NEW DIRECTIONS FOR AGRICULTURE EDUCATION IN MONTANA AND NORTH DAKOTA by Dale Ray Carpentier A professional paper submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Agricultural Education MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY Bozeman, Montana August 1989 APPROVAL of a professional paper submitted by Dale Ray Carpentier This professional paper has been read by each member of the graduate committee and has been found to be satisfactory regarding content, English usage, format, citations, bibliographic style, and consistency, and is ready for submission to the College of Graduate Studies. Date l/n±8± C Committee Approved for the Major Department Dat Head,'MajortDepartment Approved for the College of Graduate Studies Date Graduate DeSh iii STATEMENT OF PERMISSION TO USE In presenting this professional paper in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a master's degree at Montana State University, I agree that the Library shall make it available to borrowers under rules of the Library. Brief quotations from this paper are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgement of source is made. Permission for extensive quotation from or reproduction of this paper may be granted by my major professor or, in his absence, by the Dean of Libraries when, in the opinion of either, the proposed use of the material is for scholarly purposes. Any copying or use of the material in this paper for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Signati Date ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The researcher wishes to express his sincere gratitude and appreci¬ ation to the following individuals whose contributions have made his graduate program educational and meaningful and who provided assistance in the development and completion of this study: Dr. Douglas Bishop, my major advisor, for his sincere support and assistance with this study and my entire graduate program; Dr. Van Shelhamer and Dr. Robert Fellenz, for their guidance and encouragement throughout my master's program; Dr. Max Amberson, Department Head, for his interest and support during my master's program; Dr. Richard Lund, for his assistance with the statis¬ tical analysis of data; Mr. Joel Janke and Mr. Leonard Lombardi, for their interest and support of this study. I wish to acknowledge my typist, Judy Harrison, for her assistance and professionalism in the final preparation of the research. Finally, special thanks to my wife, Connie, for her love and understanding throughout my graduate program. V TABLE OF CONTENTS Page APPROVAL ii STATEMENT OF PERMISSION TO USE iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ....... v LIST OF TABLES ........... vii ABSTRACT ................... viii CHAPTER: 1. THE PROBLEM AND ITS SETTING 1 Introduction . 1 Statement of the Problem 2 Statement of Need 2 Objectives 5 Assumptions 5 Limitations 5 Definition of Terms 6 Methodology . 6 Population Description ............. 6 Instrument Design 7 Data Collection 11 Data Analysis . ..... 13 2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ........ 16 The Development of Curriculum in Agriculture Education ............. 16 Recent Developments in Agriculture Development . . 20 Planning for Curriculum Change in Montana and North Dakota 24 Importance of Instructors in the Curriculum Change Process . . 25 Importance of Students in the Curriculum Change Process . . 25 Importance of Administrators in the Curric¬ ulum Change Process .... 26 vi TABLE OF CONTENTS-Continued Page The New Vision for Agriculture Education 27 3. RESULTS OF THE STUDY • 28 Demographic Data 28 Vocational Agriculture Instructors 28 Vocational Agriculture Students . 31 School Administrators . 33 Reaction to Current and Future Instruc¬ tional Time .......... 35 Relative Importance of the Identified Curriculum Areas / 40 Group Reactions to Questions Concerning Agriculture Education and the FFA ....... 45 4. CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUMMARY 50 Conclusions 50 Implications 51 Recommendations 52 Recommendations for Program Improvement .... 52 Recommendations for Further Study 53 Summary .54 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . 55 APPENDICES: A. School Administrator Instruction Letter and Questionnaire ....... 60 B. Vocational Agriculture Student Instruction Letter and Questionnaire 73 C. Vocational Agriculture Instructor Instruc¬ tion Letter and Questionnaire ............ 86 D. Survey Cover Letters 99 E. Follow-up Letter 103 F. Percent of Time Instructors Devoted to Other Curriculum Areas Not Identified in the Questionnaire 105 vii LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Number of surveys sent and number returned with response percentages for vocational agriculture instructors, students, and administrators in Montana and North Dakota 13 2. Level of experience, program enrollment by grade level, and total department size for Montana and North Dakota vocational agri- - culture instructors 29 3. Grade level, FFA membership, sex, and place of residence for Montana and North Dakota vocational agriculture students 32 4. Position, level of experience, and average school size for Montana and North Dakota school administrators ....... 34 5. Reactions of vocational agriculture students and school administrators to the time cur¬ rently devoted to selected instructional areas in vocational agriculture and changes needed in three years as perceived by voca¬ tional agriculture teachers, students, and school administrators 36 6. Relative importance of selected curriculum areas as determined from respondents' ranking of identified competencies 41 7. Reaction to National Research Council recommendations for change in agriculture education and the FFA as perceived by vocational agriculture teachers, students, and school administrators 46 8. Percent of time instructors devoted to other curriculum areas not identified in the questionnaire ................. 106 viii ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to determine how vocational agricul¬ ture instructors, high school students, and school administrators from different sized communities perceive the recommendations for vocational agriculture programs proposed by the 1988 study of the National Research Council. Data for this study were gathered by a mailed questionnaire sent to all secondary schools in Montana and North Dakota with vocational agri¬ culture programs. Usable responses were received from 36 instructors, 157 students, and 25 administrators in Montana and 44 instructors, 221 students, and 37 administrators in North Dakota. Data were gathered in four areas: (1) reaction to the present amount of time devoted to nine identified curriculum areas, (2) perception of the amount of time that should be devoted to those areas in three years, (3) relative importance of the identified curriculum areas, and (4) reactions to 10 recommenda¬ tions gleaned from the 1988 National Research Council study. Means were analyzed using the t-test at the .05 level of signifi¬ cance. Real limits were established and notable differences were utilized for interpreting some data. Analysis of the data revealed the present vocational agriculture curriculum in Montana and North Dakota is composed primarily of five curriculum areas: agriculture mechanics, animal production, agribusi¬ ness, crop and food production, and the FFA. The four areas that received considerably less time were high technology, horticulture, global agriculture, and forestry and natural resources. Students and administrators in both states indicated the time allotted to high technology and global agriculture was inadequate. Instructors, students, and administrators in both states felt that three years from now, instructional time for agribusiness, high technology, and global agricul¬ ture should be increased. The nine curriculum areas were considered "important," with the exception being horticulture which was classified "somewhat important." The data indicate all groups expressed different levels of agreement with the National Research Council recommendations. The FFA was one exception, however. All groups disagreed with changing the name of the FFA, its symbols, and its ceremonies. From the data it can be concluded that, for the most part, instruc¬ tors, students, and administrators support the findings of the 1988 National Research Council study. 1 CHAPTER 1 THE PROBLEM AND ITS SETTING Introduction Vocational agriculture in America has undergone continuous change since its inception. The main reason for this change has been the changing technology in the field of agriculture. However, in the last 25 years we have seen more changes in the vocational agriculture program than during all the previous years. The admission of females into the program and the broadening of the scope of the program to include more than production agriculture have been two of the most significant changes. Once again we are on the verge of a monumental change in vocational agriculture. Statistics show the number of students enrolled in voca¬ tional agriculture has declined all across the United States. This decline has caused great concern among national leaders. In 1985, at the request of the U.S. Secretaries of Agriculture and Education, the National Research Council established the Committee on Agricultural Education in Secondary Schools to examine the vocational agriculture program and determine its effectiveness nationally and internationally. In the fall of 1988, the National Research Council published the results of the Committee's study. Several recommendations were made by the Committee which it believed should be implemented to revitalize vocational agricul¬ ture and the Future Farmers of America (FFA). 2 Statement of the Problem The purpose of this study was to determine how vocational agriculture instructors, high school students, and school administrators among different sized communities perceive the recommendations for vocational agriculture proposed by the National Research Council's 1988 study. Statement of Need The National Research Council's 1988 study of agriculture education \ in secondary schools recommended several changes in vocational agriculture programs. The results of the study are summarized in the following quotation. "The committee's findings point to two basic challenges: first, agriculture education must become more than vocational agriculture. Second, major revisions are needed within vocational agriculture" (National Research Council, 1988, p. 1). In other words, the members of the Council recommended making vocational agriculture programs relevant to the current agricultural situation, and to provide all students with an agricultural education or to make them agriculturally literate. Much research has been conducted in the last few years to substan¬ tiate these findings. The Farm Foundation (1989) conducted a study of ACT-tested high school students to determine their perceptions of agricul¬ tural college majors and careers. A nationwide, random sample from over one million juniors and seniors who completed the ACT assessment during the 1987-88 academic school year was selected. Respondents were classified according to their intended major in college, agriculture or non-agriculture. A third category consisted of those students who 3 originally intended to major in agriculture but later changed to a non¬ agriculture major. The conclusions drawn from this study demonstrate the need for increased emphasis on agricultural literacy: The majority of students in the non-agriculture group had limited awareness of agriculture colleges, agricul¬ ture majors, and agriculture careers; most of what these students did know appeared to have come from media sources, particularly television. In addition, most of the students in all three respondent groups appeared to have many misperceptions about agriculture-related careers and majors. Because most respondents developed an interest in specific careers and college majors prior to their senior year in high school, efforts to combat misperceptions about agriculture-related careers and majors should be targeted to students while in their junior year of high school or earlier. (Farm Founda¬ tion, 1989, p. ii) In another study of sophomore and junior high school students con¬ ducted in Idaho, the following conclusions were offered: Students in the population represented by the sample of this study have a pervasively negative opinion of pursu¬ ing a career in agriculture. If only 22 percent of the students have a positive opinion of pursuing a career in agriculture, the potential pool of future agriculturists is inadequate. It would seem the students are express¬ ing an opinion of pursuing a career in farming and ranching; this conclusion is based on what the students perceive the industry of agriculture to be. (Orthel, Sorensen, Lierman, & Riesenberg, 1989, p. 40) One question comes to mind: Why do students have such a limited knowledge about careers in agriculture? This question could have many answers. One possible answer is the fact that most Americans, students and adults, know very little about agriculture because there are no classes teaching agriculture other than vocational agriculture. The National Research Council (1988) study stated, "The majority of American children enter school knowing little about agriculture and leave after high school graduation only slightly better informed" (p. 9). 4 Another possible answer could be that vocational agriculture instruc¬ tors prefer teaching production-oriented classes. A study conducted in Louisiana (Kotrlik & Drueckhammer, 1987) concluded, "In general, teachers support the continuation of program components that have existed histor¬ ically rather than those that have been introduced in the relatively recent past" (p. 31). The National Research Council (1988) study stated, "In 1986, 40.7 percent of vocational agriculture teachers in secondary schools taught full-time in production agriculture programs. . . ." (p. 32). These findings cause one to ask the question: Why are so many instructors reluctant or slow to change their programs? Is it because they perceive themselves teaching what the students and community want, or is it because they have made the determination of what their students and community need and want? The researcher is concerned with how vocational agriculture instruc¬ tors, students, and school administrators among the different-sized communities in Montana and North Dakota perceive their current program and what changes in curriculum emphasis should be made in the future. Once the attitudes of the three groups have been determined, plans can be made for the future. The results of this study will enable state depart¬ ments of vocational agriculture in Montana and North Dakota to plan for program changes. This study will also be beneficial in planning for curriculum development and for colleges preparing vocational agriculture instructors. 5 Objectives In order to accomplish the purpose of this study, the following specific objectives were developed. These objectives are: (1) Determine the attitudes of vocational agriculture instructors, high school students, and school superintendents toward the recommenda- ' tions proposed by the 1988 National Research Council study. (2) Determine the inclination of vocational agriculture instructors to make changes in their programs to implement the Council's recommenda¬ tions. (3) Determine the inclination of students to support a program which follows the Council's recommendations. (4) Determine the inclination of school administrators to support the Council's recommendations. (5) Determine if the size and location of the community has an effect on > the individual's perceptions toward the Council's recommendations. Assumptions (1) It is recognized that course content is not the sole reason for declining enrollments in vocational agriculture. (2) It is assumed that some programs in vocational agriculture are already in compliance with many of the recommendations. Limitations The investigator is cognizant of the following limitation to this study: The population of this study was limited to schools in Montana and North Dakota which have vocational agriculture programs. 