THE EVALUATION OF THE COOPERATING TEACHER EVALUATION INSTRUMENTS USED FOR STUDENT TEACHERS IN AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION IN A SOUTHWESTERN STATE
Christa Dal Molin
Agricultural Education Teacher
John Bowne High School
Billye Foster, Ed.D.
Department of Agricultural Education
The University of Arizona
Ed Franklin, Ph.D.
Department of Agricultural Education
The University of Arizona
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the current Cooperating Teacher Evaluation process for student teachers in agricultural education in the state of Arizona and to create a more effective evaluation instrument. The study was a modified Delphi and used the current evaluation instrument as the basis for the evaluation criteria in the questionnaire. The questionnaire was sent to Arizona agricultural education cooperating teachers from the last five years, 1998 to 2003.
Findings indicate that the cooperating teachers were not satisfied with 20% of the previous evaluation instrument. The past evaluation was modified to suit the direction that agricultural education is taking in recent years and to adequately reflect the skills needed for a teacher to successfully teach and manage a complete agricultural education program. The evaluation is divided into three main areas, fall, winter and spring, based on requirements for student teachers to be at their cooperating centers for specified lengths of time during those time periods. It is also divided into categories recognized as useful for a well-rounded teacher. Those categories are: Community Resources, Administrative Responsibilities, Organizing and Maintaining Facilities, Observing other Professionals, Teaching Classes and Supervising Agricultural Experience Programs, Directing FFA Activities, Planning and Evaluating an Agriculture Program, Meeting Student Needs, Developing a Philosophy and Professional Abilities.
INTRODUCTION
Agricultural education has been a vital part of career and technical education since 1917. “Agricultural Education is a systematic program of instruction available to students desiring to know about the science, business, and technology of plant and animal production and/or about the environmental and natural science systems. Federal funding for agricultural education first became the norm in 1917 when the U.S. Congress passed the Smith-Hughes Act” (Council, 2003). There are currently more than 800,000 students that participate in instrumental agriculture education from the U.S. and the U.S. territories.
It is possible to tie all parts of daily life to agriculture – clothes, food, shelter and entertainment that Americans often take for granted. “Agricultural Education envisions a world where all people value and understand the vital role agriculture, food, fiber and natural resources systems in advancing personal and global society” (Council, 2003). Agricultural education is successful because it “prepares students for successful careers and a lifetime of informed choices in global agriculture, food, fiber and natural resource systems” (Council, 2003). In addition to being vital to producing well-rounded citizens, agriculture education serves as a means of keeping at-risk students enrolled in high school. Data from the evaluation of a 3-year demonstration program funded by the Carl Perkins Vocational Education Act reflects a broader perspective on program success. Findings represent that career and technical (vocational) education helps students with passing courses and with minimizing the drop out rate (Hayward & Tallmadge, 1995).
Since 1917, agricultural education has adjusted to many changes. Beginning as a class for white males, it has evolved to a program which welcomes and serves all. Due to the changing face of American society, still more changes are necessary. “The integration of academic and vocational education is a curricular and instructional strategy that makes learning more available and meaningful to all students. A program of sequential courses, it allows students to achieve vocational competencies as it fosters learning of abstract or theoretical concepts under applied conditions” (Berryman, 1992, p. 1).
The world is evolving – and therefore, society must never quit learning and changing. Agricultural education is no different. “In the years ahead, agricultural education will become more focused on the science of producing and processing plants and animals as well as maintaining a healthy environment. The business skills needed by successful producers and agribusiness companies will continue to become more complex and challenging” (Vaughn, 2003). Not only do agricultural education teachers need to remain up-to-date with new technology and agricultural issues, they also need to be masters at integrating traditional academia into career and technical education. “Therefore, it is critical that agricultural educators continue to examine, refine, and improve our educational process” (Vaughn, 2003).
Teaching is the essential profession - the one that makes all other professions possible. “Without well-qualified, caring, and committed teachers, neither improved curricula and assessments, nor safe schools – not even the highest standards in the world – will ensure that our children are prepared for the challenges and opportunities in America’s third century” (Novartis, 2003). The problem as reported by Novartis is that only 75% of America’s teachers can be considered fully qualified; that is, having studied child development, learning and teaching methods; holding degrees in their subject areas; and having passed state licensure requirements.
