Table Of ContentTHE PROJECT METHOD IN AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION: THEN AND NOW
T. Grady Roberts, Assistant Professor
Julie F. Harlin, Assistant Professor
Texas A&M University
Abstract
The purpose of this philosophical paper was to synthesize theoretical and historical foundations
of the project method and compare them to modern best-practices. A review of historical and
contemporary literature related to the project method yielded six themes: 1) purpose of projects;
2) project classification; 3) the process; 4) the context; 5) individual vs. group projects; and 6)
the teacher’s role. Conclusions and recommendations include the continued importance of the
project method with suggestions to broaden the context in which projects are classified (in class
and out of class, group and individual), ensure that practitioners are educated about appropriate
experiential learning processes, and emphasize the role of the teacher as facilitator.
Introduction Perhaps examining modern best-practices
for the project method against theoretical
Thirty-one carefully crafted words from and historical foundations of the project
the Smith-Hughes Act of 1917 (as cited in method may provide some insight and
Phipps & Osborne, 1988, p. 550), “that such direction to advance practice and research.
schools shall provide for directed or
supervised practice in agriculture, either on Theoretical Framework
a farm provided for by the school or other
farm, for at least six months per year,” have “A project is a problematic act carried to
led to a marriage between agricultural completion in its natural setting”
education and the project method. The (Stevenson, 1925, p. 43). The real value of
project method, now referred to as the project method is that it connects school
Supervised Agricultural Experience (SAE) to the real world (Stockton, 1920).
in agricultural education, is still According to Stevenson, the educational use
acknowledged as an integral part of the of the word ‘project’ was borrowed from the
complete program and still advocated as United States Department of Agriculture,
important for career preparation (Camp, which used the term to describe planned
Clarke, & Fallon, 2000; Newcomb, investigations conducted by experiment
McCracken, Warmbrod, & Whittington, stations and planned demonstrations
2004; Talbert, Vaughn, & Croom, 2005). conducted by the extension service.
However, evidence suggests that successful According to Alberty (1927), “a project is an
implementation of the project method is activity, the aim of which is a result or
declining (Dyer & Osborne, 1995; Steele, accomplishment of an end, other than
1997). Camp et al. further reported that learning (i.e. the acquisition of knowledge,
agricultural science teachers widely viewed skills, etc.), which is of value to the pupil”
SAE as inappropriate for their specific (p. 90). He further elaborated that the project
setting. method is a technique employed by a
The incongruence of what is accepted as teacher in which a tangible goal or product
integral and what actually occurs in practice provides the motivation for completion.
places agricultural education in a quandary. Acquisition of knowledge is a by-product of
If the project method is an essential the project method. Although valuable,
component of agricultural education then Alberty acknowledged that the project
why are practitioners not unilaterally method must never be the sole technique
implementing projects with all students? employed in educating students. To do so,
Journal of Agricultural Education 46 Volume 48, Number 3, 2007
Roberts & Harlin The Project Method in…
he argued, would prohibit “the use of Inquiry (Marsh, 1991; Short, 1991) of
systematic organizations of knowledge, as historical and contemporary texts, journals,
tools for securing more knowledge” and other relevant publications identified
(Alberty, p.107). Earlier, Stockton through an exhaustive review of the
concluded that “since ‘learning to do by literature. Themes were identified using the
doing’ is central in education, all subjects constant comparative method (Glaser &
should be taught by a project method” (p. Strauss, 1967).
167).
An examination of the literature Purpose
regarding the origins of the project method
reveals some debate. In general educational The project method is an essential
circles, William H. Kilpatrick (1918) is component of the triadic model of
often credited with conceptualizing the agricultural education programs. However,
method, while evidence suggests that Rufus the extent that modern practices of
W. Stimson (1919) may have been the implementing the project method are
originator of the method (Moore, 1988). grounded in theory is uncertain. As such, the
Field (1933) attributed the theoretical and purpose of this philosophical paper was to
philosophical foundation of the project synthesize theoretical and historical
method to Kilpatrick. In contrast, Stevenson foundations of the project method and
(1925) credited Stimson, along with his compare them to modern best-practices.
