AEAP: Cornell University

The purpose of the Delphi study was to develop a structured core curriculum framework based on student learning benchmarks for agricultural education programs for New York State. Our intention is for that framework to be used as the basis for the subsequent development of a student achievement test to make up one component of a comprehensive assessment system for agricultural education based on the three-part model traditionally accepted as representing agricultural education program. The specific objectives of this study were:

In spring 2004, a panel of secondary agriculture teachers, local extension agents, extension specialists, postsecondary agriculture instructors, and other stakeholders was assembled to discuss the basic content framework for an achievement test and to develop sample test items with the intention of preparing a temporary test that could be used until a more structured approach to the problem could be undertaken. The results of that effort were a framework of commonly taught content that could be arranged into nine broad areas:

The National Council for Agricultural Education is seen as the premier leadership organization for shaping and strengthening school- based agricultural education in the United States (National Council (nd). The Council’s Strategic Plan includes as a major goal to “develop national curriculum standards for secondary agricultural education that align with the career clusters pathways” (Retrieved from http://www.teamaged.org/strategicplan.htm, June 3, 2005).

Major efforts to develop career clusters to form the basis for vocational education curriculum and as it became known later as career and technical education have been underway in this country since the 1970s. Recent efforts have given rise to a series of 16 career clusters recognized by the United States Department of Education (Wonacott, 2000). Each of the 16 clusters has been develop into a Career Pathways model. The Career Pathways Model for the Agriculture, Food, and Natural Resources cluster was developed through a grant from the USDA and is currently housed on the website of the National Association of State Directors of Career and Technical Education Consortium (nd).

The career clusters model was designed with the goal to “Prepare learners of all ages for the information age as schools, colleges, and employers are striving for higher achievement in science, math and communication. One key to improving learner achievement is providing learners with relevant contexts for studying and learning. Career Clusters offer a context by linking school-based learning with the knowledge and skills required for continue success” (States’ Career Cluster, 2003). By using their pathways model in agriculture, food, and natural resources, Figure 2, a foundation was established of where to base the New York State standards. The goal of the agriculture, food, and natural resources pathways is to encompass, “The production, processing, marketing, distribution, financing, and development of agricultural commodities and resources including food, fiber, wood products, natural resources, horticulture, and other plant and animal products/resources.” These areas seem to represent all the diverse areas within the state.

Figure 2: Career Clusters Model displaying the 7 Pathways in Agricultural Science Education

We compared the eight content areas identified by the panel discussed previously and the seven elements of the Career pathways model for the Agriculture, Food, and Natural Resources cluster and found them to be substantially consistent. Based on the support of the National Council, the participation of USDA, and the emphasis from the US Department of Education, we decided to use the Career Pathways model for Agriculture, Food, and Natural Resources as the conceptual framework for our subsequent developmental work.

The Delphi technique is a widely used method of securing consensus from experts in a given area of study. Using Delphi, the researcher identifies a panel of experts, solicits from that panel an unranked list of answers to a specific question, and finally has the experts rate the items in terms of importance or some other criterion. The result is usually an ordered list of items that are agreed upon by the experts as being the answers to the question or the solution to the problem (Stitt-Gohdes & Crews, 2004).

When choosing the participants for each individual Delphi panel, it was decided that while agricultural educators are readily available for participation in the state, a panel made up of more than agricultural educators at the secondary level was needed. The input in developing the benchmarks was needed beyond the input solely from agriculture teachers since they do not have sole authority on a student’s agricultural science education. We decided that a panel comprised of secondary core academic educators (science and/or math), post secondary educators, cooperative extension agents, and representatives from business and industry should all have input in the core curriculum outline along with secondary agricultural educators. Each different type of panel member had a vested interest in the curriculum for agricultural science education. There was a total of nine participants for each area- (1) representative for business and industry, (2) cooperative extension agents, (1) post-secondary educator, and (4) secondary agricultural science educators. This made a total of 54 participants since we did not include environmental systems in this Delphi study.

Panel member nominations were solicited from a number of sources including the state agriculture teacher professional organization (NYAAE), Cornell Cooperative Extension, New York Farm Bureau, New York Agricultural Education Outreach, the Cornell Department of Education, and the New York State science teacher professional organization (STANYS). Panel members were contacted and asked if they considered themselves experts in their respective areas and asked to agree to participate in the study.

The study required three rounds of surveys. Round one generated an initial list of student learning benchmarks for each content area. Round two required each panel member to rate each item generated in Round one and allowed panel member to add new items. Consensus was defined as a standard deviation <1.0. Items for which consensus was not reached in Round two were sent out again in Round three. Consensus was reached on all items for all six content areas in Round three. For a graphic depiction of the process used, see Figure 3.