ERIC EJ840074: Early Field Experience in Agricultural Education: A National Descriptive Study

2007·0.17 MB·English

by  ERIC

EARLY FIELD EXPERIENCE IN AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION:
A NATIONAL DESCRIPTIVE STUDY

Michael S. Retallick, Assistant Professor
Greg Miller, Professor
Iowa State University

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to describe the nature of early field experience (EFE) in
agricultural teacher education programs nationally. A descriptive census survey of all active
agricultural teacher education programs in the country was used for this study. The fact that
nearly all agricultural teacher education programs require EFE indicates that EFE is valued as
an important component of teacher education programs. It was discovered that multiple early
field experiences are required at multiple classification levels. The primary responsibility for
EFE and the associated administrative tasks are placed on faculty within the agricultural
teacher education program. Similarities regarding EFE requirements seem to end at broad,
categorical levels. Most programs report having requirements; however, the means by which
each program fulfills the requirements are considerably different. Teacher licensure, as well as
state and national teacher education accreditation, influences procedural and minimum EFE
requirements. This study provides the foundation for further research. Additional research is
needed to identify the purposes and outcomes of EFE and determine the extent to which student
learning occurs.

Introduction and Theoretical Framework school-based opportunities, which could
include observing, assisting the cooperating
Early field experience is “an integral teacher, tutoring students, teaching lessons,
program component” for initial and and conducting applied research (NCATE).
advanced teacher preparation (National EFE provides the student with the
Council for Accreditation of Teacher opportunity to start thinking like a teacher,
Education [NCATE], 2002, p. 27). The as well as experience the role of a teacher,
Association of Teacher Educators (ATE) early in his or her academic career (NCATE,
described early field experience as the range 2002). Staffo, Baird, Clavelli, and Green
of school experiences that occur prior to (2002) and Pierce (1996) suggested that EFE
student teaching for those students in provides a context from which students can
preservice teacher education (Guyton & relate theoretical and foundational
Byrd, 2000). EFE allows preservice coursework. Preservice teachers begin to
teachers to immerse themselves into real choose appropriate teaching strategies as
classroom settings. they gain understanding of students’ social
According to NCATE (2002), the and cognitive backgrounds (Liston &
purpose of EFE is to apply knowledge, Zeichner, 1991). Pierce suggested that EFE
skills, and disposition in a variety of settings learning is authentic, and should take place
appropriate to the content and level of the early and regularly throughout preservice
student’s program. Kelleher, Collins and training.
Williams (1995) identified three purposes An initial outcome of early field
for early field experience: exploring experience is career exploration (Jaquith,
teaching as a career, melding theory and 1995; Kelleher et al., 1995; McIntyre, 1983).
practice, and developing teaching skills. Additionally, EFEs introduce preservice
The purpose of EFE can be accomplished teachers to the real-world classroom where
through a variety of early and ongoing they begin to experience the role of the
Journal of Agricultural Education 12 7 Volume 48, Number 1, 2007
Retallick & Miller Early Field Experience in…
teacher (Jaquith; Knowles & Cole, 1996). up of courses and the way the curriculum
Outcomes resulting from that transition was offered varied from institution to
include melding theory into practice institution. Similarly, differences were
(Kelleher et al.; NCATE, 2002; Staffo et al., found in the ways EFE were offered at those
2002); applying knowledge (NCATE; institutions. Dobbins and Camp used a panel
Pierce, 1996); developing teaching skills of experts to develop a comprehensive list of
(Kelleher et al.; Liston & Zeichner, 1991; 32 EFE tasks. The panel raised concerns
McIntyre; NCATE); and transitioning from regarding the amount of time necessary for
student to teacher (Liston & Zeichner; cooperating teachers and university staff to
McIntyre; NCATE). plan EFE tasks and for the students to
McIntyre (1983) mentioned six benefits complete them.
of early field experience to prospective Two agricultural teacher education
teachers and teacher education programs. studies found EFE to have no significant
Those benefits include 1) determining if impact on preservice teachers. Deeds and
students enjoy working with children and Barrick (1986) found no change in student
wish to continue in the teacher education attitudes toward teaching and toward