colleagues Snedden and Prosser, in first Doing so may provide some insight and
using the project method in secondary direction to advance practice and research.
schools. Yet other literature (Knoll, 1997) Readers should note that this manuscript
credits European scholars in the 16th century WAS NOT an attempt to synthesize all
who used the project method in architectural relevant literature for SAE; for that purpose
and engineering education, centuries before see the work of Dyer and Osborne (1995,
the progressive movement in the United 1996) and Dyer and Williams (1997a,
States. The introduction of these conflicting 1997b).
accounts about the origin of the project
method is meant to enlighten the reader. Findings
This article does not attempt to advance this
discussion, but readers should acknowledge An examination of the literature to
the existence of relevant theories from identify theory and best practices associated
multiple scholars on the project method. with the project method yielded six themes:
Stockton (1920) largely referenced 1) purpose of projects; 2) project
Dewey’s theories presented in How We classification; 3) the process; 4) the context;
Think (1910) to establish a theoretical 5) individual vs. group projects; and 6) the
foundation for the project method. teacher’s role. Accordingly, the findings for
Accordingly, Stockton argued that the child each theme are presented below. For
does not develop in isolation, but rather purposes of this manuscript, modern best
through interaction and experience with his practices were identified by examining texts
or her environment, which is consistent with used in the preparation of preservice
the work of Vygotsky (1978). agricultural educators (Newcomb et al.,
From an epistemological perspective, the 2004; Talbert et al., 2005).
project method aligns with constructivism
and its central precept that learners construct Purpose of Projects
knowledge based on their experiences (von Early approaches to implementation of
Glasersfeld, 1995). More specifically, the the project method in agricultural education
project method concurs with experiential were characterized by a sequence of
learning theory, which asserts that learning activities conducted out of class and then
occurs as a result of experiences had by the supplemented with in-class instruction
learner (Dewey, 1938; Kolb, 1984; Roberts, (Colvin & Stevenson, 1922; Stimson, 1919).
2006). Conceptually, the project method Often referred to as “home projects,”
was examined through an Integrative projects focused on acquiring the necessary
Journal of Agricultural Education 47 Volume 48, Number 3, 2007
Roberts & Harlin The Project Method in…
skills and knowledge to be successful Type 2 or Consumer’s projects create
farmers (i.e. career preparation). Twenty affective outcomes, such as enjoyment or
years later, the purpose was much the same, appreciation. Solving a problem is the
but projects were often referred to as purpose of Type 3 or Problem projects.
“supervised farming” (Deyoe, 1947). The While for a Type 4 or Specific Learning
purpose of projects in agricultural education project, the outcome is of a certain level of
expanded beyond gaining proficiency in proficiency or skill. However, Kilpatrick
farming to include other agricultural (1918) cautioned that the delineation
occupations (Phipps, 1965). Interestingly, between each project type is not rigid and, in
Phipps used the term “supervised practice, overlapping occurs.
agricultural experience,” which is often used Stimson (1914, 1919) specifically
today as a synonym for the project method theorized about the project method as the
in agricultural education. The focus in learning vehicle for agricultural education.
gaining skills in a wide variety of When classifying projects, Stimson’s
agricultural occupations was also outlined definition centered on the precept that a
by Phipps and Osborne (1988) as the project “is something to be done” (1919, p.
purpose of “supervised occupational 40). As such, he classified projects based on
experience programs.” Today, the purpose the actions of the learner, as Improvement
of the project method in agricultural projects; Experimental (1914) or Trial
education has expanded further. For (1919) projects; or Productive projects. In
example, Newcomb et al. (2004) proclaimed Stimson’s view, Productive projects are the
that “supervised agricultural experience” foundation of the project method and
leads to improved learning, student personal Improvement and Experimental/Trial
development, and career development. projects are desirable when feasible.