There is an increased demand for competent and qualified agricultural education teachers across the United States. The current evaluation criteria used in Arizona was established in the 1970’s and is outdated. It is also too un-wieldy; the scope of the current criteria is so large that it becomes difficult to do a thorough evaluation. In order to produce competent and qualified teachers, the completion criteria instruments used by agriculture education need to be re-considered.
OBJECTIVES
The purpose of this study was to refine and recreate the instrument for evaluation of agricultural education student teachers by cooperating teachers in Arizona. The following objectives are identified for the research project.
1. Review the current cooperating teacher evaluation instruments for student teachers in Agricultural Education in the state of Arizona.
2. Determine what is vital to the student teaching evaluation as agreed upon by Agricultural Education Cooperating Teachers from the last five years, 1998-2003.
3. To create a student teacher evaluation instrument that:
· Evaluates student teachers on a variety of levels to ensure competent teaching abilities.
· Utilizes Arizona needs/requirements for Agricultural Education teachers.
· Aids in producing successful, competent and qualified teachers.
· Is up-to-date and has a small enough scope to do a thorough evaluation.
4. To determine if demographics effect the measure of importance put on different evaluation criteria.
A simple conceptual framework for this study is shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Revision of assessment form for student teacher evaluation conceptual framework.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Based upon available research, there are no set standards student teachers need to meet in order to graduate. The requirements vary from department to department, school to school and state to state. The only things remaining constant throughout the United States is that teachers need to have a degree from an accredited University or College and that they must pass a certification test.
At the University of Arizona, the program is set up so that student teachers are evaluated through mid-term progress reports and a final progress report. Cooperating teachers and university supervisors conduct the evaluations. Progress reports are evaluated using a Likert type scale with six points. The main areas of evaluation are: Demonstrates Content Knowledge; Designs and Plans Instruction; Implements Instruction; Creates and Maintains a Positive Learning Climate; and, Professionalism.
Agricultural education student teachers at the University of Arizona (UA) are required to meet specific competencies. During the fall semester, before the student teacher goes to their cooperating center, they are required to meet state-mandated criteria/competencies. Agricultural education covers many subject areas ( i.e.: Plant Science, Animal Science, Agriculture Economics, Mechanics, Renewable Natural Resources, Genetics, Biotechnology, etc) and consists of three parts: classroom instruction, FFA (youth organization) and SAE (supervised agricultural experience). This variety causes need for more specific competencies. The UA agricultural education faculty, in concert with Arizona agricultural education teachers, developed competencies utilized in the teacher preparation program. These competencies serve as guidelines, which if mastered, will enable the one who demonstrates those competencies to be an effective teacher.
In 1996, validation of the importance of the competencies came through a thesis research project. That research determined that the respondents considered all of the professional education competencies to be important and that there was also a need for a professional education competency relating to academic/vocational integration (Wesch, 1996). The current evaluation criteria used in the Cooperating Teacher Evaluation instrument was based upon the competencies verified through that research.
Cooperating teacher evaluation instruments for agricultural education at Cornell University (1997) were also reviewed. According to Cornell’s evaluation system, cooperating teachers review the student teachers instrumentally during the middle and at the end of the student teaching experience. The instrument is broken down into different main sections with descriptions of the headings. The cooperating teacher rates the student teacher using a Likert type scale ranging from very good to very poor. The cooperating teacher then writes a narrative description to explain the score given. Unlike Arizona’s system, Cornell’s does not focus on specific items, but on main sections (Cornell, p. 35-44).
Arizona Certification Standards
Arizona has mandated state standards for teachers to meet in order to be certified. The Arizona Certification Standards must be included for the student teachers to be qualified to gain their certification. The Arizona Certification Standards for Agricultural Education follow:
§ A valid Class 1 or Class 2 Fingerprint Clearance Card
§ A Bachelor’s Degree from an accredited institution, Official transcripts required
§ Thirty semester hours of courses in Agriculture, with at least 5 semester hours of courses in 3 of the following areas: animal science, plant science including soils, agricultural engineering or mechanics, economics or agricultural economics, or agricultural and natural resources
§ Two thousand clock hours of verified experience in agriculture occupations
§ Arizona Constitution class
§ US Constitution class
§ A passing score on the secondary professional knowledge portion of the Arizona Educator Proficiency Assessment.