program; 2) allowing teacher education themselves as teachers after their EFE.
programs to gauge students’ potential; 3) Similarly, Knobloch (2001) concluded that
enabling students to practice teaching skills EFE doesn’t significantly impact students’
prior to student teaching; 4) enabling personal or general teaching efficacy.
students to develop a base of perceptions EFE is situated within the preservice
related to classroom life; 5) providing an stage of Fessler’s (1995) Teacher Career
avenue for improving communication Cycle Model, which provides a framework
between universities and public schools; and for analyzing and understanding teacher
6) accelerating the transition through the growth and development. The contextual
stages from student to teacher. experiences and knowledge transfer which
Field experience has experienced occurs within the model is the result of a
criticism. Moore (2003) suggested that many transformative process (Steffy & Wolfe,
early field experiences are limited to 2001) and is grounded in Mezirow’s (1991)
procedural activities (e.g., time transformative theory. Mezirow espoused
management, grading papers, collecting that the interpretation of experiences assists
materials, and classroom management). The in the development of new ways of knowing
result is a lack of integration of theory and and provides a venue for changing one’s
practice (Erdman, 1983). Applegate (1985) meaning perspective. Such transformation
purports a difference in expectations among occurs when learners change their “meaning
the triad involved in EFE (i.e. preservice schemes (specific beliefs, attitudes, and
teacher, cooperating teacher, and university emotional reactions)” because of critical
supervisor). Additionally, Moore argued that reflection of their experiences (p. 167).
more focus should be on linking what is McIntyre, Byrd, and Foxx (1996)
taught, how it is taught, and what is learned. suggested that there is a “lack of a well
Such arguments suggest there is a lack of conceived theoretical base for field
congruence among the goals and experience” (p. 188). However, the
expectations of the preservice student, American Association of Agricultural
cooperating teacher, and teacher educator Educators (AAAE) (2001) stated that the
(Kelleher et al., 1995). basis of EFE is grounded in experiential
In agricultural teacher education learning. Therefore, the work of John
programs, EFE is an essential component Dewey (1916; 1938) and others (Kolb,
(Dobbins & Camp, 2003) because it aids in 1984; and Knowles & Cole, 1994; 1996) in
the student career decision-making process experiential learning provided the theoretical
(Myers & Dyer, 2004). Swortzel (1999) foundation for this study.
reported that 93% of agricultural teacher Dewey (1938) believed that there is an
education programs required EFE, which on “organic connection between education and
average consisted of 60.2 clock hours. personal experience” (p. 25) and that the
McLean and Camp (2000) found the make- educational impact is dependent on the
Journal of Agricultural Education 12 8 Volume 48, Number 1, 2007
Retallick & Miller Early Field Experience in…
quality of the experience, and its ability to education is a “lifelong process of
influence later experiences. He promoted continuing growth with preservice
what he called the principle of continuity of programs, including field experiences,
experience. Dewey (1938) defined providing the contexts for the formal
continuity of experience as a means by beginnings of career long development”
which “every experience both takes up (Knowles & Cole, 1996, p. 650).
something from those which have gone Knowles and Cole (1994) proposed a
before and modifies in some way the quality cyclical yet spiral framework (Figure 1) for
of those which come after” (p. 35). experiential learning, which includes
Kolb (1984) argued that people do learn preservice field experiences. The foundation
from experience, and that experience-based for learning in the model is experience with
education has become widely accepted as a individual learning and enrichment
method of instruction in higher education. occurring through the experiential learning
According to Kolb, experience offers “the process. They believed this process occurs
foundation for an approach to education and in four stages as students develop, grow, and
learning as a lifelong process that is soundly move on to new experiences. The first stage
based in intellectual traditions of social is personal experience and practice. The
psychology, philosophy, and cognitive second stage is information (internal and
psychology” (pp. 3-4). external) gathering and documentation
Knowles and Cole (1996) built upon the followed by the third stage of reflection,
experiential learning philosophies of Dewey analysis and development of personal
and Kolb and applied experiential learning theories. The final stage is the movement of
theory to teacher education. Teacher the student toward informed action.