Talbert et al. (2005) identified six purposes An Improvement project consists of the
of “supervised experience.” These included: learner making an improvement around the
1) skill development; 2) gain experience; 3) farm (Stimson, 1914, 1919). Examples
develop personal and employability presented by Stimson included constructing
characteristics; 4) participate in the work a concrete sidewalk, planting trees, and
world; 5) developing student interest in establishing a lawn. An Experimental or
agriculture; and 6) learn financial Trial project is characterized by the testing
management skills. of a new or untried system. Examples cited
included testing a new variety of fruit trees,
Project Classification a new spray mixture, or new roofing
An examination of the literature reveals materials. Finally, with a Productive project,
several methods of classifying projects. the learner produces an agricultural
Historically, one approach has been to commodity. Examples included a crop of
classify projects based on the purpose or clover, a field of potatoes, or producing eggs
outcomes (Kilpatrick, 1918, 1925), while for market.
another approach has been to classify Similarly, Davis (1927) classified
projects based on the actions of the learners, projects based on their aims. Productive
rather than project outcomes (Davis, 1927; products involved producing an agricultural
Stimson, 1919). More recent approaches, product for profit. Trial projects were
specifically in agricultural education, use a undertaken to test a new or innovative
combination of learner action and m e t h od or product. Improvement projects
purpose to classify projects (Camp et al., aimed at enhancing one’s surroundings.
2000; Newcomb et al., 2004; Talbert et al., Management projects focused on developing
2005). the student’s managerial skills.
Kilpatrick (1918, 1925) proposed a More recent project classification
classification of project types, indicating the systems in agricultural education have
continuum on which project outcomes may blended the actions of the learner and
fall. The outcome of Type 1 or Producer’s intended outcomes of the projects. For
projects is a tangible product, for instance, a example, Newcomb et al. (2004) proposed
student may build or produce something. three general classifications of projects:
Journal of Agricultural Education 48 Volume 48, Number 3, 2007
Roberts & Harlin The Project Method in…
Ownership; Placement or Cooperative; and placement; 4) entrepreneurship/ownership;
Improvement or Skill Development. 5) directed laboratory; 6) research and
Ownership projects relate to the career experimentation; and 7) improvement.
interests of the students and can be Camp et al. (2000) proposed a similar
implemented as Production projects, Group taxonomy with eight types of projects: 1)
Enterprise projects, or Entrepreneurship agribusiness entrepreneurship; 2)
projects (Newcomb et al., 2004). Production agricultural placement; 3) agricultural
projects involve producing an agricultural production; 4) agricultural research; 5)
commodity, Group Enterprise projects directed school laboratory; 6) agricultural
engage the learner to work with others to communications; 7) agricultural exploration;
produce something, and Entrepreneurship and 8) improvement projects. The notable
projects entail learners developing an difference between Talbert et al. and Camp
agriculturally related business (Newcomb et et al. was the inclusion of Agricultural
al.). All three variations of Ownership Communications projects in the latter.
projects are consistent with Kilpatrick’s Because of the similarity of the two
(1918, 1925) Type 1 or Producer’s projects, classification systems, they are discussed
Stimson’s (1914, 1919) Productive projects, together.
and Davis’ (1927) Productive projects. The purpose of an Exploratory project is
However, the notion of ownership of a non- to “help students understand and appreciate
production project was not directly the field of agriculture and gain information
addressed by Kilpatrick or Stimson, but to help them make decisions about their
was consistent with Davis’ Managerial future education and careers” (Talbert et al.,
project. 2005, p. 424). In comparison to the
According to Newcomb et al. (2004), the historical classification systems, exploratory
purpose of Placement or Cooperative projects have similar outcomes as
projects is “the learning and application of Kilpatrick’s (1918, 1925) Type 2 or
needed agricultural knowledge and skills” Consumer’s project, mainly gaining an
(p. 249). To achieve this goal, learners are appreciation for the focus of the project.
placed in relevant agricultural operations, However, Talbert et al. presented a much
businesses, or industries (Newcomb et al.). narrower, vocational focus of the
Although not directly referenced by Exploratory project, primarily career
Kilpatrick (1918, 1925), this type of project exploration. Camp et al. (2000) added that
is consistent with the intended outcome of a this type of project is particularly
Type 4 or Specific Skill project. appropriate for younger students, including
The final classification of projects middle school students.
proposed by Newcomb et al. (2004) was an The next type of project was Placement.
