ERIC EJ840148: Early Field Experience Documents in Agricultural Education

2007·0.13 MB·English

by  ERIC

EARLY FIELD EXPERIENCE DOCUMENTS IN AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION

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

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to describe the means by which early field experience (EFE) is
implemented within the context of agricultural teacher education. A content analysis using
course documents obtained directly from each program’s teacher education coordinator was
determined to be the most appropriate method to accomplish the purpose and objectives of this
study. Thirty-eight of the 82 agricultural teacher education programs responded by providing
57 unique, usable EFE documents. The study found that the most common purposes articulated
in these documents were career exploration and observation. Secondary purposes of EFE were
instruction and assisting in the classroom. The primary activities to achieve the purposes of
EFE were observation, practice teaching, and reflection. A major finding of this study was that
over three-fourths of the programs refer to observation as both a purpose and an activity. It is
recommended that teacher education programs develop EFE programs that go beyond
exploration and, using the established professional EFE standards, require more than non-
academic, procedural-based activities. Programs could benefit from the development of EFE
programs into a sound educational component focused on the application of professional and
pedagogical knowledge and the development of critical reflection and higher-order thinking
skills.

Introduction and Conceptual Framework are developed and adopted at the national,
state, and institutional levels as well as
Early field experience (EFE) includes through professional organizations. Beside
the range of school experiences that occur specific expectations for those standards,
prior to student teaching for those students these professional organizations and
in preservice teacher education (Guyton & associations often provide a broad
Byrd, 2000). A variety of well-developed, conceptual framework for teacher education
early field experiences enable students to and its related components. The framework
immerse themselves into the complex world and standards are the guidelines and
of teaching and serve as a means for structure for teacher education program
students to begin to think as teachers (Carter development and accreditation.
& Anders, 1996). The three primary Since 1954, the National Council for
components that impact the effectiveness of Accreditation of Teacher Education
a comprehensive EFE program include ( N C ATE) has been the primary accrediting
1) EFE standards and accreditation, a g e n cy for teacher education and has
2) purposes and activities associated p r o vided direction through its standards and
with EFE, and 3) interaction of EFE framework for the development and
participants. evaluation of nearly all teacher education
programs (American Association of
EFE Standards and Accreditation Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE),
Educational reform efforts have caused 1999). The development of a conceptual
both accrediting and professional framework provides the underlying
organizations to develop standards that theoretical and empirical foundation for the
specifically refer to and affect early field- individual teacher education program
based experience (Hurst, Tan, Meek, & (NCATE, 2002). The conceptual framework
sellers, 2003). Accreditation and standards enables the articulation of a shared vision
Journal of Agricultural Education 20 Volume 48, Number 4, 2007
Retallick & Miller Early Field Experience…

