Argumentation Skills of Participants in the Florida 4-H and FFA Horse Evaluation Contest

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Argumentation Skills of Participants in the Florida 4-H and FFA Horse Evaluation Contest
Physical Description:
1 online resource (111 p.)
Language:
english
Creator:
Spencer, Kendrick Leroy
Publisher:
University of Florida
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date:

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Master's ( M.S.)
Degree Grantor:
University of Florida
Degree Disciplines:
Agricultural Education and Communication
Committee Chair:
THORON,ANDREW C
Committee Co-Chair:
BARRICK,R KIRBY
Committee Members:
TENBROECK,SAUNDRA HODGE

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
argumentation -- evaluation -- horse -- judging -- students
Agricultural Education and Communication -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre:
Agricultural Education and Communication thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract:
The purpose of this study was to determine the extent to which students used argumentation skills when participating in the horse evaluation CDE and contest. This study was a descriptive correlational design. The population of the study was all the participants in the 2013 Florida State FFA and 4-H horse evaluation CDE and contest (N = 65). Correlations of variables in the study were used to discover the relationships between argumentation scores, and performance in the horse evaluation career development event (CDE) and contest. Participants' argumentation scores were also scored using an adapted version of the Schen (2007) argumentation rubric. Participants competed in the horse evaluation contest and CDE as facilitated by the Animal Science Department at the University of Florida. The oral reasons of the participants were audio recorded and analyzed at a later date by the researcher. Participants mean argumentation scores ranged from 11.25 (SD = 3.26) to 12.63 (SD = 3.19). Negligible to low relationships between argumentation and placing scores were reported. Argumentation and reasons scores relationships ranged from low to substantial. Reasons scores and placing scores reported low to moderate relationships, while the total argumentation score and total reasons score had very high relationship. Furthermore, this study evaluated the participants' abilities to create effective arguments using the constructs within the Schen (2007) rubric: claims, grounds and warrants, counterarguments, and rebuttals. Participants made claims that were generally broad or weak. Participants excelled at making grounds and warrants that supported the claims with data. Finally, participants provided a wide range of counterarguments, and produced effective rebuttals. Results indicated that argumentation skills do exists amongst participants within the study. Recommendations were presented for secondary agricultural educators and horse judging coaches, event coordinators, and future research. Future studies should be conducted that investigate if argumentation skills developed in a CDE are transferrable to the school-based classroom.
General Note:
In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note:
Includes vita.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description:
Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description:
This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Kendrick Leroy Spencer.
Thesis:
Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2014.
Local:
Adviser: THORON,ANDREW C.
Local:
Co-adviser: BARRICK,R KIRBY.

Record Information

Source Institution:
UFRGP
Rights Management:
Applicable rights reserved.
Classification:
lcc - LD1780 2014
System ID:
UFE0046748:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 ARGUMENTATION SKILLS OF PARTICIPANTS IN THE FLORIDA 4 H AND FFA HORSE EVALUATION CONTEST By KENDRICK L. SPENCER A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREM ENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2014

PAGE 2

2 2014 Kendrick L. Spencer

PAGE 3

3 To my Mom, Dad, Sister and my m emaw, Margaret Ann Lee

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS When Garth Brooks spoke of the d ance, I never thought it would become so relevant to me. As I look back on the path my life has taken, I kno w that God has been good to me and has seen favor upon my life. I am blessed with amazing family, friends, and loved ones who have encouraged me to pursue my educational and personal goals. First I would like to thank my foundation, my Mom. Thank you, mom, for all of your support and guidance throughout my life. You have been my rock and foundation throughout all of my experiences, and we have logged thousands and thousands of miles going to little league ba seball games, FFA events, and livestock shows. I know that without your hard work and sacrifice, I could have never achieved half of the things I have done. Secondly, thank you, Dad. Without knowin g it, you pushed me to go even further than I ever thought. Thank you both for working so hard so that I could accomplish my goals. I would also like to thank my cooperating teacher, Mr. Jack Winterrowd, and my students at Cedar Park High School for affi rming m y love for teaching agriculture and welcoming me into the A g Depa rtment. Thank you Mr. Jack for being a role model, a friend, and a mentor through my student teaching experience. I appreciate all the lessons you taught me and the guidance you have given me. Furthermore, I want to thank Dr. Julie Harlin, Dr. John Rayfield, Dr. Gary Briers, and Dr. Tim Murphy at Texas A&M University for providing me with a strong foundation in agricultural education and for playing such an integral role in my developm ent. I am so blessed to be called an Aggie, and to have been a part of your teacher preparation program.

