SAE Research Findings
 Larry Arrington and Tracy Hoover
The Agricultural Education Magazine, Nov. 1994, Volume 67, 9-11.

Experiential learning has long been recognized as being important to teaching and learning in agricultural education programs. Experiential learning has been provided through several means, including FFA activities, land laboratories, field trips, and supervised agricultural experience programs (SAE). SAE includes "the actual, planned application of concepts and principles learned in agricultural education. Students are supervised by agriculture teachers in cooperation with parents/guardians, employers and other adults who assist them in the development and achievement of their educational goals. The purpose is to help students develop skills and abilities leading toward a career" (National Council for Agricultural Education, 1992). Most agricultural educators have agreed that SAE helps teachers be more effective in causing learning to occur, assists students in understanding the relevance of classroom instruction, and promotes close cooperation with parents and the community. Research related to SAE has focused on a broad array of subjects over the past 50 years. The focus of this article is to provide an overview of research related to SAE.

Probably the most fundamental question that has been investigated through the years has been whether or not SAE participation is related to achievement in agricultural education.

Several researchers have investigated this topic using a variety of research procedures. Many of these studies have indicated a positive relationship between SAE participation and student achievement in agricultural education.

Morton (1978) found a positive relationship between the quality of supervised agricultural experience program and achievement as measured on a written test of agricultural knowledge. Similarly, Noxel and Cheek (1988) found a positive relationship between SAE scope and student achievement in horticulture for students enrolled in ornamental horticulture. Arrington and Cheek (1990) conducted a similar study with 10th grade students enrolled in general agricultural education programs in Florida and found a positive relationship between SAE participation and achievement as measured with a written test. Cheek, Arrington, Carter, and Randell (1994) found a moderate, positive correlation between SAE participation and student achievement in agriscience programs in Florida.

Gibson (1987) studied senior agricultural education students in Kentucky and reported a positive relationship between quality of supervised agricultural experience programs and student overall grade point average. Buyck (1989) concluded that students who have supervised agricultural experience programs will have higher grade point averages in vocational agricultural education. Bruton (1967) reported that first-year animal science students at Oklahoma State University who had participated in animal-related SAE programs in high school had higher knowledge levels.

Other studies have not found student achievement to be related to SAE participation. Potter (1984) reported that program scope was not related to mainstreamed handicapped student achievement in agriculture course work. Tylke and Arrington (1988) found no positive relationship between SAE scope and student achievement in livestock production.

Teacher Characteristics
 

Research related to SAE has also attempted to identify factors that contribute to SAE effectiveness. Several studies have focused on the identification of teacher characteristics associated with SAE program quality. The amount of supervision provided by teachers has probably been studied more than any other factor. Many of these studies have confirmed the positive relationship between the amount of teacher supervision (supervisory visits) and SAE program quality and/or scope (Thomason, 1965; Arrington, 1981; Harris, 1983; Gibson, 1987; Anyadoh, 1989).

Another factor related to supervision that has been found to be positively related to SAE quality is the amount of time committed to SAE by the teacher. Research has indicated a positive relationship between SAE and the amount of work teachers do with fairs and livestock shows (McMillion and Auville, 1976; Gibson, 1987). Studies have found a negative relationship between the number of outside-school activities beyond FFA for which the teacher is responsible and SAE program quality. McMillion and Auville (1976) found that SAE scores were negatively related to teachers having part-time jobs. Byers (1972) reported that the number of students enrolled in agriculture was related to student supervision. The fewer students enrolled, the greater the probability that students would receive supervision by the teacher.

Summer employment of teachers (extended contract) has also been shown to be positively related to SAE quality (Arrington, 1981; Gibson, 1987). Brock (1976) found that a twelve-month SAE program was perceived as beneficial to students by agriculture teachers.

Teacher knowledge and understanding of SAE is another factor that research has reported to be related to SAE. One indicator of this is studies that have reported that teachers with advanced degrees tended to be more effective with SAE and spend more time on SAE supervision (Basinger, 1954; Guiler, 1959). Harris (1983) reported that agriculture teachers who recognized the educational value of SAE tended to have students with higher quality SAE programs. Previous enrollment in high school agriculture by the teacher has also been reported to be positively related to SAE quality (McMillion and Auville, 1976; Anyadoh, 1989).