and serves as a communication piece among National Standards for Teacher Education
all stakeholders. in Agriculture provides a conceptual
NCATE (2002) defined field framework for high-quality field experiences
experiences as “a variety of early and in agricultural teacher education (AAAE,
ongoing field-based opportunities in which 2001). AAAE standards suggest that
candidates may observe, assist, tutor, teacher education programs in agriculture
instruct, and/or conduct research. Field should be “grounded in experience-based
experiences may occur in off-campus knowledge developed with input from
settings such as schools, community centers, stakeholders” (Standard 1) and provided by
or homeless shelters” (p. 53). Standard 3, an agricultural education faculty who
entitled Field Experiences and Clinical encourage the “development of reflection,
Practice, stated that EFE enables teacher higher-order thinking, and professional
education candidates to “develop and disposition of teacher candidates” (Standard
demonstrate knowledge, skill, and 4b). AAAE recommends early field
dispositions necessary to help all students” experiences that are well planned,
(p. 25). The standard is met when candidates sequential, of high quality, and consistent
are able to apply and reflect on their with the profession’s conceptual framework.
“content, professional and pedagogical AAAE standards recommend that field
knowledge, skill, and dispositions in a experiences should be planned and delivered
variety of settings with students and adults” in a diverse school-based agricultural
(p. 26). The standard goes on to state that education program where preservice
EFE helps initiate the development of teachers can observe, keep a journal, and
competencies necessary for individuals to reflect on the interrelationship of the
begin and continue careers in teaching. EFE tripartite approach to agricultural education
development requires accountability, an (i.e., instruction, FFA, and SAE). AAAE
appropriate environment, and collaboration goes on to recommend an early field
between teacher education programs and experience designed and implemented in
cooperating schools on program design, concert with schools, cooperating teachers,
implementation, and candidate assessment. and agencies, which would require at least
More recently, the Teacher Education 40 hours of student contact.
Accreditation Council (TEAC) has begun to
serve as an alternative to NCATE Purpose and Activities Associated with EFE
accreditation. TEAC’s goal related to EFE A review of the literature identified a
is to “support the preparation of competent, variety of purposes and activities related to
caring, and qualified professional educators” EFE. They include the melding of theory
through what is called Quality Principles into practice (Kelleher, Collins, & Williams,
and Standards for Capacity (TEAC, 2002, 1995; NCATE, 2002; Staffo, Baird, Clavelli,
paragraph 1). & Green, 2002); applying knowledge
The Association of Teacher Educators (NCATE; Pierce, 1996); developing
(ATE) has developed a set of standards for teaching skills (NCATE; Kelleher et al.;
field experience, which are meant to Liston & Zeichner, 1991; McIntyre, 1983);
“correspond with, complement, and extend transitioning from student to teacher
the NCATE standards” (Guyton & Byrd, (NCATE; Liston & Zeichner; McIntyre);
2000, p. 4). ATE standards focus and exploring teaching as a career (Kelleher
specifically on the context and culture of the et al.; McIntyre). In agricultural education,
field experience; diversity; reflection and another reason for EFE is to explore and be
analysis; selection, preparation, and a part of the interrelationship among the
assignment of the teacher educators and three components of agricultural
cooperating teachers; and assessment of the education (classroom, FFA, and SAE)
experiences. (AAAE, 2001).
The American Association for NCATE (2002) specifically listed five
Agricultural Education (AAAE) is an activities that could be used to fulfill the
example of a subject-based organization that purpose of EFE: observing, assisting the
has incorporated EFE into its standards. The cooperating teacher, tutoring students,
Journal of Agricultural Education 21 Volume 48, Number 4, 2007
Retallick & Miller Early Field Experience…

