TWO ANGORA GOATS
The Agricultural Education Magazine (1990) Volume 63, Issue 11, pages 17-18.
Gary Moore
Agricultural Education
North Carolina State University

When I enrolled in vocational agriculture in Lampasas, Texas, in 1961 I was told I would have a "production project." My vocational agriculture teacher, Mr. Lacy, told me there were three types of projects - production projects, improvement projects, and supplementary projects. Our assignment was to have at least one production project, two improvement projects, and twelve supplementary projects. I never questioned this. After all, Mr. Lacy was wiser and older than I was. I never asked why I needed these projects. Two Angora goats were selected for my production project. Three years later after several dozen production projects, improvement projects, and supplementary projects, I graduated from high school and went to college to major in agricultural education.

During my senior year in college I enrolled in AED 4103 "Supervised Farming Programs and FFA." The professor teaching the course said that a vo-ag student must have a project and if he didn't (it was he at that time), that was grounds for flunking the student for the year, and furthermore, that was federal law. I also learned about another category of project in addition to what I learned in high school-placement. Students could be placed on a farm or in an agricultural business.

Our text in AED 403 was Phipps' Handbook on Agricultural Education in Public Schools. In our readings I learned 17 reasons why students had an "occupational experience program" (Phipps, 1966, p.187). The first reason listed was to develop abilities needed to become proficient in agriculture. The second reason was to become established in farming or an agricultural occupation. The list of reasons continued. I then knew why students had projects and I also knew that it was required by law. I accepted what my professor said without a question.

Armed with a college degree in agricultural education and my own experiences as a high school vocational agriculture student, I went out to teach vocational agriculture in 1969. I required every student to have a project. No mercy was shown. At times, I must admit, I was bothered by this stance. It was difficult to arrange projects for a number of the students and I often had doubts what the students were really learning from the projects. But my district supervisor told me I was a good teacher because every student had a project. And I did take pride in the fact that all students had projects.

After teaching high school vocational agriculture for four years I decided to pursue graduate study full time. One of the courses I took was AGR EDUC 641 "Occupational Experience in Agricultural Education." In this course we studied the theory, both philosophical and psychological, that provided the rationale for projects. The SOE was based on the philosophy of pragmatism (the truth of an idea is if it works in actual practice). There were a number of psychological reasons for projects. In simple language we determined students learn best when they actually do something and experience it. Thorndike called this the Law of Fxercise. KoIb developed a model for learning based on the theory that learning occurs best when there is concrete experience. During this graduate course I also learned about the expanded definition of what constituted a supervised occupational experience program (SOEP) in the 1970s.

I have now been a teacher educator for fifteen years. I have taught courses at both the undergraduate and graduate level on supervised occupational experience programs, now called supervised agricultural experience programs (SAEP). Much of what I teach about SAEP was taught to me in the past, except I discovered someplace along the way that the Vocational Education Act of 1963 amended the provision of the Smith-Hughes Act that required students to have farm projects. I have taught the gospel of SAEP and project pro-grams with the same evangelical fervor with which I had been inculcated.

During the last few years I have started to have some concerns about the SAEP. The profession has bought the gospel of the project, hook, line, and sinker and has never really asked some penetrating questions. If agricultural educators were asked why students have projects, the answer, without thinking, would be because it is the best way for students to learn. But a question I would raise is, "Are the things that students learn from projects what they really need to learn?" I will concede that projects may be the best way to learn, but how important are the things students learn from the projects? If we are really honest with ourselves, the answer may be disappointing. Let's look at some examples.

When I taught high school, Brian had sheep for a project. He had a rather nice flock of sheep and I was proud of this project. Brian was learning a lot about sheep and practicing what I had taught in class. The truth is, Brian's dad had raised sheep all his life. Much of what Brian knew about sheep came from prior experience. If Brian had not chosen sheep for a project, he would still know more about sheep than the average student in the class. The same thing could be said of Walter's beef project, Tim's corn project, John's dairy project, Albert's vegetable project, and about half of the students I had in class. Many of these students were carrying projects that were convenient (i.e., already existed on the farm), and they already had some knowledge and skills in the area. There were exceptions, and a number of students did learn valuable lessons and gain skills from their projects. But if I am really honest, I will have to admit that the project program many of my students carried did not teach them much they didn't already know.