Improvement or Skill Development project. Although presented as two different projects
The authors further delineated this type of by Talbert et al. (2005), Paid and Unpaid
project into Improvement projects and Skill Placement have the same purpose, which is
Development projects. The purpose of an to develop a set of skills necessary to enter a
Improvement project is to improve the particular career or occupation, the
learner’s surroundings, often at home or at a delineation between the two being if the
business; and the purpose of a Skill learner is paid for their efforts or not. Camp
Development project is to learn and practice et al. (2000) referred to this type of project
a specific skill (Newcomb et al.). Projects as work-based education. These projects are
with these purposes are consistent with congruent with Kilpatrick’s (1918, 1925)
Kilpatrick’s (1918, 1925) Type 4 or Specific Type 4 or Specific Skills project, where the
Learning project, Stimson’s (1914, 1919) outcome was a specific set of skills or
Improvement project, and Davis’ (1927) knowledge.
Improvement project. The next classification of projects
In a more refined classification system, presented by Talbert et al. (2005) was an
Talbert et al. (2005) identified seven types Entrepreneurship or Ownership project,
of projects in agricultural education: 1) which is characterized by the learner owning
exploratory; 2) paid placement; 3) unpaid and developing an agricultural enterprise.
Journal of Agricultural Education 49 Volume 48, Number 3, 2007
Roberts & Harlin The Project Method in…
This type of project is consistent with congruent with Kilpatrick’s (1918, 1925)
Kilpatrick’s (1918, 1925) Type 1 or Type 4 or Specific Learning project.
Producer’s project, where the outcome is a One final type of project, presented only
tangible product and Stimson’s (1914, 1919) by Camp et al. (2000) was the Agricultural
Productive project, where the learner Communications project. Although the
produces an agricultural commodity. authors did not offer any specific examples
However, modern interpretations of an of projects in this area, they inferred that it
Entrepreneurship projects go beyond would align with the skills and competencies
Stimson’s exclusive criteria of the required in university agricultural
production of agricultural commodities and communications programs.
now includes related business ventures
(Talbert et al.), which is consistent with The Process
Managerial projects presented by Davis The project method was overwhelmingly
(1927). accepted as an effective learning activity by
The Directed Laboratory project is a nearly every piece of literature consulted
hybrid type of project, utilized mainly for (Camp et al., 2000; Davis, 1927; Kilpatrick,
students who are unable to initiate another 1918, 1925; Newcomb et al., 2004; Stimson,
form of project (Camp et al., 2000; Talbert 1914, 1919; Talbert et al., 2005). However,
et al., 2005). The purpose and activities only a few scholars addressed the process by
undertaken by the learner vary greatly, but which learning occurs with the project
often require little or no financial investment method.
from the student and are often conducted in Stimson (1919) posited that the project
facilities on the school campus. Given the method is correctly implemented through
plethora of possibilities, it is possible that a induction and then application. Accordingly,
Directed Laboratory project could take the the “educational cycle” is completed when
form of any of the projects proposed by “the movement from observed data of
Kilpatrick (1918, 1925) and Stimson (1914, agricultural production, to general laws and
1919). principles, is followed by the reverse
According to Talbert et al. (2005), a movement, which is embodied in the
Research or Experimentation project is application of the laws and principles of
characterized by the learner seeking the science” (Stimson, 1919, p. 93). This
answer to a problem using scientific process is remarkably similar to the
approaches, often experimentation. Experiential Learning model proposed by
Concordantly, this type of project is Kolb (1984) in which learning occurs with
consistent with Type 3 or Problem projects concrete experience, reflective observation,
as proposed by Kilpatrick (1918, 1925), abstract conceptualization, and active
Experimental or Trial projects as presented experimentation.
by Stimson (1914, 1919), and Trial projects Kilpatrick (1918, 1925) articulated the
(Davis, 1927). clearest processes for the project method. In
The final type of project proposed by fact, Kilpatrick presented distinct processes
Talbert et al. (2005) was an Improvement for each of the project types he proposed.