providing instruction, and conducting ways for them to understand and find
applied research. EFE provides students applicable meaning in those experiences
with authentic learning, which should take (Knowles & Cole, 1996). McIntyre et al.
place early and often (Pierce, 1996). (1996) recommended that cohort groups be
However, McIntyre, Byrd, and Foxx (1996) formed, which allow students the
posit that increased practice without opportunity to explore various meanings and
reflection and analysis does not lead to contexts and provide a communal
professional growth. perspective to break down the personal
barriers associated with teaching.
Interaction of EFE Participants Discussions and individual conferences
Interaction with peers, the cooperating where students can dialogue with other
teacher, and the teacher educator (the triad) students, as well as converse with
are vital if the student is to learn from the cooperating teachers and university faculty,
EFE experience and develop a deeper play significant roles in the development of
understanding about the profession beginning teachers (Carter & Anders, 1996).
(McIntyre et al., 1996). Close cooperation The largest problem with EFE is the lack
among the triad ensures that an appropriate of interaction between the institution and
school environment and supportive cooperating site (McIntyre et al., 1996).
supervising practices are provided, and that Preservice teachers tend to neither
they are conducive to fostering the optimal appropriately interact with cooperating
levels of personal and professional growth. teachers, nor come to an agreement on the
Early field experience supervision is responsibility of each participant. Often the
irregular at best, especially by campus-based relationship between the university and the
supervisors (Carter & Anders, 1996). There cooperating school is one of congenial
seems to be a natural conflict among the tolerance instead of cooperation (McIntyre
university supervisor, preservice students, et al.). Another problem is the differences in
and cooperating teachers. University expectations among the student, cooperating
supervisors seem to be the least understood teacher, and teacher educator (Applegate,
component in the triad and generally receive 1985; Kelleher et al., 1995). The differences
the most criticism (McIntyre et al.). Their in expectations create confusion and further
level of influence may vary depending upon complicate measuring the educational value
their degree of involvement, how they of EFE (Kelleher et al.).
communicate, their ability to define and In this section, the conceptual
articulate program goals, and their broader framework for EFE was presented. The
perspective and approach to teaching (Carter conceptual framework included the
& Anders). standards associated with NCATE, ATE,
The influences of the cooperating and AAAE; the purpose and activities
teacher on a preservice student are great associated with EFE; and the role and
(McIntyre et al., 1996). In order for EFE to interaction among the triad and peers. In the
be successful and beneficial, classroom next section, the theoretical framework of
teachers must be able to shift to the role of EFE is presented.
teacher educator (Chastko, 1993). Too often,
preservice students fail to appropriately Theoretical Framework of EFE
interact with cooperating teachers. Because
it is difficult for cooperating teachers to In agricultural teacher education, early
make such a shift, communication is field experiences are grounded in
generally brief and impersonal and experiential learning (AAAE, 2001).
substantive discussions and conflict are Knowles and Cole (1996) believed teacher
generally avoided (Killian & McIntyre, education is a “lifelong process of
1983). continuing growth with preservice
An often overlooked and undervalued programs, including field experiences,
component of EFE is peer interaction. providing the context for the formal
Because students participating in EFE have beginnings of career long development” (p.
limited experiences, the challenge is to find 650). Using the works of John Dewey
Journal of Agricultural Education 22 Volume 48, Number 4, 2007
Retallick & Miller Early Field Experience…

(1916; 1938) and David Kolb (1984) as their means by which the purposes are to be
basis, Knowles and Cole (1994; 1996) achieved. In addition, there is no literature
applied experiential learning philosophies to regarding the intended interactions to
field experiences in teacher education. accomplish these purposes. Such
Knowles and Cole (1994) proposed a observations caused McLean and Camp
cyclical yet spiral framework for (2000) to recommend further study to
experiential learning, which includes determine the commonalities among
preservice field experience. The model’s agricultural teacher education programs and
foundation for growth is grounded in to question what type of experiences
experience with individual learning and preservice teachers encounter in EFE
enrichment occurring through the (Swortzel, 1999).
experiential learning process. Knowles and
Cole believed this process occurs in four Purpose and Objectives
stages as students develop, grow, and move
on to new experiences. The first stage is The purpose of this study was to
personal experience and practice. The describe how early field experience (EFE) is
second stage is information (internal and implemented within the context of
external) gathering and documentation agricultural teacher education. The study
followed by a third stage of reflection, focused on four research objectives.
analysis, and development of personal
theories. The final stage is the movement of 1. Describe the purposes of EFE
the student toward informed action. programs as articulated in course
Early field experiences are the first syllabi and related documents.
formal practical experiences for students 2. Describe the means by which the
aspiring to become teachers. These purposes of EFE are achieved.
experiences engage students, promote 3. Explore the relationship between the
learning, and provide a context for learning, explained purposes of EFE and the
which Fink (2003) purports leads to means by which the purposes are
significant learning experiences. The real- achieved.
world setting and the context for learning 4. Determine if interaction among the
validate and solidify the curriculum teacher education triad is expected
(Mentkowski & Associates, 2000) for and/or defined.
preservice teachers. EFE provides the initial
exposure and a springboard for the students Methods
to develop critical thinking and lifelong
learning that can be applied as they develop Existing sources were at the heart of the
professionally. Preservice teachers learn material being analyzed (Hodson, 1999).
from these experiences and are able to Therefore, content analysis was determined
transfer what is learned to new contexts to be the most appropriate method to
(National Research Council, 2000). accomplish the purpose and objectives of
Knowles and Cole (1994) promoted this this study.
through their experiential learning Documents for this study were requested
cycle/spiral. Professional organizations as part of a national survey on EFE within
have developed standards to improve all agricultural teacher education (Retallick &
aspects of teacher education including Miller, 2007). Using Dillman’s (2000)
experiential learning components like EFE. survey implementation plan of four contacts
However, Connors & Mundt (2001) stated and an additional “special” contact, 73 of the
that these standards do not outline the 82 programs responded for a response rate
specific requirements to be completed, nor of 89%. The question on the survey stated:
do they provide the technical information on “As a primary source for further study, we
what students are to complete as part of are asking that you provide EFE
EFE. Furthermore, within agricultural handbook(s), bulletin(s), syllabi or other
teacher education, there is no documentation documents used for your required early field
of the explained purposes of EFE or the experience program.” Respondents were
Journal of Agricultural Education 23 Volume 48, Number 4, 2007
Retallick & Miller Early Field Experience…