6 Definition of Terms (1) Agriculture literacy: Understanding the food and fiber system to include its history and current economic, social, and environmental significance to all Americans. This definition encompasses some knowledge of food and fiber production, processing, and domestic and international marketing. Essentially, it is the goal of education about agriculture. (2) Rural student: A student whose parents earn more than 50 percent of their income from farming or ranching. (3) Urban student: A student whose parents earn more than 50 percent of their income from non-farm or non-ranch activities. (4) Vocational agriculture: An area of the high school curriculum which was established by the Smith-Hughes Act of 1917, and consists of three elements, namely, organized instruction, supervised occupa¬ tional experience, and FFA activities. The primary purpose of the Act was to prepare students for careers in farming or ranching. Vocational agriculture is education in agriculture. Methodology For this study, which would be classified as descriptive or survey research, the researcher determined a mailed questionnaire would be the most effective in time and economy. Rooulation Description The population for this study consisted of all the secondary schools in Montana and North Dakota with vocational agriculture programs. In 7 Montana there were 71 departments with 75 instructors, 71 administrators, and 568 students included in the study. In North Dakota there were 83 departments with 83 instructors, 82 administrators, and 656 students. The researcher wrote letters to the State Supervisors for Vocational Agriculture/Agribusiness, Leonard Lombardi in Montana and Joel Janke in North Dakota, and received permission to survey the vocational agricul¬ ture departments in each state. The names and addresses of the vocational agriculture instructors in Montana were obtained from the directory located in the Department of Agricultural and Technology Education at Montana State University. The names and addresses of the North Dakota instructors were obtained from the State Supervisor, Joel Janke. Instrument Design A list of competencies was developed for several curriculum areas to determine the perceptions of vocational agriculture instructors, students, and administrators to the various curriculum areas. The current and recommended curriculum areas were identified from the Montana Vocational Agriculture Core Curriculum, the 1988 National Research Council report, and from the researcher's experience as a vocational agriculture instructor for 16 years. The competencies listed under each curriculum area were obtained from the three sources mentioned above and were refined and clarified with the help of staff members in the Depart¬ ment of Agriculture and Technology Education at Montana State University. The curriculum areas identified and used for this study were: (1) Agribusiness (2) Agriculture Mechanics 8 (3) Animal Production (4) Crop and Food Production (5) Forestry and Natural Resources (6) Global Agriculture (7) High Technology (8) Horticulture (9) Youth Organizations (FFA) Respondents were asked to indicate how important they felt the skill or experience listed would be when preparing for a career in agriculture. A Likert-type scale was utilized with responses ranging from one (1) to five (5). One (1) indicated the skill or experience was considered "not important" and five (5) indicated "very important." To prevent forced responses, a response variable was included to indicate "no opinion." By using the mean scores for the competencies, a grand mean could be calcu¬ lated for the curriculum area. This grand mean was used for evaluating the relative importance the respondents placed on the various curriculum areas. To determine the inclination of the three groups to support a program which implemented the recommendations of the National Research Council (1988) report [Understanding Agriculture: New Directions for Education, prepared by the Council's Committee on Agriculture Education in Secondary Schools), the list of curriculum areas was presented and respondents were to indicate the percent of time they felt should be devoted to instruction in the various areas each year. Another part of the instrument consisted of 10 questions about agriculture education and the FFA. These questions were actually recom¬ mendations gleaned from the National Research Council report. The 9 respondents were asked to use a Likert-type, five-point scale to indicate the degree to which they would agree or disagree with the recommenda¬ tions. A score of one (1) indicated the respondent strongly disagreed and a score of five (5) indicated strong agreement. Once again, a response variable was provided to indicate "no opinion." The final portion of the questionnaire requested demographic informa¬ tion which would be used for the analysis of data. The demographic data for each group were different and were used to describe the general characteristics of that group. The finished questionnaire consisted of a letter containing instruc¬ tions for completing the instrument and nine pages of questions. The instrument was reduced to 74 percent of its original size and put in booklet form with a front cover and back page. The back page contained the return address and the postage-paid return mailer permit. The complete questionnaire included three pages printed on both sides and folded in half. To facilitate sorting, the questionnaire was printed in three separate colors, one for each of the population segments (instruc¬ tors, students, and administrators). To improve the readability and clarity of the instrument, it was field tested at three schools in Montana: Belgrade, Livingston, and Clyde Park. The vocational agriculture instructor at each school was telephoned in advance to verify his willingness to assist. On March 3, 1989, the researcher personally delivered a packet of questionnaires to each instructor. Each packet contained one questionnaire and cover letter for an administrator, eight questionnaires and eight cover letters for students, and one questionnaire and cover letter for the instructor. 10 The cover letter to the instructors asked them to distribute one ques¬ tionnaire to an administrator and randomly select eight students, two students from each grade level, with one being a rural student and one an urban student. The cover letters for each instrument provided a brief explanation of the study and requested their assistance in gathering the data. Also included with each questionnaire was an evaluation form for each respondent to complete concerning the readability and clarity of the instrument and for recommendations to improve the instrument. Each instrument was pre-addressed and stamped so respondents needed only to staple or tape the questionnaire shut and put it in the mail. The questionnaires were to be returned by March 13, 1989. Because of a low return rate, the researcher made a follow-up phone call to two depart¬ ments. Once a satisfactory number of questionnaires was returned, a thank-you note was sent to all three schools. Also assisting in the validation process were Leonard Lombardi, Joel Janke, Dr. C. Van Shelhamer, and Dr. Douglas Bishop. Mr. Lombardi and Mr. Janke provided feedback through a personal conversation and by letter, respectively. On March 22, 1989, the researcher and his graduate committee, Dr. Bishop, Dr. Shelhamer, and Dr. Robert Fellenz, met to discuss the results of the field test and validation process and to revise the questionnaire as needed. After reviewing the comments made by the initial respondents, it was decided a different method should be used to measure the willingness of the groups to support a program which follows the National Research 11 Council recommendations. The consensus was that two questions should be added to the end of each curriculum area for administrators and students. The first question would allow the respondents to indicate if they felt the amount of time currently devoted to that curriculum area was inadequate, adequate, or excessive; The second question would ask the respondents to indicate if, three years from now, the amount of time devoted to that area should be increased, remain the same, or be decreased. To provide a bench mark from which to measure these responses, the instrument completed by the instructors contained a section which listed the nine identified curriculum areas. Instructors were asked to indicate the percent of their total program currently devoted to each area. They were also asked to indicate if they felt this amount of time would increase, remain the same, or decrease three years from now. A revised questionnaire was prepared and approved by the committee members. The administrator's questionnaire (Appendix A), the student's questionnaire (Appendix B), and the instructor's questionnaire (Appendix C) were color coded and numbered to facilitate identification and sorting. Data Collection On April 4, 1989, packets containing 10 questionnaires and cover letters (Appendix D) were mailed to all of the vocational agriculture departments in Montana (excluding the three departments which participat¬ ed in the field test) and North Dakota. The instructors were to select one administrator who was familiar with the local program and eight randomly chosen students, two from each grade level, with one student 12 being classified rural and the other urban. The other instrument was for the instructor. In situations where more than one instructor worked in the department, questionnaires were included for each instructor. In North Dakota, five instructors taught at two schools. In this circum¬ stance, the instructor filled out one questionnaire, but each school received a packet with surveys for students and administrators. All respondents were to return their questionnaires by May 15, 1989. On April 25, 1989, a follow-up letter (Appendix E) was sent to all departments which had returned less than five questionnaires. Responses received on or after May 1, 1989, were coded to determine if a signifi¬ cant difference existed between early and late responders. In view of the fact that the deadline for returning the question¬ naires was May 15, 1989, and many schools would be dismissing for the summer the following week, a second follow-up letter was not sent. On April 10, 1989, the researcher was notified by the Post Office at Montana State University that the wrong postage-paid return mailer permit had been used. At one point, postal officials proposed throwing away all of the questionnaires as they were returned. They finally agreed to deliver the questionnaires and charge the department the normal fee for prepaid postage. Several instructors with whom the researcher spoke indicated their local Post Office would not accept and mail the question¬ naires unless a first-class stamp was affixed. There is no doubt in the researcher's mind that this problem contributed to the response rate shown in Table 1. 13 Table 1. Number of surveys sent and number returned with response per¬ centages for vocational agriculture instructors, students, and administrators in Montana and North Dakota. Montana North Dakota Response Group No. Sent No. Returned Percent Returned No. Sent No. Returned Percent Returned Vo-Ag Instructors 72 37 51.4 83 50 60.2 Students 544 198 36.4 656 314 47.9 Administrators 67 25 37.3 82 37 45.1 Data Analysis The computer program MSUSTAT: Statistical Analysis Package (Lund, 1988) was used for all data files and analysis. A grand mean in each curriculum area was calculated using the means of the competencies. Respondents who indicated "no opinion" for their response were not included when tabulating the grand means. The grand means were used for comparing the three groups of respondents, early and late responders, and the size of the community in which the respondents lived. All variables were analyzed to determine significance at the .05 level utilizing a multiple comparison method. This method, according to Lund (1988), "provides means and mean differences for all possible pairs, ordinary t-statistics and P-values, and Q-statistics applicable to a table of student!zed ranges" (p. 4-34). This method was used because of the unequal replication in the samples. Lund (1988) goes on to explain, "The Satterwaite procedure is used to determine degrees of freedom for the t-test in this latter instance" (p. 4-34). The data obtained from the analysis of the variables were used to develop the tables for this study. 14 Because of the variation in cell sizes, statistically significant differences had little or no practical or meaningful significance. This was especially true when respondents were divided into the three community-size categories. For this reason, all of the information was pooled and observations were made using the pooled data. The pooled data were analyzed to determine if any significant differences existed within the groups in each state, and then each group mean was compared to the corresponding group mean from the other state. Significant differences are noted in the tables. To help the researcher interpret the data, real limits were estab¬ lished and included with Table 5 and Table 6. "These limits are usually taken as one-half unit above and below the value reported" (Ferguson, 1981, p. 21). This procedure was used for defining the real limits in Table 6. Because of the small range of numbers used in Table 5 (1 through 3), real limits were established to form three equal sized ranges. By utilizing real limits as well as statistical significance, one is able to view the data from the perspective of being "statis¬ tically" and/or "practically" significant. Wolpert (1984) discussed the difference between statistical and practical significance and pointed out that it is possible to have findings that are statistically significant but which have no practical significance. Yost (1988) also pointed out the need to distinguish between statistically significant differences and meaningful differences. A similar opinion was expressed by Key (1989) when he suggested the use of "notable" differences for certain situations. 15 As with the statistical significance level, the param¬ eter notable level is simply a way the researcher tells the reader this is the magnitude of difference required to ultimately consider these means different for the populations being tested. As with statistics, the reader may disagree with the researcher and establish a different notable level for their hypothesis testing. (p. 8) Throughout the rest of this paper, differences which are deemed "practical" or "meaningful" will be referred to as "notable" differences. The following scales of real limits were developed for ascertaining notable differences in Table 5. In reference to the percent of time currently devoted to curriculum areas and the perceptions of students and administrators to that time, the following scale is used: 1.00 - 1.66 = excessive, 1.67 - 2.33 = adequate, and 2.34 - 3.00 = inadequate. Also in Table 5, the reaction of teachers, students, and administrators to the perceived changes to time devoted to the curriculum areas three years in the future utilizes the following scale: 1.00 - 1.66 = increase instruc¬ tional time, 1.67 - 2.33 = remain the same, and 2.34 - 3.00 = decrease instructional time. To determine notable differences in Table 6 for the relative importance of the selected curriculum areas, the following scale is used: 1.00 - 1.49 = not important, 1.50 - 2.49 = useful but not important, 2.50 - 3.49 = somewhat important, 3.50 - 4.49 = important, and 4.50 = 5.00 = very important. The researcher realizes this approach is unusual and is not suited for all research studies; however, because of the descriptive nature of this study, this is one situation where it is appropriate. 16 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE The first school in America was an agricultural school. The students were a motley crew of men, women, and children who had survived their first winter after landing at Plymouth. Their teacher was an Indian, Squanto, who had agreed to teach them how to grow an indigenous crop -- corn. He taught them how to fertil¬ ize each hill with fish caught in a nearby stream. (Swanson, 1980, p. 5) The Development of Curriculum in Agriculture Education Agriculture has come a long way since these humble beginnings. Indeed, it has prospered and grown into a burgeoning national industry. Swanson (1980) provided one explanation for this growth. He stated, "Much of the early history of agriculture is the history of fear for food shortages and famine" (p. 5). Although this fear is not as serious as it once was in the United States, there are still food shortages and famine in the world today. This fact and the importance of agriculture in our economy make agriculture as important now as it was in the past. Just as agriculture has changed, so has education about agriculture. According to the National Research Council (1988) study, "Agriculture was first taught formally in the United States in Georgia in 1733" (p. 54). Several schools across the nation were offering classes in agriculture education based on the free market model. Amberson (1989), in describing this model, wrote, "The free market model, pre-Smith-Hughes, suggested 17 that it (a) must be based on identified needs, and (b) consumers must be willing to pay a competitive price for the service" (p. 5). In 1917, Congress passed the Smith-Hughes Act which "established a federally funded vocational education program that included very specific provisions for agriculture education" (National Research Council, 1988, p. 56). The purpose of the Smith-Hughes Act was to prepare high school students for a profession in production agriculture. As time passed, there was less need for production agriculturalists, but the demand for agribusiness personnel grew. To meet this demand, Congress passed the Vocational Education Act (P.L. No. 88-210) in 1963, which reshaped vocational agriculture to include "off-farm".agriculture as well as other changes. Moore and Borne (1986) published a history of the secondary vocational agriculture curriculum from 1890 to 1980 in which they identified "the Vocational Education Act of 1963 as one of the ten major events in the history of agricultural education" (p. 14). Their article went on to quote W.W. Arnold, Assistant Commissioner for Vocational and Technical Education in the United States Office of Educa¬ tion, who stated, in reference to the 1963 Act, "The greatest need for change will be to revise the instructional program so that it will include other agricultural occupations in addition to farming" (Moore & Borne, 1986, p. 14). This statement sounds like it could have been quoted directly from the 1988 National Research Council study. The need for change is not a new concept for vocational