project, which the authors posit is often Kilpatrick (1925) referred to Type 1 projects
conducted in conjunction with other projects as Producer’s projects, where the purpose is
to make some sort of improvement, often at to produce something. However, products of
home or in the community. Furthermore, Type 1 projects are not exclusively limited
this type of project could be facilitated as a to things produced by the hands (Kilpatrick,
group or individual effort to advance the 1925). For Type 1 projects, Kilpatrick
agricultural knowledge or skill of the learner (1918) proposed four steps required for
(Talbert et al.). From an improvement successful implementation: purposing,
perspective, the newer classification is planning, executing, and judging. Beyond
consistent with Stimson’s (1914, 1919) the tangible product, Kilpatrick indicated
Improvement project and Davis’ (1927) that a secondary outcome of Type 1 projects
Improvement project; while from a gain in is increased social activity in the classroom
skill and knowledge perspective, it is (Figure 1).
Journal of Agricultural Education 50 Volume 48, Number 3, 2007
Roberts & Harlin The Project Method in…
Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4
Producer’s Consumer’s Problem Specific
Project Project Project Learning
Project
Purposing No steps or Felt Difficulty Purposing
procedures specified
Planning Location & Planning
Definition
Executing Executing
Possible Solutions
Judging Judging
Implications
Observation &
Experimentation
Tangible Product Appreciation Solved Problem Specific Skill or
Knowledge
Figure 1. Project Method Processes (Kilpatrick, 1928, 1925).
The outcome of a Type 2 project is an weakened by his inability to delineate the
appreciation for the subject of the project process for successfully completing a Type 2
(Kilpatrick, 1918). In his later work, project.
Kilpatrick (1925) referred to Type 2 projects Kilpatrick (1918) articulated the purpose
as Consumer’s projects, where the learners of a Type 3 project was to solve a problem,
consume the work of others by enjoying the which he later referred to as a Problem
products. Kilpatrick (1918) readily conceded project (Kilpatrick, 1925). This type of
that enjoying an aesthetic experience may project often results as an outgrowth of a
not meet the same rigorous benchmarks as Type 1 project (Kilpatrick, 1925). Kilpatrick
other types of projects. However, he posited (1925) made a clear distinction about the
that because a defined purpose guided the source of a problem or purpose of the
process of undertaking this type of project, it project. A problem assigned by the teacher
was indeed a distinct type of project does not provide purpose to the student and
(Kilpatrick, 1918, 1925). Accordingly, if the thus is merely a task, while a student-
activity had no defined purpose, it would not identified problem provides purpose and is
be a project (Kilpatrick, 1925). The notion thus a suitable project (Kilpatrick, 1925). To
of an affective outcome of a project does not successfully complete a Type 3 project,
rest solely with Kilpatrick (1918, 1925). In Kilpatrick (1918) advocated following
concordance, Steinaker and Bell (1979) Dewey’s (1910) steps to reflective thought:
postulated that one outcome of experiential
learning is identification, which is reached (i) a felt difficulty; (ii) its location and
when the learner “has begun an emotional definition [defining the problem]; (iii)
and personal intellectual identification with suggestion of possible solution; (iv)
the experience” (p. 66). Although Kilpatrick development by reasoning of the
(1918, 1925) substantiated the distinction of bearings of the suggestion [implications
this type of project, his argument was of possible solutions]; (v) further
Journal of Agricultural Education 51 Volume 48, Number 3, 2007
Roberts & Harlin The Project Method in…
observation and experiment leading to Stevenson, 1922; Deyoe, 1947; Stimson,
its acceptance or rejection (p. 72). 1919) or at school provided facilities that
approximated real-world settings (Dewey,
Kilpatrick’s (1918) statement that this 1916; Kilpatrick, 1925; Stimson, 1919;
type of project lends itself “best of all to our Vasquez-Torres, 1939). The importance of a
ordinary school-room work” (p. 333) real-world setting was echoed by Stevenson
foreshadowed the development and (1925), who made a clear distinction
utilization of the ‘problem-solving between a real (natural) and artificial setting.
approach’ to teaching used by many A project is carried out in a natural setting,
agricultural educators (Parr & Edwards, while a problem is carried out in an artificial
2004). However, given the ease of setting. For example, if a student was
implementing Type 3 projects, Kilpatrick investigating the effects of fertilizers on
(1918) expressed fear that this type of plant growth, an experiment conducted in
project could be over-emphasized. his home garden would be a project.