PAGE 5

5 I want to especially thank Dr. Alvin Larke, Jr. for being a mentor, guide, and an advisor throughout my educational years. Dr. Larke, thank you for yo ur advice, and our many discussions about my career and life. Thank you for always being there. I am grateful to have been under your supervision during my time at Texas A&M. There are many names that I would like thank here at the University of Florida. through my time at the University of Florida. I would always come to you whenever I needed to think through a situation or reflect upon something. You also helped me in developing my own life story and identifying who I am as an educator, a friend, and a person. I could never pay you back for that. I would also li ke to thank Dr. Nicole Stedman and Dr. Amy Harder for being supportive of me throughout my time here at the University of Florida. Secondly, I would like to thank all the professors in Agricultural Educa tion, Dr. Grady Roberts, Dr. Bri an Myers and Dr. Ed Osborne. You aided in developing me more as an agricultural educator, researcher, and professional. Each of you built upon the foundational knowledge that I had and helped to refine my abilities. I would, definitely, like to thank my committee members Dr. Saundra TenBroeck, and Dr. Kirby Barrick. Thank you for becoming a part of my committee and traveling down this road with me. You both helped to refine my thesis into a research project that is beneficial to the agricultural educators, extension agents, and researchers. I honestly thought that I would not be able to complete something of this magnitude. However you all of have guided me down the road.

PAGE 6

6 Dr. Andrew Thoron, thank you for being an advisor and a friend throughout my years at University of Florida. Thank you for your dedication to my success and development. Thank you to all of my fellow graduates w ho have gone through this process with me: Janine Parker, Chris Mott, Caroline Roper, Jessica Goldthorpe, Jaron Jones, Chandra Bowden, and Caitlin Bletscher. You all have been my friends, mentors, and shoulders that I could lean on. This experience would n ot have been the same without you, and you all have helped me beyond measure. Thank you for friendship. I would be remiss if I did not thank my family as a whole, my church family of Ligon C.M.E, and Rev. R.L. Douglas. You all have shaped me from the tim e I was a child and instilled in me the importance of education and service. I cannot name you all individually, but I want you all to know that I am grateful for the impact you have had upon my life. I want to thank Mr. James Alford, Mr. Jeff and Mrs. Mis sy Eichman, and Ms. Janet Bazar. You all were catalyst along my path to success. Mr. Alford, thank you for getting me involved in 4 H and choosing my first market lamb. You were always there to advise and guide me, and for that I am every thankful. Mr. and Mrs. Eichman, you two helped me so much through high school. Mr. Eichman, thank you for being an example of what a great agricultural educator is and for aiding me in being successful in FFA. Mrs. Eichman, thank you for helping to develop my speaking and leadership skills. Ms. Bazer, I especially want to thank you for challenging me in all of my endeavors, pushing me to start college courses in high school, and motivating me to go to Texas A&M.

PAGE 7

7 Finally, thank you to Coach Cody Moree for showing me th can do all things through Thank you all for friendship, support, love, and guidance.

PAGE 8

8 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 12 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 13 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................ ................................ ........................... 14 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 15 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 17 Background and Setting ................................ ................................ .......................... 17 Statement of the problem ................................ ................................ ........................ 21 Purpose of the Study ................................ ................................ .............................. 22 Significance of the study ................................ ................................ ......................... 22 Definition of Terms ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 23 Limitations of Study ................................ ................................ ................................ 24 Assumptions of Study ................................ ................................ ............................. 25 Chapter Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 25 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE ................................ ................................ .................... 27 Theoretical Framework ................................ ................................ ........................... 27 ................................ ................................ ..... 31 Four Steps to Teaching Evaluation Skills ................................ ......................... 32 Co nceptual Model ................................ ................................ ............................ 32 Previous Research ................................ ................................ ................................ 34 Attentional Processes ................................ ................................ ....................... 34 Retention and Production Process ................................ ................................ ... 35 Motivational Processes ................................ ................................ ..................... 36 Knowledge Base ................................ ................................ .............................. 38 Evaluation Criterion ................................ ................................ .......................... 40 Criterion Application ................................ ................................ ......................... 41 Communication of Evaluation ................................ ................................ ........... 42 Argumentation ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 44 Foundational work ................................ ................................ ...................... 44 Contemporary literature ................................ ................................ ............. 45 Agriculturally related studies ................................ ................................ ...... 47 Chapter Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 47