Figure 1. Knowles and Cole’s (1994) experiential learning cycle/spiral. From: Through
Preservice Teachers’ Eyes: Exploring Field Experiences through Narrative and Inquiry (p. 61),
by J. G. Knowles and A. L. Cole, 1994, New York: Macmillan. Copyright 1994 by Macmillan.
Reprinted with permission.
Journal of Agricultural Education 12 9 Volume 48, Number 1, 2007
Retallick & Miller Early Field Experience in…
Experiential learning validates and Purpose and Objectives
solidifies the curriculum as students have
opportunities to apply learning in real-world The purpose of this study was to
settings and in context (Mentkowski & describe the nature of early field experience
Associates, 2000) and provides students (EFE) in agricultural teacher education
with experiences that lead to transfer, which programs nationally. The study focused on
is defined as the ability to take what was five research questions.
learned in one context and utilize it in new
contexts (National Research Council, 2000). 1. To what extent is EFE offered as part
This transfer assists in the initial of agricultural teacher education
development of the student as a reflective programs?
practitioner. Such reflection provides a 2. What are the requirements of EFE?
natural process by which to derive positive 3. How is EFE administered in
meaning and understanding from the agricultural teacher education
student’s potentially negative experiences as programs?
a preservice and/or beginning teacher 4. What are the placement requirements
(Feyten & Kaywell, 1994). for EFE?
Connors and Mundt (2001) encouraged 5. What are the internal and external
AAAE to “discuss the nature of field-based factors that may impact EFE?
experiences students receive prior to student
teaching” (p. 117). McLean and Camp Methods and Procedures
(2000) believed the development of
standards would provide the incentive for A descriptive census survey research
such discussions to occur. Standards have design was used for this study. The target
been developed to include EFE and to population was all active agricultural teacher
improve teacher education. However, these education programs (N = 82) identified
standards do not outline the specific using the AAAE Directory of University
requirements that should be completed Faculty in Agricultural Education (Dyer,
(Connors & Mundt). In addition, Kelleher 2003). The teacher education coordinator of
et al. (1995) suggested that despite the use each program was identified as the contact
and acceptance of early field experience, person.
“there is little substantive evidence The descriptive survey design followed
regarding either the exact nature or resulting the Tailored Design Method (TDM)
outcomes of such programs” (p. 38). established by Dillman (2000). The
A review of the career and technical researcher-designed survey instrument was
education literature revealed that no studies developed using Dillman’s 19 principles for
have been conducted to determine the writing survey questions and principles for
specific requirements of EFE. In fact, the developing a questionnaire. The instrument
only studies that provided any information was divided into five parts: requirements of
on the use of early field experience in EFE, administration of EFE, placement and
agricultural teacher education programs collaboration, external and internal factors,
between 1989 and 2005 were published in and demographics. A variety of questions
the Journal of Agricultural Education including dichotomous (yes or no), close-
(Connors & Mundt, 2001; Dobbins & ended, and open-ended questions were used.
Camp, 2003; McLean & Camp, 2000). As a Open-ended questions were asked as a
result, the extent to which early field means to obtain specific and unique
experience has been offered, how it is information (Dillman).
administered, its requirements, placement An 11-member validation panel was
restrictions and internal and external factors used to evaluate the content and face
that may impact preservice agricultural validity of the instrument. Five agricultural
teacher education is not known. teacher educators from around the United

