Mohamed a. Hendy

APPENDIX B

SURVEY INSTRUMENT

127
Dear: Michigan Agriscience Teacher

Michigan is one of the leaders in agriscience education. One of the important areas
of agriscience is the supervised agricultural experience (SAE) programs. SAE programs
consist of planned and practical activities usually conducted outside of scheduled class time
in which students develop and apply agricultural knowledge and skills.

Itisapparcntthatthcrearcvariousidcasand opinions about SAE programs andthcir
characteristics from state to state. This study tries to determine perceptions of Michigan
agriscience teachers regarding SAE programs. The study will not be an evaluation ofyour
program but only a review of yourperceived ideas and opinions in respect to some aspects
and characteristics of SAE programs.

YouindicateyourmhMaryagrcementtopartidpatebycomplcting and returrringthis
questionnaire. Your responses will be treated with complete conﬁdentiality and you will
rcmainanonymousinanyreport ofresearchﬁndings. Onlyaggrcgatereportswillbemade,
so no report will enable anyone to identify an individual’s rcsponsc(s).

BecausewearesurethatyouropinionswillbeuscﬁlltoassessthestatusofSAEin
thehﬁchiganagriscinrceprogram, itwillbchelpﬁrl ifyoutakcjustafewminutesto complete
the questionnaire by answering all the questions provided. A self addressed and stamped
return envelop has been provided for your convenience. Once you have completed the
questionnaire, place it in the envelope and return it immediately.

Thank you in advance for taking time to complete this questionnaire.
Sincerely,

UCRIHS APPROVAL FOR
THIS project EXPIRES:

MAR 3 1 1998

SUBMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION
ONE MONTH PRIOR TO
ABOVE DATE TO CONTINUE

128
Questionnaire
Michigan Agriscience Tcachcrs’ Perceptions of Supervised
AgriculnuelExpclicncePrograms

Directions:

Thisqucsﬁcmainwuprcparcdtodctnmineyourpneepﬁmsofselectcdaspccnof SAE
programs. Thrwghtheﬁrnthreescaimsreadcachsntnnentesrefunymdmdicetednnmm
whidrymaguadimbydrdmgarupaneﬁunmesuleshownmmeﬁghtofachm.

-Ifywﬁmlydisasree(FD).circlel ~1fywdingreetb).circle2
'HMWYWSDhmii -1fywﬂishﬂym(SA).dr¢|c4
-1fyonasne(A).drcle5 -Ifywﬁnnlyagne(FA).dmlc6
(DTeschcrphilosophy. FDD SD SAAFA
l.SAEisavaluablecomponcntofagriscienceprogram. l 2 3 4 5 6
2.1amnrpportiveoftheSAEcenceptinagriscinrce. l 2 3 4 5 6
3.1‘IreSAEconccptisnotworkablcintoday’sagriseicnee. l 2 3 4 5 6
4.1promoteSAEprogremsinmyagriscicnceclasscs. l 2 3 4 5 6
sameness’ereditshoordootheprovidedrormdmpaopredog

SAEproglems. l 2 3 4 5 6
6.10ﬁcnusercalproblcmscncormteredbysnrdnrtsintheirSAE

programs. 1 2 3 4 S 6
7.Agriscicnccwschcrsshouldnotcstablishminirmrlnstendardsfor

thcscopeof individualSAEprograms. l 2 3 4 5 6
8.1-1elpingcvcrystudnltplanandconductaSAEprogramisdiﬁcult. l 2 3 4 5 6
9.1havediﬁculticsmotivatingstudcntstoconductSAEprograms. l 2 3 4 5 6
10.EvcrySAEprogrelnshouldincludcownnship,placcmnrt,

orlaboratoryexpericnce. 1 2 3 4 5 6
ll.hnprovcment,exploratory,orsupplcmcntarysldllsshouldnotbc

apartofSAEprograms. l 2 3 4 5 6
12.Agriscicncesurdentsshouldnotbercquiredtocenduet

SAEprograms. l 2 3 4 5 6

13.1mnconﬁdnninmyabilitytohelpstudentsearryout SAEprograms. l 2 3 4
l4.SAEprogremsshouldbeplanncdwithapotcntialforproﬁt. 1 2 3 4 5 6

129

(ll) Beneﬁts ofSAE programs.

1. SAE programs promote acceptance ofresponsibility.
2. SAEprogramsdonotdevelop self-conﬁdence.

3. SAEprogramsprovideoppornrnityforselflearning.
4. SAE programs develop independence.

5. SAEprograms provideoppornrnitytomakedecisions.
6. SAE programs provide opportunityto solve problems.
7. SAE programs provide motivation to learn.

