. IIHk—Frlm‘wgu

4

. ..»l

.1...

:IL

. E1

 

a»

“£33 ,

.56,

37':

. . “Rm.“

\fl

_ \O
..
WM” ‘ kW,
1.!” .
.’

‘ . 3 ‘

1.

.(fl C ..
[Iluuumvhlvc 7%??fim
£5438; v4.5...
.uru... .4 .. .

{a if}...
ti...- . «x ,
I.

in“?
:5! . {I
.3317]: . ‘

 

3004,,
6-: To” ’3 LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

AN EMPIRICAL ASSESSMENT OF MICHIGAN SECONDARY
AGRICULTURAL EDUCATORS USE OF THE SERVICE
LEARNING MODEL

presented by

COURTNEY JEAN STEWART

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

degree in AGRICULTURAL &
MS. EXTENSION EDUCATION

 

 

flaior Profess- ’ ~ ature
i 53’ 2003

Date

 
    

MSU is an Affinnative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

tam .0 @995

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 c:/CIRC/DateDue.p65-p.15

 

AN EMPIRICAL ASSESSMENT OF MICHIGAN SECONDARY AGRICULTURAL
EDUCATORS USE OF THE SERVICE LEARNING MODEL

By

Courtney Jean Stewart

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Agriculture Natural Resources
Education and Communication Systems

2003

I flee-”1""

ABSTRACT

AN EMPIRICAL ASSESSMENT OF MICHIGAN SECONDARY
AGRICULTURAL EDUCATORS USE OF THE SERVICE LEARNING MODEL

By

Courtney Jean Stewart

Service Ieaming is a teaching method that integrates the use of community service
in classroom instruction. This study investigates the use of community-based service
learning by Michigan A griscience instructors. In particular, the study investigated the
use of the widely accepted service Ieaming model of planning, implementation,
evaluation, and reflection.

This study took the form of a census survey of the 130 Michigan Agriscience
instructors. A total of 86 questionnaires were received out of 130 possible for a response
rate of 66.2%.

Findings indicated that most Agriscience instructors have utilized community-
based service Ieaming. Most of the instructors followed the elements of the service
learning model but lacked in reflection activities after the community service was
complete.

Recommendations from this study include a workshop devoted to service
Ieaming, focusing on service Ieaming and develop a curriculum guide on service
learning. Further qualitative and longitudinal studies need to be performed for greater

understanding of service Ieaming.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First and foremost, my deepest thanks go to my parents, Gary and Beverly
Stewart and brother A. J. Stewart, for all of their support throughout my life. I
appreciate all of the late night phone calls and encouragement throughout my masters
program.

I would like to take the opportunity to thank my major professor Dr. Michael
Woods for his assistance, guidance, and support throughout my masters program. I
would also like to thank my other committee members: Dr. Dave Krueger for his
research expertise and willingness to provide assistance and guidance with my statistics
and Karen McKnight-Casey for her expertise in service Ieaming and support.

My masters program in Agricultural and Extension Education would not be
possible without my Grandpa Eugene McFarland. He was the person who encouraged
me to get involved in 4-H and extension and helped shape my life.

A special thanks goes to Scott Rumble and Roberta Crabtree, for being my
mentors and making my decision to enter a career in extension easy. Also to the
Tippecanoe County Extension Office, thanks for providing the greatest work experience
and environment.

A sincere thanks goes to the members of University Baptist Church for their
support, prayers, and inviting me into their family.

Last, but certainly not least, a sincere thanks go to Leslie Reneau and Megan
Skiles, for always providing laughter, brightening my days when I needed it, and always

willing to talk on the phone at any time.

iii

Chapter 1:

1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8

Chapter 2:
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4

2.5

2.6

2.7
2.8

Chapter 3:
3.1
3.2
3.3

3.4

3.5
3.6

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... l
A Heritage of Service ................................................................................... 1
Service and Learning in American Education ............................................. 2
Need for the Study ....................................................................................... 6
Statement of the Problem ............................................................................. 7
Purpose ......................................................................................................... 7
Limitation of the Study ................................................................................ 7
Terms and Definitions .................................................................................. 8
Summary ...................................................................................................... 9
LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................... 11
Chapter Preview ......................................................................................... 11
Historical Foundation of Service Learning ................................................ 12
Service Learning Research ........................................................................ 14
Implementing Service Learning ................................................................. 15
2.4.1 Reflection ................................................................................. 15
Hindrances to Service Learning ................................................................. 16
2.5.1 Scheduling Service ................................................................... 16
2.5.2 Costs ......................................................................................... 17
Effects of Service Learning ....................................................................... 18
2.6.1 Impact on Students ................................................................... 18
2.6.2 Service Learning and Teachers ................................................ 19
2.6.3 Service Learning and the Community ..................................... 21
Service Learning in Agricultural Education .............................................. 21
Summary .................................................................................................... 27
METHODOLOGY .................................................................................... 29
Chapter Preview ......................................................................................... 29
Population ........................................................................................... 29
Instrument Development ............................................................................ 30
3.3.1 Design ...................................................................................... 30
3.3.2 Content ..................................................................................... 30
3.3.3 Validity .................................................................................... 31
3.3.4 Reliability ................................................................................. 31
Data Collection .......................................................................................... 32
3.4.] Initial Questionnaire ................................................................. 32
3.4.2 Follow-up E-mail ..................................................................... 32
3.4.3 Second Follow-up Questionnaire ............................................. 33
3.4.4 F inal F ollow-up Questionnaire ................................................ 33
3.4.5 Processing Procedures ............................................................. 33
Data Analysis Procedures .......................................................................... 34
Summary .................................................................................................... 34

iv

Chapter 4: FINDINGS ................................................................................................ 36
4.1 Chapter Preview ......................................................................................... 36
4.2 Objective 1 ................................................................................................. 37

4.2.1 To describe the demographic composition of Agriscience
instructors that utilizes community service as an integral part of their
agricultural curriculum ......................................................................... 37
4.2.2 Demographic Cross Tabulations .............................................. 39
4.3 Objective 2 ................................................................................................. 40
4.3.1 To describe the current use of community service by
Agriscience instructors in Michigan .................................................... 40
4.4 Objective 3 ................................................................................................. 41
4.4.1 To describe the current use of service Ieaming model
elements (planning, implementation, reflection and evaluation) as
practiced by Michigan Agriscience instructors .................................... 41
4.5 Summary .................................................................................................... 46

Chapter 5: CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................... 48
5.1 Chapter Preview ......................................................................................... 48
5.2 Objective 1 Conclusions ............................................................................ 48

5.2.1 Teaching Interests .................................................................... 49
5.2.2 Recommendations .................................................................... 49
5.2.3 Agricultural Education/F FA .................................................... 52
5.2.4 Recommendations .................................................................... 52
5.2.5 Lesson Plans ............................................................................. 54
5.3 Objective 2 Conclusions ............................................................................ 55
5.3.1 Recommendations .................................................................... 56
5.4 Objective 3 Recommendations .................................................................. 57
5.4.1 Recommendations .................................................................... 5 8
5.4.2 Student Involvement ................................................................ 59
5.4.3 Recommendations .................................................................... 59
5.4.4 Reflection ................................................................................. 59
5.4.5 Recommendations .................................................................... 60
5.4.6 Hindrances of Service Learning ............................................... 61
5.4.7 Recommendations .................................................................... 62
5.5 Overall Recommendations ......................................................................... 64
5.6 Study Summary .......................................................................................... 67

APPENDIX A .............................................................................................................. 69
UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE ON RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMAN
SUBJECTS ............................................................................................................... 69

APPENDIX B .............................................................................................................. 70
SURVEY H\1 STRUMENT ........................................................................................ 70

APPENDIX C .............................................................................................................. 74

v

up airs-”w‘“’ " rt

INITIAL COVER LETTER ..................................................................................... 74

APPENDIX D .............................................................................................................. 76
FOLLOW-UP E-MAIL ............................................................................................ 76
APPENDIX E .............................................................................................................. 77
DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONS .............................................................................. 77
APPENDIX F ............................................................................................................... 91
DEMOGRAPHIC CROSS TABULATIONS .......................................................... 91
Bibliography ............................................................................................................. 103

vi

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

Table 4

Table 5

Table 6

Table 7

Table 8

Table 9

Table 10

Table 1 1

Table 12

Table 13

Table 14

Table 15

Table 16

Table 17

Table 18

Table 19

Table 20

Table 21

LIST OF TABLES
Demographics ......................................................................................... 38
Teaching Demographics ......................................................................... 39
Implement Community Service in Courses ............................................ 4O

Requirement of F FA Chapters to Participate in Community Service ....40
Community Service as a Part of Coursework ......................................... 41
Community Service Aligned with Course Content ................................ 41

Students Had an Integral Part in Planning the Community Service

Activity ................................................................................................... 42
Community Service Met Community Needs .......................................... 42
Time Taken Before Community Service to Discuss .............................. 43
Time Taken After Community Service to Discuss. ................................ 43
Reflection Activities were Performed ............................ . ......................... 44
Transportation Causes Difficulties ......................................................... 44
Access to Funding Causes Difficulties ............................. 45
Community Service Takes too Much Time to Perform .......................... 45
Community Service Takes too Much Time to Organize ........................ 46
Establishing Community Partnerships .................................................... 46
Teaching Contract ................................................................................... 77
Importance in Pursuing Career as an Agriscience Instructor ................. 78
Number and Type of Courses Taught ..................................................... 79
Begin Career Again ................................................................................ 79
Teaching Interest ..................................................................................... 8O

vii

Table 22

Table 23

Table 24

Table 25

Table 26

Table 27

Table 28

Table 29

Table 30

Table 31

Table 32

Table 33

Table 34

Table 35

Table 36

Table 37

Table 38

Table 39

Table 40

Hours Spent on Activities Per Week ...................................................... 81

Activities ................................................................................................. 82
Issues of Importance ............................................................................... 83
Description of Respondent ...................................................................... 84
Importance of Issues as an Agriscience Instructor ................................. 85
Sources of Stress ..................................................................................... 86
Agree with Issues .................................................................................... 87
Standardized Testing ............................................................................... 88
Evaluation Methods ................................................................................ 89
Instructional Techniques/Methods .......................................................... 90

Cross Tabulation- Implement Community Service Elements by
Gender, Marital Status, Years Teaching, Grew Up ................................ 91

Cross Tabulation- Community Service Aligned with Class Content by
Gender, Marital Status, Years Teaching, Grew Up ................................ 92

Cross Tabulation- Students had Integral Part in Planning Community
Service by Gender, Marital Status, Years Teaching, Grew Up .............. 93

Cross Tabulation- Community Service Activities Met Community
Needs by Gender, Marital Status, Years Teaching, Grew Up ................ 94

Cross Tabulation- Time Taken Before Community Service to Discuss
by Gender, Marital Status, Years Teaching, Grew Up ........................... 95

Cross Tabulation- Time Taken After Community Service to Discuss
by Gender, Marital Status, Years Teaching, Grew Up ........................... 96

Cross Tabulation- Reflection Activities were Performed by Gender,
Marital Status, Years Teaching, Grew Up .............................................. 97

Cross Tabulation- Transportation Difficulties by Gender, Marital
Status, Years Teaching, Grew Up ........................................................... 98

Cross Tabulation- Funding Difficulties by Gender, Marital Status,
Years Teaching, Grew Up ....................................................................... 99

viii

Table 41

Table 42

Table 43

Cross Tabulation- Too Much Time to Perform by Gender, Marital
Status, Years Teaching, Grew Up ......................................................... 100

Cross Tabulation- Too Much Time to Organize by Gender, Marital
Status, Years Teaching, Grew Up ......................................................... 101

Cross Tabulation— Establishing Community Partnerships Take too
Much Time by Gender, Marital Status, Years Teaching, Grew Up ..... 102

ix

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 A Heritage of Service

The United States has a rich heritage surrounding community service. Franklin
D. Roosevelt in 1933-1942 created the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC). Specifically,
the CCC provided millions of young people to serve terms of 6 to 18 months to help
restore the nation’s parks, revitalize the economy, and support themselves and their
families (Corporation for National & Community Service, n.d.). Since this first call for
national service by the government, presidents and leaders continue to challenge
Americans to devote a portion of their time to serving and improving their communities.

President John F. Kennedy in his 1961 Inaugural Address provided one of the
most notable calls to service, “And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country
can do for you-«ask what you can do for your country” (John F. Kennedy Library and
Museum, 1961). From that call to action, numerous national organizations devoted to
service were created such as the Peace Corps and Youth Conservation Corps. Likewise,
as part of the “War on Poverty,” President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964 created VISTA
(Volunteers in Service to America), which provides opportunities for Americans to serve
full-time to help thousands of low-income communities (Corporation for National &
Community Service, n.d.). President George Bush created the Office of National Service
in the White House and the Points of Light Foundation to foster volunteering in 1989-
1990 (Corporation for National & Community Service, n.d.). President Bill Clinton

signed the National and Community Service Trust Act of 1994, creating the Corporation

for National and Community Service and AmeriCorps to expand opportunities for
Americans to serve their communities (Corporation for National & Community Service,
n.d.). Most recently, President George W. Bush in his 2002 State of the Union address
stated, “My call tonight is for every American to commit at least two years, 4,000 hours
over the rest of your lifetime, to the service of your neighbors and your nation”
(CNN.com/Inside Politics, 2002). In the past decade, we have seen these calls to service
go beyond citizens volunteering in their spare time to becoming an integral part of

America’s K-12 education system (National Commission on Service-Learning, n.d.).

1.2 Service and Learning in American Education

For more than 100 years, service to the community has been an important part of
the institutionalization of education in the United States (Stephens, 1995). Leaming-by-
doing and hands-on Ieaming, which has been labeled by leading education researchers
and practitioners as experiential Ieaming (Dewey, 1916; Kolb, 1984), constructivism
(Bruner, 1996), or situated Ieaming (Lave & Wenger; 1991) has long been touted as a
more desirable means of educating society. While service Ieaming is not derived from a
single theoretical framework, tenets from each of these theories can seen in the
application of learning through service.

Research has shown that the ideal situation for students to learn is not always
within the confines of the classroom (Stephens, 1995). Research studies have
demonstrated that learners fail to develop deep understandings of subject matter in
traditional classrooms and therefore fail to apply this knowledge to settings outside of the

classroom (Dailey, Conroy, & Shelley-Tolbert, 2001). Fletcher and Branen (1993) state

that when instructed with traditional lectures and demonstrations, students are primarily
passive learners and therefore have limited opportunities to generalize concepts applied
to settings. This common argument that students need to be active in their learning and
engaged with real life was supported by Plato and Socrates in Greece, Rousseau in
France, Tolstoy in Russia, and Dewey in America (Stephens, 1995). One popular method
of students Ieaming firsthand is through community service, in the context of service
learning. According to Gray et al (1999), service learning has been used in schools for
more than 30 years and is an effect means of advancing student development.
According to the National and Community Service Trust Act of 1993, service
learning:
1) is a method whereby students learn and develop through active participation in
thoughtfully organized service that is conducted in and meets the needs of
communities; 2) is coordinated with an elementary school, secondary school,
institution of higher education, or community service program and the
community; 3) helps foster civic responsibility; 4) integrated into and enhances
the academic curriculum of the students, or the education components of the
community service program in which the participants are enrolled; 5) and
provides structured time for students or participants to reflect on the service

experience (Corporation for National and Community Service, n.d.).

As popular press and research studies show, schools from around the county have
advanced curricular delivery with the use of service learning (Neal, 2003). In fact, the
National Center for Education Statistics (N CES) (1999) conducted the National Student

Service-Learning and Community Service Survey in the spring of 1999 and found 64% of

all public schools, including 83% of public high schools, had students participating in
community service activities arranged and/or recognized by the school. The study also
found that 32% of all public schools incorporated service Ieaming as part of their

curriculum, including nearly half of all high schools.

Moreover, many states are adopting laws that require students to perform a set
number of hours of service before they can graduate (Neal & Miller, 2003). According to
the Education Commission of the States (2001), Maryland requires service to be
performed in order to graduate and service is included in six state’s education standards
(Idaho, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, and Vermont), but is not

necessarily required.

Service Ieaming continues to be the focus of j oumal articles, workshops,
conferences, and curriculum to aid as a reference for teachers. There has been a plethora
of literature and research encompassing the effects of service Ieaming on students,
communities, schools, and teachers in most disciplines (Eyler, Giles, Stenson, & Gray,
2001). However, to date, there has been minimal research conducted on service Ieaming
in the agricultural education discipline (Woods, 2002b). In reviewing ten years of service
Ieaming literature, Woods and Stewart (2003) found, 166 articles from five scholarly
outlets, with only five articles related to agricultural education. As Trexler (2001)
stated, [s]ervice Ieaming is a new term for many in the profession and one that needs to
be examined in detail. However, according to Hess (2001) “service Ieaming is the
complementary piece of the puzzle that helps tie together several aspects of the triad
model of agricultural education, as well as the FFA’s push for student’s personal

development” (p. 10).

While there is a growing interest to utilize service learning within agriculture, use
of service Ieaming is not a new idea in agricultural education. The principles of
community service or service Ieaming have long been advocated as a method for
advancing civic awareness and citizen responsibility in both agricultural education and
the Future Farmers of America (FFA) (Edman, 1953; Scott, 1952; Smith, Martin,
McMahon, 1954; Sperlich, 1975). “Our first responsibility is to educate for more
effective democratic living in a culture of social, economic and political struggle” (Baker,
1957). Community service projects also strengthen the F F A and agricultural education
because of the wonderful moral impact of helping others through service (Cummings,
1957). In some cases, like the ‘Building our American Community’ (BOAC) program,
service had been institutionalized in agricultural education and F FA. The BOAC
program was formed to help FFA members, working together in chapters, to know the
development process and to organize and conduct community development projects

(National FFA Organization, n.d.).

The FFA was established in 1928 as an intracurricular part of agricultural
education (National F F A Organization, 2002). Ekstrom (1955) stated that before FFA
was a national organization, it was known in some states and areas as Community
Service Clubs; which is one of the major purposes of FF A. The FFA Motto of “Learning
to Do, Doing to Learn, Earning to Live, Living to Serve” exhibits the dedication to
service (National FFA Organization, 2002). There are individual and national chapter
awards based on community service involvement.

Literature about the use of community service by students has shown tremendous

benefits for students, teachers, and communities. As Woods (2002a) noted, community-

 

based service Ieaming “offers students an opportunity to explore the connections between
the theoretical realm of AgriScience in the classroom and the practical scientific needs of
the community” (p. 27) By making the effort to involve students in the community can
forge new bonds between students, teachers, and citizens, while helping solve community
problems (Israel & Hoover, 1996). Research has shown that service participants have a
slightly higher grade point average (Gray et al, 1998); were more satisfied with their
course (Gary et al, 1998); placed higher importance on volunteering (Markus, Howard, &
King, 1993); and showed positive improvements on ability to work with diverse groups

and felt self worth in social situations (Osborne, Hammerich, & Hensley, 1998).