The purpose of Type 4 projects is to Conversely, an experiment conducted in a
learn a specific skill or knowledge lab would be a problem.
(Kilpatrick, 1918), which he later referred to In contrast to the historical opinions
as Specific Learning projects (1925). To cited above, modern interpretations of the
achieve these ends, Kilpatrick (1918) project method by agricultural educators
posited that the same steps used in Type 1 center on conducting projects outside the
projects (purposing, planning, executing, normal school hours. For example,
and judging) were suitable. Kilpatrick Newcomb et al. (2004) proposed that
(1918) went further to caution that some projects are agricultural activities that are
teachers may incorrectly identify drill as a “conducted by a student outside of class” (p.
Type 4 project, which he posited would have 243). Although not stated explicitly, Talbert
noticeably different results, mainly due to et al. (2005) posited that projects allow
the purpose of the activity (Kilpatrick, students to apply principles learned in class
1925). to real life settings, which the authors
implied as out-of-class.
Project Context
Examining the context or setting in Individual vs. Group Projects
which the project method is implemented The notion of students individually or
produced some discrepancy between jointly working on a project is prevalent in
historical practice and modern best the historical and modern literature. For
practices. Historically, the project method example, Davis (1927) used individual or
was implemented during the school day. In group projects as one of his criteria to
contrast, student projects are considered an classify projects. As practice advanced
out-of-class activity. through the years, the notion of both
For example, Stockton (1920) presented individual and group projects can be seen.
two paradigms for implementation of the For example, Deyoe (1947), Cook (1947),
project method. The first was using the Phipps (1965), Phipps and Osborne (1988),
project method as a learning activity in a Newcomb et al. (2004), and Talbert et al.
class. The second was implementation of the (2005) all discussed both individual and
project as a stand alone class, whereby the group projects in agricultural education.
student is provided time during the school
day to learn by doing. Stimson (1919) went Teacher’s Role
even further. He advocated that project The role of the teacher in the project
study be a scheduled part of the school day method has remained constant. According to
where the student is able to work Kilpatrick (1918), the teacher should assume
independently. In fact, Stimson proposed a facilitative role by giving the student
that as much as one-half of each school day freedom to try things, but intervene to
be dedicated to project work. prevent failure or considerable wasting of
This school time dedicated to conducting time. Kilpatrick further advocated that as a
a project could occur at home (Colvin & student’s experience level develops, they
Journal of Agricultural Education 52 Volume 48, Number 3, 2007
Roberts & Harlin The Project Method in…
take greater responsibility in evaluating the literature. The context in which the project
results of their project and connecting what method is implemented seems to have
they learned with previous and future narrowed. The early literature supported the
experiences, which we would now refer to conduct of projects at school and at home,
as scaffolding (Vygotsky, 1978). Newcomb both during school and out of school. In
et al. (2004) and Talbert et al. (2005) contrast, the modern literature presented
concurred. projects as predominantly off-campus and
The responsibility of planning the out of school. One notable exception was
project varies greatly among theorists. For directed laboratory projects, as proposed by
example, Stimson (1919) advocated that Camp et al. (2000) and Talbert et al. (2005),
there should be a prescribed set of required which are conducted on-campus and may
projects that a student completes in a utilize some in-class time.
particular order. Kilpatrick (1918), however, The findings support the conclusion that
advocated much more of a student-directed both individual and group projects have
approach where each student is responsible been advocated from the earliest
for identifying the goals or purpose of the implementation of the project method
project, planning the project, completing the through modern practice. However, it was
project, and then evaluating their results. unclear of the extent group projects have
Newcomb et al. (2004) and Talbert et al. been utilized in agricultural education.