8. SAE programs encourage record-keeping.

9. SAEprogramshelpmalceagriseiencepractical.

10. SAEprogramsdonothelpsnrdentsearnmoneywhileinschool.

ll.SAEprogramsdonothelpseteducationgoals.

12. SAEprogramsdevelopabilitytomanagemoney.

l3. SAEprograms helpprepareforagriculnrraloccupations.
l4.SAEprogramsencourageuseofbusinessprocedures.
15.SABprogramsdonotaidinchoosinganoccupation.

(III)Factorsaﬂ'ectingsnrdentinvolvementinSAEprograms.
1.MoneyavailableforsnrdentstoﬁnanceSAEprogrann.
2.ParentabilitiestohelpwithﬁnancingSAEprognms.

3. Facilities availablefor SAE programs.

4. Student participationinactivitiesotherthansports isexcessive.
5. School-land, laboratory available for student use.
6.Agriscienceteacherexperience.

7. CormmnityattinrdesaboutSAEprograms.
8.1'heagriculnrralbackgroundofsnrdents.
9.111edeclineinthenumberoffarms.

10.Agrisciencetacherperceptionsofnecessaryprogramcharactaisﬁcs.

ll. AgriscienceteachercormninnenttoSAEprograms.
12. Employer support.

13. Teacher success with SAE programs prior to entering teaching process.

14. Size of community.
15. Students dislike maintaining SAE program records.
16. Teacher expectations of students.

a—aa—su—sy—au—ap—au—su-na-aa-ap-eu—au—su—p‘g

8

t—t—ou—t—t—u—r—r—a—a—t—r—u—ou—ot—t—
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNU

nnnunnwnnuunwunu

tn
U
b§§bb§bbbb§hbbbm

UUUUWUUUNNNWNUU

m
U
5’3
>

wuuuuwuuuuuuuuuu

bbbb#&§bbb~&bbb&&

>
>

uuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
aaomammommmmamm;

MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

aammammmommmaaam;

130

GWNecessityofSAEprograms.
DoyouﬁeelthatSAEprogramsarenecessaryforagrisciencesmdents?
(Checkone) Yes No

(V)Agrisciencedeparnnents’ policiestowardSAE programs.
1.Doaymrdeparm\mthaveawﬁnmpoﬁcywﬂiningSAEprogramrequhunents

 

 

 

whichyour students must fulﬁll? (Check one) _Yes _No
2.Doesymrdeparnnanrcquueaﬂsmdentsuimﬂedinagrisciaicepmgramlnve

a SAE program? (Check one) _Yes ' _No
3.Whupacmngeofauudun’sgradeisdependanupmhislherinvolvunaninaSAE

program? (Check one) _0 _10 _20 _30 _40 _50 _Otlier
4.WhatpercentageofstudentsbaveSAEprograms? %
5.Whatpacmgeofsnrdanshawthe£oﬂowingdiﬁ'erantypesofSAEprograms?

Ownership % Placement % Laboratories %

Improvement_% Exploratory % Supplementary %

 

 

(VDAgrisciencedeparnnents’ functionstowardSAEprograms.
l. Doesthesohoolprovidethefollowing facilitiesforthestudentsto
conduct their SAE programs. (Check one) Yes No
Greenhouse _
Animal facilities __
Crop land
ScienceLab _

Treenursery __ _
Othen(specify)-_ _
2.Doesyouragriscienceprogramprovidesometypeofproject, suchasan
munalchaiminwhichsmdansnughtinitiateorparﬁcipateinaSAEpmgram?

 

(Check one) Yes No
3. Doestheschoolprovideyouwithavehicletobeusedfor
SAE program visitations? (Check one). If no, go to #4 Yes No

4. Does the school compensate for use of your car. (Check one) Yes No

131

(VII) SAE visitations.
l. Approximatelywhatpercentageofyourout-of-class workisspentsupervisingsnrdentSAE
programs? %

 

2.Wlntistheaverage (approximate)amountoftimespentwiththesnrdents'SAEprogramper
visit? Minutes.

