Stephenson,+Warnick,+&+Tarpley,+2008

** May 31st, 2011 **
 * Jennifer Gracias EDU 713 **

Stephenson, L.G., Warnick, B.K., & Tarpley, R.S. (2008). Collaboration Between Science and Agriculture Teachers. //Journal of Agricultural Education, 49// (4), 106- 119. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ** EJ 839 909) **
 * Introduction: ** The focus of this descriptive study was to determine the type and frequency of collaborative activities occurring between agriculture teachers and science teachers who taught in schools with agricultural education programs. Additional foci of this study included determining the extent to which science and agriculture teachers value the collaborative practices, identifying factors that facilitate collaboration, methods of teaching, and identifying barriers inhibiting collaboration.


 * Purpose: ** To determine current levels of science and agriculture teacher collaboration: to explore frequency of collaboration, and factors and barriers of collaboration in secondary schools.
 * Methods/Procedures : ** Descriptive survey methods were used to explore all secondary science teachers (//N// = 312) who taught in schools with agricultural programs and all secondary agriculture teachers (//N// = 81) during the 2005-2006 school year in Utah. Science teachers employed at schools with no agricultural program were not included in the population. Data were collected using Dillman‘s (2000) tailored design methods. The instrument addressed value of collaboration, and factors and barriers of collaboration. Subjects responded to statements using 5-point scale scores: 1 - strongly disagree, 2 -disagree, 3 -neutral, 4 -agree, and 5 strongly agree.


 * Results/Findings : ** Science (77.7%) and agriculture (84.1%) teachers collectively agreed that collaboration allows students to understand the relationship of science and agriculture. The majority of science (77.1%) and agriculture (81.0%) teachers signified that collaboration reduced separation between teachers. Both groups (77.7% science; 79.4% agriculture) agreed that collaboration broadens school curricula. Additionally, 72.0% of science teachers and 77.8% of agriculture teachers concurred that collaboration enhances student comprehension. 76.2% of agriculture and 64.3% of science teachers responding positively that teaching collaboratively improves student participation and learning. Both groups indicated that close proximity of facilities, teacher commitment, teacher attitude, frequent professional interaction, and administrator support facilitate collaboration. Majority (77%) of science teachers indicated that they have not attended workshops. Both science (82.8%) and agriculture (77.8%) teachers indicated that lack of preparation time was the most significant barrier. A larger number of science teachers (73.2%) than agriculture teachers (57.1%) indicated that lack of common teacher preparation time was noteworthy. Two-thirds of agriculture teachers (66.7%) and half of science teachers (51.6%) agreed that lack of appropriate equipment was significant.

Many science and agriculture teachers hold positive attitudes concerning the potential of teaching collaboratively. There was a collective agreement that collaboration broadens school curricula, reduces separation between teachers, enhances student participation and comprehension of concepts, allows students to understand the relationship and importance of science and agriculture in today‘s society. Study results indicated that effective collaboration is limited with science teachers than agriculture teachers. Based on the findings of this study, the researchers recommended that teacher education programs in agriculture instill positive perceptions toward collaborating with academic teachers. This can be done through the implementation of collaborative projects with preservice science teachers. Inservice workshops should be designed to enhance teachers’ agriscience skills and to promote collaboration. Further analysis should be conducted to determine relationships of demographic variables as they pertain to teachers’ willingness to collaborate. A study to determine which model(s) of science and agriculture teacher collaboration achieves effective results should also be conducted. Results of that study should then be used to determine the goals of teacher training workshops and in preservice teacher education.
 * Conclusions/Implications/Recommendations **

It was a great idea about using descriptive surveys as an instrument to collect data and understand teachers’ perspectives and experiences about collaboration. The research indicates clear an in depth explanation on each of the items in the survey and has included data received from each group (science teachers and agriculture teachers). Research findings data was wisely used to discuss its shortcomings and implications. This research has confirmed my understanding about the factors and barriers of collaboration. Recommendations were included based on data in order for collaboration to take place effectively in their schools. I think descriptive survey was an excellent way to get first hand information from teachers. I think effective goals can be set for inservice workshops and pre service education by using this data. //Lack of- time, willingness and resources// are very significant barriers noticed even in elementary schools. I wonder “what steps are being taken to overcome these barriers?” and “how can effectiveness of these steps be measured?” Although research findings indicated //lack of preparation time// and //common planning time// as one of the major barriers of collaboration, there were recommendations made to increase the same. Similarly there were no recommendations made about making appropriate equipments available for teachers in order to collaborate and teach effectively. I felt it was important to reflect on these barriers in depth and discuss ways to overcome them. The research did not include any parent teacher collaboration factors. The participants of this research project were secondary science and agriculture teachers, their experiences about collaboration may be different from elementary school teachers. Friend and Cook (2007) advocate allocating specific time in the school day for collaborative interactions of professionals, and that careful attention should be paid to the procedures used for planning. In addition, Friend and Cook suggests //use of substitutes, using paraeducators, coaches, and other school professionals// can contribute time to enable teachers to have preparation time and shared planning time. Since survey findings indicate that science and agriculture teachers have //lack of common planning// and //preparation time// as noteworthy barriers, these ideas can be used to enable professionals to collaborate effectively and reach their full potential. Teachers can shape the future of kids and I can only imagine the life- long experiences students can have with teachers implementing collaborative practices in their classrooms.
 * My Thoughts **
 * Connections to Course Material (Barrier to collaboration- Time for planning) **

Dillman, D. A. (2000). //Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method// (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
 * References **

Friend, M., & Cook, L. (2007). //Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals// (5 th edition). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.