Agricultural Education in a Fish Bowl Abstract There appears to be different views of agricultural education held by professors at the University.

This study is being conducted to describe the perceptions held by stakeholders at the university, which will improve communication between the stakeholders and agricultural educators. The stakeholders at the university level represent a broad array of individuals and departments. Participants are educators of the University and include those with little interaction with agricultural education to those employed in the field. Participants were purposely selected to identify as many different viewpoints as possible. This study compared individual responses on a Q-sort table to identify distinct factors, or groupings of perspectives about agricultural education at the University. This study is based on a similar study conducted in Oklahoma; Q-sort statements and board parameters were taken directly from that study. Participants completed a Q-sort of 41 statements about agricultural education. Participants were asked about their placings to better describe perceptions and provide rich detail. Results were analyzed using PQ Method software and perceptions were identified by examining several rotations of the data. Findings are grouped on commonalities and differences of the statement rankings. Communications on agricultural education will be adjusted based on the findings. Introduction "Agricultural Education in a Fish Bowl" is used to describe the research that took place. The Fish Bowl analogy is used to represent the Social Judgment theory. The fishbowl was used because no matter where you stand on the outside of a fishbowl you will see something different. Agricultural education represents what is on the inside of the fishbowl, the rim of the fishbowl is where everyone looking in at agricultural education is and their perceptions of what they see. The two types of participants that were asked to participate were from those who are involved in the agricultural department and those who are not. This study is based off of a study done in Oklahoma by Marshall Baker. The main interest was to see how research taken from our university would compare. The reason for this study was finding the different kinds of perceptions professors have about agricultural education. The stakeholders at the university hold a broad array of individuals and departments, perspectives were suspected to reflect this. Purpose/Need As the necessity to integrate core academic content into agricultural education increases, so does the need for collaboration at all levels. The primary interest was to identify, among stakeholders in higher education, the variety of perspectives about agricultural education at the secondary level in order to better foster collaboration. Specifically, two research questions drove the study: (1) What are the various perception typologies held by individuals in higher education regarding agricultural education? (2) What views comprise the latitude of rejection, acceptance and non-commitment for the identified perception typologies? The study was developed to help improve the communication between agricultural education and the stakeholders at the university. The findings are used to help describe some of the perceptions held about agricultural education

The purpose is to describe some of the perceptions held at the university regarding agricultural education and to use these findings to improve communications. It was found that there are easier and more difficult ways to communicate with people depending on their perceptions influenced by agricultural education. The Social Judgment Theory was used to help determine how different people perceive agricultural education. This theory states that people see things differently depending on their perceptions which are based on their experiences. We used the analogy of a fishbowl to help describe this theory. Everyone can see what is inside a fishbowl, it is the view of the position where a person is standing that determines the different perceptions. Objectives The objectives included subjectively identifying distinct factors like different backgrounds of participants, and seeing if this affects the findings from the study. What is needed to identify is the groupings of perceptions, and to determine how they could be categorized by their similarities and differences. Our goals included determining the types of perceptions stakeholders at the university have about agricultural education, and what perceptions are supportive, disapproving, or in the middle regarding agricultural education. The Social Judgment Theory states that if someone has a positive perception of something they are more likely to engage in it. This theory was used to identify the different views of agricultural education at the university. It can also determine how different people see agricultural education to better communicate to our university. Methods This study is based off of a similar study done in Oklahoma. We used 41 statements developed by the Oklahoma study. These statements made participants use their previous experiences to place them according to if they found each statement more agreeable or less agreeable. The statements were very broad so participants had to interpret them according to how they perceived what they meant. Many of the participants said that the statements were confusing or very broad and hard to interpret. We asked the participants what they thought statements were referring to as we interviewed them and what they were thinking as they worked through the statements to get a better idea of why they had placed each statement where they had. The Q-Sort board ranged from number one on the side farthest to the left which was least like or least agreeable to most agreeable or most like at number eleven. The board forced participants to decide whether they disagreed or agreed with each individual statement. Using this method we found that many participants had to think critically about the statements to decide which half of the board it belonged on. We started with determining who would be asked to participate. We looked for FFA Career Development Event superintendents, for people that are either involved in or are supportive of agricultural education, and to others who are less supportive or have less experience with agricultural education. This is also a factor in helping us sort them into the groups. We selected twenty-one participants from various disciplines to help identify some of the perceptions of agricultural education. Many of these participants work closely with Ag Ed
2