agriculture. Courtney and Coster wrote an article which appeared in the August 1963 issue of The Agricultural Education Magazine; it stressed the need for and importance of modernizing vocational agriculture programs. The 18 authors stated that the purpose of their article was to "develop and advance a rationale for curriculum planning in existing secondary school programs of vocational agriculture designed to accommodate students who eventually may enter agricultural occupations other than farming" (Courtney & Coster, 1963, p. 32). In October 1963, Byram wrote an article for The Agricultural Educa¬ tion Magazine stressing the need to replan programs in vocational agriculture. He quoted Dr. Walter Cocking who stated, "Vocational agriculture will have to adjust its objectives and programs to the dynamic and rapidly changing occupational complex or it will gradually recede or be crowded out by programs that are so adjusted" (Byram, 1963, p. 90). Writing on the same theme, Taft (1968) contended, "The develop¬ ment of vocational programs in city schools with offerings for those engaged in or about to enter an off-farm agricultural occupation is one of the major challenges facing vocational education in agriculture today" (p. 79). Taft made one other statement which is as applicable today as it was in 1968. "The importance of preparing youth and adults for agriculturally related jobs has never before had the urgency the entire nation is facing today" (p. 80). ) Richman (1968) stated, "Agriculture may be more important than has been realized" (p. 18). The National Research Council's 1988 study expresses the same concern today. Richman (1968) explained, "There is also the feeling that no one is presenting information to define the importance of agriculture. The public is aware of the fact but not to the degree" (p. 18). The 1988 National Research Council study echoes the same opinion in one of its findings. "Most Americans know very little 19 about agriculture, its social and economic significance in the United States, and particularly, its links to human health and environmental quality" (p. 8). Stansbury (1987) also alluded to this point in the 1986 Yearbook of Agriculture: Research for Tomorrow when he wrote, "Few people, however, fully understand the breadth and complexity of the U.S. food and agricultural system, nor are they aware of the human capital base underlying this phenomenally successful system" (p. 302). The question that comes to mind is: Why is vocational agriculture in so much turmoil today when our past is filled with prophesies of change? Did vocational agriculture instructors sit back and ignore these recommendations? The literature indicates that vocational agriculture did attempt to change to meet the needs and demands of American agricul¬ ture. By the 1970's vocational agriculture departments across the country were teaching agribusiness as part of the curriculum. A review of back issues of The Agricultural Education Magazine uncovered numerous articles detailing how to implement agribusiness programs and examples of programs at different schools. In retrospect, it appears that on a nationwide basis vocational agriculture has not changed fast enough. The National Research Council (1988) study stated, "In content, the vocational agriculture curriculum has failed to keep up with modern agriculture" (p. 31). Bowen (1987) wrote, "Unfortunately America's education community has been playing a game of catch-up during the 1980s" (p. 3). Vocational agriculture escaped many of the reports that were published demanding educational reform that would allow the United States to once again be on the cutting edge of education in the world. This is probably one of the factors 20 which contributed to our problems today. As Bowen (1987) stated later in his article, "Not playing a prominent role in the reform movement meant that new standards and changes were implemented with little regard for agriculture education" (p. 3). Recent Developments in Agriculture Development In the past, change has been viewed as an event and not a process. This fact could account for lack of success at implementing a meaningful and lasting change. The National Research Council (1988) study concluded, "The success of reform in vocational agriculture programs relies on innovative programmatic leadership at the state and national levels" (p. 4). Pope (1989) described what is being done on the national level. Success in the future will be directly related to the ability of the profession to lead, manage, and execute actions which will effectively and efficiently address new and emerging trends which are prevalent in contemp¬ orary business and society. It is with the goals of increasing effectiveness and efficiency of agricultural education leaders, organizations and groups that the National Council for Vocational and Technical Education in Agriculture (The Council) called for a National Summit on Agricultural Education. The objectives of the Summit were to: (1) Develop a strategic plan for agricultural education which includes the mission, goals, objectives and action plan for aggressively and cooperatively pursuing the improvement of agricultural education programs (kindergarten through adult). (2) Improve the effectiveness of national leaders by providing training in the skills necessary for managing change and exerting leadership in contemp¬ orary times. (3) Lay a foundation for an effective communications marketing plan for agricultural education, (p. 21) 21 To accomplish these objectives, two meetings were to be held, one in February 1989 and the second in May 1989. At the time this research was being prepared, the results of these meetings were not available to the researcher. Although leadership on the national level is certainly important, it must be emphasized that the actual changes recommended by the National Research Council must occur at the local level. Vaughn (1989) addressed this matter when he stated, "Teachers are the ones who are out on the firing line, and they must be listened to before changes are made in local programs" (p. 22). What can be done to revitalize vocational agriculture at the local level? Obviously change is essential. Do all vocational agriculture programs need to change? That is not known, but the answer is probably "yes," with some programs needing more revitalization that others. Vaughn (1989) also suggested we temper our enthusiasm for change with a dose of reality. He wrote, "Though it has not changed as much as perhaps it could, I believe voca¬ tional agriculture has changed more than the National Study Panel gives it credit" (p. 20). To support that statement, Vaughn gave an example of an instructor who teaches a food processing class but still classifies himself as a production agriculture instructor. Vaughn felt the National Research Council study took a pessimistic view of what is happening in agriculture education. He elaborated, "I think a more valid criticism of agriculture education might not be what is taught, but what instruction is called and how well that instruction is publicized" (p. 20). The point Vaughn stressed throughout his article was, "There is a philosophy- reality gap that must be resolved before we can start to implement changes which are needed in agricultural education" (p. 20). 22 Change must be based on a perceived need. It is significant that a need for change is perceived and recommended on the national level, but until local instructors share that need, little or no change will occur. Not only do instructors need to accept the need for change, but the school, students and administration, and the community must also share the vision. Birkenholz (1987) conducted a research study to "assess perceptions of Missouri vocational agriculture teachers regarding factors related to selected curricula adjustments in local programs" (p. 33). The results of his research revealed teachers agreed that greater emphasis should be placed on agribusiness and that programs should be expanded to include agribusiness, horticulture, and agricultural mechanics. Teachers also agreed that program expansion may result in increased student enrollments. What the teachers actually taught was somewhat different, however. According to Birkenholz (1987), These findings appear to support the conclusion that vocational agriculture programs in Missouri were some¬ what traditional in nature and have not deviated signif¬ icantly from the production and mechanics orientation which characterized early programs. The inability of such programs to prepare students for careers in horticulture and forestry should not be viewed as an indictment for poor quality instruction. Vocational agriculture teachers may have conscientiously refrained from providing instruction in those areas in view of local student and community needs, (p. 37) If we assume this study is representative of the attitude of voca¬ tional agriculture instructors in general, then we can also assume that instructors do in fact perceive a need but are reluctant to implement change. Moore (1989) identified a word which describes our reluctance to change, "misoneism -- n: hatred, fear, or intolerance of innovation or change" (p. 6). He also stated that the reason agricultural educators 23 resist change is "primarily because change, the new, or the unknown is frightening" (p. 6). Increased enrollments is one factor which will help instructors overcome their misoneism. According to Luft and Peterson (1989), Dennis Peterson at Devils Lake, North Dakota, was faced with declining enrollments. With the support of his local vocational agriculture advisory committee, Peterson developed two new courses in the vocational agriculture curriculum, Biotechnology and Principles of Technology. Both courses were first taught during the 1987-88 school year and attracted new students into the program. Even after one year, many positive results could be seen. The authors described one such result. "Most important among them was that a dying vocational agriculture program has been revitalized!" (Luft & Peterson, 1989, p. 13). In Texas a similar event occurred, but on a larger scale. In the spring of 1985, a long planning process began and culminated in the development of a "new curriculum based on skills needed today" (Domangue, 1989, p. 10). Twenty-three one-semester courses were developed special¬ izing or focusing on one topic. Domangue wrote, "With courses offering one main topic, requiring no prerequisites and committing the student for only half a year, students can sign up for what interests them and not have to suffer through other material that doesn't" (p. 10). Even the largest programs in Texas could not implement all of the 23 courses, so the locus of control was retained in the local departments. Each depart¬ ment decided which courses would be offered and, in some cases, students were involved in the selection process. The results of implementing the new curriculum were amazing. According to Domangue (1989), 24 The number of students enrolled in agriculture classes has soared to 60,673 statewide, up twenty-nine percent from the year before, based on December figures. The number went up even though '87 figures included junior high students; this year, seventh and eighth grade agriculture courses were dropped." (p. 10) From these two examples it seems apparent that a change in curriculum could result in increased enrollments. Much is already being done to implement change, and this belief is supported by research conducted by Communicating for Agriculture, Inc. (1988). According to their study, "Of the respondents, 90 percent said FFA and vo-ag programs are changing to adapt to student interests and needs, but only 52 percent said the changes are adequate" (p. 59). Planning for Curriculum Change in Montana and North Dakota When planning a change, it is important to know how much is needed because the amount and scope will affect the strategy for implementing change. One of the goals of this research project was to determine the amount of change necessary in Montana and North Dakota vocational agri¬ culture departments. Concisely stated, the researcher is conducting a "needs assessment" of the statewide vocational agriculture curriculum in Montana and North Dakota. Staller (1988) wrote, "Find a need and then fill that need" (p. 5). But what is a need? Is it just a want or desire, as many people believe? According to English (1987), "A 'need' in the context of a discussion about curriculum management refers to a specific gap between a future desired condition and the actual existing condition in one or more of five possible organizational states" (p. 46). 25 English identified the five states as inputs, processes, products, outputs, and outcomes. To discover the gap between existing conditions and future desired conditions, the researcher felt it was necessary to survey instructors, students, and school administrators. All three groups are essential for implementing a meaningful and lasting process of change. Importance of Instructors in the Curriculum Change Process English (1987) stated, "Teachers are both the means to attain a curricular breakthrough and one of the major obstacles in attaining one" (p. 17). It is important to determine the opinions and concerns of the instructors implementing the changes and then alleviate the negative concerns. Hall and Hord (1987) acknowledged this issue when they wrote, "In the end, many 'good' innovations can be lost due to inadequately addressing or assisting teachers in resolving personal concerns" (p. 72). Until the teachers accept the need for change, it is doubtful that any real changes will occur. Importance of Students in the Curriculum Change Process Students are the clients who will eventually accept or reject the proposed changes to the vocational agriculture curriculum. By identify¬ ing their wants and perceptions, their willingness to accept change can be determined. If the students want a production-oriented curriculum, should the recommendations of the National Research Council study be ignored? Probably not. It will be necessary for local instructors to 26 implement a change process within their community to establish a need for a non-production oriented curriculum and demonstrate how students can benefit from such a curriculum. If students are already receptive to change, the instructor can implement curriculum changes much more quickly, but instructors should still consider the concerns and needs of the students. The success of the overhauled Texas agriculture curriculum would suggest that students are ready for change, but that fact cannot be taken for granted. It was that philosophy that prompted the researcher to include students in this study. Importance of Administrators in the Curriculum Change Process The researcher felt administrators should be included in this study because they must ultimately approve major changes in the local curriculums. Hall and Hord (1987) acknowledged the importance of prin¬ cipals in schools when they wrote, "Throughout our years of research and experience, we have never seen a situation in which the principal was not a significant factor in the efforts of schools to improve" (p. 1). Vocational agriculture cannot afford to construct barriers to change by omitting school administrators from the change process, on either the local or the state levels. Hall and Hord further emphasized the import¬ ance of school principals. "When teachers perceived that the principal liked a project and that the subject had the principal's active support, the project fared very well" (p. 39). In small communities the support of the superintendent would be equally as important as that of the principal and should not be overlooked. The National Research Council (1988) study also recognized the importance of school administrators, 27 stating, "The committee emphasizes that strong programs are the result of strong teachers and support from principals and school district admin¬ istrators" (p. 33). Although the rationale has been offered for including teachers, students, and administrators in this study, there are some who may still question the need for inclusion of students and administrators. Staller (1988) summed up the need for their inclusion by stating, "Successful teachers don't teach what they like -- rather what their customers want. Your program is student, parent, administrator driven -- not teacher driven" (p. 7). Once the wants of the customers are known, action can be taken at the state and local levels to implement lasting and meaningful changes in the curriculum in the two states. The New Vision for Agriculture Education The vision suggested by Moore (1989) for the future of vocational agriculture is one all instructors should share. He wrote, "If agricul¬ ture education is to grow, it will need to change. The profession has already been through many changes that have been positive. There is no reason to believe the next wave of change will not also be positive" (P- 6). 