PAGE 9

9 3 RESEARCH METHODS ................................ ................................ ......................... 49 Research Design ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 49 Population ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 51 Instrumentation ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 52 Data Collection ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 54 Data Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 54 Chapter Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 54 4 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 56 Findings ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 56 Demographics of participants ................................ ................................ ........... 57 Prior Experience ................................ ................................ ............................... 58 Perceptions ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 59 ................................ ................................ ..................... 60 Objective 1: Determine the A rgumentation S kills U sed by P articipants in a H orse E valuation CDE and C ontest. ................................ ................................ ... 61 Objective 2: Examine the R elationship B etween Ar gumentation S cores a nd P S cores in the H orse E valuation CDE and C ontest I ncluding: R easons S cores, P lacing of C lasses, and O verall S cores. ................................ .. 62 Argumentation Score Relationships ................................ ................................ 63 Reasons Score Relationships ................................ ................................ .......... 64 Total Scores ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 65 Correlation to Coaching Methods ................................ ................................ ..... 67 ................................ .......................... 68 Objective 3: Describe the A rgumentation L evels of P articipants in the H orse E valuation C ontest. ................................ ................................ ............................. 70 Claims ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 70 Grounds and warrants ................................ ................................ ...................... 72 Counterargument ................................ ................................ ............................. 73 Rebuttals ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 75 Chapter Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 76 5 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMEN DATIONS ................................ .......... 78 Objectives ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 79 Methods ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 79 Summary of Findings ................................ ................................ .............................. 81 Demographics and perceptions ................................ ................................ ........ 81 Objective One ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 82 Objective Two ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 83 Objective Three ................................ ................................ ................................ 84 Conclusions ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 85 Implications ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 86 Demographics and participant perceptions ................................ ...................... 86

PAGE 10

10 Conclusion: the majority of participants were Caucasian, female, and either 16 or 17 years old. ................................ ................................ ........ 86 Conclusion: participants perceived themselves to be the best at evaluating halter and worst at evaluating performance classes. ............. 86 Conclusion: team practices lasted between one and two hours. Teams conducted, on average, 13 practices for the state qualifier contest, and averaged 15 practices for the state contest. ................................ .... 87 Obje ctive One: Determine the A rgumentation S kills U sed by P articipants in a H orse E valuation CDE and C ontest ................................ ........................... 87 Conclusion: Participants exhibited mid to high argumentation skill abilities. ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 87 Objective Two: Examine the R elationship B etween A rgumentation S kill, R easons scores, P lacing of C lasses, and O verall S cores in the H orse J udging CDE and C ontest. ................................ ................................ ............ 88 Conclusion: There is not a direct relationship between placing a class of four animals and argumentation skills. ................................ .................... 88 Conclusion: Participants who can formulate oral reasons can also formulate affective argumentation. ................................ .......................... 88 Conclusion: teams that have participants with high argumentation skill place higher in the horse evaluation contest. ................................ .......... 89 Conclusion: there is an indirect relationship between the ability of argumentation skill. ................................ ................................ ................. 89 Objective three: Describe the Argumentation L evels of P articipants in the H orse E valuation C ontest. ................................ ................................ ............. 90 Conclusion: in this study, participants presented high quality argumentation that had claims, grounds and warrants, counterarguments, and rebuttals. ................................ ........................... 90 Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 91 Recommendations for Practitioners ................................ ................................ ........ 94 Recommendations for Event coordinators ................................ .............................. 95 Recommendations for Further Research ................................ ................................ 95 Chapter Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 95 APPENDIX A PARTICIPANT QUESTIONNAIRE ................................ ................................ ......... 97 B TEAM QUESTIONNAIRE ................................ ................................ ....................... 98 C PARENTAL CONSENT FORM ................................ ................................ ............. 100 D INFORMED CONSENT FOR PARTICIPANTS ................................ ..................... 101 E LETTER TO COUNTY EXTENSION AGE NTS AND AGRICULTURAL EDUCATORS ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 102

PAGE 11

11 F ARGUMENTATION RUBRIC ................................ ................................ ................ 103 G ARGUMENTATION SCORE SHEET ................................ ................................ .... 104 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 105 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 111

PAGE 12

12 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2 1 Analytical f r amework used for assessing the q uality of a rgumentation .............. 45 4 1 Participant e thnicity ................................ ................................ ............................ 57 4 2 Participant g ender ................................ ................................ .............................. 57 4 3 Participant a ge ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 58 4 4 C lub a ffiliation ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 58 4 5 Prior experiences of participants ................................ ................................ ........ 58 4 6 Years of experience of horse judging participants ................................ ............. 59 4 7 Years of experienc e in other evaluation events ................................ .................. 59 4 8 Perceptions of h orse j udging participants ................................ ........................... 60 4 9 uestionnaire ................................ ................................ ........................ 61 4 10 Argumentation m eans of p articipants ................................ ................................ 62 4 11 Participant s cores in Florida FFA and 4 H Horse Evaluation Contest ... 63 4 12 Argumentation c orrelational t ables ................................ ................................ ..... 66 4 13 ................................ ................................ ..... 68 4 14 ................................ ................................ 69 4 15 Claim scores for p articipants in the 2013 Florida FFA and 4 H Horse Evaluation CDE and Contest ................................ ................................ .............. 71 4 16 Grounds and w arrant scores for p articipants in the 2013 Florida FFA and 4 H Horse Evaluation CDE and Contest ................................ ................................ ... 73 4 17 Counterargument scores for p articipants in the 2013 Florida FFA and 4 H Horse Evaluation CDE and Contest ................................ ................................ ... 75 4 18 Rebuttal scores for p articipants in the 2013 Floria FFA and 4 H Horse Evaluation CDE and Contest ................................ ................................ .............. 76

