Exploring The Paradox Of Supervised Agricultural Experience Programs In Agricultural Education

Abstract

Agricultural teachers in North Carolina were surveyed to assess their attitudes toward Supervised Agricultural Experience (SAE) and to identify barriers to implementation of SAE in their schools. The teachers gave the politically correct answers about why SAE was important. The teachers indicated that SAE was important (8.46 on a 10 point scale) but confessed the quality of their SAE program was only a 6.33 on the 10-point scale. Furthermore, less than 1/3 of the teachers had a 75% or higher participation rate in SAE. Clearly this is a paradox; the results don't match the rhetoric. Teachers believe that SAE is not rewarded/recognized to the extent of involvement in FFA activities. Teachers identified the number of students they teach, conflicting demands on their time, lack of knowledge of new approaches to SAE, inadequate SAE opportunities in the community, and the difficulty in teaching record keeping as barriers to implementing SAE programs. The profession needs to develop a realistic plan for addressing the barriers to implementation of SAE.

Perceived Self-Efficacy of Preservice Agriculture Teachers toward Specific SAE Competencies

“…Novice (preservice) teachers are entering the profession having high self-efficacy toward their perceived abilities to develop, implement, communicate, maintain, sustain, evaluate, and supervise SAE; yet current teachers struggle with many aspects of SAE (Swortzel, 1996). Dyer and Osborne (1995), Retallick (2010), and Wilson and Moore (2007) all indicated that teachers do not implement SAE programs as they are conceptually and theoretically defined. Therefore, a gap between what is taught in pre-service programs and what is implemented in the classroom by practicing teachers exists.…”

“…Since the mid-1980's, student participation and teacher usage of SAE programs has continued to decrease (Barrick, Hughes, & Baker, 1991;Dyer & Osborne, 1995;Phipps et al, 2008;Retallick, 2010;Roberts & Harlin, 2007;Steele, 1997;Wilson & Moore, 2007). Further, Steele (1997) conjectured that the removal of the federal legislative requirement has affected the utilization of supervised experiences within school-based agricultural education (SBAE) nationwide.…”

“…Moreover, Camp, Clarke, and Fallon (2000) concluded that agriculture teachers do not believe that SAE is appropriate for their school-based agricultural education programs. Research has indicated that teachers do not implement SAE programs as they conceptually and theoretically define SAE (Dyer & Osborne, 1995;Retallick, 2010;Wilson & Moore, 2007). Likewise, teachers have reported that teaching and utilizing SAE is one of the most difficult components to teaching agricultural education (Dyer & Osborne, 1995;Robinson & Haynes, 2011).…”

“…Further, Steele (1997) conjectured that the removal of the federal legislative requirement has affected the utilization of supervised experiences within school-based agricultural education (SBAE) nationwide. Consequently, teacher understanding and participation in a total agricultural education program has been on decline (Dyer & Osborne, 1995;Retallick, 2010;Wilson & Moore, 2007).…”

“…SAE may be a challenging component of SBAE, however, SAE makes SBAE unique in education as it provides learners with an authentic experience, connected to careers and as an extension of the classroom. Teachers should realize the benefits from engagement in SAE specific professional development seminars (Retallick, 2010;Roberts & Dyer, 2004;Sorensen, Tarpley, & Warnick, 2010;Wilson & Moore, 2007;Young & Edwards, 2005).…”