28 CHAPTER 3 RESULTS OF THE STUDY The results of this study are presented in four sections: (1) demo¬ graphic data, (2) the reaction to current and future instructional time, (3) the relative importance the three groups placed on the identified curriculum areas, and (4) the reactions to 10 general questions concerning agriculture education and the Future Farmers of America (FFA). Demographic Data Vocational Agriculture Instructors A total of 72 Montana vocational agriculture instructors were sent survey instruments. Of the 72 instruments sent, 37 were returned. However, some instruments were only partially completed; thus not all the totals will equal 37. A review of the data presented in Table 2 shows that 22 (61%) of the Montana respondents were from communities with a population less than 1000 people. Instructors from communities ranging in size from 1001 to 5000 returned 12 (33%) of the surveys, and commun¬ ities greater than 5000 persons had 2 (6%) respondents. As can be observed from Table 2, the largest number of Montana instructors (15, or 42%) are in the zero-to-five year range of experience. As the years of experience increase, the number of instructors drops dramatically. T ab le 2. Le ve l o f e x pe ri en ce , pr og ra m en ro llm en t by gr ad e le ve l, an d to ta l de pa rt m en t s iz e fo r M on ta na an d N or th D ak ot a v o c a tio na l a gr ic ul tu re in st ru ct or s. 29 CO CM O O CO rn CM 00 i r—1 CM CM ro CM CM r-H i CO 00 O 00 o co lO i—I CO CM 1 1 • • • • . Z l l ^a- CM oo oo f-H t-H •«a- •K CO CO O) CM oo r— o o co co co in i CO •1“ in CO co 00 CM CM CM CM i II ■»-> z CM c r-*. m CM r-H 3 CO oo in co i .... . <0 z CM i in in co in o +-> t-H t-H l-H r-H CO o o o OJ 55 oo »—i o o O rtf* rtf CM 1 o CO ^ CO r—1 CM ro CM CM CM • r—H in t-H I-H CM o» s- in 00 in r—» 1 r—4 • • • • . o Z i-H 1 I-H oo oo oo l-H co 55 i CTO O O O I—• oo in co HJ- i i CO CO CM r-H CM CM CM CM i '<0 4-> r-H r>* CO fHi l-H o r,s» co CTO i in • • • • . 1— Z r-H »-H 1 ^ CM l-H t-H o r-H r-H t-H t-H in CO O CM O O O O fr- O CO i 55 CO f-H CO CM i CO =*= o in o in o CM 1 I—1 1 1 r-H .... . Z 1 1 1 CT> O CT> rtf- CO t-H rH t-H r-H co * co O) CO o o o o 00 r-H in CO i 55 CO CM in o CM CM CM CM i +-> f-H CSJ •f— CM c . oo in oi co 00 n 3 CM I CO •—( • • • • • E Z t—i 1 CM O t-H CM ' E t-H t-H ^H r-H o CO o c 55 CO 00 o o o co o» in co ■ CO CO r^. oo in CO t-H CM CM i +-> c r—i o CO O CH. o o Z CM t-H r^. co • ^H • • • • • Z CM r-H 1 o co r*- rH t-H CO 1 CM CM r-H 00 o o in in 1 55 1 •St’ CM i-H *-H CO CM CM CM 1 +J CO CT> 00 *tf* O CO in oo co co .... • 1— CO l-H t-H f-* CT» CT> 00 t-H CO • • CD >0 U JQ •• c CD CD 4-» OO - N CO ■r— C > -r- O) s- CD fO 00 •I— CD 00 00 E-—' s. Q. oos-s- 4-> o CO X oo S_ ro na 00 r— f— Q. o> UJ S-fCJCDCUS- O CD O t-H CM CD O) c (O (D >> >> CO J- > CT> t-H t-H r-H Q +-> CD c«- CD >> CD 3 CD CO •o o >> in o >> LU __l CD 0) 0) O CO f-H f-H CM 1 OJ O CO CD CD 1— CD CD o s. oe: > CO * #1 = n u m be r o f re sp on de nt s fr om co m m u n iti es w ith a po pu la tio n le ss th an 10 00 ; #2 = n u m be r o f re sp on de nt s fr om co m m u n iti es w ith a po pu la tio n be tw ee n 10 01 an d 50 00 ; #3 = n u m be r o f r es po nd en ts fr om co m m u n iti es w ith a po pu la tio n gr ea te r th an 50 00 . 30 According to Montana instructors responding to the survey, the average number of students enrolled in their schools' vocational agricul¬ ture programs is 38.7. Data arrayed in Table 2 reveal the number of students is greatest for grade 9, drops off at grade 10, and then increases the following year. In summary, the following could be said about the Montana vocational agriculture instructors who responded. On the average, they have nine years of experience, live in a community with a population of less than 5000, and have 38.7 students in their department. A total of 50 North Dakota instructors responded to the survey. Once again, not all the instructors completed all parts of the survey, so the total response numbers may vary. Unlike Montana teachers, 23 (52%) of the respondents in North Dakota were from communities ranging in population from 1001 to 5000. Respondents from communities of less than 1000 population accounted for 15 (34%) of the returns, and instructors from communities in excess of 5000 returned 6 (14%) of the questionnaires. As seen in Table 2, in North Dakota 17 (39%) respondents had five or less years of teaching experience. As with Montana instructors, it was observed that the number of instructors decreased as experience increased. Data displayed in Table 2 show that in North Dakota the average number of students in each department, grades 9 through 12, is 50.1. The number of students per grade level is highest for grade 9 and then gradually declines through grade 12. Another interesting observation is that departments responding in communities with populations greater than 5000 had fewer students in the department than communities with 1001 to 5000 inhabitants. 31 On the average, the instructors from North Dakota who responded have 8.8 years of experience, live in a community with a population of less than 5000, and have 50.1 students in their department. As can be seen in Table 2, vocational agriculture instructors in Montana and North Dakota are very similar from the viewpoint of demographics. Vocational Agriculture Students The approximate number of vocational agriculture students in Montana during the 1988-89 school year was 2800. The actual number of responses from Montana Students was 198; however, some respondents did not complete all sections of the questionnaire. Therefore, the number of usable responses varied for the different sections. Instructors in both states were asked to randomly select four rural and four urban students from each of the four grade levels to participate in the study. This would have resulted in a sample of 50 percent rural and 50 percent urban students, with 25 percent of the respondents in each grade level. The actual responses were somewhat different, however. The data in Table 3 show the largest group of student respondents from Montana were seniors (56, or 36%), followed closely by juniors (51, or 32%). A further review of the data shows that on the average, the student respondents were male (88%), FFA members (81%), rural (64%), and lived in or near a community of less than 5000 people. According to Joel Janke, State Supervisor, there were approximately 3950 vocational agriculture students in North Dakota during the 1988-89 school year. The actual number of students who responded was 314; however, some students did not complete all sections of the survey, resulting in a varied number of responses for the different sections. 32 Table 3. Grade level, FFA membership, sex, and place of residence for Montana and North Dakota vocational agriculture students. Montana (N=544) North Dakota (N=656) Total- Communities* Total _ Communities* Categories N % #1 #2 #3 N % #1 #2 #3 Grade in School: 157 79 56 11 221 M — 82 108 31 Grade 9 19 12 9 5 -- 40 18 16 18 6 Grade 10 31 20 13 15 2 47 21 21 19 7 Grade 11 51 32 23 15 7 61 28 28 27 6 Grade 12 56 36 34 21 2 72 33 17 44 11 FFA Membership: Yes 124 81 59 43 11 202 94 75 99 28 No 30 19 18 12 0 > 13 6 4 9 1 Sex of Respondent: Male 125 88 62 49 9 178 81 61 93 24 Female 17 12 17 7 2 41 19 20 15 6 Place of Residence: Rural 100 64 48 38 7 141 64 58 64 19 Urban 56 36 31 17 4 78 36 24 43 11 *#1 = number of respondents from communities with a population less than 1000; #2 = number of respondents from communities with a population between 1001 and 5000; #3 = number of respondents from communities with a population greater than 5000. From the data in Table 3, the following facts were observed. Gener¬ ally speaking, the respondents from North Dakota were male (81%), FFA members (94%), rural (64%), and lived in or near a community of less than 5000 people. The researcher did note the strong similarity between Montana and North Dakota in the categories of place of residence and sex of the respondent. These facts support the National Research Council (1988) study which stated, "Historically, vocational agriculture has been most attractive to white male students in rural areas" (p. 29). 33 One area where North Dakota appears to differ from the national average is in the percentage of females participating in vocational agriculture programs. Nationally, females account for 15 percent of FFA membership. If we assume the number of female respondents is representa¬ tive of the state population, then North Dakota exceeds the national average. Females accounted for 19 percent of the responses in North Dakota. The data do not permit the researcher to generalize as to the reason for this observation. School Administrators In both states, the vocational agriculture instructors were asked to select a school administrator who was familiar with their program to complete the survey instrument. Sixty-seven Montana administrators received surveys; a total of 25 administrators responded. All of the surveys returned were used for tabulation of the demographic data. As can be seen from the data in Table 4, of the 25 Montana administrators responding, 14 (56%) were principals and 11 (44%) were superintendents. The respondents were evenly disbursed among the years of experience. The average school size for the Montana respondents was 176 students. Eighty-two North Dakota administrators received surveys. The actual number of responses returned was 37. All responses were used for the tabulation of demographic data. A review of data in Table 4 indicates the majority of the North Dakota administrator responses came from principals, 25 (68%), with the remaining 12 (32%) from superintendents. A review of the data indicated that 15 (41%) of the respondents had 21 or more years of experience. The other four years-of-experience categories comprised the remaining 59 34 percent. The average school size represented by the North Dakota adminis¬ trator respondents was 270 students. Table 4. Position, level of experience, and average school size for Montana and North Dakota school administrators. Montana (N=671 North Dakota (N=821 Total Communities* Total Communities* Categories N % #1 #2 #3 N % #1 #2 #3 Position: 25 13 11 1 37 13 18 6 Superintendent 11 44 9 2 0 12 32 6 5 1 Principal 14 56 4 9 1 25 68 7 13 5 Level of Experience: 0-5 years 7 28 4 3 0 3 9 1 2 0 6-10 years 3 12 2 0 1 5 14 1 2 2 11-15 years 4 16 1 3 0 5 14 2 3 0 16-21 years 5 20 3 2 0 8 22 3 5 0 21+ years 6 24 3 3 0 15 41 5 6 4 Average School Size: 176 -- 96 227 650 270 -- 61 186 929 *#1 = number of respondents from communities with a population less than 1000; #2 = number of respondents from communities with a population between 1001 and 5000; #3 = number of respondents from communities with a population greater than 5000. When comparing the class size data presented in Table 2 with the school size data displayed in Table 4, it was observed that 22 percent of the Montana high school population was enrolled in vocational agriculture in the schools represented by the survey. When the same comparison was made for North Dakota, it was determined that 19 percent of the high school population was enrolled in vocational agriculture. When the vocational agriculture enrollment of each state was compared with the national average, it was discovered that both Montana and North Dakota were substantially higher than the national average. According to the 35 National Research Council (1988) study, "Vocational agriculture program enrollment currently is about 4.5 percent of the high school population" (p. 27). This was merely an observation and the data collected do not allow the researcher to generalize any further. Reaction to Current and Future Instructional Time Vocational agriculture instructors were asked to indicate the percent of time they devoted to nine identified curriculum areas for the 1988-89 school year. They were also asked to list other curriculum areas they taught and the percent of time devoted to each area. These responses are included as Table 8 (Appendix F). The present vocational agriculture curriculum in Montana is composed primarily of five curriculum areas, as shown in Table 5. These areas are agriculture mechanics (x = 42.1%), animal production (x = 13.7%), crop and food production (x * 12.0%), agribusiness (x = 11.5%), and the FFA (x = 10.0%). When the percentages for these five areas were summed, it was observed that instruction in these five areas accounted for 89.3 percent of the students' in-class time in vocational agriculture. The other five identified curriculum areas included high technology (x = 4.5%), horticul¬ ture (x = 2.1%), global agriculture (x = 2.0%), forestry and natural resources (x = 1.3%), and other areas not identified (x = 0.8%). These areas were identified by the instructors and are listed in Table 8 (Appendix F). The sum of the percentages for these five areas accounted for only 10.7 percent of the in-class instructional time. Students and administrators were asked to give their perceptions concerning the amount of time currently devoted to each of these subject Ta bl e 5. R ea ct io ns o f v o ca tio na l a gr ic ul tu re st ud en ts an d sc ho ol a dm in ist ra to rs to th e tim e cu rr en tly de vo te d to se le ct ed in st ru ct io na l ar ea s in v o ca tio na l a gr ic ul tu re an d ch an ge s n ee de d in th re e ye ar s as pe rc ei ve d by v o ca tio na l a gr ic ul tu re te ac he rs , st ud en ts , an d sc ho ol a dm in is tr at or s. 36 <0 * X) 0) c ' u «u w JC »- o o o h- U <0 -*-» D 4- w c O -- <0 c x: c o ■M < U *0 XI c «0 XI c <0 a> o 4-» c CO "O C CO E (OOU ■o 4-> — O c O 4-» -M > Q. CO » cu -- r— •— Q. C 0) 3 4J t- £ O C XI E 3 c 3 CO "O CO O cu O CO C _C T3 cu CO 1— CT> 3 92 4. CO 4J E < CO o • to •<- 4-C 4-> oo 4— E c GO 3 0) 4— 0 3 3 U 4-> 4-» •*- lO CU XI C 4. E 0) 0J U 4- •*- -*-> 0 3 0 1— o 4. C_) > 0> cu Q. X <3 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c cvi^tcocnesjoo^i-—CCVJ^-CSJOO'!J-C3>COCDoocooor^r>»'f^*-«-HCO^ti •—1 C r—C *—C C *—I | CM •—C I •—I »—t •—C •—I C *—C 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c4c 4c ^f'.ojior^cocotooto^’ct-tor^ocot^'cf CSI^-iC7)0>CO«-cCMr-(CD>-i0^tO'a-0)CT>tD»-l tnootn'M-^^LDoo^r^co— •-•C\J*HC'J.-<<\J«-C<\l.-*C\l«-l<\J.-CCNJ—C«\Jt-CC\J 4c««« .** • 4C4C4C4C4C4C 4c 4c4c 4c4c4c4c o>^<«*-OTtcoooof^O)Ocnoooootoo t-COCDCOCDCVICMCMODCOOJOLnr^CMtD'J-O <\J incM«-«cocDcocorr>oocM OCMOO^H^HCMM-COOM-mCM-HCOM-CMCO CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMf-CCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM 4c 4c * 4c - 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c «-ccMrooj^-OcD^-cr>^cor>>*r^cncMeoin»i-0) CM *—c •—c *—c •—c *—4 •—c CSJ c O CO CO ■—< •—c CO CO C\J C\J CM CO CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM.-ICT>0>t0.—CCM.—•tO«~iOM-O.J-0>CT><0«-C inCMiOM-M-M’inCMM-M-CO«-ccO»-tU1^tM-«tr •—CCM*—CCM»—CCM«—CCM*—COM*—CCM«—COM.— 0) 0) > (U CO 4-> 3 w co cr CO 3 (U 1 c M— 1 rd O •K 4c 1 +-> a * * * * •K 1 s- o> c cr» o> in rx. in C\J r«* co cvi in in r-i co !->. C\J r-* *3-• +J o c • nj or^ooo»—«o>ooo>o»—«oi— cr> i c o. •f— c 0) re E ^K£ «3-roco'3-^-co^i-co^-^-co^-coco^i-cococo I *1“ C E 1 s- fO -o 1 o >> s- in 1 u +-> 1 II II o c 1 u. g 0) 1 o> o •o 1 M- O c * 1 • • u o * 1 M- in a> Q. ~ * ■X -X 1 > O 1 o o m s- in re co «■"» rx co co I-** co o o i"«. vo CM t-t cr> i"-. ID in i +-> a> in in • » e c z CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO M-CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO ' • • o o CO ^ *0 s- "D 1 4-» M- 3 1 o +-> CM i—icMr—iio*—tiOt-Hio*—■o^i'0'3'0'>cy>o'>cr> i CL ■o in z incMincMM-M-M-^-M-^cot-HCO'— C 1 c 0) 1 re c +-> ■K * 1 4-> a> •K •X 1 u -o •* 4C •X 1 o o (8 •K * * * •K ♦ a. Q. in CO C co co »-H o »-i r-i cr» co co in co in CM o i E +-> to s- ooorxxrx.r^iocMcocor^rx.cMr^LnioM- ■ •r- C OJ CU re -M <0 JC in z CO CO ^ CO CO CO CO CO CO CM CO CO CO CO CO 1 4-> 4-» to 1 o u 0) 0) nJ +-> c o F 0J 1 C CL <0 o to h- c-x m rx ID ^ *e-co IO co ID in oo in oo • re 4-> E 4-> CO CO z CO^'COM-CO'M-COM-CO^'COM-COM-COM-CO^r • 4-> 3 T- II e 1 S- JO J: o +-> o «13 CU E CO W U s- 1 O 00 O 3 3 a. 3 1 Z =3 00 o o fc a 1 o> o> CU 1 II II II -M *o +-> 1 0) 0) o a> re H-QF—QH-Qf—Qh—Ql— Ql— Oh—Ol— Q i O CT» O* s •4-> 4-> z z z z z z z z z z Z z z z Z Z 1 in •M a CO 1 • • • 0) 1 f—t CM CO C J3 ai a; II 0) c u 1 o o 4-» to a) 3 1 • • C ■M a. O 1 • • s- E C co 1 CU *0 <0 u o o a. u o •r- C o a. E E CO in +■> 1 a <0 f0 -r- -o CU •r— 3 to 1 *4- o 0) -r- s- c -u s- CU 1 cu •r- **“ z > 4- < re o 3 C S- I u O) D> II •f— *r- s- +-> o 3 i c +-> +-> E o a. re >> 4-> i cu in W to c 3 0) z cn +-> r— l s- >> >i C i— 0) r— z ■a o o 3 I cu o tv -a 3 tn o -O r— CU 3 O l 4- X3 C£ i- O 0) tn o c o s- ■a •r- 1 4- o u 0) •r— s- 0) u_ re c 3 o &- i •f* T» in s- 3 c J= +-> s- cn i Q in Cl • s- 4-» •r- -a >> a r— CL. ■M (U 0) O JO 10 •r* re re i JO CO CO z; r— •r— •1“ a. CU J= 4-> E JO I to ♦ S- o s- < cn S- •f" O I +-> to CT> <3 s- o Li. T— o c r— l o 1— c < o Lu U. Z z < <3 i z 42 instructional time in the future, as noted in Table 5, is further evidence of the importance respondents from both states placed on agribusiness. From the data displayed in Table 6, crop and food production was rated significantly higher by administrators (x = 4.15) in Montana, when compared with students (x = 3.83) and instructors (x = 3.70). This difference was not considered notable, however. There were no other significant differences or notable differences observed within or between the states. The data indicate a knowledge of crop and food production is considered to be "important" for Montana and North Dakota students when preparing for careers in agriculture. Forestry and natural resources was rated significantly higher by Montana administrators (x = 4.17) in contrast to the instructors (x = 3.71) and students (x = 3.84). Once again, this was not considered a notable difference. There were no other significant or notable differ¬ ences within or between groups or states. The data in Table 6 imply that all groups considered forestry and natural resources "important" for those students preparing for careers in agriculture. Close examination of the data in Table 6 revealed the curriculum area of FFA exhibited mean scores greater than 4 in all groups in both states. The only significant difference was observed in North Dakota, where instructors (x = 4.31) rated FFA significantly higher than students (x = 4.02) and administrators (x = 4.05), but this difference was not considered notable. No other differences were observed within or between states. The data indicated all groups in both states concurred that instruction in FFA is "important" when preparing for a career in agri¬ culture. 