Journal of Agricultural Education 13 0 Volume 48, Number 1, 2007
Retallick & Miller Early Field Experience in…
States served on the panel, as did six outside of the agricultural education
teacher educators from Iowa State curriculum.
University, including representatives from
agricultural education, curriculum and Results and Findings
instruction, and higher education. Their
comments and suggestions were Of the agricultural teacher education
incorporated into the final questionnaire. programs that responded, 40 (55.6%) were
The questionnaire was field tested for 1862 land-grant institutions, five (6.9%)
suitability and reliability by ten agricultural were 1890 land-grant institutions, 27
teacher education coordinators. Reliability (36.1%) were regional or state institutions,
was calculated using the test-retest method and one (1.4%) was a private institution.
(Ary, Jacobs, & Razavieh, 2002). The time The number of faculty full-time equivalents
interval was two weeks. The reliability was (FTE) who were associated with the
calculated for each section: requirements of agricultural teacher education program
EFE (.89), administration of EFE (.89), ranged from zero (n = 2, 2.9%) to 7.00 (n =
placement and collaboration (.84), external 1, 1.4%). The mode for faculty FTE was
and internal factors (.92), and demographics 1.00. The mean was 2.27 (SD = 1.59) and
(.76). the median was 2.00. Most programs (n =
Data collection followed Dillman’s 49, 71.0%) did not have professional staff.
(2000) survey implementation plan. Dillman Of the programs that reported having
recommended four contacts and an professional staff, the FTE ranged from 0.33
additional “special” contact. For this study, (n = 1, 5% of the programs) to 2.0 (n = 4,
the special contact was a final cover letter 20%). Other programs reported having 0.5
and survey instrument sent via certified FTE (n = 1, 5%), 0.75 FTE (n = 1, 5%), and
mail. Elements to achieve a high response 1.0 FTE (n = 13, 65%).
rate as outlined by Dillman were also used.
The data collection process was concluded Research Question 1: To what extent is
on July 1, 2004. Surveys were returned EFE offered as part of agricultural
from 73 of the 82 programs for a response teacher education?
rate of 89%. No additional follow-up of the Of the 73 agricultural teacher education
non-respondents was conducted since the programs that responded, 71 (97.3%)
response rate exceeded the 85% standard reported offering EFE as part of their
established by Linder, Murphy, & Briers curriculum. Nearly all (n = 69, 97.2%) that
(2001). offered EFE required it within their
Descriptive statistics including measures agricultural teacher education program.
of central tendency (mode, median, and Respondents reported offering EFE in a
mean) and measures of dispersion (range, variety of ways. Many (n = 28, 39.4%)
variance, and standard deviation) were programs offered EFE as an imbedded part
calculated using SPSS. Content analysis of another course. Another 20 (28.2%)
was used to report the open-ended questions: programs reported using a combination of
lists were compiled and grouped according embedded early field experiences and stand-
to their content, and then quantified and alone EFE courses. EFE was offered only
reported using descriptive statistics as a stand-alone course by 15 (21.5%)
(Neuendorf, 2002). programs. Other programs (n = 8, 11.3%)
For this study, the following definition only offered stand-alone courses that were
was provided as part of the directions within directly linked to another course.
the instrument. EFE is defined as formal, Nearly three-fourths of the programs
planned experiences prior to student (n = 33, 71.7%) offered EFE at multiple
teaching which places preservice teachers collegiate classification (grade) levels. The
(undergraduate and graduate) in a remaining programs offered EFE only at
secondary school setting. These experiences specific grade levels: sophomore (n = 3,
can either be a unit or requirement within a 6.5%), junior (n = 4, 8.7%), and senior (n =
course or a stand-alone course. These 6, 13%). Of the 46 programs that responded
experiences may be offered within or to the question regarding the offering of
Journal of Agricultural Education 13 1 Volume 48, Number 1, 2007
Retallick & Miller Early Field Experience in…
EFE to graduate students, 12 (26.1%) stated Table 1 provides the descriptive statistics for
that EFE was also designed for and offered the responses to those questions. Nearly all
to graduate students. respondents (n = 66, 93%) reported
requiring one or more early field
Research Question 2: What are the experiences. The number of required EFEs
requirements of EFE? ranged from one to 10 with a mean of 2.89
Respondents were asked a variety of (SD = 1.92). The mode was 2.0 EFE
questions regarding EFE requirements. experiences and the median was 2.5.

Table 1
Range of EFE Requirements
Requirements n Mean SD Median Min Max Mode
Number of different EFEs required 66 2.89 1.92 2.5 1 10 2