In Arizona, teachers first receive a provisional certification, then after two years apply for permanent certification.
Evaluation
Evaluation is “the identification, clarification, and application of defensible criteria to determine an evaluation object’s value (worth or merit), quality, utility, effectiveness, or significance in relation to those criteria” (Worthen, p. 5). Put simply, the purpose of evaluation is to determine the worth or merit of whatever is being evaluated. According to Worthen, Sanders and Fitzpatrick the objective of product evaluation is “to collect descriptions and judgements of outcomes and to relate them to objectives and to context, input, and process instrumentation and to interpret their worth or merit” (Worthen, p. 99). Product evaluation is used “for deciding to continue, terminate, modify, or refocus a change activity, and to present a clear record of effects (intended and unintended, positive and negative)” (Worthen, p. 99). In the evaluation used for this research, the current instrument was assessed in order to determine if the criteria were still valued and still critical to the student teaching process and if new criteria needed to be developed.
METHODS
This study was a quantified research designed study. The design chosen was a modified Delphi. The Delphi is a group processing technique for eliciting, collating, and generally directing informed (expert) judgment towards a consensus on a particular topic. According to Helmer (1966), variants of the Delphi can be applied to all phases of educational planning.
A traditional Delphi takes place in four stages, the first stage used to identify the issues or criteria for the rest of the subject. Because of the nature of this study, the first stage was omitted, because the old (currently used) evaluation instrument was used as the criteria for the Delphi. Therefore, a modified Delphi was used. The three-stage modified Delphi included the following steps: 1) determine the importance of each issue, 2) determine the level of agreement on each issue statement, and 3) confirm the level of agreement on each issue statement (Delp, 1977).
The first questionnaire used for the three-stage modified Delphi project was developed by taking the evaluation criteria from the old evaluation instrument. The goal of every round was to come to a consensus on the criteria. A Likert type questionnaire design was used in all three questionnaires. The Likert scale was the same for all evaluations and was as follows: 1- Strongly Disagree, 2 – Disagree, 3 – Not Sure, 4 – Agree, 5 – Strongly Agree. Real limits were established as follows: 1 = 0.0-1.5; 2 = 1.6-2.5; 3 = 2.6-3.5; 4 = 3.6-4.5; 5 = 4.6-5.0.
All three questionnaires also had room for comments on the evaluation criteria and for additional comments at the end. An expert jury made up of agricultural education university faculty and state staff also evaluated each area on the time of year that it should be accomplished by the student teacher. They were allowed to choose more than one occurrence. The times utilized were: Fall, Winter and Spring. These times are the times that the student teachers are required to spend at their cooperating centers. Currently, agriculture education student teachers are expected to spend one week in the fall, one week in the winter and at least thirteen weeks in the spring at their cooperating center. The population knew this and understood the time dynamics.
The target population for this study was the Arizona agricultural education cooperating teachers from the past five years, 1998-2003. This is a very small overall population and therefore a census was used. The entire population consisted of 28 men and women. The accessible population was 20 people due to death, relocation and to non-acceptance of the survey by the agriculture teacher’s supervisor. The majority (76%) of the accessible population were still teaching agricultural education in Arizona. These names and addresses were accessed through the Agricultural Education Division of the Arizona Department of Education.
Mail questionnaires and e-mail questionnaires were used to collect data. Each person received the questionnaire by mail and as an electronic file via e-mail. An introductory letter was sent to each person and the population’s administrator. The letter stated that if the included postcard was not returned by March 24, 2002 that clearance would be assumed. Out of 21 possible participants, only one principal refused to allow the teacher to take part in the study. A letter was sent to each potential jury member in the population introducing the researcher and the research project. The letter served as explanation of the study, the importance of the study, assured confidentiality and requested participation. There was also an authority disclaimer included in the packet. This disclaimer stated confidentiality would be guaranteed as part of the requirements of UA Human Subjects Committee.