43 High technology was one of three subject areas, identified in Table 5, which all respondents from both states designated as requiring increased instructional time. It is interesting to note in Table 6, however, that Montana instructors (x = 3.39) had a significantly and notably lower mean for high technology than students (x = 3.74) and administrators (x = 3.95) in Montana, as well as instructors (x - 3.73) in North Dakota. The only other significant difference for high tech¬ nology was observed in North Dakota, where administrators (x » 4.01) had a significantly higher mean than students (x = 3.68) or instructors (x = 3.73). Using the notable difference scale based on real limits, it would appear Montana instructors felt high technology was only "somewhat important," while the other groups surveyed in Montana and North Dakota indicated high technology was "important." Upon examination of the data in Table 6, the curriculum area of horticulture displayed no notable differences, but two statistical differences were observed. The first was in Montana, where instructors (x = 2.78) were significantly lower than students (x = 3.25) and adminis¬ trators (x = 3.18). The second significant difference in horticulture was observed when Montana instructors (x =2.78) were compared to North Dakota instructors (x = 3.25). Once again, the Montana instructors were signifi¬ cantly lower. In spite of the significant differences, the data indicate general agreement among all groups surveyed, i.e., horticulture is "somewhat important" when preparing for a career in agriculture. The data arrayed in Table 6 revealed that animal production demon¬ strated no notable differences between respondents, but two statistical differences were observed. The first significant difference was in 44 Montana, where administrators (x = 4.02) were significantly higher than instructors (x = 3.73) and students (x = 3.91). Secondly, Montana students (x = 3.91) had a significantly higher opinion of animal produc¬ tion than North Dakota students (x = 3.71). The data suggested that a knowledge of animal production is considered "important" by all groups when students plan for careers in agriculture. Global agriculture was another of the curriculum areas identified in Table 5 as needing more instructional time in the future. The relative importance of global agriculture, as viewed by all three respondent groups and shown in Table 6, revealed no statistical differences, but two notable differences should be addressed. North Dakota instructors (x = 3.40) rated global agriculture as only "somewhat important," and North Dakota student (x = 3.50) perceptions were marginal between "somewhat important" and "important." North Dakota administrators (x = 3.74) and all groups from Montana implied global agriculture was "important." From Table 6, one can also observe that instructors in both states felt global agricul¬ ture was less important than did the other two groups in their state. When viewing the information in Table 6 from a holistic perspective, it would appear the nine identified curriculum areas are all considered "important" by all respondents, with the exception being horticulture, which was perceived as only "somewhat important" by both groups. Caution should be exercised when making implications to the total population. 45 Group Reactions to Questions Concerning Agriculture Education and the FFA Respondents were asked to indicate their agreement or disagreement with 10 questions concerning agriculture education and the FFA. All of the questions were recommendations from the National Research Council (1988) study, with the exception of question 4 which is implied in the study. The first question asked whether the respondents agreed that all students in kindergarten through grade 12 should receive instruction about agriculture. Data displayed in Table 7 reveal no significant differences among the groups in each state, but several differences were observed within each state. In Montana, the level of agreement was significantly different among all groups. In North Dakota, the instructors (x = 4.40) displayed a significantly higher level of agreement than students (x = 3.63) and administrators (x = 3.43). The final analysis of question 1 revealed that administrators "slightly agree" with the concept, students were marginal between "slightly agree" and "agree," and instructors "agree" with the recommendation. When asked if the subject matter in vocational agriculture should be broadened (question 2), no significant differences were evident as observed in Table 7. In both states student respondents had a higher level of agreement, but not significantly higher, than the other two groups. In general, it appeared all groups were inclined to "slightly agree" with the recommendation. Question 3 asked if respondents supported the recommendation that all schools with vocational agriculture programs should have active FFA 46 chapters. Close examination of the data in Table 7 reveals that North Dakota instructors (x = 4.61) had a significantly higher measure of agreement than students (x = 4.09) and administrators (x = 3.97). No other significant differences were observed among the groups or between the states, and the data indicate that all groups in both states were prone to agree with this recommendation. Table 7. Reaction to National Research Council recommendations for change in agriculture education and the FFA as perceived by vocational agriculture teachers, students, and school administrators. Teachers .Students Admin. Reconmendations State N Mean® N Mean® N Mean® 1. All students in grades kindergarten through 12 MT 35 4.46* 152 3.75* 23 3.09* should receive instruction about agriculture. ND 47 4.40* 235 3.63 37 3.43 2. The subject matter in vocational agriculture MT 35 3.60 152 3.72 22 3.46 should be broadened. ND 45 3.73 237 3.84 37 3.81 3. All schools with vocational agriculture MT 35 4.29 150 4.17 23 3.74 programs should have active FFA chapters. ND 46 4.61* 236 4.09 37 3.97 4. School districts should budget more money, if MT 35 4.49 154 4.27 21 3.14* needed, to improve vocational agriculture programs. ND 47 4.70* 237 4.10* 36 3.25* 5. The FFA should adopt a new name. MT 33 2.76* 132 2.03* 15 2.33 ND 43 2.40* 206 2.15* 34 2.53 6. The FFA should adopt new symbols. MT 33 2.27* 131 1.73* 15 2.13 ND 43 1.91 209 1.92 32 2.25 7. The FFA should change its degree ceremonies. MT 33 3.00* 128 1.89 12 2.00 ND 43 2.65* 202 2.06 30 2.00 8. The FFA needs more awards in non-production MT 32 3.66* 139 3.08 16 2.50** agriculture. ND 47 3.51 219 3.21 30 3.27** 9. The FFA needs more contests in non-production MT 33 3.61 133 3.20 17 2.29*'** agriculture. ND 47 3.45 224 3.37 33 3.00** 10. A broader range of SOEP programs should be MT 35 4.26* 147 3.64 19 3.21 accepted. ND 45 3.93* 229 3.58 34 3.53 *Statistically significant at .05 level within state groups. ^Statistically significant at .05 level between state groups. aMean based on 5 = Strongly agree; 4 = Agree; 3 = Slightly agree; 2 = Disagree; 1 = Strongly disagree. 47 Question 4 asked respondents if school districts should budget more money to improve vocational agriculture programs. The data in Table 7 do not reveal any surprises. In both states, school administrators had a significantly lower level of agreement. In Montana, administrators (x = 3.14) were significantly lower than both students (x = 4.27) and teachers (x = 4.49). In North Dakota, all of the responses were significantly different from one another. One could hypothesize that instructors displayed the highest level of agreement, but it was interesting to note, however, that no significant differences existed among teachers, students, and administrators in the two states. From the data, it would appear instructors and students "agree" with budgeting more money for vocational agriculture, while administrators only "slightly agree." One responding administrator asked on his survey, "Where will the money come from?" The National Research Council (1988) study implied more money should be allocated for vocational agriculture on the local level and recommended, "Programmatic and budgetary policy changes are needed at both the state and federal levels if comprehensive programs of education in and about agriculture are to be implemented" (p. 5). Further research may indicate school administrators would agree to budget more money for vocational agriculture if they knew state and federal support funds would be made available to local programs. Question 5 asked if the FFA should adopt a new name. It should be pointed out that at the time this survey was conducted, the National FFA had already passed the constitutional amendment changing the name to The National FFA Organization. As can be observed from the data displayed in Table 7, the overall trend appeared to be one of disagreement. In Montana 48 and North Dakota, instructors (x = 2.76 and 2.40, respectively) had a mean value significantly higher than students (x =* 2.03 and 2.15, respec¬ tively), but this was not interpreted to be a meaningful difference. No statistically significant differences were observed between the states. When asked if the FFA should adopt new symbols (question 6), the responses indicated a tendency to disagree. A significant difference was observed between Montana students (x = 1.73) and instructors (x = 2.27), but this finding was not considered meaningful. No significant differ¬ ences were observed between the two states. Question 7 inquired whether the FFA should change its degree cere¬ monies. The data in Table 7 demonstrate that the instructors in both states had a significantly higher level of agreement than either the students or administrators and tended to only "slightly agree" with the recommendation. The students and administrators indicated a tendency to disagree with the recommendation. No statistically significant differ¬ ences were observed between the states. Question 8 asked if the FFA needs more awards in non-production agriculture. A significant difference was observed between Montana instructors (x = 3.66) and administrators (x = 2.50), but neither group of respondents was statistically different from the students (x = 3.08). Another statistical difference was noticed between the administrators in Montana (x = 2.50) and North Dakota (x = 3.27). In general, it appeared that Montana administrators tended to "disagree" with adding more non¬ production awards, while all other responding groups "slightly agreed." Question 9 asked if respondents agreed or disagreed with adding more FFA contests in non-production agriculture. The data displayed in Table 49 7 show that Montana administrators (x = 2.29) were significantly different in their responses when compared to the other groups in Montana and the administrators in North Dakota (x = 3.00). The Montana administrators were inclined to "disagree" with the recommendation, while Montana and North Dakota teachers (x = 3.61 and 3.45, respectively) and students (x = 3.20 and 3.37, respectively) in both states "slightly agreed." Question 10 asked if a broader range of supervised occupational experience programs should be accepted. As can be observed from the data in Table 7, instructors in Montana (x = 4.26) and North Dakota (x = 3.93) tended to "agree" with the question and were significantly higher in their level of agreement than the students (x = 3.64 and 3.58, respectively) or administrators (x = 3.21 and 3.53, respectively) within their state. The students and administrators both expressed "slight agreement" with the recommendation. No significant differences were observed between the groups within the two states. 50 CHAPTER 4 CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUMMARY Conclusions The objectives of this study were to: (1) Determine the attitudes of vocational agriculture instructors, high school students, and school administrators toward the recommendations proposed by the 1988 National Research Council study. (2) Determine the inclination of vocational agriculture instructors to make changes in their programs to implement the Council's recommenda¬ tions (3) Determine the inclination of students to support a program which follows the Council's recommendations. (4) Determine the inclination of school administrators to support the Council's recommendations. (5) Determine if the size and location of the community has an effect on the individual's perceptions toward the Council's recommendations. Based on analysis of the data, the following conclusions have been drawn: (1) Ten questions which pertained to agriculture education and the FFA were selected to respond to the first objective. Vocational 51 agriculture instructors, students, and school administrators tend to agree with the National Research Council's 1988 study. The areas of disagreement center around changing the name of the FFA, the FFA symbols, and the FFA ceremonies. (2) Instructors are cognizant of the need to implement changes to update their curriculum and express a willingness and desire to do so. (3) Students support the National Research Council recommendations which suggest a greater emphasis on non-production curriculum areas. (4) School administrators are aware of the importance of vocational agriculture when preparing students for careers in agriculture and they support updating the curriculum. (5) With the exception of horticulture, instructors, students, and administrators agree that the nine identified curriculum areas are all "important" when preparing for a career in agriculture. (6) Instructors, students, and administrators in Montana and North Dakota are very similar in their perceptions toward the Council's recommen¬ dations. There were insufficient data to determine if the size of the community had an effect on the individual's perceptions toward the Council's recommendations. Implications The following implications are offered as a result of this study: (1) If instructional time is to be increased in the areas of agribus¬ iness, high technology, and global agriculture, the class time spent in other curriculum areas must be reduced. One alternative would be to incorporate these subjects into existing curriculum areas. 52 (2) Vocational agriculture instructors recognize the importance of implementing changes to update their curriculum, but will need help from various sources. Without this assistance, it will be difficult for instructors to find the time to prepare the materials to imple¬ ment the needed changes. (3) Students are not aware of the importance of horticulture and the opportunities that exist within it. Recommendations As a result of this study, the following recommendations are offered for Montana and North Dakota concerning vocational agriculture in the future. Recommendations for Program Improvement (1) The state supervisor in each state should assume the leadership role to bring about the necessary changes in vocational agriculture. (2) A "game plan" to bring about the necessary changes should be devel¬ oped by the state supervisor. (3) Land grant universities and other colleges within each state should offer workshops for vocational agriculture instructors. These workshops should provide exposure to and train instructors in new technology being used in the industry of agriculture. (4) Instructors need to work together to develop and implement new curriculum. (5) Instructors should be encouraged to observe outstanding programs within their state that have implemented the recommendations of the 53 National Research Council. This could be accomplished through a series of tours organized by the state supervisor. (6) Tours should be organized to visit exemplary programs in surrounding states that have implemented the recommendations of the National Research Council. The organization of these tours would be the responsibility of the state supervisor. (7) School administrators should be invited and encouraged to attend workshops for vocational agriculture instructors. Administrators should also be invited to attend state and national functions for vocational agriculture instructors. Administrators may not be fully aware of the changes occurring in vocational agriculture, and this would be one means to educate them. (8) School administrators should be invited to attend state and national FFA conventions. (9) Local and state advisory councils for vocational agriculture should be utilized to their fullest potential. Recommendations for Further Study (1) Research should be conducted to determine the specific subject matter areas for instructional workshops and training. (2) Research should be conducted among students not enrolled in voca¬ tional agriculture to determine their perceptions of an updated curriculum. (3) Research should be conducted to determine how much the vocational agriculture curriculum actually changes as a result of the National Research Council's 1988 study. 