Number of credits earned in EFE 43 2.43 1.53 2.0 1 9 1

Minimum number of hours required 69 57.93 42.07 50.0 4 300 40

Number of lessons planned 53 4.40 3.74 4.0 1 20 2

Number of lessons taught 53 3.09 1.99 2.0 1 8 2

Minimum number of site visits 40 7.15 6.30 5.0 1 25 2 & 5

When the EFE was offered as a stand- (n = 53, 75.7%) required at least one lesson
alone course, the respondents were asked to to be planned as part of the student’s EFE
provide the total number of credits for all experience. The number of lessons planned
experiences. The number of EFE credits ranged from one to 20 with a mean of 4.40
required ranged from one to nine with a (SD = 3.74). The median was 4.0 and the
median of 2.0 and mode of 1.0. Of the 43 mode was 2.0. Over three-fourths of the
programs which responded, 14 (32.6%) programs (n = 53, 75.7%) required at least
offered one credit of EFE, 10 (23.3%) one lesson to be taught as part of the EFE
offered two credits, 10 (23.3%) offered three experience. The number of lessons taught
credits, eight (18.6%) offered four credits, ranged from one to eight with a mean of
and one (2.3%) offered nine credits. 3.09 (SD = 1.99), a median of 2.0, and a
Nearly all respondents (n = 69, 97.2%) mode of 2.0.
reported having a minimum number of Over half of the agricultural teacher
student contact hours required within EFE. education programs (n = 40, 57.1%)
For the 69 programs reporting, the minimum required each student to complete a
number of hours required for an EFE ranged minimum number of EFE site visits to a
from 4 to 300 hours. The mean number of secondary agricultural education program.
hours was 57.93 (SD = 42.07). Most Those site visits ranged from one to 25 with
programs (n = 64, 92.8%) required 100 two and five visits being the most prevalent
hours or less. Five programs required over number of visits (17% each). The median
100 hours of EFE (102, 105, 120, 168, and was five visits.
300 hours). The median number of hours Respondents were asked to identify the
was 50 and the mode was 40. grading scale(s) used to report the final
The number of lessons a preservice grade for EFE. Most programs (n = 33,
teacher was to plan and teach as part of his 71.7%) offered EFE for a letter grade. In
or her EFE was reported. Most programs five (10.9%) programs, EFE was taken on a
Journal of Agricultural Education 13 2 Volume 48, Number 1, 2007
Retallick & Miller Early Field Experience in…
satisfactory/fail basis. One program (2.2%) preservice teachers. Only 49 (69%)
offered EFE on a pass/not pass basis. No programs that offered EFE have an EFE
grade was recorded in two (4.3%) programs. handbook or bulletin. The primary
In another five (10.9%) programs, a responsibilities related to EFE were
combination of grading methods was used categorized into the five major
because multiple experiences were administrative tasks. Respondents were
completed. asked what type of position (university,
faculty, or staff) was most representative of
Research Question 3: How is EFE the individual who had primary
administered in agricultural teacher responsibility for each task. Faculty had
education programs? the primary responsibility for all
Respondents were asked if an EFE administrative tasks in nearly all programs
handbook or bulletin was available for (Table 2).

Table 2
Primary Responsibility for Administrative EFE Tasks
Responsibility n % Faculty % Staff
Developing the EFE program 69 92.75 7.25

Overseeing the EFE program 69 86.96 13.04

Carrying out the EFE program 68 91.18 8.82

Placing students in EFE 68 83.82 16.18

Evaluating EFE 68 89.71 10.29

Faculty or staff within the agricultural Each program was asked if an
education program may not always have the orientation program, supervision training,
primary responsibilities related to the five and/or student assessment training were
EFE administrative tasks. Table 3 identifies offered to the individuals involved with
the percentage of agricultural teacher EFE. The percentage of teacher education
education programs that have primary programs that offered orientation programs
responsibility for each administrative task. to university staff was 28 (40.6%).
In those cases where agricultural teacher Orientation programs were offered to
education programs do not have primary cooperating teachers in 32 (47.1%)
administrative responsibility, programs programs and to EFE students in 57 (81.4%)
reported that colleges, schools, or programs. Only 24 (35.3%) teacher
departments of education most often have education programs offered supervision
the administrative responsibility. Three training to their college personnel, but over
programs reported having joint half (n = 37, 53.6%) offered supervision
responsibility, and another three programs training to the cooperating teacher. Student
identified an office or center (Office of Field assessment training was offered to those
Experience, Student Teaching Center, and individuals involved with EFE in 30
Clinical Studies) as having the primary (42.9%) programs and to cooperating
responsibility for EFE administrative tasks. teachers in 35 (50%) programs.

Journal of Agricultural Education 13 3 Volume 48, Number 1, 2007
Retallick & Miller Early Field Experience in…
Table 3
Primary Administrative Responsibility of EFE Within Agricultural Education
Responsibility n % within ag ed
Developing the EFE program 69 72.5