One final teacher characteristic related to SAE effectiveness is teacher commitment to teach about SAE in the classroom. Gibson (1987) reported a positive relationship between SAE program quality and the amount of classroom instruction on SAE.

Student Factors

Pals (1989) found that parents, instructors, and employer groups reported the five greatest benefits derived from SAE programs were that SAEs (1) promoted acceptance of responsibility; (2) developed self-confidence; (3) provided the opportunity for students to learn on their own; (4) developed independence; and (5) helped students learn to work with others. While these qualities from participation in SAE were perceived as benefits by parents, instructors and employer groups, Baker and McCracken (1994) did not find any relationship between participation in SAE programs and the career maturity of Ohio youth.

A student characteristic. that has been reported to be related to SAE effectiveness/participation is "opportunity." Traditionally, a relationship exists between involvement in SAE and rural youth. McMillion and Auville (1976) found a positive relationship between percent of students living in rural areas and SAE scores.

Arrington (198 1) reported a positive relationship between SAE program scope and students living in a rural area. Gibson (1987) also found a positive relationship between student residence on a farm and SAE program quality.

As more students from urban areas enroll in agricultural education, schools and teachers have to look beyond traditional agricultural production SAE programs. Briers (1978) found that over one-half of the schools in his study provided a facility for SAE. Sinner (1979) studied agriculture programs in Florida and found that over 90% of the schools had land laboratory facilities, and that 47% were using these facilities for student-owned projects. Anyadoh (1989) found a positive relationship between a school farm being provided for SAE and the quality of supervised experience programs. Due to changing demographics of agricultural education students, it appears that teachers will need to be increasingly creative and use school laboratories/resources to ensure that all learners have the opportunity to maintain a quality of SAE.

An additional factor that may be related to SAE quality is FFA involvement. Cheek et al. (1994) found a strong positive correlation between FFA involvement and SAE scope. The researchers posed an interesting question to consider: do high achievers participate more in SAE and FFA, or does participation in SAE and FFA improve achievement?

In 1992, the National Council for Agricultural Education, in cooperation with the National FFA Foundation, formed a task force to redefine and modernize the traditional SAE and make it reflect today's agricultural industry and educational programs.

Three major types of SAEs emerged from the efforts of the task force: exploratory, entrepreneurship, and placement. Exploratory SAEs provide students the opportunity to investigate a wide range of agricultural careers and subjects. Entrepreneurship SAEs assist students in developing skills and competencies needed to manage and own an agricultural operation or business. Placement SAEs involve the student in employment-related experiences (paid or unpaid) (National Council for Agricultural Education, 1992).

These changes to SAE will provide students additional opportunities to apply and investigate agriculture practices, principles, and occupations. However, as we begin to encourage youth to partake in these types of new SAEs, emphasis needs to be placed on appropriate awards and arenas in which to reinforce and showcase the efforts of students. The National FFA has implemented a task force to address the issue of contemporary awards and contests (Egan, 1994).

Several conclusions seem appropriate, relative to how we can use these research findings to improve teaching and learning through SAE.

1. Teacher supervision is a primary key to having quality SAE programs.

2. Providing teachers with extended contracts contributes to effective supervision of SAE programs.

3. Teacher involvement with fairs and livestock shows contributes to the SAE program.

4. Teacher understanding of SAE contributes to SAE quality.

5. Teachers who want stronger SAE programs need to be committed to teaching about SAE in the classroom.

 6. Opportunity is an important factor contributing to SAE participation. Teachers and/or schools should provide those students with limited resources the opportunity to maintain SAE programs in/on school laboratories.

 7. Involvement in the FFA seems to be correlated with SAE scope.

 8. Appropriate awards and contests are being developed to reinforce SAE involvement in contemporary and diverse areas of agriculture.

Anyadoh, E.B. (1989). The relationship between selected factors and supervised occupational experience scores in Ohio. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus.