PAGE 13

13 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2 1 Subprocesses Governing Observational Learning ................................ ............. 30 2 2 ntation Pattern ................................ ................................ ....... 31 2 3 Conceptual Framework ................................ ................................ ...................... 34 4 1 Examples of scores for claims ................................ ................................ ............ 70 4 2 Ground and warrant examples and scores ................................ ......................... 72 4 3 Counterargument examples and scores ................................ ............................. 74 4 4 Rebuttal exampl es and scores ................................ ................................ ........... 75

PAGE 14

14 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS CDE C AREER D EVELOPMENT E VENT CTE C AREER AND T ECHNICAL E DUCATION FFA N ATIONAL FFA O RGANIZATION NCEE N ATIONAL C ENTER FOR E XCELLENCE IN E DUCATION OECD T HE O RGANISATION FOR E CON OMIC C O OPERATION AND D EVELOPMENT USDE U NITED S TATES D EPARTMENT OF E DUCATION

PAGE 15

15 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Scien ce ARGUMENTATION SKILLS OF PARTICIPANTS IN THE FLORIDA 4 H AND FFA HORSE EVALUATION CONTEST By Kendrick L. Spencer May 2014 Chair: Andrew Thoron Major: Agricultural Education and Communication The purpose of this study was to determine the extent to w hich students used argumentation skills when participating in the horse evaluation career development event ( CDE ) and contest. This stud y was a descriptive correlational design. The population of the study was all the participants in the 2013 Florida State FFA and 4 H horse evaluation CDE and contest ( N = 65). Correlations of variables in the study were used to discover the relationships between argumentation scores and perf ormance in the horse evaluation CDE and contest. Participants argumentation scores were also scored using an adapted version of the Schen (2007) argumentation rubric. Participants competed in the horse evaluation contest and CDE as facilitated by the Animal Science Department at the University of Florida. The oral reasons of the partici pants were audio recorded and analyzed at a later date by the researcher. Participants mean argumentation scores ranged from 11.25 (SD = 3.26) to 12.63 (SD = 3.19). Negligible to low relationships between argumentation and placing scores were reported. Ar gumentation and reasons scores relationships ranged from low to

PAGE 16

16 substantial. Reasons scores and placing scores reported low to moderate relationships, while t he total argumentation score and total reasons score had a very high relationship. Furthermore t arguments using the constructs within the Schen (2007) rubric: claims, grounds and warrants, counterarguments, and rebuttals. Participants made claims tha t were generally broad or weak. P a rticipants excelled at making grounds and warrants that s upported the claims with data. Finally, p articipants provided a wide range of counterarguments and produced effective rebuttals. Results indicated that argumentation skills do exists among participan ts within the study. Recommendations were presented for secondary agricultural educators and horse judging coaches, event coordinators, and future research. Future studies should be conducted that investigate if argumentation skills developed in a CDE are transferrable to the school based classroom.

PAGE 17

17 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Background and Setting Fifty six years after the launching of Sputnik, thirty years after the publishing of A Nation At Risk (1983), twelve years after the passage of No Child Left Beh ind Act (2001), and two years after the passage of Race to the Top (2011) student achievement, success, and education reforms have continued to be hot topics within the nati onal media and political arena. According to the Organisation for Economic Cooper (OECD) Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA, 2009) American students ranked sixteenth in overall OECD average behind countries such as Korea, Japan, Canada, and the Netherlands. According to the Trends in Internatio nal Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS, 2007) assessment, American fourth graders ranked 11th in mathematical skills and eighth graders ranked ninth among the countries that participated. Despite the Condition of Education Report that stated American you th are making small increases in reading, mathematics, and overall academic achievement, the achievement and performance of American youth on international comparisons were still too low (USDE, 2012). Casner Lotto and Barrington (2006) voiced concern that graduating seniors were deficient in both basic skills and transferable skills needed at entry level positions within the workforce. This need for success within basic core areas has led to the adoption of the Common Core Curriculum among forty five state s and five U.S territories (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010). The amount of time students must dedicate to core curricular areas has