provided with three methods by which to study for three variables: written objectives,
provide the materials: 1) hard copy sent via placement restrictions, and journaling. Data
U.S. Postal Service (a mailing label was from the coding documents were entered
provided); 2) electronic copy e-mailed (e- into SPSS Version 13.0. Descriptive
mail address provided); or 3) material statistics of the frequencies were reported
available via the World Wide Web for each of the 34 variables in the study. To
(respondents were asked to provide the explore the relationship between the
URL). purposes and activities associated with EFE,
Of the 73 programs that responded to the phi-correlations were calculated and
larger study, 38 programs provided 57 analyzed.
unique, usable EFE documents. Although a Establishing the authenticity of the
request for materials was made to all coding document and the validity of its
agricultural teacher education programs, contents is a research issue with content
only the materials provided by the analysis (Ary, Jacobs, & Razavieh, 2002).
coordinators via the request were included in This study used course materials that
the study. The documents that were included course syllabi, course packets,
analyzed were not limited to those courses assignments, and/or handbooks. The
offered by agricultural education program materials were obtained directly from each
faculty and staff. This inclusion was in light program’s teacher education coordinator.
of McLean and Camp (2000), who This method of securing the documents
suggested all documents inside and outside ensured authenticity and validity of the
of agricultural education should be included documents analyzed.
in future studies. Based upon their Two types of reliability, stability
experiences, they argued that including the and reproducibility, were addressed
general education courses allowed for a (Krippendorff, 1980). Following the
more complete picture of the agricultural suggestion by Krippendorff, the test-retest
teacher education program. method was the reliability design used to
A comparison of early and late ensure stability. A random sample of the
respondents (Lindner, Murphy, & Briers, documents from 10 (26.3%) programs were
2001), in which the first half of the recoded and compared to the original coding
respondents were considered early to determine the consistency of the process.
responders and the last half were late Intra-observer reliability was calculated to
responders, was made on all 34 variables be .95.
involved in this study. The 34 variables The process of ensuring reproducibility
were part of four constructs: demographics began with the development of the coding
(seven variables), explained purposes (eight instrument (Hodson, 1999). A complete,
variables), means of achieving the purposes comprehensive coding instrument was
(13 variables), and interaction (six initially developed based upon a review of
variables). Using chi-square, no statistically the literature and the purpose and objectives
significant differences between early and of the study. A review of the documents to
late respondents were found with 31 of the be coded was also made to ensure that
34 variables. There was a significant an all-inclusive coding instrument was
difference between early and late developed (Neuendorf, 2002). The
respondents related to written objectives (p preliminary review of documents revealed
= .03), placement restrictions (p = .03), and that many programs report an activity as a
journaling (p = .04). Late respondents were purpose of EFE. As a result, observation
more likely to have written objectives and was included as a purpose on the coding
require journaling, while early respondents instrument.
were more likely to have placement Special effort was made in developing
restrictions. The results of the study can be the coding document to prevent the coder
generalized to the larger agricultural teacher from making inferences while coding, which
education population for 31 of the 34 would erode reliability (Hodson, 1999).
variables; however, the reader is cautioned Supplemental coding protocol was
to only generalize to those programs in this developed and reviewed regularly as
Journal of Agricultural Education 24 Volume 48, Number 4, 2007
Retallick & Miller Early Field Experience…