(VnDTadnrplamwdanphasisofsnrdanmvolvarunwithSAEpmgramsinthem.
hmeﬁmdoywphnmmm,mnnimmthekvdofmvdvananofyun
studentswithSAEprograms? (Checkone)

_Increase _Maintain _Decrease

(DQTeacherassistanoetosnrdarts.
hdiateinﬂnsalebdomaﬂheunmmdusisunceymfedthatywpmvidemsnrdm’
SAEprogramsandb)theammMofassisnneeymfedthatymshwldpmvide.Forgreu
amonnt,circle l,forlargeunmnn,circle2,forsaneannmgcircle3,formallmnam,cimle
4,andfornon-amountofassistance,circle5.

Assistance Assistance
lenrovided Shmldbeprovided

iii

4 5

AREA
l.DevelopmartofincuitiveforSAEprograms.

2. Planning of SAE programs.

3. SelectingthepropertypeofSAEprograms.

4. Developing parental agreement.

5. Developing long-range plans for SAE programs.
6. Developing budgets for SAE programs.

7. Financing SAE programs.

8. Managing SAE programs.

9. Keeping records for SAE programs.

10. Providing cormselingonreinvesnnentofproﬁt.
11. Providing transportation for SAE activities.
12. Evaluating SAE programs.

13. Making general decisions.

14. Others (specify)

5
M

 

-

.3; s
2 3 l
2 3 l
2 3 l
2 3 l
2 3 l
2 3 l
2 3 l
2 3 l
2 3 l
2 3 l
2 3 l
2 3 l
2 3 l
2 3 l
2 3 1

~

.5?
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

&b&‘§§§b&&b¥&b
MMMMMMMMMMMMMM
uwuwuuuwuuuuuuw
&b&b&§5§&§bbﬁ&
MMMMUMMMMMMUMM

 

132
DEMOGRAPHICS

 

 

1- Ase: _

2. Gender. (check one) Male_ Female

3. mm degree completed. (Check one) Bachelor_ Master__ Specialist__

pun _ Other_

4. Dumber ofyears teaching :

5. Area ofemphasis in agriscience: (check one) Agriscience_ Landscape—
Greenhouse_ Agricultural Mechanies_
Floriculnrre_ Other (specify)

6. Percuﬁofscheduledteachingtimespentonagriscienceteachingeveryday

7. Number ofstudmts enrolledinyourhigh school

 

8. Numberofsnrdentsenrolledinagriscienceclasses

 

9.Doyouteachina:(checkone)

a. Comprehensive high school
b. Career center
c. Comprehensive high school that is designated career center

APPENDIX C

THE JURY COMMITTEE
MEMBERS OF THE SURVEY INSTRUMENT

y—s

133

Jury Committee Members

. Frank Bobbitt, Professor

Dept. of Agricultural & Extension Education
Michigan State University

Eddie Moore, Professor
Dept. of Agricultural & Extension Education
Michigan State University

Dave Krueger, Assistant Professor
Dept. of Agricultural & Extension Education
Michigan State University

Randy Showerman, Professor
Dept. of Agricultural & Extension Education

Michigan State University

.. Richard Karelse, Consultant

Program Development & Operation Unit
Michigan Department of Education

Dennis Duncan, Professor
Dept. of Agricultural & Extension Education
Michigan State University

~ Cary Trexler, Graduate Assistant

Dept. of Agricultural & Extension Education

‘ Michigan State University

APPENDIX D

FIRST COVER LETTER

134

STAYE OF MICHIGAN

DEPARTM ENT OF EDU CATION sun soaan or anucxnos

Gut MI
haula-

Office of Career and Technical Education “Wye r. Lady
Box 30009. Lansing, Michigan 48909-7509 “3,7...“
m

WW3“
7m
WES".-

”AS-{m
wet-gm
March 17, 1997 “we"

Caryl...“

GOVERNOR JOHN ”OLE!
ll Oﬂlsb

Dear Michigan Agriscience Teachers:

Tenyeanagoteachasweremneyedinmanunptwdaummethemongr-iaunm
EducationinMichigan. Sincethattimemanychangeshavetakenplace. Itisnowtimeto
reexaminesomeofthekeycomponemsoftheprogramtodeterminethestanrsin1997.

TheenclosedmrveyinstrumentisanattempttodeterminethestamsofSAEintheMichigan
Agriscienceprogram. Youranswerscanassistuswithabetterunderstandingofhowthechanges
intheprogramhaveaﬁ'ectedthisimportantaspectoftheprogram.

Please complete the instrument and return it as soon as possible.