PAGE 18

18 increased while the amount of time students can dedi cate to career and technical education or other areas of interest has significantly decreased (Association for Career and Technical Education, 2012). High stakes testing, such as the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR), End of Course a ssessments (EOC) (TEA, 2013), and the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) have increased teacher and school district accountability, and an emphasis on college and career preparedness has become prevalent in education. Teacher salary has become s ubject to student performance on standardized tests (FlaglerLive, 2012). While education has focused on the need for American youth to compete globally, researchers have stated that students need transferable skills which have not been specifically taught preparedness for the workforce after high school, Casner Lotto and Barringtion (2006) stated that high school students needed to develop more transferrable skills before entering the workplace. Amo ng these skills, the authors identified certain transferable skills, including those that promote critical thinking and problem solving, professionalism and work ethic, teamwork and collaboration, diversity, leadership, lifelong learning and self direction ethics and social responsibility, written communications, and proficiency with information technology. Many teachers in core areas have tried to implement teaching practices that nurture the use of transferrable skills while also increasing the amount of content knowledge students learn. Teachers have difficulty balancing when to use formal authority teaching methods and when to use learner centered teaching methods (USC,

PAGE 19

19 the pros and cons for various teaching methods and has encouraged teachers to create their own style of teaching. However, teachers have struggled to find the balance among being able to create learning environments that facilitate student learning, the ne ed to cover large quantities of content, and classroom management (USC, 2012). The literature base contends that students gain a deeper understanding of content when student centered teaching methods are used (USC, 2012). One tool that can be used to incr ease student learning of a topic and increase communication skills is called argumentation (Zohar & Nemet, 2002). Argumentation has been used within the science discipline. The science community built upon the literature and the use of argumentation to inc in scientific content. Argumentation has been stated by researchers as being a vital part of learning scientific knowledge. Argumentation has emphasized the use of language to increase scientific literacy, which involves the abilities to comprehend, interpret, analyze, and criticize scientific text (Cavegnetto & Hand, 2012). Argumentation involves the transferrable skills researchers and industry leaders have stated that students need. Zohar and Nemet (2001) stat are often applied in everyday life as people participate in, listen to, or assess arguments. [Argumentation] involves reasoning about causes and consequences and about advantages and disadvantages, or pros and cons, of particu lar propositions or As argumentation and student based learning have gained popularity within the core curricula, career and technical education h as integrated components of core curricula and aligned with industry standard s by teaching skills and competencies

PAGE 20

20 needed within a specific industry. The Association for Career and Technical Education (2012) stated that career and technical education can provide students with opportunities to increase learning and focus on specific career areas that are not being fulfilled. School based agricultural education (SBAE) has provided a context that supports the delivery of content kn owledge and STEM based concepts as well as transferrable skills captured through the lens of agriculture ( Dailey, Conroy, & Shelley Tolbert, 2001). SBAE has incorporated experiential learning (Roberts, 2006), with FFA offering unique opportunities for learning by doing. The three circle model of SBAE, that incorporates the classroom and lab, supervised agricul tural experiences, and participation in the FFA, has allowed students to practice their soft and transferrable skills through participation in the complete agricultural education program. Similarly, 4 H focuses on skill acquisition through experiential lea rning and is the largest out of school youth organization that focuses on teaching life skills (Hendricks, 1998). The Teaching Life Skills Model focuses on four main areas: Head, Heart, Hands, and Health (Harder, 2006). 4 H aims to develop 35 life skills in the four areas through competition and leadershi p opportunities in agriculture and home economics in non formal settings (Boyd, Heffing, & Briers, 1992; Harder, 2006). FFA Career Development Events (CDEs) have helped achieve the mission of the FFA to de velop premier leadership, personal growth, and career success (Rayfield, 2006). CDEs have allowed students to showcase content knowledge and acquired skills within a competitive venue. CDEs have also required students to apply knowledge, solve problems, an d make and defend decisions.

PAGE 21

21 In the Horse Judging CDE students are required to evaluate horses based on breed and event characteristics. The purpose of the horse judging event, according to the National FFA Organization (2012), has been to: e interest in equine science selection, management, and production, (2) advance knowledge in selection and management of horses, (3) develop proficiency in communicating effectively in the terminology of the industry, and (4) provide opportunity to evaluat e, make a decision, and justify those decisions on conformation However, judging events were not solely started by the FFA. According to Tenney (1977), agricultural educators began hos ting judging contests soon after the passage of the Smith Hughes Act of 1917. Rayfield (2006) stated that the first national judging competition designed specifically for secondary school agriculture students was in 1925 at the National Dairy Show in India napolis, Indiana. Soon after, the American as was the National Congress of Vocational Agriculture Students judging contest. While these events have reinforced participant has also indicated that participants have gained valuable transferable skills through participation in CDEs. Studies have also revealed that competing in FFA has allowed students to receive recognition and provide student mot ivation through goals, and the completion of tasks (Vaughn, Keith, & Lockaby, 1999). Statement of the problem As Casner Lotto and Barrington (2006) observed, students have been graduating from high school with underdeveloped thinking and reasoning skills that are crucial to their future academic, work, and life success. FFA, as part of SBAE, has offered many

