Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Kellie Jo Enns.  Why study sustainability?  Holistic (Timpson, Dunbar, Kimmel, Bryuyere & Newman, 2006)  Contextual (Blasinsky, Goldman & Unutzer,

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Kellie Jo Enns.  Why study sustainability?  Holistic (Timpson, Dunbar, Kimmel, Bryuyere & Newman, 2006)  Contextual (Blasinsky, Goldman & Unutzer,"— Presentation transcript:

1 Kellie Jo Enns

2  Why study sustainability?

3

4  Holistic (Timpson, Dunbar, Kimmel, Bryuyere & Newman, 2006)  Contextual (Blasinsky, Goldman & Unutzer, 2006)  Related to quality (Warner, 2007)  Associated with resources: their availability, utilization and consumption (Hartter & Boston, 2007)  “…balanced management of energy is key to sustainability. Overuse is burnout; underuse is atrophy” (Fullan, 2005, p. 37)

5  Agricultural education sustainability is the extent that a program is “endurable, livable, adaptable and supportable” (Akerlund, 2000, p. 354).  Sustainability is reflective of the local community and dependent upon the resources utilized within the program.

6  Organization and Instructional Content  FFA and Leadership Development  SAE and Experiential Learning  Agriculture Teacher  Program Management  Program Support

7  Three-group survey Teacher (n=114), Response rate 82.5% (94) Administrator (n=99), Response rate 64.6% (64) Community Member (n=156) (random sample), Response Rate 41.7% (65)  Delivered in two formats (electronic and mailed)

8

9  Rating of Sustainability (1 = Very Sustainable, 10 = Very Unsustainable)  Rating of longevity, livability, adaptability and supportability (1 = Strongly Agree, 6 = Strongly Disagree) Sustainability Descriptive Statistics NMinMaxMeanStd. Deviation Sustainability Longevity Livable Adaptable Supportable

10  Organization and Instructional Content  FFA and Leadership Development  SAE and Experiential Learning  Agriculture Teacher  Program Management  Program Support

11  What is the association between the resources and sustainability?  First considered the effectiveness of resources  All resources (except support) were scaled from Very Effective ( = 1) to Very Ineffective (= 6).  Program support perceptions were scaled from Very High (support) = 1 to Very Low ( =5).

12

13  All effectiveness of resource rankings were significant and positively correlated.  As rank of effectiveness of resources increased, rank of sustainability increased.  As rank of support increased rank of sustainability increased.

14  Second consideration was the importance or essentiality of the resources to sustainability  Example statement: “Organization and Instructional Design is Essential to Sustainability”  Perceptions were rated from Strongly Agree (=1) to Strongly Disagree (=6)

15

16  All rankings regarding essentiality of resources were significant and positively correlated.  As ratings of essentiality of resources increased rating of sustainability.  Correlations were generally lower for the essentiality of resources (perceived importance) than correlations of the effectiveness of resources.

17  Are the perceptions of agricultural education sustainability different among administrators, teachers and community members?  A) Are the perceptions of the resource effectiveness different among administrators, teachers and community members?  B) Are the perceptions of the essentiality of resources different among administrators, teachers and community members?

18  Kruskal-Wallis test showed no significant differences among the three stakeholder groups (administrators, teachers, community members) regarding sustainability, χ 2 (2, N = 204) = 4.875, p =.087.  No post hoc test was performed, as no significant differences were detected.

19  A Kruskal-Wallis test determined if there were any differences in the perceptions of the three stakeholder groups regarding the overall effectiveness of the six Ag Ed resources.  Two significant differences were found: Effectiveness of SAE and Experiential Learning (χ 2 (2, N = 203) = 7.66, p =.022) Effectiveness of the Agriculture Teacher (χ 2 (2, N = 205) = 7.49, p =.024)

20

21  The mean rank of the agriculture teacher (79.41, N = 92) was significantly higher than that of the administrator (61.88, N = 53) for SAE and Experiential Learning, z = -2.59, p =.009, r = Principals viewed it to be more effective!  Regarding the Effectiveness of the Agriculture Teacher, the mean rank for the agriculture teacher was significantly higher (80.40, n = 94) than that of the administrator (64.22, n = 54), z = -2.49, p =.013, r = Principals viewed it to be more effective!

22  Kruskal-Wallis test was utilized to determine if there were differences among the three stakeholder groups and their perceptions regarding the Essentiality of the Resources.  One resource, Essentiality of SAE, showed significant differences between the stakeholder groups, χ2 (2, N = 206) = 9.19, p =.010.

23

24  The Mann-Whitney test showed mean ranks of the agriculture teachers was significantly higher (83.95, N = 94) than that of the community members (65.92, N = 59), z=-2.86, p =.004, r =  The community members believed that SAE were more important than agriculture teachers!

25  Organization and Instructional Content  FFA and Leadership Development  SAE and Experiential Learning  Agriculture Teacher  Program Management  Program Support

26  21 of 26 statements are characteristic of Colorado Ag Ed programs (50% of respondents); 12 of which were “Important and Implemented” by 75% of respondents.  According to the plurality of responses, this resource was characterized as “Effective” on the rating scale of Highly Effective to Highly Ineffective.

27  All statements in FFA and Leadership Development were characteristic of Colorado Ag Ed programs (all contained over 50% in “Important and Implemented.”); 16 of 21 statements were “Important and Implemented by 75%.  FFA and Leadership development was rated “Very Effective” by highest plurality of responses.

28  19 of 21 statements characterize Colorado Ag Ed Programs. Only 6 statements showed over 75% of respondents as “Important and Implemented.”  Two statements that are not characteristic both regard supervision activities  Plurality of responses indicate that SAE and Experiential Learning is “Effective”

29  All statements are characteristic of Colorado Ag Ed programs. 21 characteristics were “Important and Implemented” by 75% of repondents.  Agriculture teachers were rated as “Very Effective” according to plurality of responses

30  15 of 17 statements were characteristic of Colorado Ag Ed programs; 10 statements were deemed “Important and Implemented” by 75% of respondents.  Two statements that are not characteristic of programs are both related to Adult Education and Involvement (Alumni and Young Farmers)  Program management was rated as “Effective” according to the plurality of responses.

31  15 of 16 statements are characteristic of Colorado Ag Ed programs. 11 statements were “Important and Implemented” by 75% of respondents.  One statement that is not characteristic of Colorado Ag Ed is related to having an SAE hour for student supervision.  According to the plurality of responses, this resource was characterized as having “Very High Support” on the rating scale of Very High to Very Low Support.

32


Download ppt "Kellie Jo Enns.  Why study sustainability?  Holistic (Timpson, Dunbar, Kimmel, Bryuyere & Newman, 2006)  Contextual (Blasinsky, Goldman & Unutzer,"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google