Essay: The Decline in Student Participation

Supervised Agricultural Experiences: The Decline in Student Participation
The 20 century brought about a new style of educating students. During this time, philosopher John Dewy created the idea of using personal experiences of the student to increase the quality and quantity of material learned. Later, in 1908, Rufus Stimson, an agricultural education teacher, began putting this theory to use in his classroom. Stimson had his students use their experiences through projects at home as a base knowledge for their agricultural education courses. Thus, creating the idea of a “home project” (Dyer, 1995). The Smith-Hughes National Vocational Act was passed in 1917, and Stimson’s concept of a “home project” became an official part of a vocational agricultural education program as supervised agricultural experiences (SAE) programs (Dryer, 1995).
Once SAEs were implemented, teachers began to realize agricultural education needed to involve more than only one home project. As a result, broader SAE programs were implemented and defined as “…all the practical agricultural activities of educational value conducted by students outside of class and laboratory instruction or on school- released time for which systematic instruction and supervision are provided by their teachers, parents, employers, or others.” (Phipps & Osborne, 1988)
SAE programs increase educational value by connecting the theories and concepts learned in the agricultural education classroom to understandable context (Phipps, Osborne, Dryer, & Ball, 2008). Today SAEs are defined as “the application of the concepts and principles learned in the agricultural education classroom in planned, real-life settings under the supervision of the agriculture teacher” (Talbert, Vaughn, Croom & Lee, 2007).
SAEs are recognized as an important component of a school-based agricultural education program (Croom, 2008). However, a decline in SAE participation is causing concern for agricultural education professionals. Efforts are being made to transform SAE programs to be more inclusive of non-traditional agricultural education students, but lack of student SAE participation has continued to occur (Croom, 2008). Many researchers have attempted to solve the perplexity of this decline, and this has led to two different potential causes and multiple solutions.
For the first 50 years of agricultural education programs, the Smith-Hughes Act required every student have a SAE. Federal and state supervisors monitored agricultural education instructors involvement by requiring detailed records of the student’s SAE programs. These records were compiled into an annual report to be sent to the state agricultural education office. Many times regional and district supervisors would accompany the instructors on their SAE visits (Lewis 2012). Because of these regulations, participation in supervised agricultural experiences was strong.
However, after the passage of the Vocational Education Act of 1963 student participation began to decrease (Boone, Doerfert, & Elliot, 1987). The Vocational Education Act was created to expand agricultural education from traditional-agriculture to a more encompassing program. The writers stated “… such education may be provided without directed or supervised practice on a farm.” This was misinterpreted by some agricultural educators to mean SAE programs no longer required direct supervision. (Boone, Doerfert, & Elliot, 1987). The uncertainty of the new act began the steady decline in SAEs.
The steady fall of teacher’s involvement in supervised agricultural experiences may be one of the greatest determinants of the SAE program quality. Agricultural educators believe SAE programs are valuable to the application of theory and as an experimental tool (Benson, 1981; Warren & Flowers, 1992). Ingvalson (1983) found teachers who have high expectations for student’s SAE programs were more likely to have better attitudes and achievements of students. Teachers who deliver high quality SAE programs realize their importance on students’ education more than those who have lower quality SAE programs (Dyer, 1995). In contrast, French (1985) found teachers felt their SAE programs had more to offer than what was being provided regardless of the current state (Dyer, 1995).
Although teachers claim they support SAE programs, many fail to implement them. Edward W. Osborne, associate professor at the University of Illinois, recorded that teachers who were involved in high school SAEs are more likely to do a better job implementing SAE programs within their classes (1988). However, the number of teachers who had previous participation in SAE programs may be declining (Osborne, 1988)
Dyer classroom SAE instruction may correlate with class size (1996). According to his research, the larger and more generalized classes emphasized in-class hours spent on SAE instruction more when compared to specialized classes. Findings of Briers supported this theory by stating the number of hours spent in class increased as the class size increased (1979). In a study conducted by Burnett and Smith, only 58 percent of horticulture teachers responded they taught a unit on SAE programs (Dyer, 1996).
One way to combat the lack of teacher motivation is increasing the amount of background and knowledge of effectively administering SAE programs and other experimental learning activities into the classroom (Osborne, 1988). In the 12 north central states, agricultural education instructors said being an effective teacher requires having a high percentage of students with SAE programs (Miller, Kahler, & Rheault, 1989). However, a report by Kirkland (cited in Barrik, et al., 1991a) found teachers perceived the coursework they had as insufficient in implementing SAEs.
Adult education, SAE programs, record books, and FFA were identified as the areas of the greatest weaknesses during student teaching (Pfister, 1983). Osborne recorded only 13 percent of teachers completed a course in administering SAE programs. Approximately one-half claimed they needed additional SAE program training (Dugan & Sutphin, 1984). Dyer concluded the lack of sufficient college-level courses in implementing SAE programs may be a cause of teachers’ attitude (1996).
Elizabeth Wilson (2007) states there is a paradox between the value teachers place on SAE programs and the manner in which SAE programs are implemented. She found teacher’s recorded their SAE implementation efforts at a 6.32 on a 10-point scale, however, less than one-third had 75% or more students with SAE programs (Wilson, 2007). One potential reason why teachers fail to implement what they believe is important may be related to Edwin Locke’s (1991) schema of motivation. Motivational factors such as lack of rewords or the existence of barriers could be a contributing factor to why teachers are not carrying out high-quality SAE programs (Wilson, 2007).