students working towards their degree while others may see very little of the students studying agricultural education. We used P-QMethod software to help compare each of the participants placings. This software organized responses based on similarities and differences. It uses a graph to help you visualize clusters of responses and determine what groups best fit together. You can rotate the graph to customize groups, this is similar to cutting a pie or a circular cake, you are able to group similar perceptions and maximize similarities between respondents. This also helps you to visualize how the groups are split, whether there are only a few in each group or if there is one group that has the majority of participants. This replicated research project proved that Q methodology was an excellent way to complete this research and describe the views of stakeholders from different professions. The Q sort allows the stakeholders to express their own points of view while performing a sort. Q methodology was developed by William Stephenson in 1935. It is a research method that is replicated by other researchers to learn the points of view on a particular subject resulting in factors, or view points, as a result of factor examination. The individuals were asked to give an idea about their own opinions by sorting the statements to match their ideas or responses to help agricultural education. With the different arrangements of the stakeholders, the researchers can reveal patterns and other thoughts of agricultural education. By replicating this research, Q methodology asks the stakeholders to sort statements that mirror an assortment of perspectives related to agricultural education. Stakeholders put the statements in an order based on their opinions and interest of the topic. In this study, the statements were replicated to represent the same set of statements that were used in the Oklahoma study. The statements were sorted to reflect a personal viewpoint. The 41 statements used for this study were developed by the Oklahoma study. Stakeholders were given instructions to place the cards along the board in piles of "most like them" to "most unlike them" in their opinion. Then, participants were asked to organize each pile starting with the two statements that they agreed or disagreed with the most. The foam board forces the stakeholders to place the statements in a way that seems most like or most unlike their opinions. Issues that grow from this process corresponds to common standpoints that exist within particular groups of people. (Brown, 1980) Q methodology mainly focuses on the overall response of the stakeholder's sort as the observable fact of interest. This also uses participants to describe possible views that exist about a subject of interest, also known as the gathering. With Q sort method participants are denoted as the P-set. The set for this study was comprised of 21 participants; all of which were involved in higher education and in areas that are of importance to the agricultural education teacher program. Those participating included professors of education, agricultural professors, 4-H and youth development, staff of the college, science professors, and graduate students involved in agricultural education. Twenty-one participants were purposefully chosen to give an understanding of the perceptions from those in higher education that have experience with the agricultural education program. Those included were professors of various disciplines, deans, staff from the college,
3

and graduate students. Those involved have all been exposed to or have had experiences with the students of agricultural education working towards their degrees. The process begins with the researcher laying out the foam board and the 41 statements, formed by Marshall Baker. The participant is then asked to sort the statements into three groups: most agreeable, least agreeable, and those that they were neutral about. Next, they were asked to isolate the top five statements they agreed with the least, and the five statements they agreed with the most. Participants were then instructed to continue to place the statements moving back and forth, from those they agreed with least to those they agreed with most, moving towards the middle. The column the participant placed the statement was of value while the location within the row was irrelevant. Once the participant had completed the sort they were asked to review and make any necessary changes, participants were encouraged to share their opinions and thoughts about statements and the study. Results/Findings Our findings are grouped based on the similarities and differences of where the statements were placed on the board. We plan to use this information to adjust and improve communications depending on the certain perceptions we are speaking to. We came to the conclusion that there are four different types of perceptions at the university concerning Agricultural Education. We compared our groups to the Oklahoma study. In the Oklahoma study they found three groups from their participants. We found that there were four distinct groups at the university. The four different kinds of perceptions were those who fell under the listed categories of the Enthusiastic Supporters, the Disapproving Academics, the Conflicted Idealists, and the Progressive Realists. The Enthusiastic Supporters perception is that FFA is a positive thing that helps benefit students futures; people who fall into this group believe that FFA is the best way. This perception is from people who think that FFA is awesome and will support it to the end. The Disapproving Academics perception is that FFA does not mesh with other areas of education. Ag Ed has no room to teach math or science classes at the high school level, and believes that the students involved are usually lower-achieving students that are involved just to have fun. The Conflicted Idealists perception is that they have strong agreements with the leadership that is developed by agricultural education and that the content it has is important but can also give examples of when it doesnt fit or work. They feel that the agricultural education theory may be the best but are impeded with examples from their past of fully believing that it is not. This group was argued by the researchers to include it with a different group but we decided that it was better to keep them as their own because they had sorted statements in a very contradicting way. During the interviews it was discerned that the participants have experience in agricultural education but do not currently work with agricultural education but instead with a sister organization. The Progressive Realists perception is that they support the leadership of agricultural education and FFA, believe that FFA is good but still needs proof that FFA is worth their
4

support. This information has helped us determine the change that needs to happen in the communication for the stakeholders about agricultural education. Enthusiastic Supporters differs from the Disapproving Academics group in that Enthusiastic Supporters believe that involvement in agricultural education prepares students for any college degree program, the Disapproving Academics feel that it does not. Enthusiastic Supporters also believe that agricultural education is an elective that helps students develop citizenship skills, the Conflicted Idealists do not believe this is true. The Enthusiastic Supporters think that agriculture was the first science and any student, whether rural or not, can benefit from learning about agriculture broadly defined while the progressive realists are in the middle or unsure about this. The Disapproving Academics believe that agricultural education does not have any sort of business teaching students core subjects like science, math, and language arts while the Conflicted Idealists and the Progressive Realists believe that this is not true. The Conflicted Idealists believe that agricultural education is a rigorous science or math class in the context of agriculture and the progressive realists are unsure if this is true or not. Conclusions/Recommendations The fishbowl is an analogy that we used to describe the different views that people have based on agricultural education depending on how they look at it. We found four different types of perceptions that are looking in at agricultural education at the university. These results mean that for each perception we are collaborating with we need to be able to adjust our communications to successfully converse with them. Using P-QMethod software we analyzed the differences and similarities of respondents, we found that there were four groups based off of how they had placed their statements. The Q-Sort makes participants have a forced decision towards agree or disagree, making the groups more definite when they were explored. For future studies we would recommend expanding to more than one university or college. Another recommendation would be to go into the public school system and gain perceptions from superintendents, school officials, and staff. More perceptions would help us determine how different parts of the state views agricultural education at the high school and college levels. We recommend that for each different perception how you communicate must be adjusted. For the Enthusiastic Supports communications do not really have to change. For the Disapproving Academics those communicating must understand that for this perception agricultural education is always going to be judged, when communicating you must give a positive perception but remember to not overwhelm the person with this perception. For the Conflicted Idealists those communicating need to remember that there are always examples of when agricultural education doesnt work for some people, even though for most people it develops good leadership and citizenship skills. When communicating with the Progressive Realists those communicating should highlight the reasons why agricultural education is good and try to earn their support.