PAGE 22

22 opportunities for students to use thinkin g and reasoning skills. Career Development Events (CDEs) in the FFA in particular, have required students to make decisions and not been examined. The f ifth priority of the 2011 2015 National Research Agenda for Agricultural Education has focused on Effective and Efficient Ed the academic, career, and developmental needs of diverse learners in all settings and at all levels. The ke y objective has been to provide data describing the impact of educational programs and outreach efforts at all l Despite research identifying several positive attributes of participation in school based agricultural science programs, CDEs, FFA, and the complete agricultural program, a clear identification of skills that are taught and developed through participation in the Horse Judging CDE and contest is needed. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to determine the extent to which students used argumentation skills when participating in the horse evaluation CDE and contes t. The three objectives were to: 1. Determine the argumentation skills used by participants in a horse evaluation CDE and contest. 2. Examine the relationship between argumentation skill scores in the horse evaluation CDE and contest including: reasons scores, placing of classes, and overall scores. 3. Describe the argumentation levels of participants in the horse evaluation contest. Significance of the study If participants in this study have middle to high argumentation scores, agricultural educators will have em pirical evidence to support the importance of the event and value

PAGE 23

23 of this CDE and similar CDEs, preparation time for the event, and the complete SBAE program. Agricultural educators can present this information to admini stration to gain support for spendin g time in school and after school time on this event, given evidence extension and agricultural education professionals may use the results found within the study to i nvestigate other events which may foster argumentatio n skills amongst participants. Definition of Terms Argumentation Score: the score students earn when evaluated on an ( 2007 ) doctoral disser tation. Argumentation skill: the ability to develop statements that provide support for a conclusion (Halpern, 1989). In this study, argumentation skill was defined as the score on a scoring rubric developed by Schen (2007). Career Development Event (CD students develop the abilities to think critically, communicate clearly, and perform ct matter that is to be refers to horse industry knowledge and was assessed via a test distributed to the participants during the horse judging contest. Ethnicity: categorized as Caucasian, Hispanic/Latino, African American/Black, Asian/Pacific Islander or other. enrolled in school based agr icultural education programs. The purpose of FFA is to develop leadership, personal growth, and career success in its members and an intra al., 2008) it to the i Department, para. 2). In this study horse judging and horse evaluation are the same thing.

PAGE 24

24 Horse Judging Clinic: an educational workshop centered around helping participants understan d the different aspects of a horse judging competition and increase knowledge in selected areas. Horse Judging Participant: a member of 4 H or FFA who competes in the horse judging contest. to two minute or al presentation made by a horse judging contestant to an official, during which the contestant justifies how he or she placed a specific class of horses (Hathway, 2008, p 1). Overall Horse Judging Score: the score which a student obtains after adding rea sons scores and placing scores. Reasons Score: the score which a judge gives a student after listening to his or her oral reasons. Reasoning Skills: those processes basic to cognition of all forms (Purdue University, 2012). School Based Agricultural Ed ucation: m iddle and high school programs teaching agriculture as part of a three circle model which includes classroom instruction, as well as FFA and supervised agricultural experiences (SAE) (Phipps, et al., 2008). Transferrable Skills: s kills and abil ities that can be applied in multiple settings. Examples include communication, critical thinking, teamwork, and work ethic. This study identifies transferrable skills, soft skills, and life skills as being synonymous Limitations of Study In this study, th e participants included those who advanced to the state level horse judging competition in 2013 because participants only presented oral reasons at the state CDE contest. The state CDE qualifies the top 4 H a nd FFA teams to advance to the n ational competit ion. Data were collected using an audio recording of the oral reasons portion of the contest. The researcher collected the contest scores from the contest coordinators.