Overseeing the EFE program 69 69.6

Carrying out the EFE program 68 77.9

Placing students in EFE 68 79.4

Evaluating EFE 69 75.4

Research Question 4: What are the agricultural education staff. In two cases,
placement requirements for EFE? the EFE site was identified as a professional
Respondents were asked whether or not school by the university teacher education
preservice teachers were required to conduct program. The cooperating program could be
their EFE within an agricultural education either a single- or multiple-teacher program,
program. In nearly all agricultural teacher but it must be a “high quality,”
education programs (n = 66, 93%), students comprehensive program.
were required to complete the EFE within a Respondents were asked whether or not
middle or high school agricultural education there were minimum qualifications for
program. teachers to serve as cooperating teachers.
Most programs (n = 50, 70.4%) have Most programs (n = 45, 64.3%) reported
restrictions on where students can complete having minimum qualifications for teachers
the required EFE. Respondents were asked to serve as EFE cooperating teachers.
to list the placement restrictions. The Respondents were asked to list the minimum
restrictions listed by the respondents could qualifications. A minimum number of years
be categorized into two categories: student of experience was a common minimum
and program restrictions. The most prevalent qualification (n = 30, 66.7%). However, the
student restriction (n = 16, 32%) was that minimum number of years ranged from two
students could not complete their EFE at to five. Another minimum qualification was
their “home” school or with their former that the cooperating teacher must have also
agricultural teacher. In some cases (n = 4, been in the current position for more than
8%), students were required to complete at one year (n = 7, 15.6%). Some programs
least one early field experience in the specified that cooperating teachers must
program where they intended to do their have earned a master’s degree (n = 7,
student teaching. 15.6%), be tenured (n = 3, 6.7%), and must
The program restrictions listed by the have teacher certification in the state (n = 5,
respondents tended to be based upon the 11.1%). In some instances (n = 5, 11.1%),
policies and procedures of the teacher the cooperating teacher must either be a
education program. One-half of the teacher member, or provide service to the
education programs (n = 25) had either professional association. The approval of
developed a list, or had in some way the principal was required in three (6.7%)
identified approved programs where EFE programs. One program required the
could be completed. Those lists were either cooperating teacher to complete a three-
approved by the agricultural teacher credit-hour course. Some programs (n = 8,
education program, or jointly by the 17.8%) reported requiring the teacher to
agricultural teacher education program and either be part of the student teaching
the state department of education program, or meet similar requirements as
Journal of Agricultural Education 13 4 Volume 48, Number 1, 2007
Retallick & Miller Early Field Experience in…
those who serve as cooperating teachers for reporting, many (n = 32, 76.2%) reported
student teaching. that students must have some type of pre-
Teacher education programs also student teaching or public school
reported having a few less tangible contact/experience prior to licensure. Others
requirements. These less tangible (n = 4, 12.5%) reported that EFE was part of
requirements focused on the type of program the core course that was required for
for which the cooperating teacher was licensure. A few programs (n = 3, 9.4%)
responsible. The general expectation was indicated that NCATE standards drive their
that the program should be “excellent.” licensure. Finally, many state licensure
Respondents used terms like “well- requirements (n = 23, 71.9%) were more
rounded,” “complete,” and “comprehensive” specific in that they identified the exact
to define an excellent program, which was amount of time required. One (4.4%)
defined as programs should be in good program required five days of EFE, while
standing; have met state standards; and have other programs (n = 22, 95.6%) required a
a balance of classroom/laboratory, SAE, and range of hours. The minimum number of
FFA. hours was 30, and the maximum number of
hours was 300. Most (n = 20, 62.5%) state
Research Question 5: What are the internal licensure requirements for EFE were less
and external factors that affect EFE? than 100 hours.
Other factors may drive the extent to An external factor that may affect EFE
which EFE is developed and utilized within was accreditation of the teacher education
the agricultural teacher education program. program. Only two teacher education
This study focused on two internal factors programs (2.8%) reported having no
(i.e., admission to teacher education and accreditation. Many teacher education
teacher licensure) and a single external programs (n = 24, 33.8%) reported only
factor, which was accreditation. having NCATE accreditation, and no
Respondents were asked a question programs were solely accredited by the
about EFE as a requirement for admission to Teacher Education Accreditation Council
teacher education and for teacher licensure. (TEAC). Nearly one-half (n = 33, 46.5%) of
Thirty-eight (53.5%) programs reported the teacher education programs had multiple
requiring EFE for admission to teacher accreditation. Of the programs that have
education. Respondents were asked to list multiple accreditation, nearly all (n = 30,
the EFE requirements necessary for 90.9%) reported having NCATE and state