22./742.4246 Wig/ﬂy

Richard Karelse, Consultant rank Bobbitt, Professor
Program Development 8: Operation Unit Department of Agr’l & Ext Education
Michigan State University

dld .
FBI ﬁfe/raw F/ ﬂew/X
Mohamed Hendy, Ph D Candidate
Department of Agr’L & Ext. Education
Michigan State University

APPENDIX E

SECOND COVER LETTER

135

MICHIGAN STATE
u N l v E R s I T Y

April 7, 1997

Dear Michigan Agriscience Teacher

Twowedtsago,weauuyouaquesﬁormheconcuningmpervisedagriannml
experience (SAE) programs. Many Agriscience teachers have returned their surveys. If
youhave alreadycompletedandretumedit,please acceptoursincerethanks.lfyou
havenmyetrenunedymuformweueawlosingasecondcopyforyourconvuuuwe.
Please assist us by completing the enclosed form and returning it in the enclosed
envelope.

Therennnofymucompletedquestionnaireisveryimponaminordutoassess
the status of supervised agricultural experience programs in Michigan Agriscience
Program.

Thank you for helping us to complete the study.

8332 5”” Mohamed cha’y

F rank Bobbitt, Professor Mohamed Hendy, Ph. D Candidate
Department of Agr’l. & Ext. Education Department of Agr’l. & Ext. Education
Michigan State University Michigan State University

FB/dld

ENC.

APPENDIX F

THIRD COVER LETTER

136

April 21, 1997

Dear Michigan Agriscience Teacher

_ Pornweelaago,wesanyouaquesdorunheconcerningnlpervisedagriallnnal
experience(SAE) programs. Twoweekslater, on April 7, 1997, we sent a second copy
ofﬁlequesﬁomuheMmyAgrisdawetadlasluverenunedtheirwweys.Hyouhave
ahadycunplaedandrenumdhmluseacceptomsincaethmkslfyouhavemtyet
returned your form, we are enclosing a third copy for your convenience. Please assist
us by completing the enclosed form and returning it in the enclosed envelope.

Therenunofymncunpletedquesﬁonnaireisveryhnponaminordertoassess
dieuamsofmpaﬁsedagriarlnualotpenuwepmgramsinhﬁchiganAgrhdence
Program

Thank you for helping us to complete the study.

Sincerely. sZﬂ/ﬂ‘j/ fig/umw/ Heard)’

Frankzr Bobbitt, Professor Mohamed Hendy, Ph D Candidate
Department of Agr’l. & Ext. Education Department of Agr’l. & Ext. Education
Michigan State University Michigan State University

FB/dld

ENC.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

W

Amberme L (1967) W
W. Danville, IL. The Interstate Printers and Publishers, Inc

Anderson, G. C. (1983) “ Status of Supervised Occupational Experience Projects in
Vocational Horticulture Programs in the Eastern Region of The United States.”
M. S Thesis. University of Maryland, College Park. Published in W
- - . . z '. I Virginia
Polytechnic Institute& State University, Blacksburg, Virginia.

 

Anyadoh,E. B. (1989). “

X’Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. The
Ohio State University, Columbus

Anyadoh, E. B. & Barrick, R K (1990). “WWW
'do'wnzm 0‘0 we '01 =00 0m 01' M It‘ must
WWW” Columbus the Ohio State University,
Department of Agricultural Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED324411).

 

Arrington, L R. (1992, May). “Expanding SAE Emloratory Programs. ’11:;
AmhumLEdueathaamﬁi (No 6)

Arrington L. R. & McCracken, D. (1983, Wmter). “Relationships of Length of Vocational
Agriculture Teacher Contract to Supervised Occupational Experience Program

Am Vol. 24, No. 4

Arrington, L. R., & McGhee, M. B. (1984, January). “Entrepreneurship. A Pathway”
IheAarieultnralEducationMaaazine Vol 56 No 7

ArrmgtomL R&Price W H (1983 December) “RelationshipaflaeationaL

;°u [la gram = {3.910. I ‘v, 10 ll Isa zla¢t°wll

W Paper Presented at The Tenth Annual National Agricultural Education
Research Meeting: Anaheim, CA.

 

A”, 1)., lambs, L- & Rmvieh A (1996). Introdustionjaresemhjnﬁdusananjlﬂh
Edition, New York: Harcourt Brace College Publishers

137

138
Barrick, R. K., Arrington, L. R., Heﬂ'ernan, T, Hughes, M., & Moody, L. (1992).

 

Em. Alexandria, VA: National Council for Agricultural Education.