PAGE 25

25 Assumptions of Study This study assumed that participants answered the questionnaires truthfully. This study also assumed that students competed to the best of their ability Chapter Summary The Horse Evaluation CDE has been a long standing competition within FFA, requiring students to evaluate horses based on class and industry standards. The ultimate goal has been for students to demonstrate content knowledge related to the industry and encourage students to pursue careers related to the horse industry. Horse judging presents an opportunity to competitively learn by doing and incorporate multiple transferable skills, which the job industry indicated is lacking amongst high school graduates (Cassner Lotto & Barrington, 2006). Argumentation, according to Cavegnetto and Hand (2012) requires oral communication, critical thinking and decision making which are part of the transferrable skills Cassner Lotto and Barrington (2006) identified. Finding tools and ways to develop this skill set outside of The National Research Agenda (D oefert, 2011) has called for research in the areas of educational programs and the skills enhanced in students. As time and resources available decrease, the importance of research that validates student participation in FFA CDEs and other co curricular ac tivities increases. This study evaluated whether participation in the horse judging program the literature regarding educational practices, the main goal was to explore whether argumentatio n was developed through participation in the hors e judging program. The study will aid

PAGE 26

26 agricultural educators, e xtension personnel and those interested in increasing student learning in experiential settings.

PAGE 27

27 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE Chapter 1 stat ed the current problem with student achievement of high school industry (Cassner Lotto & Barrington, 2006). Research that links participation in programs to success in s chool and real world applic ation has become more important because accountability for school based programs has continued to increase. Chapter 2 presents the theory and conceptual model for this study and previous research. This study combined Observation al Learning Theory (Bandura, 1986), Evaluation Skills (Moore, 2006). Observational learning served as a c enter piece to the entire study. The theory of observational learning i s viewed to have an effect on all four ) four Argumentation Pattern (TAP) (1958) was utilized as the foundational model to formulating arguments. The major variables in this study were c onceptualized as youth development and skill acquisition through participation in 4 H and FFA, recruitment methods of coaches, coaching methodologies and ideas, and student motivation. Theoretical Framework s social cognitive learning theory (1986). Observational learning states that new knowledge, concepts, and social behaviors are learned when a person observes a model. An example of observational the word .49) or pianists mastering Beethoven.

PAGE 28

28 Observational learning states that modeling can strengthen or weaken the relies on three factors : them. Models d irect attention, solicit responses, and focus attention on different aspects of an environment (Bandura, 1986). Bandura (1986) claimed that modeling provides an effective way to convey information about rules for creating a new behavior. Observational lea rning is governed by four processes: Attention processes: regulate exploration and perception of modeled activities, Retention processes: the transition of experiences into memory that will lead to the creation of new skills and patterns, Production proces ses: governs the organization of subskills into new patterns; and Motivation processes: determine whether observationally acquired competencies will be used or not. Attention processes determine what is observed and what information is taken from the obser ved event. Factors that influence the exploration and perception of a model in the social and symbolic environment are the cognitive skills and attributes of the observer, properties of the modeled activities, human interactions, and the models that are av ailable (Bandura, 1986). Bandura (1986) stated that observational learning can be fragmented if modeled events occur too rapidly or are too complicated. Repeated exposures to modeled activities increase the amount of information learned. Bullock (1983) sta ted that modeling affects changes more rapidly and reliably when the models meet the

PAGE 29

29 and prior knowledge of the observer, the more the observers pick up subtleties and fine differences allowing the observers to become more proficient in learning the model. Familiarization and training allow people to recognize fine differences that the untutored would not be able to distinguish (Bandura, 1986). s ability to retain the information conveyed by the model. Bandura (1986) found that observers create mental symbols that represent the information conveyed when observing a model. These symbols are useful to retain information because the models may prese nt too much information or irrelevant information. Bandura (1986) further stated that retaining information involves actively repeating the modeled information until the action becomes a routine. Furthermore, newly modeled actions or behaviors are more li kely to be retained if they are tied to a behavior that is already known. The third process of observational learning is the production process, where the observers use the symbolic representations to organize the actions into a new concept or activity th at was modeled. Observers only learn minor parts of an action through observing the action alone. To become proficient at executing the modeled actions the observer needs to practice the action multiple times. Bandura (1986) stated the inability of self ob servation creates a disconnect between the observer understanding the model and feedback allows for the observer to practice on areas that are difficult. The final pro cess influencing the reproduction of modeled behavior is the motivational process. Bandura (1986) stated that there are three sources of motivation

PAGE 30

30 to execute a modeled behavior: direct, vicarious, and self produced. Further, Bandura ildren selectively imitate the behavior that produces rewarding social reactions, or rewards. Intrinsic motivators can be observer beliefs, personal standards, and perc eived thoughts on positive or negative punishment. These A ll of these processes build upon one another to influence how the observer exhibits and matches the modeled behav ior. Central to these processes is the ve skill level, and capability. Figure 2 1 This study viewed Observational Learning as a prominent theory th at was present within every stage of the study. As a whole, observational learning was seen as the theory behind coaching evaluation teams and the processes were a stepwise process to teaching students how to evaluate horses and construct oral reasons. Figure 2 1 Subprocesses Governing Observational Learning (Bandura 1986)