54 (4) Research should be conducted to determine if the size of the commun¬ ity has any effect on the type of curriculum preferred. Summary The data from this study reveal that instructors, students, and administrators realize the necessity to upgrade the curriculum in voca¬ tional agriculture. This is true for respondents from both Montana and North Dakota. The information contained in this study will be useful to the state supervisors of vocational agriculture for planning and implementing changes within the state programs. This study will aid universities and colleges when planning workshops for vocational agriculture instructors. This research will also be of benefit to instructors as they plan curric¬ ulum changes on the local level. Although this study presents some guidelines for changing curriculum, a local needs assessment and/or program evaluation should be conducted before large-scale changes are implemented. Instructors must recognize that change is a process, not an event. Once this fact is accepted, instructors can begin the change process and make change an integral part of their program. 55 BIBLIOGRAPHY 56 BIBLIOGRAPHY Amberson, M.L. (1989). Reorienting agricultural education towards a free market model emphasizing economic understanding. Journal of Agricul¬ tural Education. 30(1), 2-9. Birkenholz, R.J. (1987). Teacher perceptions of factors associated with expanding vocational agriculture programs. The Journal of the American Association of Teacher Educators in Agriculture. 28(2), 33- 39. Bowen, B.E. (1987). Capitalizing on strengths. The Agricultural Educa¬ tion Magazine. 60(4),3. Byram, H. (1963). Replanning high school programs in agricultural education. The Agricultural Education Magazine. 36(4), 90-91. Communicating for Agriculture, Inc. (1988). Shining stars. Fergus Falls, MN: Author. Courtney, E.W., & Coster, J.K. (1963). Non-farm agricultural occupations and curriculum planning. The Agricultural Education Magazine. 3£(2), 32-34. Domangue, M. (1989). New frontiers in the lone star state. Future Farmer, 3Z(4), 10-12. English, F.W. (1987). Curriculum management for schools-colleoes- business. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. Farm Foundation. (1989). High school students7 perceptions of agricul¬ tural college ma.iors and careers. Oak Brook, IL: American College Testing Program. Ferguson, G.A. (1981). Statistical analysis in psychology and education. New York: McGraw-Hill. Hall, G.E., & Hord, S.M. (1987). Change in schools. New York: State University of New York. Key, J.P. (1989). New directions in agricultural education research. Unpublished manuscript, presented as keynote address to the 8th Annual Western Regional Agricultural Education Research Meeting, Reno, Nevada, 19 April 1989. 57 Kotrlik, J.W., & Drueckhammer, D. (1987). The importance of selected external factors and programmatic components in planning vocational agriculture programs. The Journal of the American Association of Teacher Educators in Agriculture. £8(4), 26-31 & 49. Luft, V.D., & Peterson, D. (1989). Agriscience and technology: The answer to program revitalization. The Agricultural Education Magazine. 61(8), 13-14. Lund, R.E. (1988). MSUSTAT: Statistical analysis package [computer program]. Bozeman, MT: Statistical Center, Department of Mathemat¬ ical Science, Montana State University. Moore, G.E. (1989). Misoneism and agricultural education. The Agricul¬ tural Education Magazine. 61(11), 6 & 18. Moore, G.E., & Borne, C. (1986). The secondary vocational agriculture curriculum from 1890 to 1980. The Journal of the American Associa¬ tion of Teacher Educators in Agriculture. £Z(3), 8-19. National Research Council. (1988). Understanding agriculture: New directions for education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Orthel, G.R., Sorensen, J.L., Lierman, S.R., & Riesenberg, L.E. (1989). High school students' perceptions of agriculture and careers in agriculture. In J.G. Harper (Ed.), Proceedings of the 8th Annual Western Regional Agricultural Education Research Meeting (pp. 32- 45). Reno, NV: University of Nevada. Pope, 0. (1989). The summit: The challenge of change. The Agricultural Education Magazine. 61(11), 21-23. Richman, R.W. (1968). A new term: Agrarian occupations. The Agricul¬ tural Education Magazine. 41(1), 18. Staller, B.L. (1988). Drill bits and agriculture education. The Agricultural. Education Magazine, M(8), 4-7. Stansbury, D. (1987). Agriculture: A world of scientific and profes¬ sional opportunities. In J.J. Crowley (Ed.), The 1986 yearbook of agriculture: Research for tomorrow (pp. 302-303). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. Swanson, G.I. (1980, October). Working definition of philosophy. The Visitor, £Z(4), 1-10. Taft, J.A. (1968). Agriculture education in city schools. The Agricul¬ tural Education Magazine. 41(4), 79-80. Vaughn, P. (1989). Let's not philosophize ourselves out of business. The Agricultural Education Magazine. 61(12), 20-22. 58 Wolpert, E.M. (1984). Understanding research in education: An intro¬ ductory guide to critical reading. Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt. Yost, M. (1988). Comparing groups using continuous data. In B.D. Yancy (Ed.), Applying statistics in institutional research (p. 20). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 59 APPENDICES 60 APPENDIX A: SCHOOL ADMINISTRATOR INSTRUCTION LETTER AND QUESTIONNAIRE 61 □ MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY Department of Agricultural and Technology Education Cheever Hall Montana State University Bozeman. Montana 59717 406-994-3201 or 994-3691 Dear High School Administrator: You do not have to put your name on this questionnaire. The number you see on the questionnaire is for sorting, data tabulation, and for the analysis of data. All individual responses will be considered confi¬ dential . Part 1 is the main part of the questionnaire. It asks questions about what you feel should be included in the curriculum of vocational agricul¬ ture to prepare students for jobs in the future. Circle the number which indicates the importance you would place on the theme of the statement. If you do not have an opinion about the importance of an item, you can circle the "X" response. Part 2 includes general questions about vocational agriculture and the FFA. Circle the response which indicates your level of agreement or disagreement with the statement. Once again, you can circle "X" to indicate no opinion. Part 3 requests demographic data which will be used for the analysis of data. When you have completed the questionnaire, staple or tape it shut and put it in the mail. It is pre-addressed and stamped for your convenience. Your assistance and cooperation in this matter are greatly appreciated. Sincerely yours, Sincerely yours, Dale R. Carpentier Douglas Bishop Graduate Student Professor, Ag Ed 62 SCHOOL ADMINISTRATOR QUESTIONNAIRE PART 1 When preparing for a career in agriculture, how important would skills and experiences in the following areas be to your students? Use the Likert scale on the right to express (circle) your opinion. 5 = "Very important" 4 = "Important" 3 - "Somewhat important" 2 = "Useful, but not important" 1 - "Not important" X = "No opinion" Agriculture Mechanics: (1) Understand how gasoline engines function (theory and principles). (2) Service and repair small engines. (3) Understand how diesel engines function (theory). (4) Service agricultural tractors and engines (5) Understand basic plumbing installations. if if n X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 (6) Perform basic plumbing repairs and X 1 2 3 4 5 installation. (7) Understand electrical theory. X 1 2 3 4 5 (8) Understand electrical safety. X 1 2 3 4 5 (9) Perform basic electrical wiring skills. X 1 2 3 4 5 (10) Perform basic arc welding skills. X 1 2 3 4 5 (11) Perform basic oxyacetylene welding skills. X 1 2 3 4 5 (12) Understand the principles of wood and X 1 2 3 4 5 metal construction. (13) Construct wood and/or metal buildings. X 1 2 3 4 5 63 (14) Perform basic machinery maintenance and repair. (15) Possess a knowledge of safety and accident prevention. (16) Recondition and use hand tools. (17) Perform basic mechanical drawing. X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 (18) At the present time, do you feel the amount of time devoted to Agriculture Mechanics is: [ ] excessive [ ] adequate [ ] inadequate (19) Three years from now, should the amount of time devoted to Agri¬ culture Mechanics be: [ ] increased [ ] the same [ ] decreased Agribusiness: (1) Understand advertising and promotion. (2) Organize an advertising and promotion campaign. (3) Understand the importance of agricultural research and engineering. (4) Understand the principles of business finance. (5) Perform an analysis of business records. (6) Possess a knowledge of career opportun¬ ities in agriculture. (7) Understand the principles of decision making. (8) Understand the economics of agriculture. (9) Understand the importance of education in agriculture. (10) Understand taxation and tax management. (11) Understand food science, processing, and retailing. X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 64 (12) Understand human nutrition and its X 1 2 3 4 5 relationship to good health. (13) Demonstrate good communications skills. X 1 2 3 4 5 (14) Understand the principles of agribusiness X 1 2 3 4 5 marketing. (15) Perform basic mathematics skills relating to agriculture. (16) Understand the principles of money management. (17) Understand the processing of non-food agricultural products. (18) Understand public policies affecting agriculture. (19) Perform public relations skills. X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 (20) Perform record keeping skills. X 1 2 3 4 5 (21) Operate various office equipment. X 1 2 3 4 5 (22) At the present time, do you feel the amount of time devoted to Agribusiness is: [ ] excessive [ ] adequate [ ] inadequate (23) Three years from now, should the amount of time devoted to Agri¬ business be: [ ] increased [ ] the same [ ] decreased Crop and Food Production: (1) Understand safe chemical usage. X 1 2 3 4 5 (2) Determine crop quality. X 1 2 3 4 5 (3) Take soil samples and interpret the X 1 2 3 4 5 results. (4) Understand the principles of plant fiber production. X 1 2 3 4 5 (5) Understand government programs in X 1 2 3 4 5 agriculture. (6) Identify harmful and beneficial insects. X 1 2 3 4 5 65 (7) Understand the different methods used to control harmful insects. (8) Understand irrigation principles. (9) Understand machinery management. (10) Understand marketing concepts. (11) Perform marketing skills. (12) Understand the principles of oil crop production. X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 (13) Recognize and control plant diseases. X 1 2 3 4 5 (14) Select adapted crop varieties. X 1 2 3 4 5 (15) Understand plant growth and reproduction. (16) Understand the proper handling and storage of grain. (17) Understand farm credit and financing. (18) Understand plant genetics and plant breeding. X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 (19) At the present time, do you feel the amount of time devoted to Crop and Food Production is: [ ] excessive [ ] adequate [ ] inadequate (20) Three years from now, should the amount of time devoted to Crop and Food Production be: [ ] increased [ ] the same [ ] decreased Forestry and Natural Resources: (1) Understand how to control soil erosion. (2) Understand the depletion of agricultural lands for urban expansion. (3) Understand environmental issues. (4) Understand the importance of non-renewable resources. (5) Understand the importance of renewable resources. X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 66 (6) Understand the importance of the conser- X 1 2 3 4 5 vation of natural resources. (7) Possess a knowledge of weather. X I 2 3 4 5 (8) Understand the management of water X 1 2 3 4 5 resources. (9) Understand the formation of soils. X 1 2 3 4 5 (10) Understand the different types of soil X 1 2 3 4 5 and the management of each. (11) Understand rangeland management. X 1 2 3 4 5 (12) At the present time, do you feel the amount of time devoted to Forestry and Natural Resources is: [ ] excessive [ ] adequate [ ] inadequate (13) Three years from now, should the amount of time devoted to Forestry and Natural Resources Production be: [ ] increased [ ] the same [ ] decreased Youth Organizations (FFA): (1) Develop a community consciousness. X 1 2 3 4 5 (2) Understand citizenship. X 1 2 3 4 5 (3) Understand the dignity of labor. X 1 2 3 4 5 (4) Participate in FFA contests. X 1 2 3 4 5 (5) Participate in the FFA organization. X 1 2 3 4 5 (6) Understand and perform goal setting. X 1 2 3 4 5 (7) Develop leadership and personal pride. X 1 2 3 4 5 (8) Prepare and give a speech. X 1 2 3 4 5 (9) Participate in the supervised occupa- X 1 2 3 4 5 tional experience program. (10) At the present time, do you feel the amount of time devoted to FFA is: [ ] excessive [ ] adequate [ ] inadequate (11) Three years from now, should the amount of time devoted to FFA be: [ ] increased [ ] the same [ ] decreased 67 High Technology: (1) Understand the use of automation in X 1 2 3 4 5 agriculture. (2) Understand biological systems in agriculture. (3) Understand biotechnology in agriculture. (4) Understand the application of computers in agriculture. (5) Perform basic skills on the computer. (6) Understand electronic systems in agriculture. (7) Understand the application and use of hydraulics in agriculture. (8) Understand the application and use of thermal systems in agriculture. (9) Understand the application and use of genetic engineering in agriculture. (10) Understand the application and use of laser technology in agriculture. (11) Understand the application and use of mechanical systems in agriculture. (12) Understand the application and use of pneumatic systems in agriculture. (13) Possess a knowledge of recycling agricultural resources and products. X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 (14) Understand the application and use of X 1 2 3 4 5 robotics in agriculture. (15) Understand the application and use of X 1 2 3 4 5 solar energy in agriculture. (16) At the present time, do you feel the amount of time devoted to High Technology is: [ ] excessive [ ] adequate [ ] inadequate 68 (17) Three years from now, should the amount of time devoted to High Technology be: [ ] increased [ ] the same [ ] decreased Horticulture: (1) Identify diseases of horticultural plants. X 1 2 3 4 5 (2) Understand the control of horticultural X 1 2 3 4 5 plant diseases. (3) Understand the use of growth stimulants X 1 2 3 4 5 and retardants. (4) Identify common horticultural insects. X 1 2 3 4 5 (5) Understand the chemical and organic X 1 2 3 4 5 control of insects. (6) Understand fruit and vegetable produc- X 1 2 3 4 5 tion, processing, and marketing. (7) Understand the principles of golf course X 1 2 3 4 5 management. (8) Understand the principles of greenhouse X 1 2 3 4 5 management. (9) Understand hobby gardening. X 1 2 3 4 5 (10) Understand the principles of landscaping. X 1 2 3 4 5 (11) Understand the principles of nursery X 1 2 3 4 5 operations. (12) Understand the principles of retail X 1 2 3 4 5 floriculture. (13) Demonstrate basic floriculture skills. X 1 2 3 4 5 (14) Understand wholesale floriculture. X 1 2 3 4 5 (15) Understand turf production and manage- XI 2 3 45 ment. (16) Understand plant growth, reproduction, X 1 2 3 4 5 and processes. (17) Perform basic nursery skills. X 1 2 3 4 5 69 (18) Demonstrate basic landscaping skills. X 1 2 3 4 5 (19) Perform basic turf grass skills. X 1 2 3 4 5 (20) At the present time, do you feel the amount of time devoted to Horticulture is: [ ] excessive [ ] adequate [ ] inadequate (21) Three years from now, should the amount of time devoted to Horti¬ culture be: [ ] increased [ ] the same [ ] decreased Animal Production: (1) Understand animal fiber production. X 1 2 3 4 5 (2) Understand animal health and sanitation. X 1 2 3 4 5 (3) Understand the digestion, absorption, X 1 2 3 4 5 and use of nutrients in animals. (4) Perform computerized selection. X 1 2 3 4 5 (5) Understand livestock management. X 1 2 3 4 5 (6) Understand the marketing of livestock X 1 2 3 4 5 and livestock products. (7) Understand milk production. X 1 2 3 4 5 (8) Understand the production of specialty X 1 2 3 4 5 animals. (9) Understand the care of small animals. X 1 2 3 4 5 (10) Understand the nutritional values of X 1 2 3 4 5 common feeds. (11) Understand the use of growth stimulants. X 1 2 3 4 5 (12) Formulate and balance rations for X 1 2 3 4 5 different species of livestock. (13) Recognize symptoms of common diseases X 123 4 5 and parasites. (14) Understand the control of livestock X 1 2 3 4 5 diseases and parasites. 