admission to teacher education. The most accreditation. Other programs reported
common response (n = 15, 39.5%) was that having NCATE and TEAC (n = 1, 3.0%);
students must pass the course (stand-alone TEAC and state (n = 1, 3.0%); or NCATE,
and/or embedded) related to EFE. One TEAC, and state (n = 1, 3.0%) accreditation.
respondent reported that students must earn Some programs (n = 12, 16.9%) reported
a grade of C or better in the practicum being accredited solely by other entities. In
courses. Other respondents (n = 10, 26.3%) those cases, the programs were accredited
listed a specific number of hours of EFE by state commissions or professional
required prior to admission. Those hours standards boards, which focused on
ranged from 10 to 260 hours. Within that credentialing, preparation, or standards.
range, programs reported requiring 24, 30,
40, 50, 60, and 100 hours of EFE prior to Conclusions, Implications, and
admission to teacher education. The 260 Recommendations
hours reported by one program seemed to be
an outlier. This study partially fulfills the need for
When asked whether EFE was required further analysis related to the commonalities
for teacher licensure in their state, 42 among agricultural teacher education
(59.2%) programs reported that EFE was programs as recommended by McLean and
required for teacher licensure. Respondents Camp (2000), and provides some insight
were asked to list the EFE requirements for into the nature of EFE (Kelleher et al., 1995)
state licensure. Of the 42 programs in agricultural education.
Journal of Agricultural Education 13 5 Volume 48, Number 1, 2007
Retallick & Miller Early Field Experience in…
From the results of this study, it could be education faculty in administering EFE, a
concluded that EFE is valued as an list of placement requirements, and reported
important component of agricultural teacher external factors that affect EFE
education, which is consistent with Swortzel programming. As part of their program
(1999). EFE is a required component, improvement process, agricultural education
which is offered as multiple experiences and faculty are encouraged to refer to Dobbins
at multiple collegiate classification (grade) and Camp’s (2003) comprehensive list of
levels. Agricultural teacher education EFE tasks.
faculty have primary responsibility for EFE Further research is needed to learn more
administration, which is in contrast to about the EFEs that are offered in
general teacher education programs where agricultural education. Research topics
field experiences are administered by a should include the impact of EFE, the
director of field experiences (McIntyre et al., purposes and outcomes of EFE, the
1996). activities and procedures associated with
It can also be concluded that programs EFE, and EFE methods utilized by other
have established requirements and specific secondary teacher education and pre-
expectations for EFE. Programs require a professional programs. This study focused
minimum number of EFE contact hours as on what exists related to EFE. Dialogue
well as a minimum number of lessons to be among teacher education professionals and
planned and taught. In addition, students further study is needed on what may be
have restrictions on where they can missing from such experiences. In addition,
complete their experience. student learning, the extent to which student
EFE offerings are driven by external and learning is transferred to future experiences,
internal factors. Teacher education and how such learning can be evaluated
programs, state teacher licensure boards, as should be studied. Finally, since Connors
well as state and national teacher education and Mundt (2001) reported that nearly half
accreditation influence procedural and of the agricultural teacher education
minimum requirements for EFE. The programs were planning changes, it may be
mandates established by licensing and valuable to replicate this study in five years
accrediting agencies have influenced the to identify changes in EFE.
programming associated with EFE. Many
of the quantifiable requirements associated References
with EFE have been driven by licensure and
accreditation. American Association for Agricultural
Finally, many of the similarities Education (AAAE). (2001). National
regarding EFE requirements seem to end at Standards for Teacher Education in
broad, categorical levels, which is consistent Agriculture. Retrieved October 3, 2003,
with McLean and Camp (2000). Most from http://www.aaaeonline.org.
programs report having the requirements;
however, the means by which each program Applegate, H. (1985). Early field
fulfills the requirements vary. There seems experiences: Recurring dilemma. Journal of
to be a considerable range in the number of Teacher Education, 36(2), 60-64.
EFE opportunities, credits earned, hours
required, and lessons planned. Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Razavieh, A.
This study has implications for programs (2002). Introduction to research in
that are planning to evaluate the EFE portion education (6th ed.). Belmont, CA:
of their agricultural teacher education Wadsworth/Thomson.
program. The results of this study provide
national data that can be used for program Connors, J. J., & Mundt, J. P. (2001).
comparison. This study provides program Characteristics of preservice teacher
planners and evaluators with baseline data education programs in agricultural
regarding the extent to which EFE is offered education in the United States. Proceedings
in agricultural education, a range of EFE of the National Agricultural Education
requirements, specific roles of agricultural Research Conference, 28, 109-118.
Journal of Agricultural Education 13 6 Volume 48, Number 1, 2007