1.3 Need for the Study

Research literature addressing service learning over the past decade has provided
the effects of service Ieaming on the student, instructor, school, or community; but
minimal research reflected if teachers in a specific discipline used it in their classroom
and to what extent. Likewise, as Woods and Stewart (2003) noted, research on service
Ieaming in the discipline of agriculture is slowly surfacing. While community service
has long been incorporated into FFA activities, very little has been written about those
activities and if they were incorporated in classroom teaching, involved reflection
activities, and whether there was a community need for that activity. This study assessed
Agriscience instructors’ use of community service and provided a better understanding of
existing knowledge and needs of community service. The lack of studies addressing the
use of service Ieaming in agricultural education within public education was the central

problem that this study was designed to address.

1.4 Statement of the Problem

Agriscience education and FF A have a long standing foundation built upon
service, as demonstrated by the FFA motto of “Learning to Serve.” With the call to
service already instilled in agriscience education and FFA programming, it is important
to know what service activities Agriscience instructors are using to uphold the motto and
commitment to maintaining a strong linkage with community stakeholders. Therefore,
the need to know if and to what extent Agriscience instructors use community service

provided the focus for this study.

1.5 Purpose
The purpose of this study was to examine the use of community service by
Michigan High School Agriscience instructors. The objectives are:

1) To describe current use of community service by Agriscience instructors;

2) To describe the current use of service Ieaming model elements (planning,
implementation, reflection and evaluation) as practiced by Michigan
Agriscience instructors; and

3) To describe the demographic composition of Michigan Agriscience instructors
that utilize community service as an integral part of their agricultural

curriculum and FFA programming.

1.6 Limitations of the Study
The words community service and service Ieaming were used interchangeably.

All questions in the study used the term community service since service learning is still

a new term in the education field and no single definition of service Ieaming has been

accepted. Therefore, in order to insure reliability, the term community service was used.

1.7 Terms and Definitions

Agricultural Education- prepares students for successful careers and a lifetime of
informed choices in the global agriculture, food, fiber and natural resources systems
(National FF A Organization, 2002).

Community Service— Community Service is volunteerism that occurs in the community-

 

action taken to meet the needs of others and better the community as a whole (National
Service Learning Clearinghouse, 2001).

fl- A nationally recognized intracurricular youth organization dedicated to making a
positive difference in the lives of young people by developing their potential for premier
leadership, personal growth and career success through agricultural education (National
FFA Organization, 2002).

Reflection- Reflection describes the process of deriving meaning and knowledge from
experience and occurs before, during and after a service-learning project. Effective
reflection engages both teachers and students in a thoughtful and thought-provoking
process that consciously connects Ieaming with experience (National Service Learning
Clearinghouse, 2001).

Service Leaming- l) is a method whereby students learn and develop through active
participation in thoughtfully organized service that is conducted in and meets the needs of
communities; 2) is coordinated with an elementary school, secondary school, institution

of higher education, or community service program and the community; 3) helps foster

civic responsibility; 4) integrated into and enhances the academic curriculum of the
students, or the education components of the community service program in which the
participants are enrolled; 5) and provides structured time for students or participants to
reflect on the service experience (Corporation for National and Community Service,

n.d.).

1.8 Summary

This thesis presents theoretical and empirical work on the use of community
service within secondary agricultural education programs. The goals are to describe and
analyze the state of community service and service Ieaming model elements, and situate
the findings within this framework. The thesis consists of five chapters, including this
introductory one.

Chapter 2: Review of Literature. Theories of service learning and research
literature on community service and service Ieaming are outlined and explored as they
relate to this study.

Chapter 3: Methodology and Research Design. The study utilized a census study
of 130 Michigan Secondary Agriscience instructors. A total of 86 usable surveys were
collected with a response rate of 66.2%.

Chapter 4: Findings. The previous chapters set the stage for developing the
researcher’s propositions for a study that assesses the use of community service within
secondary agricultural education. In this chapter, the empirical research findings are

discussed and analyzed in detail using different clusters for comparison.

Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations. Conclusion from presented in
this thesis implicates for the use of community service in agricultural education and F F A
programs. As implicates for practice, these results can help secondary agricultural
instructors, university agricultural education teacher educators and FF A staff to better
understand the process of implementing community service and service Ieaming model

elements.

10

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Chapter Preview
This study drew on five areas of literature: 1) historical foundations of service
learning; 2) research in service learning; 3) implementation of service learning projects;
4) effects of service Ieaming; and 5) agricultural education and FFA’s commitment to
advancing service learning. Each of these literature reviews either defined the study’s
area of investigation or aided in the creation of the study’s conceptual framework.
The researcher used this body of knowledge to meet the objectives of the study:
1) to describe the current use of community service by Agriscience instructors in
Michigan; 2) to describe the current use of service Ieaming model elements (planning,
implementation, reflection, and evaluation) as practices by Michigan Agriscience
instructors; and 3) to describe the demographic composition of Michigan Agriscience
instructors that utilize community service as an integral part of their agricultural
curriculum and F F A programming. This review of literature was used to answer the
following research questions:
1. Is there a clear sense of service Ieaming among Michigan Agriscience
instructors?
2. Do Michigan Agriscience instructors have a clear commitment to the basic
idea and principles of service learning?
3. Is there support from Michigan Agriscience instructors for infusing service

Ieaming into agricultural education curriculum and FFA programming?

11

Ultimately, the review of literature provided a conceptual framework for the
research methodology outlined in Chapter 3. In particular, the research methodology was

grounded in the existing literature, theory, and the researcher’s experience.

2.2 Historical Foundation of Service Learning

Service Ieaming is the most recent manifestation of what is now almost a 100-
year history of American educational reform (Kraft, 1998). This reform attempts to bring
the school and community back together, to build or rebuild a citizenship ethic in our
young people, and bring more active forms of learning to our schools (Kraft, 1998). It
incorporates traditional principles of apprenticeship and builds on educational traditions
described as proj ect-based Ieaming, hands-on Ieaming, and experiential Ieaming that
began to spread in the late 19th and early 20’h centuries Wational Commission on Service-
Learning, n.d.).

The concept and philosophy of service Ieaming has been around since the turn of
the twentieth century. It was the ideas of John Dewey and others associated with the
progressive education movement in the early and middle twentieth century that were the
most influential in the service Ieaming movement (Stephens, 1995). Dewey advanced
the view that active student involvement in Ieaming was essential in effective education
(Dewey, 1956; Waterman, 1997). He also strongly advocated that the community is an
integral part of educational experiences, because what is learned in the school must be
taken and utilized beyond its bounds, both for the advancement of students and the
betterment of firture societies (Dewey, 1916; Waterman, 1997). “While family, church,

the media, and the streets all play powerful roles in children’s development, it is schools

12

that provide the greatest opportunity for youth to experience community, to work toward
common goals, and to uphold both individual rights and collective good” (Wade, 1997, p.
4).

As of December 2000, 16 states advance service learning in their statutes and 23
mentioned service Ieaming in either their regulations or state code (Neal & Miller, 2003).
A number of factors brought community service as an approach to learning into the
awareness of educators (Stephens, 1995). Stephens (1995) found that there was a
persistent dissatisfaction with schools, the theme of boredom, restlessness, and
disengaged students going through life as bystanders rather than participants. Despite the
rapid growth of service learning, the number of schools offering service learning is still
limited, and in many of those schools, only few teachers participate (National
Commission on Service-Leaming, n.d.).

The practice of service Ieaming varies widely, and even devoted practitioners are
not always clear about the essence of the pedagogy or whether they are implementing
service Ieaming or community service (Billig, 2002). The quality of programs also varies
widely, and many service-Ieaming experiences do not occur often enough to have a
positive impact on Ieaming and development (National Commission on Service-
Leaming, n.d.). Service learning is not a model and does not have specific steps,
however, it usually involves 1) meeting authentic community needs, 2) student
involvement in planning and implementing service activities, 3) reflection to gain greater
insight and Ieaming from the service experience, and 4) celebration or recognition of the

activity (Billig, 2002).

13

The degree to which service Ieaming is integrated with standards and curriculum
also differs widely across the United States, as do the types of reflection activities which
students engage, the amount of responsibility and choice students are given, the length of
the experience, and the ways that teachers help students to understand how the experience
relates to the real world (Billig, 2002). Every service Ieaming project is a unique

experience.

2.3 Service Learning Research

The rise in service learning over the past several years has prompted a growing
number of educators, researchers and policy makers to seek out research findings that
define the effects of service learning on students, faculty, communities, and educational
institutions (F urco, 2000). Researchers who have investigated the claims of service
learning report only a small research base to support program effectiveness (Bradley,
1997; Chapin, 1998; Woods, 2002b). While research has shown some benefits of
service Ieaming, there is a lack of research backing long-term effects on students
(Woods, 2002b).

The research in service Ieaming should be read with caution; many studies were
performed as program evaluation rather than pure research; therefore their general
applicability to the field is limited (Billig, 2002). One of the major difficulties in
evaluating and researching service Ieaming is the lack of agreement on the term and what
it is meant to accomplish (Billig, 2000a, Kraft, 1998; Neal, 2003).

Recent reviews of literature, such as those by Billig (2000b) and Andersen (1998)

revealed a relative lack of research on service learning in K-12 (Billig & F urco, 2002).

14

Billig and F urco (2002) reported in July 2001, a group of researchers convened to discuss
the research in K-12 service learning and generated a research agenda for the next
decade. Due to time constraints, their work focused on three broad areas: personal/social
development, civic engagement, and impact of service Ieaming on students’ academic
achievement; a list of questions accompanied each area (Billi g & Furco, 2002).

Several challenges face service learning research including lack of funding,
methodological rigor, longitudinal data, and large-scale studies (Neal, 2003). It is too
early to predict the long-term impact of service Ieaming on educational reform,
citizenship education, community building, or pedagogical and curricular change (Kraft,
1998). Since service Ieaming is interpreted differently, it is difficult to assess its results

and combine studies. (National Commission on Service-Learning, n.d.).

2.4 Implementing Service Learning
2.4.1 Reflection

A recurrent theme in service Ieaming has been the concept of reflection as a
necessary component for the realization of educational objectives (Waterman, 1997).
This is the time where the “learning” part of service Ieaming is exercised. Learning is
intensified by reflection - students are required to contemplate the meaning of their
service, evaluate it, thereby reaching a greater understanding of themselves, their studies,
and the society (Stephens, 1995).

In a meta-analysis of research studies on service Ieaming and community service,
Conrad and Hedin (1981) found that reflection was the single most necessary element in

a service program leading to student Ieaming, though it is typically not a central focus in

15

school (Seigel, 1997). Billig (2000b) and Barkley (1999) found that when reflection
included elements that encouraged students to make meaning of their experiences and
draw connections to the roots of community needs, students developed greater
understanding and more empathy for others.

Reflection activities can be carried out orally, during class time, in the form of
student questions and comments that draw on what they have observed and/or take the
form of a written assignment (Waterman, 1997). Billig (2000b) found when teachers
facilitate discussions that help students to see deeper meaning to the activity they were

more apt to identify and retain the outcomes for a longer period of time.

2.5 Hindrances to Service Learning
2.5.] Scheduling Service
Teachers may often feel that there is not enough time during the day to add an
additional activity. Wade (1997) reported while there are many different hindrances
teachers might experience with service Ieaming, most of their concerns can be linked to
one critical factor: time.
Of the many ways that service Ieaming activities differ from traditional academic
instruction, three have particular significance for teachers in terms of the time
problems they experience. First, most service-Ieaming activities cannot be taught
directly from a curriculum guide or textbook. Because service-Ieaming projects
must address a school or community need, teachers usually need to develop tailor

made plans for the project and seek creative ways to tie the service activity to the

16

academic curriculum. Reflection lessons must also be developed specific to the
project and students’ experiences.
Second, almost all service-Ieaming projects involve collaboration with others. . .It
is a challenge for teachers to find the time to plan collaboratively and to make
needed contacts with community members.
Third, service-learning activities usually involve some unforeseen problems or
surprising events. Because most projects involve other people in the school or
community and because service-learning centers around trying to change existing
problems, with the logistics of a visit to a service site, many things can go wrong
(pp. 87-88).
Although time is frequently mentioned as a problem with service Ieaming, other
problems with service Ieaming include: transportation, funding, parental complaints,
lack of support form colleagues or administrators, lack of student motivation, and student

misbehavior out in the community (Wade, 1997).

2.5.2 _(;_q_s_t_s_

Service Ieaming in American schools takes on an almost infinite array of shapes
and strategies, and the associated costs depend on the scope of the efforts, the ways in
which it is integrated into the school and the type of service projects that make up the
program (Melchior, 2000). Melchior added that the majority of schools have integrated
service Ieaming into their curriculum have done so without additional, outside funding.

Neal (2003) reported, “a further indication of the growth, possibly reflecting the

17

institutionalization within school budgets and policies, are the 84% of public schools who

reported that they did not receive outside financial help for their programs” (p. 7).

2.6 Effects of Service Learning

A growing concern with school leaders is with students’ apparent lack of skills,
information or even caring about society in general and their own communities (Billig,
2000a). Billig further noted that service Ieaming has been found to help this problem.
Research has found that service Ieaming increased students’ feelings of both civic and
social responsibility. Students involved with service-Ieaming projects gain a greater
sense of civic responsibility, a feeling that they can make a difference and an increased
desire to become active contributors to society (National Commission on Service-
Leaming, n.d.).

The National Commission on Service-Leaming (n.d.) reported that service-
leaming accomplished the following: 1) reverses student disengagement, 2) reinforces
and extends the standards-based reform movement, 3) promotes the public purposes of

education, and 4) builds on the growing willingness of students to become involved.

2.6.1 Impact on Students

Most research on service Ieaming has been on personal/social development, civic
responsibility, academic Ieaming, and career exploration. Research has shown that
students engaged in quality service Ieaming showed increased measures of personal and
social responsibility, communication, and sense of educational competence (Billig, n.d.
and Weiler, et al., 1998). Leming (1998) and Billig (n.d.) reported that students felt a

higher sense of responsibility to their schools when involved with service Ieaming.

18

Students engaged in service Ieaming were more likely to treat each other kindly (Berkas,
1997; Billig, n.d) and more likely to increase their sense of self-esteem and self efficacy
(Shaffer, 1993; Billig, n.d.). Students also felt more aware of community needs, believed
they could make a difference, and increased their understanding of how the government
works (Berkas, 1997; Billig, n.d.; Melchior, 1999; National Commission on Service-

Learrring, n.d.).

Students that were involved with service learning projects reported a sense of
educational accomplishment and homework completion (Weiler, LaGoy, Crane &
Rovner, 1998; Billig, n.d.). Students were also less likely to be referred to the office for
disciplinary measures (Follman, 1998; Billig, n.d.). High school students who
participated in high quality service showed greater empathy and cognitive complexity
(Coumeya, 1994; Billig, n.d.) and reported a greater acceptance of cultural diversity
(Melchior, 1999; Berkas, 1997; Billig, n.d.). Students also reported developing career
skills (Berkas, 1997; Billig, Jesse, Calvert & Kleimann, 999; Billig, n.d.), communication

skills, positive work orientation attitudes and skills (Weiler et a1, 1998; Billig, n.d.)

2.6.2 Service Learning and Teachers

While the use of service Ieaming in teacher education is growing, the number of
teacher educators who recognize and understand the concept remains small (Root &
Furco, 2001). In a recent 3-year study of service learning in California’s teacher
education programs, F urco and Ammon (2000) found that service Ieaming was not
widely understood by teacher educators, despite statewide initiatives to advance service

Ieaming in K-12 schools (Root & Furco, 2000).

19

The National Commission on Service-Learning (n.d.) reported that teachers who
use service-Ieaming successfully often find new meaning and energy as they see their
students learn. They also found that teachers find that problems, such as misbehavior,
disappear when students are excited about their work and understand the subject they are
learning better.

Organizing meaningful service-Ieaming experiences are not easy (Stephens,
1995). Teachers must be able to use a complex set of skills: leading reflection activities,
moving from presenter-style teaching to coach-style teaching, and identify the most
appropriate curriculum connections for a community project (National Commission on
Service-Leaming, n.d.). The National Commission on Service-Learning (n.d.) reported
that teachers frequently raise concerns about finding the time to fit service-Ieaming into
the school day since many high schools typically have 50-minute classes, it can be
difficult to fit a service Ieaming project into a single class.

Wade (1997) found that teachers decide to participate in service learning for a
variety of factors, including instilling a sense of caring, social responsibility, or self-
esteem in their students. Not only do teachers find service Ieaming beneficial to their
students, but also to themselves. Wade (1997) found that some of the gratifying aspects
of service learning include: public attention in the media; recognition fi'om colleagues,
administrators, and parents; student motivation and learning; and the benefits they
perceive resulting from the service activity for the community. Seigel (1997) also found
that teacher’s past experiences with community service, knowledge about service
learning, and beliefs about teaching and Ieaming played a significant role in the teacher’s

interest level and implementation of service learning activities in the curriculum.

20

2.6.3 Service Learning and the Community

There is little research on the impact of service Ieaming on the community The
National Commission on Service-Learning (n.d.) reported that community members who
participated as partners in service Ieaming as well as those who became familiar with the
activities tended to change their perceptions of young people, viewing them as important

contributors and resources to the community.

2.7 Service Learning in Agricultural Education

“The FFA Mission Statement: FFA makes a positive difference in the lives of
students by developing their potential for premier leadership. personal growth, and gage;
w through agricultural education” (Mattingly & Morgan, 2001, p. 14). Mattingly
and Morgan notes that those three elements: premier leadership, personal growth, and
career success, demonstrate how the FFA uses each to be a leading youth organization in
the area of service learning. “Service Ieaming is an unparalleled means of achieving the
FFA’s motto: Learning to D0; Doing to Learn; Earning to Live; Living to Serve, while
linking agricultural education to our communities” (Woods, 2002a, p. 27). The best thing
about service Ieaming is that the students learn without realizing it because they are
actively participating in something they are interested in, which is what every teacher
should strive for (Mattingly & Morgan, 2001). Woods, (2002d) stated “service Ieaming
represents a holistic approach to youth development and the building of multiple
competencies often promoted by numerous FFA activities and agricultural education

initiatives” (p. 18).

21

Agricultural education is built upon a triad model consisting of FFA, classroom
instruction, and supervised agricultural/occupational experiences (SAE/SOE). In
addition to these three Opportunities for Ieaming, most agricultural education programs
engage in several community service activities per academic year, engaging students with
their community and citizens in need (Wade, 1998; Dailey, Conroy, & Shelley-Tolbert,
2001). Service learning is the complimentary piece of the puzzle that helps tie together
several aspects of the triad model, as well as the FF A’s push for students’ personal
development (Hess, 2001 ). Hess further stated:

The only aspect of service Ieaming that is different from what agriculture teachers

currently do is that we put an emphasis on self-reflection and interpretation of our

work to better understand the knowledge carried away from an activity. The
service Ieaming model only enhances the overall program of instruction in

agriculture, while strengthening the development of F F A members (p. 10).

Woods (2002c) noted “while no single formula for academic improvement fits every
agricultural education program, innovative service Ieaming is invariably a key feature of
local programmatic and student success” (p. 26). Likewise, Trexler (2001) stated, “It is
easy to see that service Ieaming fits well within the historical framework of agricultural
education’s focus on the community” (p. 5).