70 (15) Understand the financing of livestock operations. (16) Recognize market grades and classes of livestock. (17) Understand livestock reproductive systems. (18) Understand artificial insemination. (19) Perform artificial insemination. (20) Understand livestock production records. X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 (21) At the present time, do you feel the amount of time devoted to Animal Production is: [ ] excessive [ ] adequate [ ] inadequate (22) Three years from now, should the amount of time devoted to Animal Production be: [ ] increased [ ] the same [ ] decreased Global Agriculture: (1) Understand global environmental issues. X 1 2 3 4 5 (2) Understand international agriculture. X 1 2 3 4 5 (3) Understand global pollution issues. X 1 2 3 4 5 (4) Understand the use of global resources. X 1 2 3 4 5 (5) Understand global transportation issues. X 1 2 3 4 5 (6) Understand international economics. X 1 2 3 4 5 (7) Understand international marketing of X 1 2 3 4 5 agricultural products. (8) At the present time, do you feel the amount of time devoted to Global Agriculture is: [ ] excessive [ ] adequate [ ] inadequate (9) Three years from now, should the amount of time devoted to Global Agriculture be: [ ] increased [ ] the same [ ] decreased 71 PART 2 Indicate the degree to which you would agree or disagree with the statements on the left using the scale on the right. "Strongly agree" — "Agree" "Slightly agree" — "Disagree" "Strongly disagree" "No opinion" W } ! (1) All students in grades kindergarten X 1 2 3 4 5 through 12 should receive instruction about agriculture. (2) The subject matter in vocational agricul- X 1 2 3 4 5 ture should be broadened. (3) All schools with vocational agriculture X 1 2 3 4 5 programs should have active FFA chapters. (4) School districts should budget more X 1 2 3 4 5 money, if needed, to improve vocational agriculture programs. (5) The FFA should adopt a new name. X 1 2 3 4 5 (6) The FFA should adopt new symbols. X 1 2 3 4 5 (7) The FFA should change its degree ceremonies. X 1 2 3 4 5 (8) The FFA needs more awards in non- X 1 2 3 4 5 production agriculture. (9) The FFA needs more contests in non- X 1 2 3 4 5 production agriculture. (10) A broader range of supervised occupa- X 1 2 3 4 5 tional experience programs should be accepted. 72 l PART 3 Demographic Data Fill in the blank or check the correct response. (1) Position: [ ] Superintendent [ ] Principal (2) Years of experience: . (3) Number of students currently enrolled in grades 9-12: (4) What is the approximate population of the community where the school is located? (Check one.) [ ] 1 - 1000 [ ] 1001 - 5000 [ ] 5001+ 73 APPENDIX B: VOCATIONAL AGRICULTURE STUDENT INSTRUCTION LETTER AND QUESTIONNAIRE 74 □ MONTANA U STATE UNIVERSITY Department of Agricultural and Technology Education Cheever Hall Montana State University Bozeman. Montana 59717 406-994-3201 or 994-3691 Dear Vocational Agriculture Student: You do not have to put your name on this questionnaire. The number you see on the questionnaire is for sorting, data tabulation, and for the analysis of data. All individual responses will be considered confi¬ dential Part 1 is the main part of the questionnaire. It asks questions about what you feel should be included in the curriculum of vocational agricul¬ ture to prepare students for jobs in the future. Circle the number which indicates the importance you would place on the theme of the statement. If you do not have an opinion about the importance of an item, you can circle the "X" response. Part 2 includes general questions about vocational agriculture and the FFA. Circle the response which indicates your level of agreement or disagreement with the statement. Once again, you can circle "V to indicate no opinion. Part 3 requests demographic data which will be used for the analysis of data. When you have completed the questionnaire, staple or tape it shut and put it in the mail. It is pre-addressed and stamped for your convenience. Your assistance and cooperation in this matter are greatly appreciated. Sincerely yours, Sincerely yours, Dale R. Carpentier Douglas Bishop Graduate Student Professor, Ag Ed 75 VOCATIONAL AGRICULTURE STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE PART 1 When preparing for a career in agriculture, how important would skills and experiences in the following areas be to you? Use the Likert scale on the right to express (circle) your opinion. "Very important" "Important" = "Somewhat important" "Useful, but not important" "Not important" — "No opinion" —— Agriculture Mechanics: (1) Understand how gasoline engines function (theory and principles). (2) Service and repair small engines. (3) Understand how diesel engines function (theory). (4) Service agricultural tractors and engines. (5) Understand basic plumbing installations. (6) Perform basic plumbing repairs and installation. (7) Understand electrical theory. (8) Understand electrical safety. (9) Perform basic electrical wiring skills. (10) Perform basic arc welding skills. (11) Perform basic oxyacetylene welding skills. (12) Understand the principles of wood and metal construction. Y, i f w i1 w X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X I 2 3 4 5 (13) Construct wood and/or metal buildings. X 1 2 3 4 5 76 (14) Perform basic machinery maintenance X 1 2 3 4 5 and repair. (15) Possess a knowledge of safety and X 1 2 3 4 5 accident prevention. (16) Recondition and use hand tools. X 1 2 3 4 5 (17) Perform basic mechanical drawing. X 1 2 3 4 5 (18) At the present time, do you feel the amount of time devoted to Agriculture Mechanics is: [ ] excessive [ ] adequate [ ] inadequate (19) Three years from now, should the amount of time devoted to Agri¬ culture Mechanics be: [ ] increased [ ] the same [ ] decreased Agribusiness: (1) Understand advertising and promotion. (2) Organize an advertising and promotion campaign. (3) Understand the importance of agricultural research and engineering. (4) Understand the principles of business finance. (5) Perform an analysis of business records. (6) Possess a knowledge of career opportun¬ ities in agriculture. (7) Understand the principles of decision making. (8) Understand the economics of agriculture. (9) Understand the importance of education in agriculture. (10) Understand taxation and tax management. (11) Understand food science, processing, and retailing. X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 77 (12) Understand human nutrition and its relationship to good health. (13) Demonstrate good communications skills. (14) Understand the principles of agribusiness marketing. (15) Perform basic mathematics skills relating to agriculture. X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 (16) Understand the principles of money management. (17) Understand the processing of non-food agricultural products. (18) Understand public policies affecting agriculture. X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 (19) Perform public relations skills. X 1 2 3 4 5 (20) Perform record keeping skills. X 1 2 3 4 5 (21) Operate various office equipment. X 1 2 3 4 5 (22) At the present time, do you feel the amount of time devoted to Agribusiness is: [ ] excessive [ ] adequate [ ] inadequate (23) Three years from now, should the amount of time devoted to Agri¬ business be: [ ] increased [ ] the same [ ] decreased Crop and Food Production: (1) Understand safe chemical usage. X 1 2 3 4 5 (2) Determine crop quality. X 1 2 3 4 5 (3) Take soil samples and interpret the X 1 2 3 4 5 results. (4) Understand the principles of plant X 1 2 3 4 5 fiber production. (5) Understand government programs in X 1 2 3 4 5 agriculture. (6) Identify harmful and beneficial insects. X 1 2 3 4 5 78 (7) Understand the different methods used to control harmful insects. (8) Understand irrigation principles. (9) Understand machinery management. (10) Understand marketing concepts. (11) Perform marketing skills. (12) Understand the principles of oil crop production. (13) Recognize and control plant diseases. (14) Select adapted crop varieties. (15) Understand plant growth and reproduction. (16) Understand the proper handling and storage of grain. X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 (17) Understand farm credit and financing. X 1 2 3 4 5 (18) Understand plant genetics and plant X 1 2 3 4 5 breeding. (19) At the present time, do you feel the amount of time devoted to Crop and Food Production is: [ ] excessive [ ] adequate [ ] inadequate (20) Three years from now, should the amount of time devoted to Crop and Food Production be: [ ] increased [ ] the same [ ] decreased Forestry and Natural Resources: (1) Understand how to control soil erosion. X 1 2 3 4 5 (2) Understand the depletion of agricultural X 1 2 3 4 5 lands for urban expansion. (3) Understand environmental issues. X 12 3 45 (4) Understand the importance of non-renewable X 1 2 3 4 5 resources. (5) Understand the importance of renewable X 1 2 3 4 5 resources. 79 (6) Understand the importance of the conser- X 1 2 3 4 5 vation of natural resources. (7) Possess a knowledge of weather. X 1 2 3 4 5 (8) Understand the management of water X 1 2 3 4 5 resources. (9) Understand the formation of soils. X 1 2 3 4 5 (10) Understand the different types of soil X 1 2 3 4 5 and the management of each. (11) Understand rangeland management. * X12345 (12) At the present time, do you feel the amount of time devoted to Forestry and Natural Resources is: [ ] excessive [ ] adequate [ ] inadequate (13) Three years from now, should the amount of time devoted to Forestry and Natural Resources Production be: [ ] increased [ ] the same [ ] decreased Youth Organizations (FFA): (1) Develop a community consciousness. X 1 2 3 4 5 (2) Understand citizenship. X 1 2 3 4 5 (3) Understand the dignity of labor. X 1 2 3 4 5 (4) Participate in FFA contests. X 1 2 3 4 5 (5) Participate in the FFA organization. X 1 2 3 4 5 (6) Understand and perform goal setting. X 1 2 3 4 5 (7) Develop leadership and personal pride. X 1 2 3 4 5 (8) Prepare and give a speech. X 1 2 3 4 5 (9) Participate in the supervised occupa- X 1 2 3 4 5 tional experience program. (10) At the present time, do you feel the amount of time devoted to FFA is: [ ] excessive [ ] adequate [ ] inadequate (11) Three years from now, should the amount of time devoted to FFA be: [ ] increased [ ] the same [ ] decreased * 80 High Technology: (1) Understand the use of automation in agriculture. (2) Understand biological systems in agriculture. (3) Understand biotechnology in agriculture. (4) Understand the application of computers in agriculture. (5) Perform basic skills on the computer. X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 (6) Understand electronic systems in agriculture. (7) Understand the application and use of hydraulics in agriculture. (8) Understand the application and use of thermal systems in agriculture. (9) Understand the application and use of genetic engineering in agriculture. (10) Understand the application and use of laser technology in agriculture. (11) Understand the application and use of mechanical systems in agriculture. (12) Understand the application and use of pneumatic systems in agriculture. (13) Possess a knowledge of recycling agricultural resources and products. (14) Understand the application and use of robotics in agriculture. X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 (15) Understand the application and use of X 1 2 3 4 5 solar energy in agriculture. (16) At the present time, do you feel the amount of time devoted to High Technology is: [ ] excessive [ ] adequate [ ] inadequate 81 (17) Three years from now, should the amount of time devoted to High Technology be: [ ] increased [ ] the same [ ] decreased Horticulture: (1) Identify diseases of horticultural plants. (2) Understand the control of horticultural plant diseases. (3) Understand the use of growth stimulants and retardants. (4) Identify common horticultural insects. (5) Understand the chemical and organic control of insects. (6) Understand fruit and vegetable produc¬ tion, processing, and marketing. (7) Understand the principles of golf course management. (8) Understand the principles of greenhouse management. (9) Understand hobby gardening. (10) Understand the principles of landscaping. (11) Understand the principles of nursery operations. (12) Understand the principles of retail floriculture. (13) Demonstrate basic floriculture skills. (14) Understand wholesale floriculture. (15) Understand turf production and manage¬ ment. (16) Understand plant growth, reproduction, and processes. (17) Perform basic nursery skills. X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X I 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 82 (18) Demonstrate basic landscaping skills. X 1 2 3 4 5 (19) Perform basic turf grass skills. X 1 2 3 4 5 (20) At the present time, do you feel the amount of time devoted to Horticulture is: [ ] excessive [ ] adequate [ ] inadequate (21) Three years from now, should the amount of time devoted to Horti¬ culture be: [ ] increased [ ] the same [ ] decreased Animal Production: (1) Understand animal fiber production. (2) Understand animal health and sanitation. (3) Understand the digestion, absorption, and use of nutrients in animals. (4) Perform computerized selection. (5) Understand livestock management. (6) Understand the marketing of livestock and livestock products. (7) Understand milk production. (8) Understand the production of specialty animals. (9) Understand the care of small animals. (10) Understand the nutritional values of common feeds. (11) Understand the use of growth stimulants. (12) Formulate and balance rations for different species of livestock. (13) Recognize symptoms of common diseases and parasites. (14) Understand the control of livestock diseases and parasites. X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X I 2 3 4 5 83 (15) Understand the financing of livestock operations. (16) Recognize market grades and classes of livestock. X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 (17) Understand livestock reproductive systems. (18) Understand artificial insemination. (19) Perform artificial insemination. (20) Understand livestock production records. X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 (21) At the present time, do you feel the amount of time devoted to Animal Production is: [ ] excessive [ ] adequate [ ] inadequate (22) Three years from now, should the amount of time devoted to Animal Production be: [ ] increased [ ] the same [ ] decreased Global Agriculture: (1) Understand global environmental issues. (2) Understand international agriculture. (3) Understand global pollution issues. (4) Understand the use of global resources. (5) Understand global transportation issues. (6) Understand international economics. (7) Understand international marketing of agricultural products. (8) At the present time, do you feel the amount of time devoted to Global Agriculture is: [ ] excessive [ ] adequate [ ] inadequate (9) Three years from now, should the amount of time devoted to Global Agriculture be: [ ] increased [ ] the same [ ] decreased 84 PART 2 Indicate the degree to which you would agree or disagree with the statements on the left using the scale on the right. 5 = "Strongly agree" — 4 = "Agree" 3 = "Slightly agree"— 2 - "Disagree" 1 = "Strongly disagree" X = "No opinion" (1) All students in grades kindergarten through 12 should receive instruction about agriculture. (2) The subject matter in vocational agricul¬ ture should be broadened. X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 (3) All schools with vocational agriculture X 1 2 3 4 5 programs should have active FFA chapters. (4) School districts should budget more X 1 2 3 4 5 money, if needed, to improve vocational agriculture programs. (5) The FFA should adopt a new name. X 1 2 3 4 5 (6) The FFA should adopt new symbols. X 1 2 3 4 5 (7) The FFA should change its degree ceremonies. (8) The FFA needs more awards in non¬ production agriculture. (9) The FFA needs more contests in non¬ production agriculture. (10) A broader range of supervised occupa¬ tional experience programs should be accepted. X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 85 PART 3 Demographic Data Check the correct response to the following (1) Grade in school: [ ] 9 [ ] 10 [ 1 11 [ ] 12 (2) Year in vocational agriculture: [] 1st [ 1 2nd [ 1 3rd [ ] 4th (3) FFA Member: [ ] Yes [ ] No (4) Sex: [ ] Female [ ] Male (5) Where do you live? [ ] Farm [ ] Town 86 APPENDIX C: VOCATIONAL AGRICULTURE INSTRUCTOR INSTRUCTION LETTER AND QUESTIONNAIRE 87 □ MONTANA U STATE UNIVERSITY Department of Agricultural and Technology Education Cheever Hall Montana State University Bozeman, Montana 59717 406-994-3201 or 994-3691 Dear Vocational Agriculture Instructor: You do not have to put your name on this questionnaire. The number you see on the questionnaire is for sorting, data tabulation, and for the analysis of data. All individual responses will be considered confi¬ dential . Part 1 is the main part of the questionnaire. It asks questions about what you feel should be included in the curriculum of vocational agricul¬ ture to prepare students for jobs in the future. Circle the number which indicates the importance you would place on the theme of the statement. If you do not have an opinion about the importance of an item, you can circle the "X" response. Part 2 includes general questions about vocational agriculture and the FFA. Circle the response which indicates your level of agreement or disagreement with the statement. Once again, you can circle "X" to indicate no opinion. Part 3 is twofold. Please indicate in column one the percent of instruc¬ tional time presently devoted to each area currently included in your program. Those areas not currently included would receive a "0." Next, would you indicate if you think the amount of time in each area will increase, remain the same, or decrease three years from now. Part 4 requests demographic data which will be used for the analysis of data. When you have completed the questionnaire, staple or tape it shut and put it in the mail. It is pre-addressed and stamped for your convenience. Your assistance and cooperation in this matter are greatly appreciated. Sincerely yours, Sincerely yours, Dale R. Carpentier Douglas Bishop Graduate Student Professor, Ag Ed 88 VOCATIONAL AGRICULTURE INSTRUCTOR QUESTIONNAIRE PART 1 When preparing for a career in agriculture, how important would skills and experiences in the following areas be to your students? Use the Likert scale on the right to express (circle) your opinion. 