(2005) presented a compromise where the Finally, it was concluded that the
teacher, along with parents and employers teacher’s role in the project method is now
(if applicable), should work with the student very much as a facilitator. Early literature
to plan the project. presented conflicting roles, some supporting
very teacher-directed projects and others
Conclusions advocating projects that place the entire
responsibility on the student. Modern
Based on the literature consulted in theories are consistent in that the teacher
preparing this manuscript, several (along with parents and perhaps employers)
conclusions can be made. First, the project should provide guidance and support, but
method was historically and is still give the student considerable responsibility
advocated as an important part of an in planning, conducting, and evaluating the
agricultural education program that provides project.
application of concepts taught in class.
However, the purposes of projects in Recommendations/Implications
agricultural education have expanded
beyond skill acquisition and proficiency to Based on the conclusions of this study,
include personal development for diverse several recommendations can be made.
career preparation beyond agriculture. First, the broader purposes for utilizing the
Considerable attention has been directed project method reflect the divergent careers
to classifying projects. Nearly every source that agricultural education students pursue.
consulted in preparation of this manuscript It is recommended that practitioners
proposed a classification system. In general, carefully explore the goals of each student
the more recent systems have added and encourage appropriate projects. This
additional project types in an attempt to be implies that although two students may have
inclusive of the vast array of projects that similar projects, the intended learning
students undertake. outcomes may differ considerably (e.g.,
Roberts (2006) outlined that experiential technical skill mastery vs. personal
learning has two dimensions: the process development). The extent that this is
and the context. Based on the literature currently happening is unclear, so inquiry
consulted in this examination, it was into this area is also recommended.
concluded that the process of using the Although considerable effort has been
project method received considerable expended to develop a comprehensive
attention in the early literature, but has system in which to classify agricultural
received little or no attention in the recent education projects, such a system may in
Journal of Agricultural Education 53 Volume 48, Number 3, 2007
Roberts & Harlin The Project Method in…
fact impede the creative development of teacher educators examine their curricula to
some projects. For example, attempting e n s u r e this is emphasized and that authors of
to place an innovative project into an texts used in these programs examine their
existing category may cause the scope c o n t e n t as well.
of the project to be adjusted to better
fit the category. It is recommended References
that practitioners use the existing
classification systems merely as a guide for Alberty, H. B. (1927). A study of the
possible projects and not as an inclusive project method in education. Columbus:
list. Ohio State University Press.
Capturing the greatest amount of
learning from a project requires successful Camp, W. G., Clarke, A., & Fallon, M.
implementation of an appropriate process, (2000). Revisiting supervised agricultural
which the modern literature did not present. experience. Journal of Agricultural
It is recommended that practitioners be Education, 41(3), 13-22.
educated about appropriate experiential
learning processes (Kolb, 1984; Roberts, Colvin, C., & Stevenson, J. A. (1922).
2006) so they may better implement the Farm projects. New York: MacMillan.
project method. This implies that texts used
in preservice programs should address these Cook, G. C. (1947). Handbook on
same processes. From this inquiry, the teaching vocational agriculture (5th ed.).
deficiency of process theories in texts is Danville, IL: Interstate.
known. However, it is unknown if
teacher educators teach process theories. Davis, K. C. (1927). The new agriculture
Accordingly, it is recommended that (2nd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: J.B. Lippincott.
current practices in preservice programs be
studied. Deyoe, G. P. (1947). Supervised farming
Conducting projects at school, during in vocational agriculture. Danville, IL:
school hours, is supported in the historical Interstate.
literature, but hardly advocated in the
modern literature. Additionally, the option Dewey, J. (1910). How we think.
of group projects is universally presented in Mineola, New York: Dover.
the literature. It is recommended that
practitioners, particularly those with Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and
difficulties in successful implementation of education. New York: The Free Press.
the project method, consider employing
projects conducted at school, during school Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and
hours, and possibly conducted by a group of education. New York: Simon and Schuster.