Community service projects, such as demonstration plots, farm improvement, and
mentoring, have complemented agricultural education throughout the years (Born, 1955,
Edstrom, 1955; Mattingly & Morgan, 2001). The Building Our American Communities
was once a program sponsored by the FFA that was built upon community service. Since

1971 FFA members have participated in BOAC projects implemented in high schools

22

across the nation as one way to solve problems communities face (Bachman, 1981). In
1981, Bachmann (1981) found that more than 1,300 US. communities received millions
of dollars of community development aid throughout the year through projects carried out
by the FFA.

The BOAC program is two-fold in its educational objectives. The first objective
is Ieaming about community development, along with other topics of instruction in the
classroom (National FFA Organization, n.d.). The second objective is the experiences of
the chapter and citizens of the community as the students study their community and plan
and act on a specific community project (National FF A Organization, n.d.). The design
of this program is similar to the service learning model by incorporating the service
activity with the classroom instruction and studying the community needs.

Though this program was very successful, it was cancelled as a national program
in the 1990’s. While it is no longer a national program, it is still used and/or has been
modified in some states, including Michigan. Currently, there is no program in the FFA
that is directly associated with community development/service.

Michigan maintained the principles of the BOAC program but renamed it
Building Our Michigan Communities (BOMC). The BOMC project closely relates to
service learning. The Michigan FFA Association (2001) outlined some main objectives
of the BOMC project:

1. Community development taught as part of instructional program

2. Studied the needs, boundaries and resources of the community

3. Considered how the project would contribute over time in the community

23

4. Explored possible cooperative community development efforts with other

groups

5. Discussed community needs with at least one local, state, or federal agency

6. Involved leading community and civic leaders/ groups to participate in the

project

7. Conducted a “how could we have done it better” evaluation at the completion

of the project

8. Identified and recognized local leaders for support in the chapter’s BOMC

project.

The BOMC project resembles the model of many service Ieaming projects. This
project is not required for every FFA chapter in the state. While this program is
intentionally centered on communities, other programs agricultural education and FF A
offer can also incorporate components of community service.

Supervised agricultural/occupational experience programs in agriculture consist
of all the practical agricultural activities of educational value conducted by students
outside of class and laboratory instruction or on school-released time (Phipps & Osborne,
1988). These programs provide students to transfer the knowledge they learn in the
classroom to real life settings. “While classroom experiences develop understanding of
principles, genuine understanding and problem solving occur when students are faced
with real problem situations that are solved only by application of principles” (Phipps &
Osborne, 1988, p. 314). The use of SAE/SOE’s is also similar to the some objectives of

service Ieaming.

24

Although SAE/SOE’s are important in agricultural education, it may be difficult
for students who have no background in agriculture to perform these activities. One
solution to this problem is a finding good, relevant, supervised experience programs for
agricultural students to utilize volunteer opportunities within the local community
(Connors, 1992). “Since I started incorporating service Ieaming into my Ag Ed
curriculum, my lessons have been easier to plan, preparing a Program of Activities
(POA) with my officers has been less tedious, and I found new supervised agricultural
experience programs for my non-traditional ag students, said Pace” (Davis & Scott, 2001,
p. 8).

Community service, volunteerism and citizenship have long been important
components of agricultural education and F F A; however, many agricultural teachers
consider them group activities (Connors, 1992). Agricultural educators are community-
oriented and believe that the program they provide should serve the community (Phipps
& Osborne, 1988). With the latest push for more experiential education and service
learning for high school students, community service and volunteerism can play a major
role in all students’ supervised experience programs (Connors, 1992).

Service learning benefits the students by helping them gain valuable life skills,
communication skills, and puts the student in a real world work setting (Davis & Scott,
2001). It is an excellent vehicle for students who come from a farm background because
many have never been exposed to urban issues and problems (Barkley, 1999). Teachers
also benefit from service learning by having new, fresh and innovative approaches to
present to their students and could possibly allow greater flexibility (Davis & Scott,

2001).

25

Vocational agriculture must be more than a process of absorbing and storing facts
and figures; it must be the development of specific knowledge and skills necessary for
successful participation in agriculture and the development of understandings, ideals, and
attitudes (Bach, 1954). Ekstrom (1954) stated, “sometimes we fail to recognize that we
are training individuals who must work and live with other individuals and with groups in
a complicated society” (p. 29). Leaders of tomorrow are not only needed, but also
citizens of tomorrow- good, patriotic, community-minded citizens to follow and support
leaders (Sperlich, 1975). Therefore, by initiating service Ieaming in agricultural
education, students become leaders and involved citizens.

The Michigan Association of Agriscience Educators developed a strategic plan
for its agriscience and natural resources educators in Michigan. Many topics, outcomes,
and objectives were addressed in this plan. They stressed that “all ANRE (agriscience
and natural resource education) programs need to have three components: defined
agriculture and natural resources instruction, quality experiential education and premier
leadership training” (p. 4).

Two outcomes presented in this plan were interrelated to the call of service and
the community. One outcome is to “implement the three components of an ANRE
program: defined agriscience and natural resources instruction, quality experiential
education and premier leadership training” (MAAE, n.d.). The tasks included in this
outcome are preparation of teachers to implement experiential education, develop
teachers’ awareness of options for experiential education, and define experiential

education (MAAE, n.d.). Experiential education includes many different teaching

26

methods, one example is service learning. This strategic plan is the stepping stone into
the integration of service Ieaming in agricultural education.

The other outcome is to expand ANRE in-service opportunities to include other
groups within schools and communities (MAAE, n.d.). Two of the tasks that are
associated with the outcome are inviting various individuals and groups within the school
and county to existing in-service activities and to provide information on ANR topics and
career pathways to community groups and schools (MAAE, n.d.). It is important to not
only have the School involved in determining service Ieaming projects, but to establish

partnerships within the community.

2.8 Summary

As this review of literature shows, a vast range of approaches and studies exist
that address the use and impact of service Ieaming. There is a large amount of research,
some of which is complementary to agricultural education and FF A programming. But
no consistent literature — not to mention a common definition of service learning and use
of service Ieaming in agricultural education and FFA programming- has been developed
thus far.

The literature was also used to develop, expand upon and illustrate the conceptual
framework of service Ieaming in agricultural education and FFA programming.
Specifically outline by Cooper (1995) service Ieaming needs to be on educators agenda
for five important reasons, 1) to allow life experiences to inform one’s learning; 2) to

apply academic knowledge in real—life situations; 3) to broaden one’s understanding of

27

various realities; 4) to encourage reflection; and 5) to recognize one’s responsibility and
connection to the local community and society (Patterson, 2002).

“The time is now ripe for US. schools to embrace service-Ieaming as a means of
overcoming wide-spread academic and civic disengagement among American students
and of raising a generation of American youth who are both world-class learners and
world-class citizens” (National Commission on Service-Leaming, n.d., p. 5). While
service Ieaming is a strong movement now, it is impossible to predict its future and if it is
a fad that will sparkle briefly and then fade away (Seigel, 1997).

In the next chapter, this review of service learning literature further serves as the
grounding of a method used to assess the use of service learning by Michigan

Agriscience instructors.

28

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

3.1 Chapter Preview

The previous chapters outlined the scope of this study, the relationship of the
investigation to existing research and the conceptual framework used in this study. This
chapter explores the research design and methodology implemented. The methods for
data collection and analysis used in this study are presented in this chapter. The
following topics were discussed in this chapter: introduction, research design, population
and sample, data collection, research questions, validity, reliability, instrument

development, data analysis, statistical procedures and limitations of this study.

3.2 Population

The study population was composed of 130 Michigan Agriscience instructors.
For the purposes of this study, the term Michigan Agriscience instructor applies to those
teaching middle school, high school, or career/technical centers. The population was
based in the field and geographically dispersed throughout the state of Michigan.

The entire population of agriscience instructors was selected for the study. The
census was performed using the 2002-2003 Michigan Agriscience Educators Directory,
which included all Agriscience educators that teach in middle school, high school, and

career/technical center.

29

3.3 Instrument Development
3.3.] M2“.

The instrument followed an altered design recommended by Dillman (2000) in
Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. The survey instrument is
included in Appendix B. The instrument was designed using Microsoft Word 2000
software. Empty space was provided throughout the questionnaire for respondents to
make comments. The researcher expressed appreciation to the respondents for taking
time to complete the questionnaire and the back page provided address information for

any additional information or comments.

3.3.2 Content

The content of the instrument included a brief description on the inside cover with
a description of the survey and directions for completion. Items included in the
questionnaire were modified from the University of California, Los Angeles Higher
Education Research Institute Faculty Survey (UCLA, n.d.) and literature reviewed by the
researcher including service Ieaming and agricultural education. While the questionnaire
contained twenty-three questions with sub questions, only one question with the sub
questions was used for the research. Other demographical questions were cross-tabulated
with the one question.

Items on the questionnaire included demographics, teaching and personal values,
and what and how instructors taught agriculture. The study was a survey instrument used
to collect the necessary data providing quantitative data. The survey instrument (see

Appendix b) contained open-ended, nominal, and ordinal questions and Likert-type

30

items. The one question used for the research was a 5-point scale question with the scale
as followed: 1 = never, 2 = rarely, 3 = sometimes, 4 = frequently, 5 = always. Scaled
items will be described as 1-1.8 = never, 1.8-2.6 = rarely, 2.6-3.4 = sometimes,

3.4-4.2 = frequently, and 4.2-5 = always. The demographics section consisted of
questions surrounding gender, age, race/ethnic group, education, what type of school
taught in, years in agricultural education, and where teachers were raised. These

questions were both closed and open-ended, nominal and ordinal.

3.3.3 Validity

The instrument was evaluated for both face and content validity from a panel of
experts. Validity is “the extent to which an instrument measured what it claimed to
measure” (Ary, Jacobs, & Razavieh, 2002, p. 242). A panel of five experts with the
expertise in research, evaluation, and agriscience education from the Department of
Agriculture and Natural Resources Education and Communication Systems (ANRECS)

at Michigan State University (MSU) reviewed the instrument.

3.3.4 Reliability

Twelve agriscience educations interns from Michigan State University were
identified and asked to serve as a pilot test group to complete the questionnaire for
reliability. Reliability is “the degree of consistency with which it measures whatever it is
measuring” (Ary, Jacobs, & Razavieh, 2002, p. 242). The researcher administered the
instrument in person. Questions pertaining to service learning were added after the pilot

test; therefore a post hoc reliability was run.

31

3.4 ‘ Data Collection

The survey was conducted using a modified approach outlined by Dillman’s
(2000) Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design. Data collection included:
questionnaire distributed at a conference, follow-up e-mail, second follow-up mailed
questionnaire, and final questionnaire distributed at a conference. The two conferences
the where survey were distributed were the summer and fall Professional Development
Institute conferences attended by most of the agriscience instructors from Michigan. The
surveys were color coded, yellow for the first round, pink for the second, and blue for the

third.

3.4.1 Initial Questionnaire

On July 9, 2003, the initial questionnaire was distributed at the Summer
Professional Development Institute (PDI) for Michigan agriscience instructors. The
conference did not attract all 130 teachers, therefore only a portion of the teachers
received the initial questionnaire. The questionnaire was in the conference packet the
teachers received on the first day. The teachers were instructed to fill out the survey and
return to a manila envelope and sign their names on the paper taped on the front of the
envelope. Signing the sheet would allow the researcher to know who completed the

survey and also allow for confidentiality.

3.4.2 Follow-91) E-ma_il
An individualized follow-up e-mail was sent on July 11, 2003 to agriscience
instructors thanking them for their participation and telling them if they had not been at

the conference, they would receive the survey in the mail (See Appendix D).

Respondents who had been at the conference and did not turn in the questionnaire were

urged to complete and return it immediately.

3.4.3 Second Follow-up Questionnaire

On July 25, 2003, two week after the initial questionnaire was distributed, a
second questionnaire was sent to those who had not responded along with a cover letter
and self-addressed stamped return envelope. The agriscience teachers were instructed to
write their name on the envelope to eliminate sending out multiple mailings. The cover

letter was on ANRECS department letterhead and signed by a faculty member.

3.4.4 Final Follow-up Questionnaire
On September 29, 2003, a follow up questionnaire was distributed at the Fall PDI

conference for Michigan agriscience teachers. Respondents were instructed to fill out the

questionnaire in their conference folder and return and sign a manila enve10pe.

3.4.5 Processing Procedures

The questionnaire was printed on 8 1/z” X l 1” paper, with the questions in two
vertical columns. The questionnaire was folded in half vertically with one staple in the
middle. The packet included the questionnaire; cover letter, and self-addressed stamped
return envelope.

The respondents were told to write their names on the outside of the return

envelopes for identification purposes. Many of the returned questionnaires did not have a

33

name on the envelope. The survey questionnaires were kept in a file drawer for security

purposes.

3.5 Data Analysis Procedures

The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 11.0 was used in
the data analysis. All questionnaires that were returned were entered into SPSS. Each
questionnaire was labeled with the date it was received, the row the data was entered, and
if it was an early or late respondent. After all of questionnaires were entered, the
researcher went back through and verified each instrument with the data in SPSS. If
more than one response was given on an item, the first response the researcher came to
was entered.

Data analysis began on July 11, 2003. Early and late respondents were compared
to determine if there was a difference between the groups. A post hoc reliability test was
performed to questions added after the initial pilot test. Descriptive statistics including
frequencies, percentages, means, standard deviations, cross tabulations, t-tests and Chi-
squares were performed to describe the data. Chi-square tests were run to determine if
there were significant differences between demographical data and use of community

service.

3.6 Summary
This chapter outlined the procedures and methods used for this study. The study
population consisted of 130 Michigan agriscience instructors and 86 surveys were

returned for a response rate of 66.2%. Statistics used to analyze the data included:

34

frequencies, percentages, means, standard deviations, cross tabulations, t-tests and Chi-
squares.

Research methods for this study of Michigan agriscience instructors’ use of
service Ieaming have been described. This chapter provided an overview of: population,
instrument development, data collection, data analysis procedures, and summary.

Chapter 4 presents the findings of the research and Chapter 5 presents the conclusions.

35

CHAPTER 4

FINDINGS

4.1 Chapter Preview

The previous chapter outlines the scope of this study, the relationship of the
investigation to existing research, the conceptual framework used in the study, and a
research design and methodology for the study. This chapter reports on the results of the
study. It presents the data of the study in answer to the research objectives:

1) To describe current use of community service by Agriscience instructors.

2) To describe the current use of service Ieaming model elements (planning,
implementation, reflection and evaluation) as practiced by Michigan
Agriscience instructors (Billig, 2002).

3) To describe the demographic composition of Michigan Agriscience instructors
that utilize community service as an integral part of their agricultural
curriculum and F FA programming.

The analysis of the survey data was completed using the Statistical Package for
the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 11.0. Findings are presented correlated with the three
objectives used to guide this study. Statistical procedures that were used to measure the
results were frequencies cross tabulations, t-test, and chi-squares.

A reliability test found an alpha=.78 84, therefore the survey was found to be
reliable. According to Ary, Jacobs, & Razavieh (2002) a reliability test is “the extent to
which a measure yields consistent results” (p. 249). A t-test was also performed to

investigate if there was a difference between early and late respondents. The significance

36

(2-tailed) ranged from .242-.977, therefore as noted by Ary, Jacobs, & Razavieh, there

was no significance between early and late respondents.

4.2 Objective 1
4.2.1 To describe the demographic compositio; of Agriscience instructors that
utilizes community service as an integral part of their agricultural curriculum

Data collected from the respondents was relative to their demographic
composition: gender, marital status, racial/ethnic group, education, place they grew up,
years teaching agricultural education, and type of school where they teach. Table 1
depicts the demographic composition of the teachers pertaining to gender, marital status,
racial/ethnic group, and where they grew up.

Respondents were 53.5% (n=46) male and 44.2% (n=3 8) female. Of the
respondents, 77.9% (n=67) were manied, 5.8% (n=5) unmarried, and 16.3% (n=14)
single. The racial composition of the teachers was 98.8% (n=85) white/Caucasian and
1.2% (n=l) Asian American/Asian.

Respondents were asked to identify which place best described where they grew
up. Two categories were formed, urban and rural. Urban settings are defined in this
study as cities of 25,000 to over one million people and rural pertains to populations
fewer than 2,500 to 24,999 people. Table 1 shows that 76.6% (n=66) of the respondents
grew up in rural settings while 23.3% (n=20) grew up in urban settings. Educational
level was asked of the respondents and 46.5% (n=40) had earned their Bachelors degree
with 2.3% (n=2) working on it. Respondents who had earned a Masters degree were

54.7% (n=47) with 30.2% (n=26) working on it. Teachers with an Ed.D. totaled 2.3%

37

(n=2), working on a Ph.D totaled 2.3% (n=2) and those earning other degrees totaled

 

 

1.2% (n=l).
Table 1
Respondent Demographics
Variable n %
Gender (N=84)
Female 38 44.2
Male 46 53.3
Total . 84 97.7
Marital Status (N=86)
Married 67 77.9
Unmarried with partner 5 5.8
Single 14 16.3
Total 86 100
Race (N=86)
White/Caucasian 85 98.8
Asian/Asian American 1 1.2
Education
Bachelors
Earned 40 46.5
Working on 2 2.3
Masters
Earned 47 54.7
Working on 26 30.2
Ed.D
Earned 2 2.3
Working on - -
Ph.D.
Earned - -
Working on 2 2.3
Other
Earned 1 1.2
Working on - -
Grew up (N=86)
*Urban 20 23.3
“Rural 66 76.7

 

*Urban=25,000-over one million people.
"Rural=under 2,500-24,999

The remaining demographic questions were as follows: how many years teaching
agricultural education and what level of school taught. These demographic questions are

illustrated in Table 2. The respondents were asked how many years they had been

38

teaching agricultural education. The years were distributed into two categories, 014 and
15-34 years due to a small population. Sixty-four percent (n=55) have taught 0-14 years
while 34.9% (n=30) have taught for 15-34 years.

Respondents reported the 19.8 % (n=1 7) teach courses in middle schools, 72.1%
(n=62) teach courses in high schools, 27.9% (n=24) teach in career/tech centers, and

2.3% (n=2) teach in other places. Table 2 illustrates the findings. Further demographical

results are shown in Appendix E.

 

 

Table 2
Teaching Demographics
Variable n %
Years (N=85)
0-14 55 64
15—34 30 34.9
School
Middle School 17 19.8
High School 62 72.1
Career/Tech Center 24 27.9
Other 2 2.3

 

4.2.2 Demographic Cross Tabulations

Cross tabulations were performed to distinguish if there was a significant
difference between demographical information and questions pertaining to community
service. If the asymptotic significance (p) value is less than 0.05, then it is considered

significant (Norusis, 2000). The results (Appendix F) showed no significant difference.

39

4.3 Objective 2

4.3.1 To describe the current use of communig servicehy Agriscience instructors
in Michigan

Respondents were asked how often they implemented community service
elements into their agricultural education courses in Table 3. The findings illustrate that
36% (n=31) of the respondents either “sometimes” or “frequently” implement community
service elements in the agricultural education course(s). Only 4.7% (n=4) “never”

implement community service elements in their courses.