5 ■ "Very important" 4 = "Important" 3 = "Somewhat important" 2 = "Useful, but not important" 1 = "Not important" X « "No opinion" Agriculture Mechanics: (1) Understand how gasoline engines function (theory and principles). (2) Service and repair small engines. (3) Understand how diesel engines function (theory). (4) Service agricultural tractors and engines. (5) Understand basic plumbing installations. (6) Perform basic plumbing repairs and installation. (7) Understand electrical theory. (8) Understand electrical safety. (9) Perform basic electrical wiring skills. X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 (10) Perform basic arc welding skills. X 1 2 3 4 5 (11) Perform basic oxyacetylene welding skills. X 1 2 3 4 5 (12) Understand the principles of wood and X 1 2 3 4 5 metal construction. (13) Construct wood and/or metal buildings. X 1 2 3 4 5 89 (14) Perforin basic machinery maintenance X 1 2 3 4 and repair. (15) Possess a knowledge of safety and X 1 2 3 4 accident prevention. (16) Recondition and use hand tools. X 1 2 3 4 (17) Perform basic mechanical drawing. X 1 2 3 4 Agribusiness: (1) Understand advertising and promotion. X 1 2 3 4 (2) Organize an advertising and promotion X 1 2 3 4 campaign. (3) Understand the importance of agricultural X 1 23 4 research and engineering. (4) Understand the principles of business X 1 2 3 4 finance. (5) Perform an analysis of business records. X 1 2 3 4 (6) Possess a knowledge of career opportun- X 1 2 3 4 ities in agriculture. (7) Understand the principles of decision X 1 2 3 4 making. (8) Understand the economics of agriculture. X 1 2 3 4 (9) Understand the importance of education X 1 2 3 4 in agriculture. (10) Understand taxation and tax management. X 1 2 3 4 (11) Understand food science, processing, X 1 2 3 4 and retailing. (12) Understand human nutrition and its X 1 2 3 4 relationship to good health. (13) Demonstrate good communications skills. X 1 2 3 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 90 (14) Understand the principles of agribusiness marketing. (15) Perform basic mathematics skills relating to agriculture. (16) Understand the principles of money management. (17) Understand the processing of non-food agricultural products. (18) Understand public policies affecting agriculture. (19) Perform public relations skills. (20) Perform record keeping skills. (21) Operate various office equipment. X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 Crop and Food Production: (1) Understand safe chemical usage. (2) Determine crop quality. (3) Take soil samples and interpret the results. (4) Understand the principles of plant fiber production. (5) Understand government programs in agriculture. (6) Identify harmful and beneficial insects. (7) Understand the different methods used to control harmful insects. (8) Understand irrigation principles. (9) Understand machinery management. (10) Understand marketing concepts. X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 91 (11) Perforin marketing skills. (12) Understand the principles of oil crop production. (13) Recognize and control plant diseases. (14) Select adapted crop varieties. (15) Understand plant growth and reproduction. (16) Understand the proper handling and storage of grain. (17) Understand farm credit and financing. (18) Understand plant genetics and plant breeding. Forestry and Natural Resources: (1) Understand how to control soil erosion. (2) Understand the depletion of agricultural lands for urban expansion. (3) Understand environmental issues. (4) Understand the importance of non-renewable resources. (5) Understand the importance of renewable resources. (6) Understand the importance of the conser¬ vation of natural resources. (7) Possess a knowledge of weather. (8) Understand the management of water resources. (9) Understand the formation of soils. (10) Understand the different types of soil and the management of each. (11) Understand rangeland management. X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X I 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 92 Youth Organizations (FFA): (1) Develop a community consciousness. (2) Understand citizenship. (3) Understand the dignity of labor. (4) Participate in FFA contests. (5) Participate in the FFA organization. (6) Understand and perform goal setting. (7) Develop leadership and personal pride. (8) Prepare and give a speech. (9) Participate in the supervised occupa¬ tional experience program. mglU&chnplQgy: (1) Understand the use of automation in agriculture. (2) Understand biological systems in agriculture. (3) Understand biotechnology in agriculture. (4) Understand the application of computers in agriculture. (5) Perform basic skills on the computer. (6) Understand electronic systems in agriculture. (7) Understand the application and use of hydraulics in agriculture. (8) Understand the application and use of thermal systems in agriculture. (9) Understand the application and use of genetic engineering in agriculture. X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 93 (10) Understand the application and use of laser technology in agriculture. (11) Understand the application and use of mechanical systems in agriculture. (12) Understand the application and use of pneumatic systems in agriculture. (13) Possess a knowledge of recycling agricultural resources and products. (14) Understand the application and use of robotics in agriculture. (15) Understand the application and use of solar energy in agriculture. X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 Horticulture: (1) Identify diseases of horticultural plants. X 1 2 3 4 5 (2) Understand the control of horticultural X 1 2 3 4 5 plant diseases. (3) Understand the use of growth stimulants X 1 2 3 4 5 and retardants. (4) Identify common horticultural insects. X 1 2 3 4 5 (5) Understand the chemical and organic X 1 2 3 4 5 control of insects. (6) Understand fruit and vegetable produc- X 1 2 3 4 5 tion, processing, and marketing. (7) Understand the principles of golf course X 1 2 3 4 5 management. (8) Understand the principles of greenhouse X 1 2 3 4 5 management. (9) Understand hobby gardening. X 1 2 3 4 5 (10) Understand the principles of landscaping. X 1 2 3 4 5 94 (11) Understand the principles of nursery operations. (12) Understand the principles of retail floriculture. (13) Demonstrate basic floriculture skills. (14) Understand wholesale floriculture. (15) Understand turf production and manage¬ ment. (16) Understand plant growth, reproduction, and processes. (17) Perform basic nursery skills. (18) Demonstrate basic landscaping skills. (19) Perform basic turf grass skills. X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 Animal Production: (1) Understand animal fiber production. X 1 2 3 4 5 (2) Understand animal health and sanitation. X 1 2 3 4 5 (3) Understand the digestion, absorption, X 1 2 3 4 5 and use of nutrients in animals. (4) Perform computerized selection. X 1 2 3 4 5 (5) Understand livestock management. X 1 2 3 4 5 (6) Understand the marketing of livestock XI 2 34 5 and livestock products. (7) Understand milk production. X 1 2 3 4 5 (8) Understand the production of specialty X 1 2 3 4 5 animals. (9) Understand the care of small animals. X 1 2 3 4 5 (10) Understand the nutritional values of X 1 2 3 4 5 common feeds. 95 (11) Understand the use of growth stimulants. (12) Formulate and balance rations for different species of livestock. (13) Recognize symptoms of common diseases and parasites. (14) Understand the control of livestock diseases and parasites. (15) Understand the financing of livestock operations. (16) Recognize market grades and classes of livestock. (17) Understand livestock reproductive systems. (18) Understand artificial insemination. (19) Perform artificial insemination. (20) Understand livestock production records. Global Agriculture: (1) Understand global environmental issues. X 1 2 3 4 5 (2) Understand international agriculture. X 1 2 3 4 5 (3) Understand global pollution issues. X 1 2 3 4 5 (4) Understand the use of global resources. X 1 2 3 4 5 (5) Understand global transportation issues. X 1 2 3 4 5 (6) Understand international economics. X 1 2 3 4 5 (7) Understand international marketing of X 1 2 3 4 5 agricultural products. X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 96 PART 2 Indicate the degree to which you would agree or disagree with the statements on the left using the scale on the right. 5 4 3 2 1 X "Strongly agree" — "Agree" "Slightly agree" — "Disagree" "Strongly disagree" "No opinion" ' 1 (1) All students in grades kindergarten X 1 2 3 4 5 through 12 should receive instruction about agriculture. (2) The subject matter in vocational agricul- X 1 2 34 5 ture should be broadened. (3) All schools with vocational agriculture programs should have active FFA chapters. (4) School districts should budget more money, if needed, to improve vocational agriculture programs. (5) The FFA should adopt a new name. (6) The FFA should adopt new symbols. (7) The FFA should change its degree ceremonies. (8) The FFA needs more awards in non¬ production agriculture. (9) The FFA needs more contests in non¬ production agriculture. (10) broader range of supervised occupa¬ tional experience programs should be accepted. X 1 2 3 4 5 X I 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 X 1 2 3 4 5 97 PART 3 In column one (%), please indicate the percent of instructional time devoted to each area currently included in your program. Those areas not currently included would receive a "0." Use the Likert scale on the right to indicate if, three years from now, you foresee the amount of time in each area increasing, remaining the same, or decreasing. 3 = "Increase" 2 = "Remain the same" 1 = "Decrease" Column 1 -JM t If (1) Agriculture Mechanics 1 2 3 (2) Agribusiness 1 2 3 (3) Crop and Food Production 1 2 3 (4) Forestry & Natural Resources 1 2 3 (5) Youth Organizations (FFA) 1 2 3 (6) High Technology 1 2 3 (7) Horticulture 1 2 3 (8) Animal Production 1 2 3 (9) Global Agriculture 1 2 3 (10) Other (please specify) 1 2 3 Total Percentage = 100% 98 PART 4 Demographic Data Fill in the blank with the correct response. (1) Years of experience: (2) How many students are enrolled in your program? 9th Grade 10th Grade 11th Grade 12th Grade 99 APPENDIX D: SURVEY COVER LETTERS 100 ■ MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY Department of Agricultural and Technology Education Cheever Hall Montana State University Bozeman, Montana 59717 406-994-3201 or 994-3691 March 1989 Dear High School Administrator: I would like to invite you to participate in a study I am conducting. The purpose of the study is to determine if the present curriculum in voca¬ tional agriculture is meeting student needs and, if not, what subject matter changes should be made to revitalize the program. A recent national study entitled Understanding Agriculture: New Directions for Education suggests that schools should create "new ways to deliver to more students educational opportunities in the agricultural sciences, agribusinesses, nutrition and land resource stewardship." The results of my research will be useful for teachers and administrators who will be planning futuristic agricultural programs in Montana and North Dakota. The survey will require 15-20 minutes to complete. It has the support and approval of Mr. Leonard Lombardi and Mr. Joel Janke, State Supervisors for Vocational Agriculture in Montana and North Dakota, respectively. The instruments are numbered for data analysis purposes. All information will be kept in strictest confidence. When finished, please seal the instrument by stapling or taping it shut. The instrument is self-addressed and no postage is required. Please return the questionnaire before March 13. I would like to thank you in advance for assisting me with my research project. Sincerely yours, Dale R. Carpentier Graduate Student 101 I MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY Department of Agricultural and Technology Education Cheeuer Hall Montana State University Bozeman, Montana 59717 406-994-3201 or 994-3691 March 1989 Dear Vocational Agriculture Student: I would like to invite you to participate in a study I am conducting. This project will determine if the present curriculum in vocational agriculture is meeting the needs of the students and, if not, how it can be improved. This project came about as a result of the National Research Council report on vocational agriculture. The results of this research will be useful to vocational agriculture departments throughout Montana and North Dakota in planning curriculum for the future. For this reason, I ask your assistance in gathering the necessary data. The enclosed questionnaire will take 15-20 minutes of your time. Do not put your name on the questionnaire and when finished, staple or tape it shut and put it in the mail. It is pre-addressed and the postage has already been paid. Please return the questionnaire before March 13. The questionnaires are numbered for data analysis purposes, and I can assure you that all information received will be kept in the strictest of confidence. This survey has the support and approval of Mr. Leonard Lombardi and Mr. Joel Oanke, State Supervisors for Vocational Agriculture in Montana and North Dakota, respectively. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you in advance for complet¬ ing this questionnaire and assisting me in my research. Sincerely yours, Dale R. Carpentier Graduate Student 102 ■ MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY Department of Agricultural and Technology Education Cheever HaN Montana State University Bozeman, Montana 59717 406-994-3201 or 994-3691 March 1989 Dear Vocational Agriculture Instructor: I would like to invite you to participate in a study I am conducting. This project will determine if the present curriculum in vocational agriculture is meeting the needs of the students and, if not, how it can be improved. This project came about as a result of the National Research Council report on vocational agriculture. Enclosed you will find ten questionnaires with cover letters -- one for you, one for the school superintendent or principal, and eight for students. Please randomly select one rural student and one urban student from each grade level to complete the student questionnaire. A rural student is one whose parents earn over 50% of their income from farming or ranching. All others would be urban students. Once you have distributed the questionnaires, the respondents will be responsible for completing and returning them by March 13. A reminder from you would be appreciated. The results of this research will be useful to vocational agriculture departments throughout Montana and North Dakota in planning curriculum for the future. For this reason, I ask your assistance in gathering the necessary data. The instructor questionnaire will take 15-20 minutes of your time. When finished, staple or tape it shut and put it in the mail. It is pre¬ addressed and the postage has already been paid. The questionnaires are numbered for data analysis purposes, and I can assure you that all information received will be kept in the strictest of confidence. This survey has the support and approval of Mr. Leonard Lombardi and Mr. Joel Janke, State Supervisors for Vocational Agriculture in Montana and North Dakota, respectively. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you in advance for complet¬ ing this questionnaire and assisting me in my research. Sincerely yours, Dale R. Carpentier Graduate Student 103 APPENDIX E: FOLLOW-UP LETTER 104 ■ MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY Department of Agricultural and Technology Education Cheever Hall Montana State University Bozeman, Montana 59717 406-994-3201 or 994-3691 April 27, 1989 Dear Vocational Agriculture Instructor: All of us are busier these days than we should be, and most of us have a hard time keeping abreast of those obligations which are essential and required. We know how the little extras sometimes receive our best intentions, but we also know that, in reality, none of us have the time which we would desire to fulfill those intentions. From the questionnaires, New Directions for Agriculture Education, which reached you (we hope) about three weeks ago, we have had few or no replies. Perhaps they were mislaid by the individuals, or any of a dozen contingencies could have happened. In any event, would you please remind those individuals who received the questionnaires to fill them out and return them? We are sure they will try to find fifteen minutes somewhere in their busy schedules to check the several items and drop it in the nearest postal box. Many schools have already returned their questionnaires. We7d like to get them all back. Will you help us? Thanks. We shall appreciate your kindness. Sincerely yours, Dale R. Carpentier Graduate Student 105 APPENDIX F: PERCENT OF TIME INSTRUCTORS DEVOTED TO OTHER CURRICULUM AREAS NOT IDENTIFIED IN THE QUESTIONNAIRE 106 Table 8. Percent of time instructors devoted to other curriculum areas not identified in the questionnaire. Response Percent Frequency of Time Montana Instructors: Information processing 1 2 Junior high shop and introduction to vocational agriculture 1 17 North Dakota Instructors: Miscellaneous and SOEP 1 3 Basic math skills 1 15 Leadership development 1 15 Personal finance 1 4 1 10 Farm management SAEP 1 1