suggested by Hodson. The coding document coefficient for this study was reported to
was reviewed by a panel of teacher ensure the coding scheme did not reflect the
educators for face validity. subjectivity of only one individual
The reliability design used to address (Neuendorf).
inter-observer reliability was the test-test
design. One teacher education professional Findings
familiar with EFE coded the documents of
10 (26.3%) randomly selected programs. Documents related to early field
Reproducibility reliability of the first teacher experiences were collected from 38
educators coding was found to be .75. The agricultural teacher education programs.
reliability coding was calculated prior to These programs represented 1862 land-grant
resolving any coding disagreements (Weber, institutions (n = 25, 65.8%), 1890 land-grant
1990). The intercoding process exposed a institutions (n = 2, 5.3%), and state
common threat to validity: inadequate coder institutions (n = 11, 28.9%). The 38 teacher
training (Neuendorf, 2002). Therefore, education programs in this study provided a
initial coding disagreements were addressed total of 57 usable documents. The
and improvements were made to the c o m bination of documents that represents
coding instrument. Care was taken to limit each program is found in Table 1. The
the amount of assumptions made while largest proportion of programs either
coding the documents. After making provided an EFE handbook (n = 10, 26.3%),
changes, a second teacher educator coded a or one or more syllabi (n = 14, 36.8%).
set of 10 (26.3%) documents from randomly Seven programs (18.4%) only provided their
selected programs. The changes improved EFE forms. Six programs (15.8%) provided
the reliability coefficient to .83. The their EFE handbook and syllabus, and one
principal investigator was responsible for program (2.6%) provided a syllabus and
coding all data. The reproducibility related forms.

Table 1
Documents Provided by Each Agricultural Teacher Education Program
Documents n %
Syllabus or syllabi 14 36.8
Handbook only 10 26.3
Forms only 7 18.4
Handbook and syllabus 6 15.8
Syllabus and forms 1 2.6

Journal of Agricultural Education 25 Volume 48, Number 4, 2007
Retallick & Miller Early Field Experience…

It was determined from the documents purpose for the EFE was identified in five
that 25 (65.8%) agricultural education (13.2%) programs, while no EFE purpose
programs offered EFE, while six (15.8%) statement was identified in the documents of
programs received their EFE programming five (13.2%) programs. The remaining
from outside agricultural teacher education. programs (n = 28, 73.7%) listed multiple
The documents of the remaining seven purposes for EFE.
(18.4%) programs did not provide sufficient Table 2 provides the frequencies and
information to determine whether they percentages for each of the explained
offered EFE within or outside of the purposes of EFE. The most common
agricultural education program. Only nine purpose was career exploration (n = 22,
of the 38 programs (23.7%) referred to the 57.9%). Less than one-half of the
institution’s conceptual framework for programs identified instruction (n = 17,
teacher education. 44.7%) and assistance in the classroom
(n =14, 36.8%) as a purpose for EFE. Only
Explained Purposes of EFE Programs six (15.8%) programs identified tutoring
Three-quarters (n = 28, 75.7%) of the as a purpose for EFE. No programs referred
programs provided a purpose statement for to conducting applied research as a purpose
the early field experience offered through of EFE. Nearly three-fourths (n = 29,
their teacher education program. More than 76.3%) of the programs actually identified
half (55.3%) of the programs provided the activity of observation as a purpose for
written objectives for the EFE. A single EFE.