 

 

Table 3

Implement Community Service in Courses

Variable (N=83, M=3.43, SD=.978) n %
Never 4 4.7
Rarely 7 8.1
Sometimes 31 36
Frequently 3 1 36
Always 10 11.6

 

(1=never, anrely, 3=sometimes, 4=frequently, 5=always)

Table 4 illustrates the results found from the respondents about their FFA chapter
requiring all members to participate in community service. The results show that 53.5%
(n=46) do not require FF A chapters to participate in community service while 33.7%

(n=29) do require community service.

 

 

Table 4

Requirement of FFA C hgpters to Participate in Community Service
Variable (N=84) n %
Yes 29 33.7
No 46 53.5
Not applicable (NA) 9 10.5

 

Respondents in Table 5 were asked how often they used community service as a
part of coursework. The findings indicate that 38.4% (n=33) “sometimes” and 30.2%

(n=26) “rarely” use community service as a part of coursework. Further findings indicate

40

that 9.3% (n=8) “never” use community service as a part of coursework while none of the

respondents “always” use community service as a part of coursework.

 

 

Table 5

Community Service as a Part of Coursework
Variable (N=83, M=2.72, SD=.908) n %
Never 8 9.3
Rarely 26 30.2
Sometimes 33 38.4
Frequently 1 8 20.9
Always - -

 

(1=never, 2=rarely, 3=sometimes, 4=frequently, 5=always)

4.4 Objective 3
4.4.1 To describe the current use of service learning model elements (planning,

implementation, reflection and evaluation) as practiced by Michigan Agriscience

instructors.

The findings in Table 6 depict if the respondents align community service with
class content. The results found that 43% (n=3 7) “frequently” align the community
service with class content while 10.5% (n=9) “always” align community service with
class content. Further results show that 4.7% (n=4) “never,” 4.7% (n=4) “rarely” and

33.7% (n=29)”sometimes” align community service with class content.

 

 

Table 6

Community Service Aligned with Course Content

Variable (N=83, M=3.52, SD=.929) n %
Never 4 4.7
Rarely 4 4.7
Sometimes 29 33.7
Frequently 37 43
Always 9 10.5

 

(1=never, 2=rarely, 3=sometimes, 4=frequently, 5=always)
Respondents were asked if their students had an integral part in planning the

community service activity. Table 7 reveals that 34.9% (n=30) “frequently” allow their

41

students to have a part in planning the community service activity while 24.4% (n=21)
either “sometimes” or “always” allowed their students to help plan the service activity.
Further findings show that only 4.7% (n=4) “never” and 8.1% (n=7) “rarely” allow their

students to have a part in planning the community service activity.

 

 

Table 7

Students Had an Integral Part in Planning the Communigv Service Activity
Variable (N=83, M=3.69, SD=1.092) n %
Never 4 4.7
Rarely 7 8.1
Sometimes 21 24.4
Frequently 30 34.9
Always 21 24.4

 

(1=never, 2=rarely, 3=sometimes, 4=frequently, 5=always)

Respondents were asked if the community service activities met community
needs. The results show in Table 8 that 44.2% (n=3 8) “frequently” had community
service activities meet community needs while 29.1% (n=25) “always” met community
needs. The findings reveal that 18.6% (n=16) “sometimes” and 4.7% (n=4) “never” had

their community service activities meet community needs.

 

 

Table 8

Community Service Met Community Needs

Variable (N=83, M=3.96, SD=.968) n %
Never 4 4.7
Rarely - -
Sometimes 16 18.6
Frequently 38 44.2
Always 25 29.1

 

(1=never, 2=rarely, 3=sometimes, 4=frequently, 5=always)

Respondents were asked if time was taken before the community service activity
to discuss the project. The findings reveal in Table 9 that 39.5% (n=34) “frequently” and

33.7% (n=29) “always” take time before community service activities to discuss the

42

project. Further findings indicate 3.5% (n=3) of the respondents “never” and 19.8%

(n=l7) “sometimes” take time to discuss before the project.

 

 

Table 9

Time Taken Before Community Service to Discuss

Variable (N=83, M=4.04, SD=.943) n %
Never 3 3.5
Rarely - -
Sometimes l 7 19.8
Frequently 34 39.5
Always 29 33.7

 

(lmrever, 2=rarely, 3=sometimes, 4=frequently, 5=always)

Findings in Table 10 reveal if respondents take time after the community service
project to discuss the activity. Findings illustrate that 31.4% (n=27) “frequently” take
time after the project to discuss. The results show that 25.6% (n=22) “sometimes” and
23.3% (n=20) “always” take time after the community service to discuss the project.
Lastly, 3.5% (n=3) “never” and 12.8% (n=11) “rarely” take time after the community

service project to discuss the activity.

 

 

Table 10

Time Taken After Community Service to Discuss

Variable (N=83, M=3.60, SD=1.104) n‘ %
Never 3 3.5
Rarely 11 - 12.8
Sometimes 22 25.6
Frequently 27 31.4
Always 20 23.3

 

(1=never, 2=rarely, 3=sometimes, 4=frequently, 5=always)

Respondents were asked if reflection activities were performed. The results in
Table 11 show that 30.2% (n=26) “sometimes” and 27.9% (n=24) “frequently” perform
reflection activities while only 7.0% (n=6) “always” perform reflection activities.
Additionally, findings reveal 20.9% (n=18) “rarely” and 10.5% (n=9) “never” perform

reflection activities.

43

Table 11
Reflection Activities were Performed

 

 

Variable (N=83, M=3.00, SD=1.1 15) n %

Never 9 10.5
Rarely 18 20.9
Sometimes 26 30.2
Frequently 24 27.9
Always 6 7.0

 

(1=never, 2=rarely, 3=sometimes, 4=frequently, 5=always)

Respondents were asked if transportation issues cause difficulty when performing
community service activities. The results in Table 12 found that 37.2% (n=32)
“sometimes” find transportation issues cause difficulty when performing community
service activities. The findings show 10.5% (n=9) either “never” or “always” find
transportation a difficulty. Lastly, 19.8% (n=17) “rarely” and 18.6% (n=16) “frequently”

find transportation issues a difficulty when performing community service activities.

 

 

Table 12

Transportation Causes Difliculties

Variable (N=83, M=2.99, SD=1.132) n %
Never 9 10.5
Rarely 17 19.8
Sometimes 32 37.2
Frequently 16 18.6
Always 9 10.5

 

(1=never, 2=rarely, 3=sometimes, 4=frequently, 5=always)

Table 13 depicts the findings of access to funding causes difficulty when
performing community service activities. The results show that 37.2% (n=32) of the
respondents “sometimes” find access to funding a difficulty when performing community
service. The findings depict that 22.1% (n=l9) “rarely” and 19.8% (n=17) “frequently”
find access to funding causes difficulties. Further findings show 9.3% (n=8) “never” and
8.1% (n=7) “always” find access to funding causes difficulty when performing

community service activities.

44

Table 13
Access to Funding Cause Difficulties

 

 

Variable (N=83, M=2.95, SD=1.081) n %
Never 8 9.3
Rarely 19 22.1
Sometimes 32 37.2
Frequently 1 7 19.8
Always 7 8.1

 

(l=never, 2=rarely, 3=sometimes, 4=frequently, 5=always)

The results in .Table 14 illustrate the findings about if community service

activities take too much time to perform. The results show that 44.2% (n=3 8) of the

respondents “sometimes” find community service activities take too much time to

perform. Further findings show 27.9% (n=24) “rarely” while 8.1% (n=7) “always” find

community service activities take too much time to perform.

 

 

Table 14

Community Service Takes too Much Time to Perform
Variable (N=83, M=2.46, SD=.874) n %
Never 14 16.3
Rarely 24 27.9
Sometimes 38 44.2
Frequently 7 8.1
Always - -

 

( l=never, 2=rarely, 3=sometimes, 4=frequently, 5=always)

The results in Table 15 depict if the respondents feel community service takes too

much time to organize. The findings show that 10.5% (n=9) “frequently” and 12.8%

(n=1 1) “never” find that community service takes too much time to organize. Forty-three

percent (n=3 7) “sometimes” feel community service takes too much time to organize

while 30.2% (n=26) “rarely find community service takes too much time to organize.

45

Table 15
Community Service Takes too Much Time to Organize

 

 

Variable (N=83, M=2.53, SD=.860) n %
Never 1 1 12.8
Rarely 26 30.2
Sometimes 3 7 43
Frequently 9 1 0.5
Always - -

 

(l=never, 2=rarely, 3=sometimes, 4=frequently, 5=always)

Respondents were asked if establishing community partnerships take too much

time. Table 16 shows that 39.5% (n=34) “rarely” and 29.1% (n=25) “sometimes” find

establishing community partnerships take too much time. The findings reveal that 20.9%

(n=18) “never” and 7% (n=6) “frequently” find establishing community partnerships take

too much time.

 

 

Table 16

Establishing Community Partnerships
Variable (N=83, M=2.23, SD=.874) n %
Never 18 20.9
Rarely 34 39.5
Sometimes 25 29.1
Frequently 6 7 .0
Always - -

 

( l=never, 2=rarely, 3=sometimes, 4=frequently, 5=always)

4.5 Summary

Chapter IV presented the findings from the 86 questionnaires that were collected.

Findings were classified under three the objectives that led this study: 1) to describe the

demographic composition of Agriscience instructors that utilizes community service as

an integral part of their agricultural curriculum, 2) to describe the current use of

community service by Agriscience instructors in Michigan, and 3) to describe the current

46

use of service Ieaming model elements (planning, implementation, reflection and
evaluation) as practiced by Michigan Agriscience instructors.

Findings indicated that 44.2% (n=3 8) of the respondents were female and 5.5%
(n=46) were male. There was a total of 77.9% (n=67) married respondents and 16.3%
(n=14) single respondents, with 98.8% (n=85) white/Caucasian and 1.2% (n=1)
Asian/Asian American.

Sixty-four percent (n=55) of the respondents felt that the opportunity to impact
students was “very much” important in pursing a career as an Agriscience instructor
(Appendix E). The findings depicted that 60.5% (n=52) of the respondents spend 1-4
hours per week on community or public service (Appendix E) and 47.4% have taught a
course using community service.

The findings revealed that 38.4% (n=33) of the respondents “sometimes” use
community service as a part of coursework while 36% (n=31) either sometimes or
frequently implement community service elements in their courses. Further findings
revealed that 33.7% (n=29) of the respondents aligned the community service with course
content.

There was no significance between community service elements and gender,
marital status, years teaching, and where the respondent grew up (Appendix F). Chapter

5 will provide the recommendations and conclusions for this study.

47

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSIONS

5.1 Chapter Preview

The preceding chapters provided the introduction, literature review, methodology,
and findings relative to Michigan Agriscience instructors’ use of service Ieaming. In this
chapter, conclusions, recommendations, and implications are presented from the findings
around the three objectives: 1) to describe the demographic composition of Agriscience
instructors that utilizes community service as an integral part of their agricultural
curriculum, 2) to describe the current use of community service by Agriscience
instructors in Michigan, and 3) to describe the current use of service Ieaming model
elements (planning, implementation, reflection and evaluation) as practiced by Michigan

Agriscience instructors.

5.2 Objective 1 Conclusions

Michigan Agriscience instructors are composed of nearly half males and females.
Most of the respondents were married with the remaining respondents either single or
unmarried with a partner. Nearly all of the instructors were white/Caucasian with only
one Asian/Asian American. Sixty-four percent of the Agriscience instructors have taught

0-14 years with the remaining teaching 15-34 years.

48

5.2.1 Teaching Interests

The majority of the respondents would either definitely yes or probably yes
choose to teach Agriscience if they were to begin their careers again. According to the
National F FA Organization (2002) agricultural education is built upon a triad model
consisting of FF A, classroom instruction, and supervised agricultural/occupational
experiences (SAE/SOE). The respondents teaching interest lie in two areas: in all three
areas, but leaning toward classroom instruction and an equal balance among all three.

Over half of the respondents spend 1-4 hours per week on community service.
Fifty percent of the respondents spend 1-4 hours per week consulting with community
stakeholders. Nearly half spend 21-34 hours per week in scheduled teaching. An equal
distribution of teachers responded that they had or had not taught a course using
community service. The majority of the teachers had participated in a teaching
enhancement workshop. When asked if they used community service as a part of
coursework, most responded either “rarely,” or “sometimes.”

Respondents felt that being a good teacher and a good citizen was “very much”
important for the majority of teachers. Helping to promote racial understanding was “a
fair amount important” and influencing social values was “much” important in the
teachers’ perspectives. The opportunity to impact students was “very much” important in
pursuing a career as an Agriscience instructor for over half of the respondents.

Issues that are important to Agriscience instructors are helping students develop
personal values, enhancing students’ self understanding, preparing students for

responsible citizenship, and enhancing students’ knowledge of diversity.

49

5.2.2 Recommendations

The findings show that over half of the Agriscience instructors spend 1-4 hours
per week on community or public service. Sei gel (1997) found that teacher’s past
experiences with community service and beliefs about teaching played a significant role
in the teacher’s interest level and implementation of service Ieaming activities in the
curriculum. The majority of Agriscience teachers have used community service before in
their courses; therefore the findings follow the literature and research.

Service Ieaming is still a fresh idea to many educators across the country.
Agriscience educators are unique from some other educators because they already have
the ethic of service instilled in much of their teaching. Though service is recognized, it is
not fully utilized as shown in the results of this study. Agriscience teachers in Michigan
seem to already be using community service components in their teaching or have used
community service prior. The next step is to integrate it into their teaching.

The majority of teachers responded that they had participated in a teaching
workshop. A workshop including service Ieaming or solely on service learning could be
beneficial with those wanting to learn more about it. The Michigan Agriscience teachers
have three Professional Development Institutes (PDI) each year. One of these
conferences should be devoted entirely to service Ieaming and experiential education. In
the author’s opinion, service Ieaming is too broad to be understood in a two-hour session;
it needs to be focused on for two days. The sessions could include the following example
topics: reflection, marketing and promotion, liability, service learning models, school

support and outcomes of service Ieaming.

50

Fifty percent of the Agriscience teachers spend 1-4 hours per week meeting with
community stakeholders. Research shows that one of the hindrances of service learning
is finding community contacts (Wade, 1997). In the researcher’s opinion, service
Ieaming should be easier to incorporate since one of the biggest challenges is taken care
of, finding community stakeholders. Agriscience teachers need to build strong
partnerships with agricultural industries and established entities/constituents such as the
Michigan Extension Service, Farm Bureau, Department of Natural Resources, and local
cooperatives. These partnerships can help provide assistance in performing service
learning projects.

Agriscience teachers feel it is important to be a good teacher along with helping
their students develop values for themselves and others. What service Ieaming provides
that cannot be taught from a textbook is a real life experience while developing values.
Research has shown that students engaged in quality service learning showed increased
measures of personal and social responsibility, communication, and a sense of
educational competence (Billig, n.d.; Weiler, et al., 1998). Additional researCh shows
that students who were involved in service Ieaming felt more aware of community needs,
had an increased self-esteem, and reported a greater acceptance of cultural diversity.
(Melchior, 1999; Berkas, 1997; Billig, n.d.; Shaffer, 1993). Therefore, teachers need to
know what service Ieaming can provide for students. This can be achieved through
workshops on service Ieaming.

Teachers feel it is important to help students evolve into good citizens and to
attain social values. Research needs to be distributed either through a workshop or

strategic plan that shows service Ieaming can achieve what Agriscience teachers feel is

51

important. It is difficult to teach social values and greater sense of diversity through a
textbook, whereas service Ieaming can teach all of those items in one service project.
Again, a workshop devoted entirely to service learning can address student outcomes and

convince teachers that this teaching method makes a difference in students’ lives.

5.2.3 Agricultural Edgatiop/FFA

While F FA has a strong ethic of service, almost half of the FFA chapters are not
required to participate in community service. On the other hand, respondents “strongly
agreed” that agricultural education should encourage students to be involved in
community service. Half of the respondents “somewhat agreed” that FFA programs need
to change to reflect new issues in agriculture.

Almost half of the respondents “somewhat agreed” that agricultural education
curriculum needs to change to reflect contemporary issues. Additionally, only half
“somewhat agreed” that agricultural education curriculum should promote globalization

or social diversity issues.

5.2.4 Recommendations

The majority of the respondents somewhat agreed that agricultural education
needs to change its curriculum to reflect contemporary issues such as globalization and
diversity. The study also found that the respondents somewhat agreed that F FA should
also change to reflect new ideas in agriculture. As Bach (1954) stated, vocational
agriculture must be more than a process of absorbing and storing acts and figures; it must

be the development of specific knowledge and skills necessary for successful

52

participation in agriculture and the development of understandings, ideals, and attitudes.
Agriculture is an industry that is constantly changing to keep up with new trends,
products and technology. It is important for agricultural educators to realize that in order
to keep up with the industries changes, curriculum must also change with the times.

A committee comprised of students, teachers, MSU CANR faculty, and
community stakeholders should established to review the curriculum. This review should
be done every three years in order to keep up with changing trends and technology.

FFA has strong ties to the area of service with the FFA’s motto of: Learning to
Do; Doing to Learn; Earning to Live; Living to Serve (National F F A Organization,
2002). While the ethic of service is strong in F FA, nearly half of the chapters are not
required to participate in community service. One of the most prolific programs
sponsored by the FF A was the BOAC project. The BOAC project was implemented in
high schools across the nation as a way to solve problems communities face (Bachman,
1981). The objectives and steps in the BOAC project closely model steps in service
Ieaming. This program was canceled the in 1990’s; therefore many FFA chapters were
left without a structured community service project to follow. Some states kept the
program but changed the name.

In the researcher’s opinion, this program was close to a service learning model
and should be incorporated back into the F FA curriculum. It is also recommended that
awards should be given out to chapters who perform service Ieaming. There is no
specific award given on the state or national level that is solely based on
community/service Ieaming. Awards should be given to individuals, FFA chapters, and

teachers. This incentive could help promote the use of community/service Ieaming.

53

5.2.5 Lesson Plans
In addition, over 50% of the Agriscience teachers use the Internet to access lesson
plans. With this finding, the author knows that the majority of teachers have access to the
Internet and use it for lesson plans and use community service. Therefore, a committee
should be put together with people with the expertise in agriculture and natural resources
and community/service Ieaming to come up with tailored lesson plans and curriculum
according to each specific area of agriculture. These lesson plans and curriculum should
be distributed as a binder, CD-ROM, or via Internet. Also included in this curriculum
should be a section devoted to how to promote and market service Ieaming. Teachers
would then have the resources available to plan a service Ieaming project.
The overall recommendations for objective 1 are as follows:
0 Develop a workshop/PDI based solely on intensive experiential education, which
includes service Ieaming. I
0 Develop a committee whose sole purpose is to design a curriculum guide
(Beginner ’s Guide to Service Learning in Agriculture and Natural Resources) on
service Ieaming in agriculture and natural resources.
0 Reinstate the BOMC project and make it required by every chapter in the state.
0 Recruit more minorities into the Agriscience teacher education program.
0 Review agricultural curriculum every three years.

0 Further qualitative and longitudinal studies.

54

5.3 Objective 2 Conclusions

The second objective that led this study was to describe the current use of
community service by Agriscience instructors in Michigan. Despite the rapid growth of
service Ieaming, the number of schools offering service learning is still limited, and in
many of those schools, only few teachers participate (National Commissions on Service-
Learning, n.d.) The Michigan Association of Agriscience Educators developed a
strategic plan for its agriscience and natural resources educators in Michigan. Many of
the expected outcomes of this strategic plan can be associated with service Ieaming
elements.