Bell, L C. (1984). “Program Characteristics of Semesterized Secondary Vocational
Agriculture/Agribusiness Programs Which Promote Student Involvement in
Supervised Occupational Experience Programs and FF A Leadership Activities.”
Doctoral Dissertation, The University of Nebraska. W

International, Vol. 46, No. l
Berkey, A. L. & Sutphin, D. (1984). “WWW

.st.'-iv'°tr"UIJ= to 1'3) in.) a l 0 i=1! .u llr utters

Wars.” Paper presented at The Annual National Agricultural
Education Research Meeting, New Orleans, LA. (ERIC Document Reproduction

Service No. ED 251653)

Binkley, H. R. & Byers, C. W. (1984). W. Danville, IL: The
Interstate Printers and Publishers, Inc.

Bobbitt, F. (1986). “
.qo,-nr,'bcu:rro - ‘I 0.20! .u ll l‘il 05”.:
(mm). East Lansing: Michigan State University, Department of
Agricultural and Extension Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED 274816)

 

9,

Boone, H. N., Doerfort, D. L., Elliot, J. (1987, Walter). “Supervised Occupational
Experience Programs: History, Philosophy, and Current Status, and Future
Implications.” = ._ .= . .z- .
W VoL 28 No 4

Borg, W. R (1989). W: A Practical Guide for
Teachers. New York: Longrnan, Inc.

Case L. D. (1984, February). “The Teacher As Initiator.” WW
Mmzine, Vol. 56, No. 8

Case, L. D. (1983). “Factors Aﬂ'ecting The Supervised Occupational Experience
Programs in Vocational Programs.” Doctoral Dissertation, University of Missouri.

W VirginiaPolytechnic Institute & State University.
Blacksburg, Virginia.

 

 

Case, L. D. & Stewart, R. R. (1985, Summer). “Teacher Inﬂuence on The Quality
of Supervised Occupational Experience Programs. ”WW
AssesiatieunﬁleacheLEdueatominAeticum, VoL 26, No 2

139

Check, J. G. & Arrington, L. R. (1984, April). Using land Laboratories. W
EducalianMagazine. Vol 56 No 10

Check, J. G., Arrington, L. R., Carter, S. & Randell, R. (1994, Summer). “Relationship
of Supervised Agricultural Experience Program Participation and Student

Achievement m Agricultural Education.” WWW Vol.
35, No. 2

Check, J. & Arrington, L. R. (1990, May). “Reshaping SAE to Provide Experiential
Learninginl9908” IheAarieulnlralEdllsationMagazine Vol 62 No 11

Check]. G..&Beeman,C E. (1984, February). “Expanding SOE ViaPlacement.”Ihe
AgncuhuraLEdueatipnMagazineVol 56 No 8

 

Doctoral Drssertation, Michigan State University. East Lansing, Michigan.

Committee On Agricultural Education m Secondary Schools. (1988) .Undmmg

WWW Board on Agriculture National
Research Council, Washington, D. C

Cooper R. L. (1984, February). “Placement Business m The School.” 111:
AsricultnralEdusationMaaazine, VOL 56, No 8

Cox, D. E. (1991, December). “It Is Time to Stop Quibbling Over The Acronym. ”The
AsdcuhruaLEducatiQnMagaszol 64 No 6

Cox, D. E., Sproles, E. K.& Sproles, G. B. (1988, Spring). “Learning Style Variations
among Vocational Agriculture StudentS”IheJaumal.Q£11le.Alnerican
WWW, VoL 29 No 1

Croom, B. (1991, December). “Non-Occupational Supervised Experience.” 111:
AgricllmlralﬁdumionMaaazine, Vol 64 No 6

Dewey, J. (1916). W New York: The MacMillion Company.
Dewey, J. (1938). W New York: The MacMillion Company.

Dillman. D. (1978). W New York:
Wiley Interscience Publication.

Doerfert, D. L. (1992, December). “The Ultimate Experience. ’W
W. Vol 65 No 6

140

Doerfert, D. L., Elliot, J., & Boone, H. N. (1989, October). “Supervised Experience: The
Success Story Continues ” IheAgncumualEducalianMagazine. Vol. 62 No 4

Dunham, K. (1983). “The Statues of Supervised Occupational Experience Programs
in Utah Vocational Agriculture Programs.” Master of Science Thesis. Utah State

University, Logan Published In SummadeaafResearelLandDexelonment

WW Department of Extension and International
Education, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Dyer, J. E., & Osborne, J. W. (1996). “Participation in Supervised Agricultural
Experience programs: A Synthesis of Researc ”WW
Education, Vol. 36, No. 1

