Journal of Agricultural Education - Vol. 38

Agricultural educators are confronted with a dilemma. They continue to espouse a theory of learning that requires Supervised Agricultural Experience (SAE) but their students practice fewer and fewer SAEs. The various dimensions of the theory-to-practice dilemma have not been adequately addressed by agricultural educators. Researchers have recommended changes in either espoused theories or theories-inuse, but with little measurable impact. With the dilemma and decline of SAE in mind, a descriptive study was conducted in 1996 to analyze the status and importance of SAE. The findings provided a snapshot of SAE in New York state, showed measurements of secondary school teacher attitudes toward various aspects related to SAE, and comparedperceptions of teachers at central schools with those at BOCES (multipleschool programs). Data, compared with a precedent study conducted in 1983, indicated a 10% decrease in SAE practice since 1983. A low level of summer employment, limited release time for SAE supervision during the school day, decreased assistance with transportation costs, and complicated scheduling problems with competing school activities were the most formidable barriers identified. A comprehensive overhaul of thinking about andpractice of SAE was recommended in order to raise up innovative interventions that might arrest the decline of SAE. Agricultural educators are confronted with a dilemma. On the one hand, they continue to espouse a theory of learning that requires Supervised Agricultural Experience (SAE). On the other hand, their students practice fewer and fewer SAEs. Various dimensions of this dilemma have been addressed by researchers, but with little visible impact. Agricultural educators have conducted considerable inquiry into experiential learning process expressed through the SAE approach. Dyer and Osborne (1995 and 1996) examined all the relevant literature on SAE research and found that SAE programs lacked definition, focus, and direction. Osborne (1988) also reported that teachers generally supported SAE but found great difficulty in implementing the concept with students. Increasingly, for at least that past 30 years, a change in focus of agricultural education away from production agriculture to a wider array of food system interests has become evident. This lessening of focus has contributed to ambiguity and discrepancy, creating uncertainty about SAE (Boone, Doerfert & Elliot, 1987). As a result, participation in SAE has declined. Penrod (1984) reported that as few as 30% of agricultural education students in New York state had SAEs in 1982. Other states, reportedly, have higher levels of SAE participation (Dyer & Osborne, 1995). Nation-wide efforts have encouraged incorporation of SAE principles into science-oriented and specialty areas of instruction, departing from a more singular occupational focus (National Research Council, 1988). A precedent New York study, completed in 1983, indicated that secondary teachers of agriculture still espouse support of the concept of experiential learning but have general difficulty utilizing these concepts in their instructional design (Berkey & Sutphin, 1983). A recent study indicated that Tennessee teachers had positive perceptions of SAE planning and supervision activities (Swortzel, Journal of Agricultural Education 49 Vol. 38, No. 2 1996). There were even signs that teachers thought SAEs were even more important than in previous eras (Bobbitt, 1986). Deterrents to SAE effectiveness were discovered to be lack of facilities, low student desire, inadequate teacher time for supervision, student participation in other school activities, and various economic factors (Foster, 1986). Lack of agricultural background, inadequate resources, and large student-teacher ratios are additional inhibiting factors (Lambreth, 1986).