Nearly 75% of the respondents either “sometimes” or “frequently” implement
community service elements in their courses. Only 5% responded “never” and nearly
12% answered they “always” implement community service elements in their courses.

None of the respondents “always” use community service as a part of coursework
while nearly 10% “never” use community service as a part of coursework. Respondents
almost 40% “sometimes” use community service as a part of coursework while 20%
“frequently” and 30% “rarely” use community service as a part of coursework.

In the researcher’s opinion, the findings from the requirement of FF A chapters to
participate in community service were lower than expected. The FF A’s motto of
Learning to Do; Earning to Live; Living to Serve is not being upheld. A little over 50%
of the respondents said their F FA chapter is not required to participate in community

service, with 10% responding that FFA was not applicable to them.

55

5.3.1 Recommendations

Further qualitative studies need to be performed to understand why there are
distinct differences between respondents implementing community service in their
courses and the use of community service as a part of coursework. In the author’s
opinion, these two questions could be the deciding factor in whether respondents use
community service or service leanring.

FF A is built on service, yet over half of the F F A chapters are not required to
perform community service activities. In the researcher’s opinion, every F FA chapter in
the state of Michigan should be required to complete a service Ieaming project. Awards
on community service should be established and given out at the Michigan FFA State
Convention annually. These awards should recognize students, chapters, and teachers for
their work with community service.

With the new strategic plan outlined for Agriscience teachers, there should be an
increase in the use of service Ieaming in the future. It was stressed in this plan that “all
ANRE (agriscience and natural resource education) programs need to have three
components: defined agriculture and natural resources instruction, quality experiential
education and premier leadership training” (p. 4). One method of experiential education
is service Ieaming. One of the specific tasks in the component of experiential education
was to prepare teachers to implement experiential education, develop teacher’s awareness
of options for experiential education, and define experiential education (MAAE, n.d.).

This outcome can easily be incorporated in teacher enhancement workshops and
in the teacher education program. A class on only experiential Ieaming methods should

be created for teachers working on their undergraduate or continuing education. Students

56

in the teacher education program should also be required to participate in a service
Ieaming project. This opportunity gives the teachers a chance to fully understand service
Ieaming before they implement it into their courses. Service learning is still a new
concept and more is learned everyday of its concept and impact. Again, specific service
learning curriculum guides also need to be developed and strategically distributed. The

overall recommendations for objective 2 are as follows:

Students in the teacher education program and continuing education must take a

class on experiential Ieaming and participate in a service Ieaming project.

0 Community service should be required for all FFA chapters in the state of
Michigan.

0 Awards should be given out annually at the Michigan FF A State Convention to

students, chapters, and teachers.

0 Further qualitative studies on teachers use of community service.

5.4 Objective 3 Conclusions

The third objective of this study was to describe the current use of the service
Ieaming model elements (planning, implementation, reflection and evaluation) as
practiced by Michigan Agriscience instructors. A major set back and deterrence in
service Ieaming research is service Ieaming varies widely, it is not always clear about the
essence of the pedagogy or whether they are implementing service Ieaming or
community service (Billig, 2002)

The author used the term “community service” instead of “service learning” in

this study because there is still much confirsion over the definition. The questions that

57

guided objective three were relevant to a service Ieaming model. Billig (2002) expressed
that although service learning is not a model, it usually involves 1) meeting authentic
community needs, 2) student involvement in planning and implementing service
activities, 3) reflection to gain greater insight and Ieaming from the service, and 4)
celebration or recognition of the activity.

Nearly half of Michigan Agriscience educators “frequently” align community
service with class content, while only four respondents “never” align community service
with class content. One of the suggested steps in the service learning model is having the
service activity meet community needs. Nearly half of the respondents “frequently” have
the activity meet community needs. None of the respondents selected “rarely” with the
rest either choosing “sometimes” or “always.” This is another element in the service
Ieaming model is where the distinction lies between community service and service

Ieaming.

5.4.1 Recoprmendatjpps

This study shows that Michigan Agriscience instructors do use community service
and many align it with course material. The researcher finds that a major step in
promoting service Ieaming is accomplished because teachers are already using
community service. The next step is to have the teachers integrate the curriculum into the
community service project. This can be accomplished through workshops and
curriculum designed around service Ieaming.

Many of the respondents frequently meet community needs with their service

learning activity. Again, this is an important step in determining if the activity is a

58

service learning or community service project. Teachers need to be encouraged by
Michigan State ANR Education faculty and State FFA staff to meet with their community

stakeholders and collaborate on community service projects.

5.4.2 Student Involvement

The next suggested step in the model is student involvement in planning and
implementing service activities. Only 8.1% (n=7) answered they “rarely” have students
have an integral part in planning the community service activity. Nearly half of the
respondents either “sometimes” or “always” while the majority “frequently” allow their

students to have an integral part in planning the community service activity.

5.4.3 Recommendations

Further qualitative studies need to be done in order to fully understand what role
students’ play in planning community service activities. Addressing this topic could be a
topic in either a workshop or in the curriculum as suggested earlier. The researcher is
aware that each respondent interpreted this question differently, so results can not be

generalized.

5.4.4 Reflection
Questions regarding reflection activities were asked. Pre-reflection and post-
reflection activities are important in a service learning project. Respondents were asked

if time was taken before the community service activity to discuss the project. The

59

majority either “frequently” or “always” took time before while none of the respondents
“rarely” took time to discuss before the project.

There was more distribution for the findings of whether time was taken after
community service to discuss the project. Almost half of the respondents “sometimes” or
“always” took time after the service while 12.8% (n=11) “rarely” took time after the
community service to discuss the activity. Respondents also “frequently” (31.4%) took
time after the community service to discuss the project.

Respondents were asked if they performed reflection activities. Examples such as
journal writing, papers and group discussions were given in the question in case
respondents were unclear of how the term reflection was used in the study. There was a
larger distribution between the scaled items on this question than the two questions
regarding time to discuss the activity. Only 7% of the respondents “always” use
reflection activities while 10.5% “never” use reflection. The respondents either
“sometimes” or “frequently” performed reflection while 20.9% “rarely” used reflection

activities.

5.4.5 Recommendations

Time spent on discussing the community service declined after the service project
was complete. In the author’s opinion, this finding distinguishes a high quality service
learning project from just a day of doing community service. Conrad and Hedin (1981)
found that reflection was the single most necessary element in a service program leading

to student Ieaming, though it is typically not a central focus.

60

The results show that time is taken to discuss the project before but there is a
decrease in the time taken after the project for discussion and reflection. In the research’s
Opinion, it is important to not only take time before the project to discuss but also after.

A service learning project should not be done in one day and then never discussed again.
The real Ieaming from the project comes from the reflection of the activity before,
during, and after. In order for a Ieaming experience to occur, the project has to be
discussed. Reflection is also important in linking the curriculum to the service. Many
service Ieaming projects may end up being just a service project with no Ieaming because
time was not taken before, during, and after the activity to discuss how it relates back to
the curriculum.

As stated previously, reflection activities should be incorporated in a workshop
devoted only to service learning. There should also be a section in the curriculum guide
talked about previously that addresses reflection and provides examples of reflection

activities.

5.4.6 .H_indrances of Service Leprning

Nearly 40% of the respondents felt transportation “sometimes” caused difficulties
when performing community service. Respondent’s felt that transportation caused
difficulties either “never” or “always” 10.5% of the time. Access to funding
“sometimes” caused difficulties when performing community service while nearly 10%
responded it either “never” or “always” caused difficulties.

None of the respondents reported that community service “always” takes too

much time to perform and organize. Nearly half of the respondents find that community

61

service “sometimes” takes too much time to perform and organize, with the majority of
the other half responding as “never” or “rarely.”

Respondents answered with 20.5% that establishing community partnerships
“never” takes too much time with 39.5% finding it “rarely” takes too much time to
establish community partnerships. None of the respondents felt it “always” takes too

much time to establish community partnerships.

5.4.7 Recommendations

The results of the hindrances to service learning went against the research and
literature. The National Commission on Service Learning (n.d.) found that teachers
frequently raise concerns about finding time to fit service—Ieaming into the school day
since many high schools typically have 50-minute classes, it can be difficult to fit a
service Ieaming project into a single class. As Wade (1997) reported, “since service
Ieaming projects must address a school or community need, teachers usually need to
develop tailor made plans for the project and seek creative ways to tie the service activity
to the academic curriculum” (p. 87). Wade further noted that almost all service learning
projects involve collaboration with others; therefore it is challenging to find the time to
plan and make contacts with community members. Other factors that hinder teachers
from using service Ieaming are funding, transportation and support.

Another outcome from the Michigan Association of Agriscience Educators
strategic plan was to expand ANRE in-service opportunities to include other groups with
schools and communities (MAAE, n.d.). Two of the tasks that are associated with the

outcome are inviting various individuals and groups within the school and county to

62

existing in-service activities and to provide information on ANR topics and career
pathways to community groups and schools (MAAE, n.d.). Since it is known the half of
all Agriscience instructors meet with community stakeholders 1-4 hours per week, it is
known that this is already happening and could be expanded upon. Teachers and
community stakeholders should discuss what needs there are in the community and how
they can work together using service Ieaming projects to solve those problems.

Further qualitative and quantitative studies need to be performed to investigate
why Agriscience teachers do not have the same hindrances with service Ieaming as
educators in other disciplines. Research needs to be focused on service learning effects
to students, teachers and communities. While most service learning research has focused
on the effects on students, little longitudinal and replicated studies have been performed.
Therefore, more longitudinal and replicated studies also need to be performed.

According the strategic plan, it is imperative to include the community the in
planning and decisions of agricultural education. If Agriscience teachers abide by the
outcomes in the strategic plan by establishing community partnership, then service
Ieaming can become easier for teachers to use. The overall recommendations for
objective 3 are as follows:

0 Encourage teachers to integrate community service in courses

0 Encourage teachers to meet with community stakeholders on a regular basis and
work with them to establish service Ieaming projects.

0 Further qualitative and quantitative studies on the service Ieaming model

elements.

63

5.5 Overall Recommendations

Much of the literature in the discipline of agriculture regarding service learning
has been more practioner based rather than qualitative or quantitative research. This
study provided the groundwork for further research to be based. It was found that the
majority of Michigan Agriscience instructors have used and/or implemented community
service elements in their courses. Reflection activities and discussions take place more at
the beginning of the activity than after.

The hindrances that deter other educators from using service Ieaming do not apply
to Michigan Agriscience instructors. Further studies should be replicated in other states
with this survey instrument. More qualitative studies should be performed due to the
obscurity of the instrument to obtain a better understanding of the use of community
service.

Service Ieaming in Michigan needs to address several issues in order to be known
statewide. Although one set definition has not been determined for service Ieaming,
there should be one established that Michigan educators can follow and practice. The
term service Ieaming is often misunderstood in theory and practice. Educators need to
understand the teaching methods they use. Service Ieaming also needs to be addressed in
the state education standards.

Service Ieaming in the context of agricultural education is a relatively new
concept, although as shown in the study many instructors do use community service. It is
recommended that a committee be united that has Agriscience faculty from MSU,

community/service Ieaming professionals, and teachers from around the state to form a

64

strategic plan around service learning. In this strategic plan the following need to be
addressed:

0 Increase collaboration with agricultural stakeholders from around the state, such
as: Michigan FFA Foundation, Michigan F arm Bureau, Department of Natural
Resources, and Michigan State Extension Service

0 Require all F FA chapters to participate in at least one community service activity

0 Create more media publications on service learning

0 Hire professionals with the expertise in service learning to run a workshop based
solely on service Ieaming and provide follow-up support.

The overall recommendations for this study have been summarized in five steps. If
these five steps are accomplished, then great strides will be made for service Ieaming in
agriculture.

0 Develop a workshop/PDI based solely on intensive experiential education,
which includes service learning. Throughout the workshop, ask teachers what
they want to know about service learning and what could be beneficial for
them in order to use it.

0 Develop a committee whose sole purpose is to design a curriculum guide
(Beginner ’s Guide to Service Learning in Agriculture and Natural Resources)
on service Ieaming in agriculture and natural resources. This guide would
provide lesson plans on each area of agriculture and resources that would be
helpful. These guides would be distributed through a binder, CD-ROM, or
Internet, at the preference of the teacher.

- Require a course on intensive experiential Ieaming for student teachers and

65

those doing continuing education through MSU.

Develop service awards to be given out at the Michigan FF A Convention to
individuals, chapters, and advisors who perform exemplary work with
community/service learning.

Require all FFA chapters to perform at least 1 community service per year
and reinstate the BOMC project and make it required by every chapter in the
state.

Further research questions acquired from this study will provide a broader scope

of service learning:

What kind of community service activities did teachers perform?

What was the length of the service project?

How the community service was linked to the curriculum?

If the teachers were educated on service Ieaming either through their
undergraduate program, continuing education, or workshops?

How did the community service meet community needs?

What changes did the instructor see in their students before and after the project?
Was there an increase in student achievement, attitude, attendance, or attention
span?

What challenges the instructor faced before, during, and after the community
service project?

Why did the teacher decide to user service Ieaming?

Are there any teachers in the their school that currently use service Ieaming?

Did the students have a celebration once the service project was complete?

66

0 Did the teacher receive support from administrators, other faculty, and the
community?
The preceding questions need to be answered in order to fully understand
Agriscience teachers’ use of service Ieaming. The primary reason this study was
conducted was to investigate if Michigan Agriscience instructors use community service

and how their use follows the service Ieaming model.

5.6 Study Summary

This study found that community service is used by the majority of agricultural
educators in Michigan. While the majority of teachers use community service, the
elements of service Ieaming are not widely utilized. In order to enhance the use and turn
community service into service Ieaming, agricultural educators need to understand the
components of service Ieaming. By implementing the recommendations of this study,
such as a workshop and curriculum guide, teachers will have resources and knowledge
readily available to them.

Although the population size was small, there was no significant difference
between instructors demographics and their use of community service elements.
Hindrances to implementing community service from literature are not consistent with
agricultural education teachers. This study showed that Michigan Agriscience educators
rarely or never felt that hindrances such as transportation, funding, or establishing
partnerships. Therefore, generalizations about service Ieaming and community service

cannot be made across education disciplines.

67

In order to expand the use of community service into service Ieaming, agriscience
instructors need to be informed on how to implement it. Michigan State University
faculty from the ANR Education and Communications Systems Department, State F F A
staff and teachers need to establish a workshop and curriculum guide devoted to
experiential education and service Ieaming. Resources available to teachers can be a first

step to the integration of service Ieaming in Michigan Agriscience classrooms.

68

APPENDIX A

UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE ON RESEARCH
INVOLVING HUMAN SUBJECTS

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

 

April 30. 2003
TO: Michael WOODS
408 Ag. Hall

RE: IRBiF 02-298 CATEGORY: 1-1,1-2 EXEMPT

RENEWAL APPROVAL DATE: April 28. 2003
EXPIRATION DATE: March 28, 2004

TITLE' A PROFILE OF SERVICE LEARNING IN MICHIGAN SECONDARY AGRICULTURAL
° EDUCATION AND FFA PROGRAMS

The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects' (UCRIHS) review of this project
is complete and I am pleased to advise that the rights and welfare of the human subjects appear to
be adequately protected and methods to obtain informed consent are appropriate. Therefore. the
UCRIHS APPROVED THIS PROJECT‘S RENEWAL.

This letter notes approval for the changes made in investigators, title. and
instrument.

RENEWALS: UCRIHS approval is valid untii the expiration date listed above. Projects continuing
beyond this date must be renewed with the renewal form. A maximum of four such expedited
renewals are possible. Investigators wishing to continue a prOJect beyond that time need to submit a
5-year renewal application for complete review. .
REVISIONS: UCRIHS must review any changes in procedures involvmg human subjects, prior to
initiation of the change. If this is done at the time of renewal, please include a revision form with the
renewal. To revise an approved protocol at any other time during the year, send your written request
with an attached revision cover sheet to the UCRIHS Chair. requesting revised approval and
referencing the project’s IRBtt and title. Include in your request a description of the change and any
. revised instruments. consent forms or advertisements that are applicable.
PROBLEMS/CHANGES: Should either of the followrng arise during the course of the work, notify
UCRIHS promptly 1) problems (unexpected szde effects, complaints. etc.) involving human subjects
or 2) changes in the research environment or new ;nformation indicating greater risk to the human
OFFICE OF subjects than existed when the protocol was prevzocsly renewed and approved.
RESEARCH

ETHICS AND If we can be of further assnstance. please contact us at 517 355-2180 or via email.
STANDARDS UCRIHS@msu.eCu

University Committee on S' I
Research Involving incere Y.
Human Subjects .
Michigan State Univ l/IV'UqJ W/

202 Olds
East Lansmg. Ml _
48824 Ashlr Kumar, MD.
stress-Zia) UCRIHS Chair
FAX. SIT/4324503
Web: 'm msu cardinal/Wilts
E-Mail: winsonsuedu AK rt

 

CC: Courtney Stewart
410 Agriculture Hall

MSU '3 an Win-mm.
”HI-CW madam

69

APPENDIX B

SURVEY INSTRUMENT

For additional information or commenu, please contact:

Michael Woods
Assisunt Professor
ANR Education 6: Commutation Systems
Mkhigm State University
408 Agriculture Hall
East Lansing, MI 48824.1039

517.355.6580 x 202
moods® msu.edu

Of

Counncy Stewart
Graduate Assistant
ANR Education 8! Communications Sysrcms
Michigan State University
406 Agriculture Hall
East Lansing. MI 48824.1039

517555-6533 x 234

  

Michigan State University
408 Agriculture Hall
East Lansing. MI 48824. 1039

5 l5.355.6580
anrccs@canr.msu.edu

70

 

Exploring the zlgriScieuce experience.

ANR Education and Communication Systems

I AgriScience
l Teacher
Survey '

 

Dear Agriscience Instructor:

The recent release of the Strategic Plan for Agriscience and
Natural Resource Education in Michigan outlines six main
objectives: quality programing; teacher recruitment, preparation
and retention; greater diversity; AN R career cluster expansion and
support; promotion and marketing; and expanding personal and
financial resources. In order to achieve these objectives, it is
important to have your insights. Therefore, we would appreciate
your input with this survey. The anticipated time to complete the
survey is 15 minutes. I f you have any questions about the survey,
please email either Michael Woods (mwoods@msu.edu) or
Courtney Stewart (stewa280@msu.edu).

 

Vehicle ]

L 1. Gender: (circle one) rMale

c.
d.

 

 

3. Racial/Ethnlegoup: (Circle orig

 

a WhitelCaucam'an

 

b. African American/Black

 

c. American Indian
(1. Asian American/Asian

 

 

c. Latino/Chimno
h. Other (please specify):

 

Out-UNt—e

 

 

 

Currently

4. Please circle the highest degree
Working

earned and/or degree pursuing.

 

a BachelorflBJk, 8.8., etc.)

 

b. Master's (MA., M.S., etc.)

 

c. Ed.D.