Research by Herren tends to corroborate the preceding view. Herren (1986) studied the regional and national FFA proficiency awards winners in 1984. Herren asked the students, "Were you conducting this business or operation before you started taking vocational agriculture" Seventy percent of the students replied yes. Another question was, "If you had not enrolled in vocational agriculture, would you now be conducting this business or operation" The response was again 70 percent affirmative. The top agricul-ture students in the nation were already established in the area before they started their SOEP or would have done so without an SOEP.

On the other end of the good student-good opportunity spectrum was the student with limited opportunities for a SOEP. I had to work hard to arrange a project for this type of student. Warren was one of these students. He wanted to be in vocational agriculture and the FFA but really had no plans to enter an agricultural career. After much cajoling and pressure, he ended up feeding out a pig for his pro-ject. What did Warren really learn? He learned how to buy a sack of feed at the local feed store, how to pull the string on the sack to get it to open without ripping the sack, how to run the water hose to the water pan, how to fix the fence when the pig got out, and how to load it in the truck at market time. As a vocational agriculture teacher I had a number of students like Warren. In all honesty, most of them really didn't learn that much from their project - but they had "the project" they were required to have.

I don't want to be overly negative and paint a gloomy picture of projects, but the profession needs to examine the worth of the project concept as it currently exists. Undoubt-edly many students have genuinely benefited from a project program. However, there are certainly many instances where students have learned little from their project programs. Just because a student has a project does not mean he or she is learning what needs to be learned.

It is time for the profession to critically look at the SAE concept. I am not advocating that we do away with SAE programs. I would suggest that we rethink the issue, develop a new list of reasons why students should have projects, and reconceptualize what constitutes an SAEP. In view of the changing demographics of agriculture students and the changing curriculum, the reasons for having a project needs to be reexamined. The students would still have an ex-perience program, it would be supervised, it would be in agriculture, but it would not necessarily be for the purpose of establishing a student in an agricultural occupation.

What does a student need to learn from an SAE program? I would suggest the reasons for having projects have changed since I studied the 17 reasons listed by Phipps. At the top of my list would be the following:

1. To locate current agricultural information.
2. To critically analyze issues in agriculture, from both a domestic and global perspective.
3. To apply current technology in a variety of agricultural settings.
4. To use the scientific process in solving agricultural prob-lems or in discovering and/or verifying scientific agricul-tural principles.

A. Identify an area of interest (i.e., plant growth hormones)
B. Conduct a survey of the literature (compile a list of hor-mones and describe each)
C. Design an experiment (growing plants using several different hormones)
D. Formulate hypotheses (which hormone will work the best)
E. Conduct the experiment
F. Report the results

The Problem-Solving/Critical Thinking Project. The student identifies a problem and then gathers information in an attempt to arrive at a solution. This is a self-directed activity and involves several steps.

A. Identify a problem. (i.e., animal rights, agricultural water runoff, animal hormones, genetic engineering)
B. Gather pertinent information from a VARIETY of in-formation sources. At least one source must be a com-puterized online data information system. Sources may include journals, Agricola, Extension service, books, AgriData, etc.
C. Analyze and synthesize the information.
D. Prepare recommendations on how to solve the problem. The recommendations can be presented orally and in writing.

The Technology Project. The student develops and implements an activity that demonstrates or utilizes new technology. Examples are: A.) Using a tissue culture chamber for plant propagation, B.) writing an agricultural computer application, C.) transplanting an embryo, and D.) computerizing livestock production records. This project is equal to a supplementary agricultural skill.

As a profession, we often take what has been done in the past in regards to projects and pass it on. Oh, we do modify slightly on occasions. We will change a word such as farming" to "agricultural" or "occupational," but in the long run, we continue what has always been. Today's SAEP does not differ much from the original project idea, the 'home-school cooperative plan" formulated by Rufus Stimson in 1908. It is time the agricultural education profession thoughtfully and critically looked at this thing called the project. It needs to be reconceptualized. This treatise is an attempt to get the profession started on that task. Agricul-tural students of the future will need to learn more from their SAEP than how to raise two Angora goats.

Herren, Ray, (1986). Factors Associated With The SOEP And Career Objectives Of The 1984 Regional And National Proficiency Award Winners. The Journal Of The American Association Of Teacher Educators In Agriculture. 28 (2).

Phipps, L.J. (1966). HANDBOOK ON AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS. Danville, IL: Interstate.