Table 2
Explained Purpose of EFE (n = 38 programs)
Purpose n %
Observation (activity) 29 76.3
Career exploration 22 57.9
Instruction (teaching lessons) 17 44.7
Assistance in the classroom 14 36.8
Tutoring 6 15.8
Conducting research 0 0.0

Means by Which the EFE Purposes Are not disclose whether there were restrictions
Achieved on the placement of their students.
It was discovered that less than one-half Seven potential activities were identified
(n = 16, 42.1%) of the programs in the study to achieve the intended purposes of the EFE
offered multiple field experiences. An on- (Table 3). Four (10.5%) programs identified
campus component tied to the EFE was a single activity as the means to achieve
incorporated into 18 (47.4%) of the EFE their purpose(s). Three (7.9%) programs did
programs. Only 13 (34.2%) programs not identify any activities within their
restricted the placement of their students documents, and the remaining 31 (81.6%)
who planned to participate in EFE. Four programs identified multiple activities to
(10.5%) programs had no restrictions and achieve the purpose(s) of their EFEs.
the remaining programs (n = 19, 50%) did Fifteen (39.5%) programs required a
Journal of Agricultural Education 26 Volume 48, Number 4, 2007
Retallick & Miller Early Field Experience…

portfolio as part of their EFE. A direct coursework on campus was identified in half
connection between the field experience and (n = 19, 50.0%) of the programs.

Table 3
Activities Used as a Means of Achieving the Purpose of EFE (n = 38 programs)
Activities n %
Observation 35 92.1

Practice teaching 25 65.8

Reflection 23 60.5

Interviewing 14 36.8

Collecting materials 13 34.2

Journaling 12 31.6

Evaluation 9 23.7

Nearly all (n = 35, 92.1%) programs potential activities identified to achieve the
used observation as an activity within EFE. purposes (Table 4). Cohen (1988) labels
More than one-half of the programs used effect size coefficients as small (phi = .10),
practice teaching (n = 25, 65.8%) and medium (phi = .30) and large (phi = .50).
reflection (n = 23, 60.5%) as activities. Less When the purpose was exploration, three
than one-half of the programs identified activities (observation, reflection, and
interviewing (n = 14, 36.8%) and journaling evaluation) were statistically significant.
(n = 12, 31.6%) as EFE activities. Less than Observation and reflection were the two
one-quarter (n = 9, 23.7%) of the programs statistically significant activities when
asked students to conduct any form of observation was the purpose. When
evaluation or assessment as an EFE activity. assisting in the classroom was the purpose,
the only statistically significant relationship
Relationship between EFE Purposes was with practice teaching. Journaling was
and Activities the only statistically significant activity
Phi-coefficients were calculated to when tutoring was the purpose. The only
compare the relationship between each of activity that was significantly related to the
the six explained purposes and the seven purpose of instruction was practice teaching.

Journal of Agricultural Education 27 Volume 48, Number 4, 2007
Retallick & Miller Early Field Experience…

Table 4
Phi Correlations Between EFE Purposes and EFE Activities
Activity Purpose
Exploration Observation Assisting Tutoring Instruction
Observation .343* .567** .244 .127 .263

Collecting Materials .166 .236 .254 .144 .021

Interviewing .099 .261 .208 -.031 .191

Practice Teaching .171 .172 .436* .312 .537**

Journaling .121 .073 .185 .327* .293

Reflection .511* .507* .170 .054 .246

Evaluation .350* .288 .088 .089 .186
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Intended Interactions within EFE Conclusions and Recommendations
Using the documents provided by each
program, effort was made to determine This study begins to answer Swortzel’s
whether the documents actually defined the (1999) question regarding the types of
role of each individual involved in the triad. experiences preservice teachers encounter in
Nearly three-fourths (n = 28, 73.7%) of the EFE. Generally, EFE is offered within
programs defined the role of the preservice agricultural education programs, but less
teacher within the EFE experience. Less than one-half of the programs require
than a quarter (n = 9, 23.7%) of the multiple early field experiences. Only three-
programs described the role of the fourths of the programs provided a statement
cooperating teacher, and only four (10.5%) articulating the purpose of EFE. Even fewer
programs provided a description of the (approximately one-half) programs provided
expected role of the teacher educator within written objectives for the EFE. The purpose
the experience. of EFE seems to fall into one of the two
Just as important in the developmental categories: 1) career exploration with
process as defining the role of the triad was classroom observation and 2) teacher
the articulation of the expected interactions development with students providing
among the preservice student and their instruction, classroom assistance, and
peers, the cooperating teacher, and the tutoring. Although the literature identifies
university supervisor. Less than one-half (n action research as a purpose of EFE, it was
= 16, 42.1%) of the programs provided n o t i d entified as a purpose in any of the
any documentation as to the expected documents. Interestingly, over three-fourths
interaction between the cooperating teacher of the programs describe observation as the
and the preservice student. Nine (23.7%) purpose for EFE even though observation is
programs incorporated interaction with actually a means of achieving several
peers into the EFE. Only eight (21.1%) purposes of EFE.
programs provided indication that any There were differences in the type of
interaction was to take place between the activities programs used to achieve the
university supervisor and the preservice purposes of EFE. Although all seven
teacher. activities identified in the literature were
Journal of Agricultural Education 28 Volume 48, Number 4, 2007
Retallick & Miller Early Field Experience…