 

d. Ph.D

 

 

 

Degree
Earned
I
l
I
I
l

NNNNNQ

c. Other {please sgifyli

 

 

 

5. Which of the following best describes the type of place
where you grew up? (Circle one)

a. Major metropolitan area (over one million people)

b. Large city 000.000 to one million people)

c. Medium sized cig (25,000 to 99,999 people)

d. Smallerm (5,000 to 24,999 people)

e. Town or village (2.500 to 4,999 people)

 

 

 

 

 

 

1'. Country or a very small town (under 2,500 people)

 

wouauio—

g No choice describes where I live, because I have
moved otten

 

 

 

W

h. Other (Mu specify):

 

 

6. How many years have you taught agricultural l I

education at the secondary level?

 

7. Is the school you teach In a (Circle all that apply)

 

a. Middle School

 

I). High School

 

c. Career/Tech Center

 

 

burg-—

 

d Other (please specify):

 

71

 

0

(Circle the number that best reflects your
answer for each item)

22. How often do you use the following evaluation methods in
your agricultural education course(s)?

 

Never

Rarely

Sometimes

Frequently

Always

 

a Multiple-choice exams

 

b. True-false exams

 

c. Essayexams

 

d. Short-answer exams

 

e. Quiaes

 

f. Weekly assignments

 

g. Student presentations

 

h. Research papers

 

i. Journals

 

j. Student evaluations of each
others' work

 

lc Grading on a curve

 

l. Competency-based grading

 

m. Take home homework

 

 

NNNNNNNNNNNNN

 

UUHUUHHHUUNUU

 

b&&§b&bbbhb#&

 

uuuuuuuuuuuuu

 

 

course(s)?

(Circle the number that best reflects your

23. How often do you use the following Instructional
techniques/methods In your agricultural education

 

Never

Rarely

Sometimes

Frequently

Always

 

answer for each item)
a. Class discussions

 

b. Computer-aidedinstruction

 

c. Cooperative Ieaming (small
groups}

 

(1. Field trips

 

Demonstrations

 

Group pfOJCClS

 

 

Extensive lecturing

 

Multiple drafis of written work

 

c.
f.
g. Independent ggLeCts
h.
i.
j.

.Communlty service as part of
coursework

Abbbbbb‘hb

 

k. Student SAE projects

UWUUHUUUUUUU

A

MUUMMMMMMMMM

 

 

1. Integration of FFA events

 

 

NNNNNNNNNNNN

 

 

4

 

 

 

Comments: Please provide any additional comments you
believe are important to advancing the Agriscience curriculum

within Michigan, or skills areas needed by future Agriscience

Instructors not identified.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Izanl; you for your time and assistance with the survey.

During the present term. how many hours per week on the

average do you spend on each of the following activities?

uuunwu l4
54

NNNNNNNN

3
3
3
3
3
3

UUUUUUUU

&

Ԥbb

85A.

u Mummy. [346

MMMRMMMM

ch 0000\0'1-20

OOOQOOOO

~t qqqqqzl-Jd

QQQQQNQQ

on «masons 35+

“@WNNGNN

 

 

16. How important are each of the following items to you?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l4. Agricultural education has had a long

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

too much time

 

 

 

 

 

history surrounding community service. a E‘
Piesseclrelethenumber that best _ ,, .5 g ;_
reflects your answer for each item : 3 § 3' 3
i a? .2 i ‘2
a. Implemented community service elements ‘ 2 3 5
into your syiculturai education course(s)?
b. The community service activities aligned 1 2 3 ‘ 5
with class content
c.Thesmdentshadanintegr-alpartinplanning I 2 3 4 5
the conunuru‘g service activity
d. The community service activities met I 2 3 4 5
community needs
e. Time was taken (29195; the community ! 2 3 4 5
service activities to discuss the project
f. Time was taken mg the community service I 2 3 4 5
activates to discuss the project
g. Reflection activities, such as journal writing, I 2 3 4 5
papers. group discussions. were performed
h. Transportation issues causes difficulty to l 2 3 4 5
Jerform comrminity service activrties ‘
i. Access to funding causes difficulty when
. . . . . I 2 3 4 5
performrng community semce activrties
j. Community service activaties take too much I 2 3 4 5
time to perform
It. Community service activities take too much 1 2 3 ‘ 5
time to ON
I. Establishing community partnerships takes I 2 3 4 5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Are you engaged in any of the following activities?

an answer for item
Held an
in a enhancement

on the lntemet

service
with a non
States

3

~———_————

2
O

NNNNNNNNN

 

.
e . e
. E 9 1". 3 e
(Circle the number that best reflects your answer 0 = - o
for each item) 2 < ‘ 2 >
a Influencirm social values of my students I 2 3 4 S
b. Raising a family I 2 3 4 5
c. Beingwell-off financially I 2 3 4 5
d Becoming involved in programs to clean up
the environment l 2 3 ‘ 5
e. Helping to promote racial understanding I 2 3 4 g 5
f. Obtaining recognition from my colleagues
. . . I 2 3 4 5
for contributions to agncultural education
g. Being a good colleagpe l 2 3 4 5
h. Beings good citizen I 2 3 4 5
i. Being a good teacher 1 2 3 4 5
I7. Do any of the following statements describe you.
please circle either Yes, No or NA (not ,‘3 i g
applicable):
it. Have you ever received an award for teaching? I 2 3
b. Have any of your agricultural education courses I 2 3
addressed diversity?
c. Have you ever experienced sexual harassment as an
. I 2 3
agricultural teacher?
d. Considered leaving your current position for a non- I 2 3
teaching job?
e. Does your FFA chapter require all members to i 2 3
Janicipate in community service?
18. How Important are each of the following items to you as an
agricultural education Instructor?
s .
= E '5
~.'-.' 5 .11 .. a
(circle the number that best reflects your answer ‘6 5 3 g E
for each item) 2 < < 2 >
:1. Develop student's ability to think clearly l 2 3 4 5
b. Prepare students for employment I 2 3 4 5
c. Prepare students for hiyer education I 2 3 4 S
d. Help students develop personal values I 2 3 4 5
e. Enhance students' self understanding I 2 3 4 5
f. Prepare students for responsrble Citizenship I 2 3 4 S
g Enhance students knowledge of diversrty I 2 3 4 S
h. Prepare students to understand the impact of I 2 3 ‘ 5
globalization
i. Other (smcify): I 2 3 4 5
j. Other (specify): 1 2 3 4 5
it Other (specify): l 2 3 4 5
Comments:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

72

 

Please indicate the extent to which each
of the following has been a source of
stress.

(circle the number that best reflects your

answer for each item)

19.

 

Managing household responsibilities

 

Reviewfiiromotion process

 

Subtle discrimination

 

Personal finances

 

Committee work .

 

Faculty meetings

 

Colleagues

 

Students

 

FFA demanrb

 

lnstimtionai procedures/"red tape"

 

Teachingload

 

Maritallspousal friction

 

Lack of personal time

 

Keeping up with technology

 

Keeping up with agriculture industry

 

Keeping up with natural resource issues

 

Other (please specify):

 

Other (please specify):

 

woospaaerfi-‘r-Fonopnva

Other (please specify):

 

 

 

NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNI‘ONN Rgrgly

wwuuuuwwuwuuuuuuuwu Somalia“

baonoaoaaasataanasanna Frequently

muuuuuuuuumuuumuuuu Alw.yg

 

 

 

20. Please indicate your agreement with each

statement.

(circle the number that best reflects your answer
for each item)

Strongly disagree

Somewhat dlsagree

No opinion

Somewhat agree

Strongly Agree

 

3. Agricultural education curriculum should
promote globalization.

N

U

&

M

 

b. Agricultural education curriculum should
address social diversity issues.

 

c. Agricultural education should encourage
students to be involved in community
service

 

d. Pressure to prepare for FFA activrtics oftcn
prevents me from being completely
effective in my teaching.

 

e. Agncultural education curriculum needs to
change to reflect contemporary issues.

 

f. FFA programs need to change to reflect
new issues in agriculture.

[0

 

g. Agricultural education in public schools is
prepared to meet future needs.

 

 

2]. Standardized testing influences my...

(circle the number that best reflects your answer
for each item)

Very negatively

 

Teaching methods

 

Curriculum obiectives

 

F FA programming

 

Use of SAE proiects

 

 

Use of community service

 

59999-9-

Otherlspecify)

 

_-~O~l—

 

N N N N N N Somewhat negatively

 

w u w u w u Nolnfluence

 

n e. n a. a- :- Somewhat positively

 

 

u. u v. u. u. u Very positively

 

 

8. Do you have a... (Circle one)

 

a. Nine-month teaching contract

 

b. Nine-month teaching contract with summer option

 

c. Twelve month teaching contract

 

(L Other (please specify):

 

&WN~

 

 

9. How important were each of the following in your decision to

pursue a career as an Agriscience instructor?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

g 8

=-.' .3. ‘-‘

‘3 fl 3 g E

(circle the number that best reflects your ‘5 = 4'- ' E
answer for each item) 2 * < 2 >
a. Opportunity to work with the FA 1 2 3 4 5
b. independence I 2 3 4 S
c. Flexible schedule , l 2 3 4 5
:1 Opportunities for teaching I 2 3 4 5
e. Opportunity to influence social change I 2 3 4 5
f. Opportunity to impact students I 2 3 4 S
L Opportunig to irnpact_amculture industry I 2 3 4 S
h. Other (specify): I 2 3 4 S
i. Other (specify): l 2 3 4 5
j. Other (specify): 1 2 3 4 S

10. How many of the following courses have you taught in the
past year?

Circle a number for each item) 0 l 2 3 4 5+
a. Agriscience related 0 l 2 3 4 5+
b. Natural Resources related 0 l 2 3 4 5+
c. Non-Agriscience 0 l 2 3 4 5+
d. Adult community course 0 l 2 J 4 So
e. Other (SpClej): 0 l 2 3 4 5+
f. Other (specify): 0 i 2 3 4 5+

Other (specify): 0 l 2 3 4 5+

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ii. If you were to begin your career again, would you still want

to be an Agriscience Teacher? (Circle one)

 

. Definitely yes

 

. Probably yes

 

Not sure

 

. Probably no

 

nape-m

. Definitely no

 

Via-ura—

 

 

 

. Which of the three components (F FA. SAE, classroom)

of agricultural education do your interests most reside?

(circle one)

 

Very heavily in FFA

 

Very heavily in SAE

 

Very heavily in classroom instruction

 

in all. but leaning toward FFA

 

ln all, but leaning toward SAE

 

in all, but leaning toward classroom instruction

 

 

909999.69

Equal balance between FFA. SAE, and classroom
instruction

 

NOM‘UN—

 

 

Comments:

 

 

 

 

 

73

 

 

DEPARTMENT OF

ANR EDUCATION &
COMMUNICATION
SYSTEMS

College at Agriculture
and Neural Resources

Mtcmqan State University
408 Agriculture Hall

East Lansing. MI

48824-1039

5175556580

FAX 517/353-4981

.rriail anraeefimsue nsuettu
wen: mammal eowaeel

rmumsnemry
109:sz
Worm

Wham

APPENDIX C

INITIAL COVER LETTER

MICHIGAN STATE

UNIVERSITY

July 24, 2003

Dear <name of AgriScience Instructor>,

The recent release of the Strategic Plan for Agriscience and Natural Resource
Education in Michigan outlines six objectives: 1) quality programming; 2)
teacher recruitment and retention; 3) greater diversity; 4) ANR career cluster
expansion and support; 5) promotion and marketing; and 6) expanding
personal and financial resources. What you and other AgriScience Instructors
say on the enclosed survey will help achieve these objectives, hence, it is
important to have your insights. A self addressed stamped envelope has been
enclosed for your case in returning the survey. The anticipated time to
complete the survey is 15 minutes.

In order to eliminate redundant mailings. please put your name on the envelope
when returning the survey. Your name will not be linked to the survey; it will
only be used to ensure that your name is removed from future mailings
requesting participation. Please note that on the backside of this letter, you
will find all human subject confidentiality information. Your assistance is
greatly appreciated in advancing AgriScience education in Michigan.

Should you have questions. please contact me at 517.355.6580 x202 or
mwoodsfj msu.edu. Thank you for your time and assistance with this study.

est regards.

Michael D. Woods. PhD.
Assistant Professor
ANRECS

74

 

a tri'E‘J-it', I“

MICHIGANSTATE
UNIVERSITY

 

Respondent Confidentiality

We respect your confidentiality and the survey will be viewed only by Dr. Michael
Woods and Courtney Stewart. Your participation in this study is voluntary and
you may withdraw at any time. Your answers will be kept confidential. Your
privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law.

If you have questions or would like more information you may contact:

Dr. Michael Woods
408 Agriculture Hall
ANRECS
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824.1039
(517) 355-6580 x 202

If you have any questions about your rights you may contact:

Michigan State University
Ashir Kumar, MD
Chair of the University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects
—_——_ 202 Olds Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824
ANR (517) 355-2180
E'd ""_. (517) 432-4503 fax-
ucatton and . .
m e-matI: ucnhs@msu.edu
Systems
m or- Thank you for your time and assistance with this survey.
ANII EDUCATION 8:
COMMUNICATION
SYSTEMS
cotton at m

l‘ WM Note: By completing and submitting the survey you agree to participate in
MWSIIIW this study and support the methods by which Dr. Woods and Courtney

“was“ '"mg' Ila: Stewart are protecting all respondents’ confidentiality.

48824-1039

snrsssssao

FAX Slim-4981

e-mail: W.m.edu
eeb: monument/aw

Immense-mm
manna-um
mam

WBMW.

75

. 49,-.ti

APPENDIX D

F OLLOW-UP E-MAIL

To: miagscience@msue.msue.msu.edu
From: "Michael D. Woods" <mwoods@msu.edu>
Date: 11 Jul 2003, 12:59:43 PM
Subject: Assistance needed

 

Dear Teachers,

For those of you that attended the recent PDI, you where invited to participate in a survey looking into the
life of an ANR instructor. We where very pleased to receive 38 completed surveys. However in order to
insure that we have the best picture of the activities that Michigan AgriScience teachers take part in, we
really need to get the rest of your responses. If you did not complete the survey at the PD], could you
please check your registration packet for the survey, complete and return to me at the address listed on the
back of the survey. In order to eliminate redundant mailings, please put your name on the envelope. Your
name will not be linked to the survey, it will only be used to ensure that your name is removed from future
mailings requesting participation.

In light of the current issues taking place here at MSU regarding the future of the ANRECS department and
the unveiling of the MAAE strategic plan, your insights will be very helpful in providing the best academic
program and recruitment efforts for future agriscience teachers.

Your assistance is greatly appreciated. Should you have questions or need further information, please
contact me via email (mwoods@msu.edu) or phone (517.355.6580 x 202). Again, thank you for your time
and assistance with this study.

Best regards,
Michael Woods

Michael D. Woods, PhD.
Assistant Professor

ANR Education & Communication Systems
408 Agriculture Hall

Michigan State University

East Lansing, MI 48824-1039

Office: 517.355.6580 x202
Fax: 517.353.4981
E-mail: mwoods@msu.edu

76

APPENDIX E
DEMOGOGRAPHIC QUESTIONS

This appendix shows the findings from further demographic questions in the

 

 

study.

Table 17

Teaching Contract
Variable (N=86) n %
Nine month 29 33.7
Nine month with summer option 34 39.5
Twelve month 17 19.8
Other 6 7

 

77

Table 18

Importance in Pursuing Career as an Agriscience Instructor

 

 

 

Not at A Ii ttle A fair Much Very
all amount much
Variable n n n n n
% % % % %
Operating“ .. .0 9 18 so
M=3.38, SD=1.573) 20.9 11.6 10.5 20.9 34.9
Independence (N=81, 13 5 17 36 10
M=3.31,SD=1.251) 15.1 5.8 19.8 41.9 11.6
“$228335 16 6 24 28 9
SD=1.275) 18.6 7.0 27.9 32.6 10.5
Oiwfugsmgio‘rltgachmg 3 4 8 34 36
SD=1.009) 3.5 4.7 9.3 39.5 41.9
Opportunity to influence
social change 13 9 23 19 19
(N=83, M=3.27, 15.1 10.5 26.7 22.1 22.1
SD=1.353)
Opportunity to impact
1 1 1 27 55
students (N=85,
=4.58, SD=.697) 1.2 1.2 1.2 31.4 64.0
Opportunity to impact
agriculture industry 5 7 20 31 22
(N=85, M=3.68, 5.8 8.1 23.3 36.0 25.6
SD=1.126)
Other (N=6, M=5.00) - - - - 6
- - - - 7.0

 

(l=not at all. 2=a little. 3=a fair amount, 4=much, 5=very much)

78

Table 19

Number and Type of Courses Taught

 

 

 

 

 

 

0 l 2 3 4 5+
Variable n n n n n n
% % % % % %
Agriscience
(N=84, 3 8 12 17 21 23
M=4.36, 3.5 9.3 14 19.8 24.4 26.7
SD=1.445)
Natural resources
(N=60, 16 22 1 1 3 4 4
M=2.48, 18.6 25.6 12.8 3.5 4.7 4.7
SD=1.455)
Non-agriscience
(N=46, 12 10 8 7 4 5
M=2.91, 14.0 11.6 9.3 8.1 4.7 5.8
SD=1.671)
Adult community
82,25: 23 7 - 1 1 1
M=1.58, 26.7 8.1 - 1.2 1.2 1.2
SD=1.2)
03:37:? 4 1 - 1 1 -
SD=1.676) 4.7 1.2 - 1.2 1.2 -
Other (N=5, 4 _ _ _ - 1
M=2.0, 4 7 - - - - 1 2
SD=2.236) ' '
Other (N=4, 4 - - - - -
M=1.0) 4.7 - - - - -
(respondents could choose between 0,1,2,3,4,5+)
Table 20
Begin Career Again
Variable (N=85, M=1.79, SD=.965) n %
Definitely yes 42 48.8
Probably yes 27 31.4
Not sure 8 9.3
Probably no 8 9.3
Definitely no - -

 

79

Table 21

 

 

Teaching Interest

Variable (N=83) n %

Very heavily in FFA 1 1.2

Very heavily in SAE 2 2.3

Very heavily in classroom 1 1 12.8
instruction ‘

In all, but leaning toward 17 19.8
F FA

In all, but leaning toward 2 2.3
SAE

In all, but Ieaming toward 28 32.6
classroom instruction

Equal balance between 22 25.6

FF A, SAE, and
classroom instruction

80

Table 22

Hours Spent on Activities Per Week

 

 

