Colorado secondary school programs of Agricultural Education: Perceptions of Sustainability

1. Kellie Jo Enns Colorado secondary school programs of Agricultural Education: Perceptions of Sustainability

2. Why study sustainability? Sustainability of Ag Ed

3. Background Information

4. Holistic (Timpson, Dunbar, Kimmel, Bryuyere & Newman, 2006) Contextual (Blasinsky, Goldman & Unutzer, 2006) Related to quality (Warner, 2007) Associated with resources: their availability, utilization and consumption (Hartter & Boston, 2007) “…balanced management of energy is key to sustainability. Overuse is burnout; underuse is atrophy” (Fullan, 2005, p. 37) Sustainability is

5. Agricultural education sustainability is the extent that a program is “endurable, livable, adaptable and supportable” (Akerlund, 2000, p. 354). Sustainability is reflective of the local community and dependent upon the resources utilized within the program. Sustainability defined

6. Organization and Instructional Content FFA and Leadership Development SAE and Experiential Learning Agriculture Teacher Program Management Program Support Resources

7. Three-group survey Teacher (n=114), Response rate 82.5% (94) Administrator (n=99), Response rate 64.6% (64) Community Member (n=156) (random sample), Response Rate 41.7% (65) Delivered in two formats (electronic and mailed) Method

8. Findings

9. Rating of Sustainability (1 = Very Sustainable, 10 = Very Unsustainable) Rating of longevity, livability, adaptability and supportability (1 = Strongly Agree, 6 = Strongly Disagree) Sustainability Descriptive Statistics N Min Max Mean Std. Deviation Sustainability 204 1 9 2.32 1.367 Longevity 201 1 5 1.47 .735 Livable 204 1 4 1.42 .618 Adaptable 203 1 5 1.53 .726 Supportable 206 1 5 1.35 .571 Is ag ed sustainable in Colorado?

10. Organization and Instructional Content FFA and Leadership Development SAE and Experiential Learning Agriculture Teacher Program Management Program Support Resources

11. What is the association between the resources and sustainability? • First considered the effectiveness of resources • All resources (except support) were scaled from Very Effective ( = 1) to Very Ineffective (= 6). • Program support perceptions were scaled from Very High (support) = 1 to Very Low ( =5). Determine the relationship of resources to Program sustainability

12. Association of Resource Effectiveness to Ag Ed Sustainability

13. All effectiveness of resource rankings were significant and positively correlated. As rank of effectiveness of resources increased, rank of sustainability increased. As rank of support increased rank of sustainability increased. Summary

14. Second consideration was the importance or essentiality of the resources to sustainability Example statement: “Organization and Instructional Design is Essential to Sustainability” Perceptions were rated from Strongly Agree (=1) to Strongly Disagree (=6) Determine the relationship of resources to Program sustainability

15. Association of resource essentiality to Ag Ed Sustainability

16. All rankings regarding essentiality of resources were significant and positively correlated. As ratings of essentiality of resources increased rating of sustainability. Correlations were generally lower for the essentiality of resources (perceived importance) than correlations of the effectiveness of resources. Summary

17. Are the perceptions of agricultural education sustainability different among administrators, teachers and community members? • A) Are the perceptions of the resource effectiveness different among administrators, teachers and community members? • B) Are the perceptions of the essentiality of resources different among administrators, teachers and community members? Determine if demographic characteristics are associated to sustainability

18. Kruskal-Wallis test showed no significant differences among the three stakeholder groups (administrators, teachers, community members) regarding sustainability, χ2 (2, N = 204) = 4.875, p =.087. No post hoc test was performed, as no significant differences were detected. Demographic Characteristics to sustainability

19. A Kruskal-Wallis test determined if there were any differences in the perceptions of the three stakeholder groups regarding the overall effectiveness of the six Ag Ed resources. Two significant differences were found: Effectiveness of SAE and Experiential Learning (χ2 (2, N = 203) = 7.66, p = .022) Effectiveness of the Agriculture Teacher (χ2 (2, N = 205) = 7.49, p = .024) A) Effectiveness of Resources

20. Kruskal-Wallis Test for Group Differences for Effectiveness of Resources

21. The mean rank of the agriculture teacher (79.41, N = 92) was significantly higher than that of the administrator (61.88, N = 53) for SAE and Experiential Learning, z = -2.59, p = .009, r = -.22. Principals viewed it to be more effective! Regarding the Effectiveness of the Agriculture Teacher, the mean rank for the agriculture teacher was significantly higher (80.40, n = 94) than that of the administrator (64.22, n = 54), z = -2.49, p = .013, r = -.21. Principals viewed it to be more effective! What Groups Showed Differences?

22. Kruskal-Wallis test was utilized to determine if there were differences among the three stakeholder groups and their perceptions regarding the Essentiality of the Resources. One resource, Essentiality of SAE, showed significant differences between the stakeholder groups, χ2 (2, N = 206) = 9.19, p = .010. B) Importance of Resources

23. Kruskal-Wallis Test for Group Differences for Essentiality of Resources

24. The Mann-Whitney test showed mean ranks of the agriculture teachers was significantly higher (83.95, N = 94) than that of the community members (65.92, N = 59), z=-2.86, p = .004, r = -.23. The community members believed that SAE were more important than agriculture teachers! What Groups Showed Differences?

25. Organization and Instructional Content FFA and Leadership Development SAE and Experiential Learning Agriculture Teacher Program Management Program Support Determine characteristics of resources

26. 21 of 26 statements are characteristic of Colorado Ag Ed programs (50% of respondents); 12 of which were “Important and Implemented” by 75% of respondents. According to the plurality of responses, this resource was characterized as “Effective” on the rating scale of Highly Effective to Highly Ineffective. Organization and Instructional content

27. All statements in FFA and Leadership Development were characteristic of Colorado Ag Ed programs (all contained over 50% in “Important and Implemented.”); 16 of 21 statements were “Important and Implemented by 75%. FFA and Leadership development was rated “Very Effective” by highest plurality of responses. FFA and Leadership development

28. 19 of 21 statements characterize Colorado Ag Ed Programs. Only 6 statements showed over 75% of respondents as “Important and Implemented.” Two statements that are not characteristic both regard supervision activities Plurality of responses indicate that SAE and Experiential Learning is “Effective” SAE and Experiential learning

29. All statements are characteristic of Colorado Ag Ed programs. 21 characteristics were “Important and Implemented” by 75% of repondents. Agriculture teachers were rated as “Very Effective” according to plurality of responses Agriculture Teacher

30. 15 of 17 statements were characteristic of Colorado Ag Ed programs; 10 statements were deemed “Important and Implemented” by 75% of respondents. Two statements that are not characteristic of programs are both related to Adult Education and Involvement (Alumni and Young Farmers) Program management was rated as “Effective” according to the plurality of responses. Program management

31. 15 of 16 statements are characteristic of Colorado Ag Ed programs. 11 statements were “Important and Implemented” by 75% of respondents. One statement that is not characteristic of Colorado Ag Ed is related to having an SAE hour for student supervision. According to the plurality of responses, this resource was characterized as having “Very High Support” on the rating scale of Very High to Very Low Support. Program Support

32. Thank you!