Another possible explanation for the decline in SAE participation could be the lack of definition when the SAE programs were transformed from production-based to a wider variety of agricultural aspects. According to Retallick, teachers believe the number of opportunities in their communities is limited (2010). This could be a direct result from lack of knowledge about the new categories of SAE programs (Retallick, 2010). Additionally, most of the student’s SAE programs were found to be within the entrepreneurship and placement SAE categories which only emphasizes the idea of a deficiency in knowledge of the other SAEs.
According to Dyer, new models of SAE concepts need to be designed and implemented to establish common standards and criteria for how the SAE program quality should be measured. Nationally there has not been any research-based, standardized SAE program criteria published by which to determine SAE program quality (Dyer, 1996). An effort to identify and outline the mission of new SAE programs and to assist in combining science-oriented and specialty areas of teaching into SAE programs is warranted nationwide (Dyer, 1996).
The National Research Agenda for the American Association for Agricultural Education correlates the study of participation in SAE programs with examining the role of self-regulation, motivation, metacognition, and reflection in developing meaningful, engaged learning experiences in agricultural education contexts (Lewis, 2012). Through increasing the level of teacher and student SAE knowledge, the agricultural education profession may increase the number of high-quality experimental learning opportunities and SAE participation (Lewis, 2012).
In conclusion, the agricultural education community has worked together to evaluate the growing dilemma of student participation in delivering high-quality SAE programs. Problems with the lack of student and teacher SAE participation include the fall of teacher’s involvement, motivational barriers, insufficient SAE training for teachers, and vagueness of the new SAE programs. Implementing SAE programs is a priority for school-based agricultural education programs and increasing participation is an important
References:
Boone, Harry, et al. “Supervised Occupational Experience Programs: History, Philosophy,
Current Status, And Future Implications.” Journal of Agricultural Education, vol. 28, no. 4, Jan. 1987, pp. 27–64., doi:10.5032/jaatea.1987.04057.
Briers, Gary Edwin. “An experimental evaluation of an instructional packet on supervised
occupational experience programs for beginning vocational agriculture students in Iowa.” (1978).
Croom, Barry. “Development of the Integrated Three-Component Model of Agricultural
Education.” Journal of Agricultural Education, vol. 49, no. 1, Jan. 2008, pp. 110–120., doi:10.5032/jae.2008.01110.
Dyer. “Developing a Model for Supervised Agricultural Experience Program Quality: a
Synthesis of Research.” Journal of Agricultural Education, vol. 37, no. 2, Jan. 1996, pp. 24–33., doi:10.5032/jae.1996.02024.
Dyer, James E., and Edward W. Osborne. “Participation In Supervised Agricultural Experience
Programs: A Synthesis Of Research.” Journal of Agricultural Education, vol. 36, no. 1, 1995, pp. 6–14., doi:10.5032/jae.1995.01006.
French, Rrj. “Factors Contributing To the Emphasis Placed on Supervised Occupational
Experience in Vocational Agriculture Programs in North Carolina.” (1985): 3053-3053.
Harris, David E. Vocational agriculture teacher characteristics and their relationship to
perceptions of SOE importance, attitudes toward supervision, and quality of supervised occupational experience programs. Diss. The Ohio State University, 1983.
References Continued:
Lewis, Lauren J., John Rayfield, and Lori L. Moore. “Supervised Agricultural Experience: An
Examination of Student Knowledge and Participation.” Journal of Agricultural Education 53.4 (2012).
Miller, Texton R. “The changing status of supervised occupational experience in vocational
agriculture in North Carolina.” Journal American Association of Teacher Educators in Agriculture (1980).
Miller, W. Wade, Alan A. Kahler, and Keith Rheault. “Profile of the effective vocational
agriculture teacher.” Journal of agricultural education 30.2 (1989): 33-40.
Osborne, Edward W. “SOE Programs in Illinois—teacher philosophies and program
characteristics.” The Journal of the American Association of Teacher Educators in Agriculture 29.3 (1988): 35-42.
Pfister, Jill A. An evaluation of the student teaching program in agricultural education at The
Ohio State University regarding student teaching experiences and assignments and the performance of university supervisors and cooperating teachers. Diss. The Ohio State University, 1983.
Phipps, Lloyd J., and Edward W. Osborne. “Handbook on agricultural education in public
schools . Danville, IL: The Interstate Printers and Publishers.” (1988).
Retallick, Michael S. “Implementation of supervised agricultural experience programs: The
agriculture teachers’ perspective.” Journal of Agricultural Education 51.4 (2010): 59.
References Continued:
Warren, Ricky J., and Jim Flowers. “The Relationship Between North Carolina Secondary
Agriculture Teachers Use Of Time Management Practices And the Quality Of The Supervised Agricultural Experience Program Component.” Journal of Agricultural Education, vol. 34, no. 3, 1993, pp. 68–75., doi:10.5032/jae.1993.03068.
Wilson, Elizabeth B., and Gary E. Moore. “Exploring the Paradox of Supervised Agricultural
Experience Programs in Agricultural Education.” Journal of Agricultural Education 48.4 (2007): 82-92.