 

ea N e c v
= °° — '7 '7' ".1 +
:2 E "'1 a. :1 2 r. 3
n n n n n n n 11
Variable (W M») (W (W (Va) M) W») (”/1
Advising students 2 45 19 8 4 2 1
(N=81, M=2.73, -
SD=1.194) 2.3 52.3 22.1 9.3 4.7 2.3 1.2
Afier school programs 11 3} 27 11 3
(N=80, M=2.56, ’ " - - _
SD=1.123) 12.8 38.4 25.6 12.8 3.5
Committee work 13 60 6 1
(Niso’ M=1'94’ 15.1 69.8 7.0 1.2 ' ' ' '
SD—.536)
Committee meetings
13 58 6 1
(N=78, M=1.94, - - - -
50:54” 15.1 67.4 7.0 1.2
Community or public 14 52 1 5 1
service (N=82, - - - -
M=2.04, SD=.637) 16.3 60.5 17.4 1.2
Consultation with
community
stakeholders 21;; 65136 871 223 - - - -
(N=80, M=1.91, ' ' ' '
SD=.640)
FFA programming 14 28 27 3 5 2 3 1
(N=83, M=2.76,
SD=1.535) 16.3 32.6 31.4 3.5 5.8 2.3 3.5 1.2
Household/childcare 5 11 9 1 4 10 11 8 12
duties (N=80,
M=4.72, SD=2.176_) 5.8 12.8 10.5 16.3 11.6 12.8 9.3 14
Other administration 3 S 32 6 5
(N=78, M=1.76, - - - -
SD=.856) 40.7 37.2 7.0 5.8
Part time job (N=81, 55 13 4 3 3 l 1 l
M=1.74, SD=1.456) 64.0 15.1 4.7 3.5 3.5 1.2 1.2 1.2
Preparing an FFA
team for a contest 18 33 18 6 4 2 1 1
(N=83, M=2.52, 20.9 38.4 20.9 7.0 4.7 2.3 1.2 1.2
SD=1.426)
Preparing for teaching
1 20 27 21 8 5 1
(N=83, M=3.41, -
50:12” 1.2 23.3 31.4 24.4 9.3 5.8 1.2
Scheduled teaching 7 3 8 4 6 5 41 13
(N=82, M=6.09, “
50:13.74) 2.3 3.5 9.3 4.7 7.0 5.8 47.7 15.1
Supervising SAE
projects 21 39 14 4 3 1 _
(N=82, M=2.17 24.4 45.3 16.3 4.7 3.5 1.2 '
SD=1.063)

 

(1=None, 2=1-4, 3=5-8, 4=9-12, 5:13-16, 6:17-20, 7:21-34, 8=35+)

81

Table 23
Activities

Variable

Held an administrative
position (N=83)

Participated in a teaching
enhancement workshop

(N=84)

Placed assignments on the
lntemet (N=84)

Collected assignments on
the lntemet (N=83)

Taught a course exclusively
through the Internet
(N=83)

Taught a course using
community service
(N=82)

T cam-taught a course with a
non ag ed teacher

(N=84)

Traveled outside the United
States (N=83)

Used the lntemet to access
lesson plans (N=84)

003

71

15

19

IO

41

42

49

63

Yes

%
9.3

82.6

17.4

22.1

2.3

47.7

48.8

57.0

73.3

13

69

64

81

41

42

34

21

No

%
87.2

15.1

80.2

74.4

94.2

47.7

48.8

39.5

24.4

 

Table 24
Issues of Importance

 

 

 

Not at all A little A fair Much Very
amount much

Variable n n n n n

% % % % %

Influencing social values of

my students (N=84, - 5 17 34 28
M401, - 5.8 19.8 39.5 32.6
SD=.885)

Raising a family (N=84, 4 4 3 18 55
M=4.38, SD=1.086) 4.7 4.7 3.5 20.9 64.0

8:1;ng= £2153 gigancrally 4 5 22 34 19
50:10”) 4.7 5.8 25.6 39.5 22.1

Becoming involved in
programs to clean up the 2 24 33 15 10
environment (N=84, 2.3 27.9 38.4 17.4 1 1.6
M=3.08, SD=1.020)

Helping to promote :acral 2 l 6 3 5 19 12
understanding (IV—84, 2 3 1 8 6 40 7 22 1 l4
M=3.27, SD=1.010) ' ' ' '

Obtaining recognition from
my colleagues for
contributions to 1 6 34 15 12 7
agricultural education 18.6 39.5 17.4 14.0 8.1
(N=84, M=2.52,

SD=1.197)

Being a good colleague
(N=84’ M “127’ - 112 11218 43169 43169
SD=.734) ' ‘ ' '

Being a good citizen - 1 2 24 57

(N=84, M=4.63,
SD=.597) - 1.2 2.3 27.9 66.3

Being a good teacher
(”284' M=4'74’ - - 112 2803 7333
SD=.469) ' ' '

 

(l=not at all, 2=a little, 3=a fair amount, 4=much, 5=very much)

83

Table 25
Description of Respondent

 

Variable

Have you ever received an
award for teaching
(N=84)

Have any of your
agricultural education
courses addressed
diversity (N=83)

Have you ever experienced
sexual harassment as an
agricultural teacher
(N=84)

Considered leaving your
current position for a
non-teaching job (N=84)

Does your F FA chapter
require all members to
participate in community
service (N=84)

Yes

No

NA

 

58

55

17

43

29

84

%

67.4

64

19.8

50

33.7

26

23

65

39

46

%

30.2

26.7

75.6

45.3

53.5

%

5.8

2.3

2.3

10.5

Table 26
Importance of Issues as an A griscience Instructor

 

 

 

Not at A little A fair Much Very
all amount much
. n n n n 1:

Variable % % % % %

Develop student’s
abllity to think _ _ 3 3.7 44
clearly (N—84, _ _ 3 5 43 51 2

M=4.49, ' '
SD=.570)

Prepare students for _ 1 7 37 39
employment (N—84, _ 1 2 8 1 43 45 3
M=4.36, SD=.688) ' ' '

Prepare students for ,
higher education — 1 18 36 28
(N=83, M=4.10, - 1.2 20.9 41.9 32.6
SD=.775)

Help students develop
personal values - 3 6 37 38
(N=84, M=4.31, - 3.5 7 43 44.2
SD=.760)

Enhance students self 1 8 44 31
understanding (N=84, 1 2 9 3 51 2 36
M=4.25, SD=.674) ' ' '

Prepare students for
3:222:15 - - 6 .5 43

(N=84, M=4.44, ' ' 7 40'7 50
SD=.628)

Enhance students’

1536:3533 0f 1 6 30 28 17
’)

(N=82, M=3.66, 1... 7 34.9 32.6 19.8

SD=.933)

Prepare students to
322:??? the 1 9 35 27 12
globalization (N=84, 1.2 10.5 40.7 31.4 14

M=3.48, SD=.911)
Other (N=2, M=4.50, - - - 1 1
SD=.707) - - - 1.2 1.2

 

(l=not at all, 2=a little, 3=a fair amount, 4=much, 5=very much)

85

Table 27
Sources of Stress

 

Variable

Never

Rarely

Sometimes

Frequently

- Always

 

n %

I!

%

n %

n %

n %

 

Managing household
responsibilities (M=3.5,
SD=.871,N=84)

Review/promotion process
(M=2.46, SD=.911,

N=84)

Subtle discrimination

(M=2.21, SD=.952,
N=85)

Personal finances (M=3.24,
SD=.868, N=85)

Committee work (M=2.74,
SD=.915, N=85)

Faculty meetings (M=2.61,
SD=.952, N=85)

Colleagues (M=2.73,
SD=.766, N=84)

Students (M=3 .25,
SD=.785, N=85)

FFA demands (M=3.33,
SD=1.123, N=84)

Institutional procedures/
“red tape” (M=3.65,
SD=.751, N=85)

Teaching load (M=3.42,
SD=.850, N=85)

Marital/spousal friction
(M=2.32, SD=.915,
N=82)

Lack of personal time
(M=3.38, SD=.976,
N=85)

Keeping up with technology
(M=2.79, SD=.940,

N=85)

Keeping up with agriculture
industry (M=2.65,
SD=.869, N=85)

Keeping up with natural
resource issues (M=2.53,
SD=.839, N=85)

Other (M=4.0, SD=.816,
N=4)

Other (M=4.33. SD=.577,
N=3)

Other (M=5.0, SD=0, N=1)

(1=never, 2=rarely, 3=sometimes, 4=frequently, 5=always)

I 1.2

11 12.8

20 23.3

6 7.0

11 12.8

2 2.3

15 17.4

8

35

36

ll

30

26

32

13

10

25

86

9.3

40.7

41.9

11.6

29.1

39.5

40.7

33 38.4

27 31.4

22 25.6

44 51.2
34.9
35 40.7
38 44.2
43 50.0

24 27.9
29 33.7
36 41.9

24 27.9

35 40.7

34 39.5

29

33.7

31 36.0

32 37.2

10 11.6

5 5.8

21 24.4
18 20.9
11 12.8
11 12.8
24 27.9

33 38.4

42 48.8

29 33.7

26

30.2

17 19.8

16 18.6

11 12.8

Ix)

2.3

10 11.6

I 1.2

2 2.3

7 8.1

l 1.2

2 2.3

l 1.2

5 5.8

10 11.6

9 10.5

9 10.5

11 12.8

Table 28

Agree with Issues

 

Strongly
disagee

Somewhat
disagree

No

opinion

Somewhat
agree

Strongly

agree

 

Variable n %

n %

I!

%

n %

n

%

 

Agricultural education
curriculum should
promote globalization
(N=85, M=3.89, SD=.817)
Agricultural education
curriculum should
address social diversity 2 2.3
issues (N=85, M=3.87,
SD=.870)
Agricultural education
should encourage
students to be involved - -
in community service
(N=85, M=4.46, SD=.646)
Pressure to prepare for
FFA activities often
prevents me from being
completely effective in
my teaching (N=84,
M=3.56, SD=1.155)
Agricultural education
curriculum needs to
change to reflect 2 2.3
contemporary issues
(N=85, M=3.92, SD=.941)
FF A programs need to
change to reflect new
issues in agriculture
(N=83, M=4.02, SD=.855)
Agricultural education in
public schools is
prepared to meet 3 3.5
future needs (N=85,
M=3.45, SD=1.160)

2 2.3

3 3.5

9 10.5

12

11

13

I7

11

14

12.8

4.7

15.1

19.8

12.8

7

53 61.6

51 59.3

35 40.7

40 46.5

38 44.2

43 50

39 45.3

15

16

45

15

24

24

14

17.4

8.6

52.3

7.4

27.9

7.9

16.3

 

(l=strongly disagree, 2=somewhat disagree. 3=no opinion, 4=somewhat agree, 5=strongly agree)

87

Table 29

 

 

 

Standardized Testing
Very Somewhat No Somewhat Very
negatively negatively influence positively Positively
Variable n % n % n % n % n %
Teaching methods (M=3.14,
SD=.915, N=85) l 1.2 25 29.1 22 25.6 35 40.7 2 2.3
Curriculum objectives
(M=3.51,SD=.921, N=85) 1 1.2 16 18.6 13 15.1 49 57.0 6 7.0
FFA programming (M=2.98,
SD=.771, N=85) 3 3.5 15 17.4 50 58.1 15 17.4 2 2.3
Use of SAE projects (M=3.05,
SD=.815, N=85) 2 2.3 16 18.6 47 54.7 16 18.6 4 4.7
Use of community service
(M=3.01, SD=.715, N=85) 2 2.3 13 15.1 54 62.8 14 16.3 2 2.3
Other (M=3.0, SD=O, N=4) - - - - 4 4.7 - - - -

 

(l=very negatively, 2=somewhat negatively, 3=no influence, 4=somewhat positively, 5=very positively)

88

Table 30
Evaluation Methods

 

 

 

Never Rarely Sometimes Frequently Always
Variable n % n % n % n % u %
Multiple choice exams
(N=85,M=3.42, 3 3.5 9 10.5 28 32.6 39 45.3 6 7
SD=.905)
True-false exams (N=85,
M=3.24,SD=.972) 5 5.8 13 15.1 28 32.6 35 40.7 4 4.7
Essay exams (N=84,
M=3.29,SD=.926) 3 3.5 12 14.0 33 38.4 30 34.9 6 7
Short-answer exams (N=85,
M=3.71,SD=.721) - - 4 4.7 26 30.2 46 53.5 9 10.5
Quizzes (N=84, M=3.85,
SD=.720) - - 3 3.5 20 23.3 48 55.8 13 15.1
Weekly assignments (N=85, 7
M=3.99,SD=.866) 1 1... 2 2.3 20 23.3 36 41.9 26 30.2
Student presentations
(N=84,M=3.68, - - 2 2.3 32 37.2 41 47.7 9 10.5
SD=.697)
Research papers (N=84,
M=3.13,SD=.954) 3 3.5 19 22.1 31 36 26 30.2 5 5.8
Journals (N=84, M=2.82,
SD=1.214) 12 14.0 26 30.2 19 22.1 19 22.1 8 9.3
Students evaluations of each
others’work(N=85, 8 9.3 27 31.4 34 39.5 13 15.1 3 3.5
M=2.72, SD=.959)
Grading on a curve (N=85, .,
M=2.14,SD=1.167) 32 3/.2 24 27.9 19 22.1 5 5.8 5 5.8
Competency-based grading
(N=84,M=3.07, 11 12.8 10 11.6 36 41.9 16 18.6 11 12.8
SD=1.170)
Take home homework
(N=85,M=3.08, 5 5.8 18 20.9 33 38.4 23 26.7 6 7
SD=1.003)

 

(1=Never, 2=Rarely. 3=Sometimes, 4=Frequently, 5=Always)

89

Table 31
Instructional T echniques/Methods

 

Never
Variable n %

I!

Rarely
%

Sometimes
I: %

Frequently

I!

%

Always

I!

%

 

Class discussions (N=85,
M=3.89, SD=.690)

Computer-aided

instruction
(N=85, M=3.35, 3 3'5
SD=.827)

Cooperative learning
(N=85, M=3.67, - -
SD=.605)

Field trips (N=85,
M=3.09, SD=.734)
Demonstrations (N=85,
M=3.55, SD=.779)
Group projects (N=85,
M=3.64, SD=.652)

Independent projects
(N=85, M=3.55, - -
SD=.748)

Extensive lecturing
(N=85, M=2.69, 4 4.7
SD=.817)

Multiple drafts of written
work (N=84, M=2.51, 4 4.7
SD=.703)

Community service as
part of coursework
(N=85, M=2.72,
SD=.908)

Student SAE projects
(N=85, M=3.02, 12 14
SD=1.175)

Integration of F FA events
(N=85, M=2.96, 15 17.4
SD=1.2)

N

2.3

II

32

39

26

14

10

2.3

5.8

2.3

12.8

2.3

5.8

37.2

45.3

1»
.O
to

16.3

11.6

19 22.1

41 47.7

28 32.6

51 59.3

35 40.7

33 38.4

36 41.9

36 41.9

35 40.7

33 38.4

26 30.2

30 34.9

50

31

51

19

35

44

36

12

18

26

23

58.1

36

59.3

22.1

40.7

51.2

41.9

14

20.9

30.2

26.7

14

16.3

5.8

4.7

2.3

10.5

9.3

1.2

8.1

8.1

 

(l=never, 2=rarely, 3=sometimes, 4=frequently, 5=always)

9O

APPENDIX F
DEMOGRAPHIC CROSS TABULATIONS
This appendix shows the findings from cross tabulating use of community service
with demographics. As shown in section 4.2.2, there were no significant differences
between community service related questions and demographics.
Table 32
Cross T abulatiOn- Implement Community Service Elements by Gender, Marital

Status, Years T eachin&Grew Up
Implement Community Service Elements in Courses

 

 

 

Never Rarely Sometimes Frequently Always

Gender" (N=81)

Female 2 2 11 16 6

Male 2 5 18 15 4
Marital

Status**(N=83)

Married 4 5 25 23 7

Unmarried - 2 1 2

w/partner

Single - - 5 6 3
Year Teaching***

(N=82)

0-14 3 4 19 21 6

15-34 1 3 11 10 4
Grew Up****

(N=83)

Urban 1 1 6 7 3

Rural 3 6 25 24 7

 

*x’ =2.824, df=4, p=.588, **x’=10.616, df=8, p=.224, ***x2=.607, df=4, p=.962, ****x’=.772, df=4,
p=.942

91

Table 33

Cross T abulation- Community Service Aligned with Class Content by Gender,
Marital Status, Years Teaching, Grew Up

 

Community Service Aligned with Class Content

 

 

Never Rarely Sometimes Frequently Always
Gender“ (N=8 1 )
Female 2 2 10 17 6
Male 2 2 17 20 3
Marital
Status**(N=83)
Married 4 3 23 28
Unmarried - 1 2 1 1
w/partner
Single - - 4 8 2
Years
Teaching***
(N=82)
0-14 2 22 20 6
15-34 1 2 6 17 3
Grew Up****
(N=83)
Urban 2 - 6 6 4
Rural 2 4 23 3 1 5

 

"x2=2.472, df=4, p=.650 **x2=6.323, (IF—8, p=.611,

p=.l7l

92

1"" x2=4.77o, (11%4, p=.312 ****xz=6.409, df=4,

 

Table 34

Cross T abulation- Students had Integral Part in Planning Community Service by

Gender, Marital Status, Years Teaching, Grew Up

Students Had Integral Part in Planning Community Service

 

 

Never Rarely Sometimes Frequently Always

Gender“ (N=8 1 )

Female 1 2 1 1 13 10

Male 4 1 0 1 6 1 1
Marital Status“ *

(N=83)

Married 7 1 5 24 1 5

Unmarried l - 3 1 -

w/partner

Single - - 3 5 6
Years

Teaching* * *

(N=82)

0-14 3 14 20 13

15-34 1 4 6 1 0 8
Grew Up****

(N=83)

Urban 1 - 5 8 4

Rural 3 7 1 6 22 1 7

 

*x2=1.478, (11%4, p=.830 "12:11.1“. df=8,p=.193 ***x2=2.015, df=4, p=.733 ****x’=2.544, df=4,

p=.637

93

Table 35
Cross T abulation- Community Service Activities Met Community Needs by
Gender, Marital Status, Years Teaching, Grew Up

 

Community Service Activities Met Community Needs

 

 

Variable Never Rarely Sometimes Frequently Always
Gender* (N=8 1 )

Female 1 - 5 19 12

Male 3 - 10 18 13
Marital Status* *

(N=83)

Married . 3 - 12 30 19

Unman'ied 1 - 1 2 1

w/partner

Single - - 3 6 5
Years

Teaching“ * *

(N=82)

0-14 3 - 8 26 16

15-34 1 - 7 12 9
Grew Up* * * *

(N=83)

Urban 1 - 3 8 6

Rural 3 - 13 3O 19

 

*x’=2-145. df=3, p=.543 Mx2=3.511, df=6,p=.743 ***x1=1.269, dfi3, p=.737, *"*x2=.195. df=3,

p=.978

94

Table 36
Cross T abulation- Time Taken Before Community Service to Discuss by Gender,
Marital Status, Years Teaching, Grew Up

 

Time Taken Before the Community Service to Discuss

 

 

Variable Never Rarely Sometimes Frequently Always
Gender“ (N=8 1 )
Female 1 - 9 1 5 12
Male 2 - 7 19 1 6
Marital Status* *
(N=83)
Married 3 - 1 3 25 23
Unmarried - - 2 3 -
w/partner
Single - - 2 6 6
Years
Teaching“ * *
(N=82)
0-14 2 - 9 20 22
1 5-34 1 - 7 14 7
Grew Up* * * *
(N=83)
Urban 1 - 2 9 6
Rural 2 - 1 5 25 23

 

*x2=1.028, (if-=3, p=.794 **x2=4.611, df=6, p=.595***x2=2.599, df=3,p=.458 ****x2=1.7, df=3,
p=.637

95

n..m1amu1-._

Table 37

Cross T abulation- Time Taken After Community Service to Discuss by Gender,
Marital Status, Years Teaching, Grew Up