students. This implies that a change in
mindset is necessary for those practitioners Dyer, J. E., & Osborne, E. W. (1995).
who view projects as exclusively after Participation in supervised agricultural
school, off-campus, and individual experience programs: A synthesis of
activities. Studying programs that are research. Journal of Agricultural Education,
successful and unsuccessful at implementing 36(1), 6-14.
the project method could aid in developing
and refining best-practices to guide future Dyer. J. E., & Osborne, E. W. (1996).
practice. Developing a model for supervised
Finally, the notion that teachers should agricultural experience program quality: A
assume a facilitative role is widely accepted synthesis of research. Journal of
as appropriate and is consistent with Agricultural Education, 37(2), 24-33.
experiential learning theory (Kolb, 1984).
However, the extent to which practitioners Dyer, J. E., & Williams, D. L. (1997a).
are prepared to do so is unclear and worthy Benefits of supervised agricultural
of further study. It is recommended that experience programs: A synthesis of
Journal of Agricultural Education 54 Volume 48, Number 3, 2007
Roberts & Harlin The Project Method in…
research. Journal of Agricultural Education, Parr, B., & Edwards, M. C. (2004).
38(4), 50-58. Inquiry-based instruction in secondary
agricultural education: Problem-solving – an
Dyer, J. E., & Williams, D. L. (1997b). old friend revisited. Journal of Agricultural
Supervision of supervised agricultural Education, 45(4), 106-117.
experience programs: A synthesis of
research. Journal of Agricultural Education, Phipps, L. J. (1965). Handbook on
38(4), 59-67. agricultural education in public schools.
Danville, IL: Interstate.
Field, A. M. (1933). Contribution of W.
H. Kilpatrick to agricultural education. The Phipps, L. J., & Osborne, E. W. (1988).
Agricultural Education Magazine, 5(12), Handbook on agricultural education in
179-181. public schools (5th ed.). Danville, IL:
Interstate Printers and Publishers.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967).
The discovery of grounded theory. New Roberts, T. G. (2006). A philosophical
Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. examination of experiential learning
theory for agricultural educators. Journal
Kilpatrick, W. H. (1918). The project of Agricultural Education, 47(1),
method. Teachers College Record, 19(4), 17-29.
319-335.
Short, E. C. (Ed). (1991). Forms of
Kilpatrick, W. H. (1925). Foundations of curriculum inquiry. Albany, NY: SUNY
method: Informal talks on teaching. New Press.
York: MacMillan.
Steele, R. (1997). Analysis of the
Knoll, M. (1997). The project method: continuing decline in the use of supervised
Its vocational education origin and agricultural experience (SAE) in New York
international development. Journal of state. Journal of Agricultural Education,
Industrial Teacher Education, 34(3), 59-80. 38(2), 49-58.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential Steinaker, N. W., & Bell, M. R. (1979).
learning: Experience as the source of The experiential taxonomy: A new approach
learning and development. Upper Saddle to teaching and learning. New York:
River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Academic Press.
Marsh, C. J. (1991). Integrative inquiry: Stevenson, J. A. (1925). The project
The research synthesis. In E. C. Short (Ed.), method of teaching. New York: MacMillan.
Forms of curriculum inquiry (pp. 271-283).
Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Stimson, R. W. (1914). The
Massachusetts home-project plan of
Moore, G. E. (1988). The forgotten vocational agricultural education (Bulletin
leader in agricultural education: Rufus W. 1914, No. 8). Washington DC: U.S. Bureau
Stimson. The Journal of the American of Education.
Association of Teacher Educators in
Agriculture, 29(3), 50-58. Stimson, R. W. (1919). Vocational
agricultural education by home projects.
Newcomb, L. H., McCracken, J. D., New York: MacMillan.
Warmbrod, J. R., & Whittington, M. S.
(2004). Methods of teaching agriculture (3rd Stockton, J. L. (1920). Project work in
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: education. Cambridge, MA: The Riverside
Pearson/Prentice Hall. Press.
Journal of Agricultural Education 55 Volume 48, Number 3, 2007