Elliot, J. Boone, H. N. &Doerfert,D. L. (1991, December). “Information Rich
Expericme Poor ”IheAgneultutalEducatlonMaaazme VoL64 No 6

Foster, R. M. (1984). “Factors Limiting Vocational Agriculture Student
Participation m SOE Programs m Nebraska.” A staﬂ‘ Study. Agricultural
Education Department, The University of Nebraska .Published' at W
: . .2 ° . . Department of
Extension and International Education, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge,
Louisiana

 

French, R. R. (1983, April). “Factors Contributing to The Emphasis Placed on
Supervised Occupational Experience in Vocational Agriculture Programs in North
Carolina.” Doctoral Dissertation, North Carolina State University.
DissertatiQuAhsttastJntematiQnal, Vol 45 No 10

Gebhardt, D. A. (1985). “Characteristics Associated With Quality Supervised
Occupational Experience Programs in Montana.” Master’s Professional Paper.
Montana State University. Published rn : — .

WWW Department of Extension and International
Education, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

 

Good, V. G-, (1963). W New York: Division of
Meredidh publishing Company.

Grady, T (1990 May) “Reshaping Experiential Learning” IheAsrieultllral
EducationMaaazine, Vol 62 No 11

Grubb, N. (1995). . = '
New York: Teachers College Press.

 

Harris, D. E. (1983).“

:-; OI in o a we. o ,9 um“: - Ari t‘ 0.: - warn

 

 

Dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus.

Haward, B. & Scanlon, D. (1984, February). “SOE” .Some Considerations.” Dre
AgriculturalﬁdunalinnMaaazine, Vol 56 No 8

Hembree, D. R. (1983). “Teacher Perceptions of Supervised Occupational Experience
Program in Areal Texas Vocational Agriculture Departments. Master Thesis,
Oklahoma State University, Stillwater. ” Published m Summariemﬁ

Remand W Virginia
Polytechnic Institute & State University, Blacksburg, Virginia.

Herren, R. (1986, Summer). “Controversy and Uniﬁcation. The Passage of The Smith-
We Vol. 27, No. 2

Herren, R. (1987). “Factors Associated with SAEP and Career Objectives of the 1984
Regional and National Proﬁciency Award W'mners.’ ’Wﬂmm
AsrnniatinnoeranherEdunatinnjnAarieultllte. Vol 28 No 2

Herren, R. & Cole, L. (1984, Fall). “Attitudes of Oregon Vocational Agriculture Teachers
Toward Supervised Occupational Experience Program Conrponent of The
Vocational Agriculture Curriculum” IhelnrmulnflheAnnﬁnanAssnniatinnnf
W V01- 25 No 3

Hughes, M (1992, December). “The New SAE.” WWW,
Vol. 56, NO. 6

 

Ingvalson, B. I. (1983). “An Experimental Evaluation of an Instructional packet on

supervised Occupational Experience programs for Beginning Vocational
Agriculture Students In Minnesota” DissenatinnAbsttactsInternatinml

Kaczor, C. (1983, March). “SOE Is A Dynamic Instructional Tool.” W
EduminnMagazimVoL 55 N 9

Key, J. (1977, April). “Supervised Experience-Essential.” WM
Magazim, Vol. 49, No. 10

King, D. W. &Miller, W. W. (1985). “The Rchtive level of Diﬂiculty Associated with
Responsibilities of Vocational Agriculture Teachers in Georgia.” W
e . . - - Vol. 26, No. 4

 

142

Kruckenburg, D. W. & Williams D. L. (1980, May). “What Research Has to

Say. .Attitudes Toward Experiential Programs” W
Magazine, Vol. 52, No.11

 

Whom.” Doctoral Dissertation Michigan
State University, East Lansing, Michigan.

Lee, J. S. (1980), May) “Experiential Programs Can Help Answer The Big Question.”
WWW: VoL 52 No 11

Lee, J. S. (1984, February) “Helping The Disadvantaged SOE for Hard to Place.” The
AgriculturalEdllsatinnMagazine Vol 56 No 8

Lee,...JS(1985)~' ' ' :
Edition. Columbus. The National Center for Research m Vocational Education.

 

Lee, L. E. (1984). “The Relationship between Students’ Perceived Skill Development and
Characteristics of The Supervised Occupational Experience Program.”
Doctoral Dissertation. DissertationAhstrantJntematinnal. Vol 46. No. 3.

Leising,J. G., wornomL L., &Zilbert,E. E. (1982). “AW

”(Study Staﬂ). University of California at Davis, California.