 

Time Taken After the CommuniDI Service to Discuss

 

 

Variable Never Rarely Sometimes Frequently Always
Gender“ (N=8 1 )
Female 1 3 12 12 9
Male 7 1 0 1 5 10
Marital Status* *
(N=83)
Married 3 8 14 22 1 7
Unmarried - 2 2 1 -
w/partner
Single - 1 6 4 3
Years
Teaching“ * *
(N=82)
O- l 4 8 1 3 1 7 13
1 5-34 1 3 8 1 O 7
Grew Up“ * *
(N=83)
Urban 1 1 4 7 5
Rural 2 10 18 20 15

 

*x2=1.910, df=4, p=.752 **xl=8.068, df=8, p=.427 ***x’=-423. df=4, p=.981 ****x2=1.841, df=4,

p=.765

96

Table 38
Cross T abulation— Reflection Activities Performed by Gender, Marital Status, Years
Teaching, Grew Up

Reflection Activities Were Performed

 

 

Variable Never Rarely Sometimes Frequently Always
Gender* (N=8 1 )
Female 3 7 10 12 5
Male 5 1 1 16 1 1 1
Marital Status“
(N=83)
Married 7 15 20 18
Unmarried 1 - 2 1 1
w/partner
Single 1 3 4 5 1
Years
Teaching***
(N=82)
0-14 6 14 13 16 4
15-34 I 3 4 12 8 2
Grew Up****
(N=83)
Urban 1 3 5 7 2
Rural 8 15 21 17 4

 

’x’=4.915, df=4, p=.296 **x’=3.481, (if—‘8, p=.901 ***x2=3.l77, df—‘4,p=.529 ""x’=2.222, df=4,
p=.695

97

 

Table 39
Cross T abulation- Transportation Difficulties by Gender, Marital Status, Years
Teaching, Grew Up

Transportation Causes Difficulty

 

 

Variable Never Rarely Sometimes Frequently Always
Gender“ (N=8 1 )
Female 5 8 14 6 4
Male 4 9 1 7 10 4
Marital Status"
(N=83)
Married 8 1 1 25 13
Unmarried - 2 2 - 1
w/partner
Single 1 4 5 3 1
Years
Teaching***
(N=82)
0-14 6 12 19 9 7
15-34 2 5 13 7 2
Grew Up****
(N=83)
Urban 3 3 7 2 3
Rural 6 14 25 14 6

 

*x’=.862, df=4, p=.930**x’=4.231, df=8. p=.836**“x2=2.199, df=4,p=.699 ****x2=2.397, df=4,
p=.663

98

Table 40
Cross T abulation- Funding Difficulties by Gender, Marital Status, Years Teaching,
Grew Up

Funding Causes Difficulty

 

 

Variable Never Rarely Sometimes Frequently Always
Gender“ (N=81 )

Female 5 9 13 6 4

Male 3 10 18 11 2
Marital Status"

(N=83)

Married 7 14 24 13 6

Unmarried w/ - 1 2 1 1

partner

Single 1 4 6 3 -
Years

Teaching***

(N=82)

0-14 6 15 18 9 5

15-34 1 4 14 8 2
Grew Up****

(N=83)

Urban 3 3 7 2 _ 3

Rural 5 16 25 15 4

 

*x’=2.913, df=4, p=.572 **x2=3.066, df=8,p=.930 ***x2=5.206, df=4, p=.267 **"x2=4.4, df=4,
p=.355

99

Table 41
Cross T abulation- T 00 Much Time to Perform by Gender, Marital Status, Years
Teaching, Grew Up

Community Service Takes too Much Time to Perform

 

 

Variable Never Rarely Sometimes Frequently Always
Gender* (N=8 1 )

Female 9 1 O 1 5 3 -

Male 5 14 21 4 -
Marital Status"

(N=83)

Married 1 1 18 30 5 -

Unmarried w/ - 2 2 1 -

partner

Single 3 4 6 1 -
Years

Teaching***

(N=82)

0-14 9 15 26 3 -

15-34 4 9 12 4 -
Grew Up****

(N=83)

Urban 4 5 8 1 -

Rural 10 19 3O 6 -

 

*x2=2.365, df=3, p=.500 **x‘=2.176, df=6, p=.903 ***x2=1.859, df=3, p=.602 ****xz=.636, df=3,
p=.888

100

Table 42
Cross T abulation- T 00 Much Time to Organize by Gender, Marital Status, Years
Teaching, Grew Up

 

Community Service Takes too Much Time to Organize

 

 

Variable Never Rarely Sometimes Frequently Always
Gender“ (N=8 1)

Female 7 12 1 5 3 -

Male 4 1 3 22 5 —
Marital
Status**(N=83)

Married . 8 2O 28 8 -

Unmarried - 2 3 - -

w/partner

Single 3 4 6 1 -
Years

Teaching***

(N=82)

0-14 8 18 22 5 -

15-34 3 7 1 5 4 -
Grew Up****

(N=83)

Urban 3 5 8 2 -

Rural 8 21 29 7 -

 

*x’=2.093, df=3, p=.553 "7112:2717, df=6,p=.843 ***x’=1.667, df=3, p=.644 "*“x’=.296, df=3,
p=.961

101

Table 43
Cross T abulation- Establishing Community Partnerships Take too Much Time by
Gender, Marital Status, Years T eaching, Grew Mo

 

Establishing Community Partnerships Takes too Much Time

 

 

 

Variable Never Rarely Sometimes Frequently Always
Gender“ (N=8 1 )

Female 12 11 11 3 -
Male 6 23 12 3 -
Marital

Status**(N=83)

Married 13 26 19 6 -
Unmarried 1 2 2 - -
w/partner

Single 4 6 4 - -
Years

Teaching***

(N=82)

0-14 13 22 17 1 -
15-34 4 12 8 5 -
Grew Up****

(N=83)

Urban 6 5 5 2 -
Rural 12 29 20 4 -
*x2=5.717,df=3, p=.126**12=2.342, df:6, p=.886rrrx2=7.205, df=3, p=.066 ****x’=2-934, df=3,
p=.402

102

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Andersen, S. M. (1998). Service-learning: A national strategy for youth development.
A position paper issued by the Education Policy Task Force, Institute for
Communitarian Policy Studies, George Washington University.

Ary, D., Jacobs, L, C., Razavieh, A. (2002). Introduction to research in education.
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Bach, I. E. (1954). Vo-Ag provides experience in citizenship. The Agricultural
Education Magazine, 27(2), 32.

Bachman, K. C. (1981). BOAC programs at work. The Agricultural Education
Magazine, 53(11), 23.

Baker, R. A. (1957). A new teacher’s concept of the. .. role of the school and
community in education. The Agricultural Education Magazine, 30(6), 139.

Barkley, A. P. (1999). A service Ieaming project: Community service, interpersonal
skills, and personal growth. NA C TA Journal, 43(4), 46-50.

Berkas, T. (February, 1997). Strategic review of the W. K. Kellogg Foundation '5
service-learning projects, 1990-1 996. Battle Creek, MI: W. K. Kellogg Foundation.

Billig, S. H. & Furco, A. (2002). Research agenda for K-12 service-Ieaming. In A.
Furco & S. Billi g (Eds), Service-learning: The essence of the pedagogy (Advances in
service-learning, v. 1) (pp. 271-279). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Billig, S. (2002). Support for K-12 service-Ieaming practice: A brief review of the
research. Educational Horizons, 80(4), 184—189.

Billig, S. H. (2000a). The effects of service Ieaming. School Administrator, 57(7), 14.

Billig, S. H. (2000b). Research on K-12 school-based service-Ieaming: The evidence
builds. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(9), 658-664.

Billig, S. H. (n.d.). The impacts of service-Ieaming on youth, schools, and communities:
Research on K-IZ school-based service-learning, 1990-1 999. Retrieved August 17,
2003 from http://serviceleamingcommission.org/research/slresearch

Billig, S., Jesse, D., Calvert, L., & Kleimann, K. (1999). An evaluation of Jefferson
County school district ’s school-to-career partnership program. Denver, CO: RMC
Research.

103

Born, 0. E. (1955). A local chapter improves community relations. The Agricultural
Education Magazine, 28(6), 136.

Bradley, L. (1997). Evaluating service-learning: Toward a new paradigm (131-171). In
A. S. Waterman (Ed.). Service learning: Applications from research. New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Brunet, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.

Chapin, J. (1998). Is service Ieaming a good idea? Data from the national longitudinal
study. Social Studies, 89(5), 211-215.

CNN.com/Inside Politics (Jan. 29, 2002). Bush State of the Union address. Retrieved
July 28, 2003 from http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/O1/29/bush.speech.txt/

Cooper, M. (1995). The volunteer action center (VA C). Retrieved November, 25, 2003
from, http://www.fiu.edu/~time4chg/sl.html

Connors, J. (1992). Volunteerism as SAE. The Agricultural Education Magazine,
65(6), 18.

Conrad, D. & Hedin, D. (1981). National assessment of experiential education: A final
report. St Paul, MN: University of Minnesota, Center for Youth Development and
Research.

Corporation for National & Community Service. (n.d.) About us: History of national
service. Retrieved June 26, 2003 from,
http://www.nationa1service.org/about/history.html.

Corporation for National and Community Service. (n.d.). About Learn & Serve: Service
Learning. Retrieved November 24, 2003 from,
http://www.leamandserve.org/about/service_leaming.htrnl

Coumeya, J. (1994). An evaluation of the Native American school’s water quality
testing program In M. Neal, R. Shumer & K. Gorak (Eds), Evaluation: The key to
improving service-learning programs. Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota Department of
Education and the University of Minnesota

Cummings, J. C. (1957). Strengthening the F FA through. . .community service activities.
The Agricultural Education Magazine, 30(6), 130.

Dailey, A. L., Conroy, C. A., & Shelley-Tolbert, C. A. (2001). Using agricultural

education as the context to teach life skills. [Electronic version]. Journal of
Agricultural Education, 42(1), 11.

104

Davis, F. L. & Scott, J. (2001). Service learning — through the eyes of a student. The
Agricultural Education Magazine, 74(1), 8-9.

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan.
Dewey, J. (1956). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan.

Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method. New
York: J. Wiley.

Edman, V. (1953). An example of community service through FFA. The
Agricultural Education Magazine, 26 (2), 43.

Ekstrom, G. F. (1954). Character standards in training for citizenship. The Agricultural
Education Magazine, 27(2), 29.

Ekstrom, G. F. (1955). FF A and community service. The Agricultural Education
Magazine, 28(6), 137.

Education Commission of the States. (2001, March). Institutionalized service-learning
in the 50'states. Retrieved April 3, 3003 from,
http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/23/77/2377.htm

Eyler, J. S., Giles, D. E., Stenson, C. M., & Gray, C. J. (2001). At a glance: What we
know about the effects of service-learning on college students, faculty, institutions,
and communities, 1993-2000: Third edition. Retrieved March 13, 2003 from,
http://www.compact.org/resource/aag.pdf

Fletcher, J. & Branen, L. (1993). Experiential Ieaming in a cross-disciplinary student-
directed research course. NA C TA Journal, 37(4), 18

Follman, J. (August, 1998). Florida Learn and Service: 1996-97 outcomes and
correlations with [994-95 and 1995-96. Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University,
Center for Civic Education and Service.

Furco, A. (2000). Establishing a national center for research to systematize the study of
service Ieaming. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, Special Issue,
129-133.

Furco, A. & Ammon, M. (2000). Service-learning in California ’5 teacher education
programs. Berkeley, CA: University of California.

Gray, M. J ., Ondaatje, E. H., Fricker, R., Geschwind, S., Goldman, C. A., Kaganoff, T.,
& et al. (1998). Coupling service and learning in higher education: The final report
of the evaluation of the Learn and Serve America, higher education program. Santa
Monica, CA: The RAND Corporation.

105

 

Gray, M. J ., Ondaatje, E. H., Fricker, R., Geschwind, S., Goldman, C. A., Kaganoff, T.,
& et al. (1999). Combining service and learning in higher education: Evaluation of

the Learn and Serve America, higher education program. Santa Monica, CA:
RAND.

Hess, A. (2001). Student pride through service Ieaming. The Agricultural Education
Magazine, 74 (1), 10-11.

Israel, G. D. & Hoover, T. S. (1996). Expanding opportunities for FFA chapter
recognition: A model for community needs assessment. Journal of Agricultural
Education, 37(3), 1.

John F. Kennedy Library and Museum. (1961). Inagural Address, President John F.
Kennedy. Retrieved July 28, 2003 from http://www.jfk1ibrary.org/j012061.htrn

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and
development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Kraft, R. J. (1998). Service Ieaming: An introduction to its theory, practice, and effects.
Education and Urban Society, 28(2), 7-23.

Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. ,

Leming, J. (1998). Adding value to service-learning projects. Insights on Global Ethics,
7.

Lipka, R. P. (1997). Research and evaluation in service Ieaming: What do we need to
know. In J. Shine (Ed.), Service Learning. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago
Press. .

Markus, G. 3., Howard, J. P., & King, D. C. (1993). Integrating community service and
classroom instruction enhances Ieaming: Results from an experiment. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(4), 410-419

Mattingly, D. & Morgan, J. (2001). At your service: Service Ieaming in your local FFA
chapter. The Agricultural Education Magazine, 74(1), 14-15.

Melchior, A. (1999). Summary report: National evaluation of Learn and Serve.
Waltham, MA: Center for Human Resources, Brandeis University.

Melchior, A. (2000). Cost and benefits of service Ieaming. School Administrator, 5 7(7),
26-31.

106

Michigan Association of Agriscience Educators (MAAE). (n.d.). A blueprint for the
future: A strategic plan for Agriscience and Natural Resources education in
Michigan: 2003-2005. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, Department of
ANR Education and Communication Systems.

Michigan F FA. (2001). Building our Michigan communities. Retrieved August 28,
2003, from http://www.michiganffa.com

National Center for Education Statistics. (1999, September). Service-learning and
community service in K-12 public schools. Retrieved June 4, 2003, from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs99/1999043.pdf

National Commission on Service-Leaming. (n.d.). Learning in deed: The power of
service-learning for American schools. Retrieved April 13, 2003 fi'om,
http://learningindeed.org/slcommission

National F FA Organization. (2002). The National FFA Organization. Retrieved May
23, 2003 from, http://www.ffa.org/about_ffa/organization/org_index.htrnl

National FFA Organization. (n.d.). FFA chapter project handbook on community
development. Indianapolis, IN: National FFA Organization

National Center for Education Statistics. (1999). Service-learning and community
service in K-12 public schools. (NCES 1999-043). Retrieved April 13, 2003 fi’om,
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs99/1999043.pdf

National Research Council (1998). Understanding Agriculture: New directions for
education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Service Learning Clearinghouse. (2001). Glossary. Retrieved July 29, 2003
from, http://www.serviceleaming.org/article/archive/37/

Neal, M. (2003). Service-Ieaming in K-12 education. Generator, 21(3), 7-11.
Neal, M. & Miller, J. (2003). Service-Ieaming policy. Generator, 21 (3), 7-11.

Norusis, M. J. (2000). SPSS 10.0: Guide to data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall, Inc.

Osborne, R. E., Hammerich, S., & Hensley, C. (1998). Students effects of service-
leaming: Tracking change across a semester. Michigan Journal of Community
Service Learning, 5, 5-13.

Patterson, J. (2002). An open letter to educators: Service Ieaming in education. The
Agricultural Education Magazine, 75(1), 24.

107

Phipps, L. J. & Osborne, E. W. (1988). Handbook on agricultural education in public
schools. Danville, IL: The Interstate Printers & Publishers, Inc.

Root, S. & Furco, A. (2001). A review of research on service-Ieaming in preservice
teacher education. In J. B Anderson, K. J. Swick, & J. Yff (Eds), Service-Ieaming in
teacher education (pp. 86-100). Washington, DC: AACTE Publications.

Scales, P. & Blyth, D. (1997). Effects of service-Ieaming on youth: What we know and
what we need to know. Generator, Winter, 6-9.

Scott, J. K. (1952). Contributions of the FFA to the community. The Agricultural
Education Magazine, 25 (4), p. 79

Seigel, S. E. (1997). Teachers of service-Ieaming. In R. C. Wade (Ed.), Community
service-learning: A guide to including service in the public school curriculum.
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, Albany.

Shaffer, B. (1993). Service-Ieaming: An academic methodology. Stanford, CA:
Standford University Department of Education. Cited in R. Bhaerrnan, K. Cordell, &
B. Gomez (1998). The role of service-learning in educational reform. Raleigh, NC:
National society for Experiential Education and Needham, MA: Simon and Shuster.

Smith, W. A., Martin, W. H. & McMahon, B. J. (1954). Preparation for citizenship
through vocational agriculture [Theme issue]. The Agricultural Education Magazine,
27 (2).

Sperlich, G. J. (1975). Wanted: Citizens of tomorrow. The Agricultural Education
Magazine, 48 (1), 13.

Stephens, L. S. (1995). The complete guide to learning through community service:
Grades K-9. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon

Trexler, C. J. (2001). Missing from our motto?: “Learning to reflect.” The Agricultural
Education Magazine, 74 (1), 4-5

United States Department of Agriculture. (n.d.). A history of American agriculture
1 776-1990. Retrieved May 23, 2003 from, http://www.usda.gov/historyZ/text10.htm

University of California, Los Angeles- Graduate School of Education and Information
Studies. (n.d.). Higher education research institute faculty survey. Retrieved
February 21, 2003 from, http://www. gseis.ucla.edu/he1i/heri.html

Wade, R. (1997a). Community service Ieaming in a democracy: An introduction. In R.
C. Wade (Ed.), Community service-learning: A guide to including service in the
public school curriculum. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press,
Albany.

108

L -2....-_nv-:-1'1PJ

Wade, R. (1997b). Teachers of service-learning. In A. S. Waterman (Ed.), Service-
“ learning: Applications from the research. Mahwah,-NJ: Larence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc.

Wade, R. (1998). Community service-learning: Collaborating with the community as a
context for authentic learning. Paper presented at the Preparing Teachers to Use
Contextual Teaching and Learning: Strategies to Enhance Student Success in and
Beyond School Conference, May 12, 1998, Columbus, OH.

Waterman, A. S. (1997). Service-learning: Applications from the research. Manwah,
NJ: Larence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Weiler, D., LaGoy, A., Crane, E. & Rovner, A. (1998). An evaluation of K-12 service-
learning in California: Phase 11 final report. Emeryville, CA: RPP International
with Search Institute.

Woods, M. (2002a). Cultivating Agriscience through service Ieaming. The Agricultural
Education Magazine, 74(5), 27.

Woods, M. (2002b). Research on service Ieaming. The Agricultural Education
Magazine, 74(2), 24-25.

Woods, M. (20020). Service Ieaming as a vehicle for innovation. The Agricultural
Education Magazine, 74(4), 26-27.

Woods, M. D. (2002d). Sharing our roots with the community. The Agricultural
Education Magazine, 75(1), 18-19.

Woods, M.D. & Stewart, C. J. (2003). What’s the value of service-learning to

agricultural education? Proceedings of the 30'’1 Annual National Agricultural
Education Research Conference, Orlando, FL, 30.

109

 

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

lllll1111111111111111111111111111111