utilized by at least one program, the most Whether it is in the form of a handbook or a
commonly required activities were course syllabus, the role of each individual
observation (exploration) followed by in the triad, as well as the expected
instruction and reflection (teacher interactions, should be in writing. There
development). In addition, few programs is a need for consistency within the
placed stipulations on where students could documents and expectations of EFE, which
complete their EFE and less than one-half should be developed based upon sound
attempted to link the experience back to research findings and agreed-upon
experiences on campus. principles. With that said, the authors do
Related to the intended interaction caution teacher education programs to retain
among those who should be involved in some degree of program flexibility.
EFE, generally only the role of the Keheller et al. (1995) suggested that EFE
preservice teacher was defined. In most should be well-defined and well-developed,
documents, little or no reference was made yet maintain enough flexibility to meet the
to the role or expected interactions among individual differences and needs of the
the preservice teacher and cooperating students.
teacher, supervising teacher, and other Further research should be conducted to
preservice students. These findings support establish a list of recommended purposes for
McIntyre et al., (1996) who espouse that the EFE in agricultural teacher education. Once
largest problem with field experiences is the the purposes have been determined,
lack of such communication. additional research should be conducted to
Most EFE programs seemed to be more generate an appropriate list of
focused on procedural, non-academic activities for each purpose. A model
activities and less on the development of the that provides the structure of EFE
student into a critically reflective teacher, and aids in the development of
which brings into question whether EFE educationally sound EFE programs would
programs currently meet the intent of the be beneficial.
established field experience standards. In EFE should be approached with the
many cases, EFE is documented as a same level of importance as other aspects
requirement that must be met rather than an of the teacher education program.
introductory learning experience that EFE should not be limited to only non-
provides exploratory and teacher academic, procedural-based activities as it is
development experiences. Therefore, it is an excellent opportunity to initiate and/or
recommended that teacher education continue the development of lifelong
programs strive to meet the established EFE learning skills. Teacher education programs
standards and work toward the development should more closely examine the EFE
of an EFE program that incorporates component as a means of continuous
learning strategies that allow preservice program improvement.
teachers the opportunity to apply their
professional and pedagogical knowledge, as References
well as develop both critical reflection and
higher-order thinking skills. With less than American Association for Agricultural
25% of programs referring to their Education (AAAE). (2001). National
institution’s conceptual framework, there is standards for teacher education in
a need for agricultural teacher education agriculture. Retrieved October 3, 2003,
programs to better articulate and from http://www.aaaeonline.org
communicate their conceptual framework
and build an educationally sound EFE American Association of Colleges for
program within the framework. Teacher Education (AACTE). (1999).
The purposes and activities expected of Comparison of NCATE and TEAC processes
EFE students, as documented in the for accreditation of teacher education.
literature, must also be considered when Retrieved October 31, 2004, from
developing EFE programs and articulating http://www.aacte.org/Programs/Accreditatio
expectations within EFE documents. n_Issues/ncateteacchart.pdf
Journal of Agricultural Education 29 Volume 48, Number 4, 2007