McCall, T. M. (1992). “Relationship of Teacher Certiﬁcation Methods to Secondary
Agricultural Education program quality” WWW

Makin, R. (1986). “The Relationship between Select Teacher Presagc Variables
Supervised Occupational Experience Quality in Vocational Horticulture in
Ohio.” Doctoral Dissertation. WWW Vol. 47, No. 5

 

Martin, R. (1991, December). “Reinventing Experience Programmed In Agriculture.”
IheAgrinultutalEdunatinnMaaazinc VoL 64 No 6

Marzano, R.J., Pickering, D. J., Brandt,R. S. (1990, February). “Integrating
Instructional Programs Through Dimensions of Learnmg EdnmiQmL
Lgadmhjp, VoL47, No.5

McCormick,F. G. Cox,D. E.&Miller, G. M. (1989, October). “ExperientialNeeds of

Students 111 Agriculture Programs ” William Vol
62, No. 4

143

McCracken, D. J. (1975). Effective Occupational Experience for Students Enhance
Learning WWW Vol 47 No 8

McCracken, D. J. (1984, February). “SOE for Achieving Population of Students.”
WWW Wt 56 No 8

McGhee, M. B. & Cluck, J. G. (1988, Spring). “Competencies Possessed by Students
Enrolled in Fundamentals of Agribusiness and Natural Resources Education”

 

Vol.29, No,1

McMillion, M. B. & Auville, M. K. (1976). “Factors Associated with the Success of
Supervised Farming Programs of Vrrgmra High School Students.” W

 

Mica, J. H. (1983). “Relationship Between Agricultural Background and Job Placement of
Vocational Agricultural Graduates m Missouri. ” Doctoral Dissertation, University
of Missouri. Published m : - ~ : -

Ammndlmioo Virginiapolytechnic Institute & State University. ‘
Blacksburg, Virginia.

 

Mlozi, M. R. (1983). “Factors Inﬂuencing Supervision and Success of Student
Occupational Experience Programs As Perceived by Vocational Agriculture
Teachers.” Unpublished Master of Science Thesis. West Virginia University,

 

University. Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Moore, G. E. (1979, April). “BacktoTheBasisinTeaching Agriculture- TheProject
Plan” IkAgrinulturaLEdunatinnMagazine Vol. 51 No 10

Moore, G. E. Moore, B. A. (1984). "The Problem Solving Approach to Teaching. Has it

 

EdueatnrsjnAgriculture, Vol.25, No. 3

Morris, C. E. & Williams, D. L. (1984, Summer). “Eﬂ'ect of Programmatic Instruction
Related to Developing SOE Programs on The Self-Image of Students.” Ihe

 

Morton, R. H. (1980, Spring). “The Relationship Between Quath of Supervised
Occupational Experience Programs and Achievement of Students in Vocational

Agriculture” InumalnflnnatinnalﬁdunatinnﬁemVoLS No 2

144

Nelson, C. L. & Cooper, E. (1984, April). “Systems to Improve Teacher Eﬁciency.” Ihi
AgriculturalﬁdmationMagazine, Vol 56 No 10

Newcomb, L. H, MaCracken, J. D. & Warmbrod J. R. (1986). Methodmﬂeaching
Agﬁeumn-g. Danville, IL: The Interstate Printers & Publishers, Inc.

Osborne, E. W. (1988, Fall). “SOE Programs rn Illinois-Teacher Philosophies and
Program Characteristics.” - .. . . . .

WW, Vol 29, No 3

Osborne, E. & Reed, C. (1984, May). “SOE m Urban Programs-Teachers Can Make It
Wm” WM Vol. 56 N011

Pals, D. (1988, Summer). “The Value of Supervised Occupational Experience Programs
As Perceived By Students.” In; - ._ _ . . . ..

WWL 29 No 2

Pals, D. (1989, Summer). “The Value of Supervised Occupational Experience Programs
As Perceived By Parents, Employers, and Vocational Agriculture Instructors.

WWW Vol 30 No 2

Pearson, C. (1984, April) ”laboratory SOE Programs. What Are The Options.”1he
AmmrraIEdmatiQnMagazine VoL 56 No 10

Pelton, K. J. (1985). “Perceptions of North Dakota Vocational Agriculture Students
Toward Supervised Occupational Experience Programs.” Master of Science
Colloquium Paper. North Dakota State University, Fargo Published W

- . - : ' Department of

Extension and International Education, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge,

Louisiana

 

 

 

Peterson, R. L. & McCracken, M. G. (1973, May). “Are Supervised Occupational
Experience Programs Really Tlmt Improvement?” W
Magazine, Vol. 45, No.11

Phipps. L. J.& Osborne, E. w. (1988). WWW
59119015, Fiﬁh Edition- Danville. Illinois: The Interstate Printers and
Publishers, Inc.