Arrington, L.R. (198 1). Relationship of length of vocational agriculture teacher contract to supervised occupational experience program scope and FFA chapter activity level. Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus.

Arrington, L.R. & Cheek, J.G. (1990). SAE scope and student achievement in agribusiness and natural resources education, Journal of Agricultural Education, 31 (2), 55-6 1.

Baker, A.R. & McCracken, J.D. (1994). Youth organization and supervised agricultural experience participation as predictors of career maturity of agricultural education students, Summary of Research. Department of Agricultural Education. The Ohio State University, Columbus. SR-72.

Basinger, L.A. (1954). Superintendents evolution of teachers of vocational agriculture in Ohio. Unpublished master's thesis, The Ohio State University, Columbus.

Briers, G.E. (1978). An experimental evaluation of an instructional packet on supervised occupational experience programs for beginning vocational agriculture students in Iowa. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Iowa State University, Ames.

Brock, D.W. (1976). A comparison of emphasis on selected aspects of programs of vocational agriculture in rural and urban areas of Texas as perceived by vocational agriculture teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater.

Bruton, J.C. (1967). The effect of vocational agriculture class enrollment and class experience on animal science knowledge offirst year students enrolled in Oklahoma colleges of agriculture. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater.

Buyck, S.C. (1989). Guidelines for a quality supervised agricultural experience program for a secondary agricultural education program. Unpublished master's thesis, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

Byers, C.W. (1972). The relationship of selected variables to the supervision provided students of vocational agriculture by their teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus.

Cheek, J.G., Arrington, L.R., Carter, S., & Randell, R. (1994). Relationships of supervised agricultural experience program participation and student achievement in agricultural education, Journal of Agricultural Education, 35 (2), 1-5.

Egan, G. (1994). The plan for implementation of the national FFA contest and awards study. Florida Agricultural Teachers Summer Conference. July. Gainesville.

Gibson, G.L. (1987). Factors associated with the supervised occupational experience programs of Kentucky vocational agriculture seniors. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus.

Guiler, G.S. (1959). The use of progressional time during the summer months by teachers of vocational agriculture in Ohio. The Ohio State University, Columbus.

Harris, D.E. (1983). Vocational agriculture teacher characteristics and their relationship to perceptions of SOE importance, attitudes toward supervision, and quality of supervised occupational experience programs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus.

McMillion, A.B. & Auville, M.K. (1976). Factors associated with the success of supervised farming programs of Virginia high school students. Project Report, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg.

Morton, R.H. (1978). The relationship between the quality of supervised occupational experience programs and achievement of students in vocational agriculture. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus.

National Council for Agricultural Education. (1992). Experiencing Agriculture: A Handbook on Supervised Agricultural Experience. National FFA, Alexandria, Virginia.

Noxel, S. & Cheek, J.G. (1988). Relationship of supervised occupational experience program scope to student achievement in ornamental horticulture. The Journal of the American Association of Teacher Educators in Agriculture, 29 (1), 24-31.

Pals, D.A. (1989). Valve of supervised occupational experience programs as perceived by parents, employers, and vocational agriculture instructors. The Journal of the American Association of Teacher Educators in Agriculture, 30 (2), 18-25.

Potter, O.B. (1984). Supervised occupational experience programs and achievement of students mainstreamed in Ohio vocational agriculture programs. Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus.

Schmidt, C.L. (1965). An examination of the relationship that exists between the number of farm visits made per boy by the vocational agriculture instructor and the labor income from the student's supervised farming program. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Minnesota, St. Paul.

Thomason, B.R. (1955). A study of the supervised farm training programs of seventy departments of vocational agriculture in Pennsylvania which contribute to established in farming. Unpublished master's report, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater.

Tylke, R.J. & Arrington, L.R. (1988). The relationship of supervised occupational experience program scope to achievement in livestock production. The Journal of the American Association of Teacher Educators in Agriculture, 29 (3), 28-34.

Zinner, C.F. (1979). Characteristics of agribusiness and natural resources and laboratories in Florida. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville. 19