Randell, R. S. & Arrington, L. R. (1993, Spring). “The relationships of Supervised
Agricultural Experience Program Participation and Student Achievement in

PracticalSkillsinAgriculmralSciencc” WWWL
34, No.1

145

Rawls, W. J. (1982). “An analysis of Beneﬁts Derived from Supervised Occupational
Emerience ProgramS” WWW
EducationinAanculture Vol XXIII No 1

Reneau, F. & Roider, R. (1986, Sunrrmr). “Attitudes of Vocational Agriculture Teachers
Toward Supervrsed Occupational Experience Programs.” W
._ .. ~ u t- Vol. 27, No. 2

 

Rhodes, E. O. (1984). “Statues of Supervised Occupational Experience Program
Perceived by Vocational Agriculture Teachers rn Arizona.” W

W, The University of Arizona. Published rn
Departmem of Extension and International Education, Louisiana State University.

Russell, E. B., McCracken, J. O. & Miller, W. W. (1990, March). “Position Statement on
LiteraCY” Wanna, VoL 62 No 9

Sching C- (1965). RemhMerhodainSmiaLRelariqns. Holt, Reinhart, and Wmston,

 

Doctoral Dissertation, Oklahoma State University.

Slocombe, J. W. (1984, February). “Preparing Students for Placement.” The
AaricultnralEducationMaaazine, Vol 52 No 8

Slocombe, J. W. (1983). “Experimental Evaluation of Instructional Packet on
Supervised Occupational Experience Placement Programs for Vocatioml
Agriculture.” Doctoral Dissertation, Iowa State University, Arms. Published

in Hutu ti‘thtD'tmtt. ll-bl.'10lt1 .t..=.ttt

Winn; & State University Blacksburg Virginia

Slocombe, J. W. (1985). "Relationship of Selected Factors Toward Student Participation
and Perceptions of Supervised Occupational Experience Programs". W

 

Slocombe, J. & Williams, D. (1985, Spring). “Evaluation of Instructional Materials on
Supervrsed Occupational Expenence Placement Programs. ’Ihelmrmalgf

 

Steele, R. E. (1997). “An update on The espousal and practice ofSupervised Agricultural
Experience (SAE) m New York State.” Paper presented at W
W Cincinnati, Ohio

146

Sutphin, D. (1984, April) “SOE Laboratories.” mmnmmminnﬂlaaazine
Vol. 56, No. 10

Swortzel, Kirk A. (1996). “Perceptions Regarding planning Activities and Supervised
Strategies for Supervised Agricultural Experience programs.” ImmaLQf
AaricnltrrralEdncation. Vol37 No 2

Warren, R. J., &Flowers, J. (1992, December). "The Relationship between The Quality of
The Supervised Agricultural Experience Component of The Secondary agriculture
Program in North Carolina and The Instructors' Levels of Time Mamgement. "
Paper Presented at It; c , : z. . :
RemhMeetina, St Louis, Mo.

White, J. D. (1992, December). “Supervised Agricultural ExperiencesinThe 128t
Century-~- Cutting Edge 0r Obsolete” Whitman:

 

 

Vol.65, No. 6
Whitham,M&Erdnast, A.(1982). {.0}... . .. .,
run. .1: u '_0.A'.'NII"‘O'31H°'. I t .3..le
Paper # 8). Washington, D. C: National Society for Internships and Experiential
Education.

Williams, D. L. (1980, Sunnmr). “Beneﬁts Derived from Supervised Occupational
Experience Programs As Perceived by Students. W
.. .. .0 .. t. z. .. ' u r‘ Vol. 21,No.2

  

Department of Agricultural Education, Iowa State University, IA

Wright, R. L. (1989). “An Assessment of The Perceived Importance of The Economic
Impact of Supervised Occupational Experience Programs Within Oklahoma
Cormnunities.” Master of Science Thesis, Oklahoma State University. Stillwater,

 

AancnltnralEdncation Purdue Universrty. West Laaytte In. '

Zurbrick, P. R. (1989, October). “Supervised Experience.” W191}.
Magazine. Vol. 62, No. 4

 

nrcnran STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES
lllllmllmWIIIWINIII“Wlllllllllllllllllmlll
31293013973049