PAGE 31

31 Argumentation Pattern(1958) served as a model for the evaluation of s Argumentation Pattern (TAP ) ( Figure 2 2). Toulmin (1958) identified argumentation as a connected set of a claim, supporting data, warrants, backings and rebuttals (F igure 2 2). A claim is a conclusion statement that voices the opinion or decision. The supporting data present statements that support the claim. Warrants link the data to the claim. A backing adds validity to the warrants, and rebuttals state the circumst ances when the claim would not be true. Each of these constructs is identified as field invariant, meaning the general idea of each construct (claim, data, warrant, backing, and rebuttal) does not depend on the context in which the construct is placed and can be transferred to any area. However, the statements made within each construct are identified as field dependent, meaning they have to relate to the context of the argument (Jimnez Aleixandre, 2008). Therefore, the ideas of the constructs can be tau ght in any context, while the actual statements have to be in respect to the subject being argued (Jimnez Aleixandre, 2008). Verheij (2005) deciphered a rebuttal as statements that can combat either claims, warrants, data, or the links in between any of these. Figure 2 2. )

PAGE 32

32 Four Steps to Teaching Evaluation Skills Moore (2006) identified four steps to effectively teaching and coaching evaluation teams. Moore (2006) stated that in the first step, knowledge, students must have a foundational knowledge of the industry. This knowledge includes terminology, industry standards, general terms, and basic anatomy and physiology. Once students have a basic understanding of industry and ter minology, students then learn the criteria for evaluating livestock or horses. Students learn factors that are important to evaluating different cate gories of livestock and horses and the best way to evaluate them. Students then use the criteria they have learned to evaluate the animals against the industry standards. This is the third step called criterion application. Students complete the third step by evaluating animal classes through video, pictures, or live This is also when students start to learn h ow to formulate reasons and evaluate animals against each other and comp are against industry standards. Finally, in the present their placings for the class to the judge. Th is stage is the final step when evaluating livestock and horses, and brings together all the information. Conceptual Model Within the context of horse and livestock evaluation, the progression of a student s evaluation and argumentation abilities flow thr ough many phases. This study as shown in Figure 2 3 In this study cognitive learning provided a base f or the entire study. Cognitive learning occurs at all levels throughout instruction, coaching, and skill acquisition. Attention processes occur as the factors that attracted a student to join the

PAGE 33

33 judging team. A ttractants could have been the past success o f the program, a family or organizational tradition, an interest from the student, or other incentives. Retention and production processes in this study have an interrelated impact on eory, as students or observers increase in retention through rehearsal and feedback the ability to produce a modeled action becomes easier. Within the context of horse evaluation and this study, students traverse between production and retention as stude nt s learn different terminology and organization of reasons and improve on their abilities to evaluate and present oral reasons Retention and production are a ffected by coaching methods, knowledge of content, and the goals set forth by the team and the coac h. Motivation is conceptualized in the study as the motivating factors for students to participate in the horse judging and livestock evaluation teams. These factors are individual goals, team goals, self efficacy of the students participating, and finall y success rates of the students in both practices and school (Jones, 2011, & Russell, 2007). The cognitive learning theory is implemented throughout the entire model. Moore (2006) stated that there are four steps to teaching students to evaluate livestock and horses. These four steps are conceptualized as a staircase. As the students develop may increase as well

PAGE 34

34 Figure 2 3 Conceptual Framework Adapted from The Cognitive Learning Model Previous Research Attentional Processes According to o bservational learning (1986), attentional processes determine the extent to which something is observed and what is taken away from the model. Attentional processes regulate the exploration and perception of modeled activities. Bandura, Ross, and Ross (1963) stated that the perceived power of a model will affect t he extent to which the model is imitated. Furthermore, researchers stated that the perceived similarity of a model to its observers dictates the likelihood of a model being replicated. Slabey and Frey (1975) found that young children pay attention and repl icate models that are of the same gender. Slabey and Frey (1975) built on the work of Maccoby, Wilson, and Burton (1958) who found that adults preferred to direct their attention to models of their same gender. Similarily, Maccoby and Wilson (1957) found

PAGE 35

35 t hat adults learned more of the behaviors displayed by models of their own gender. Slabey, and Frey (1975) postulated that the subjects in their study did direct attention to the model which had the most perceived power. Attention processes occur as the fac tors that attracted a student to join the judging team; attractants could have been the past success of the program, a family or organizational tradition, an interest from the student, or other incentives. Rayfield(2007) profiled gold emblem teams as recr uiting students who had proficient speaking abilities, could dedicate time to practices, were committed team players, had good study skills, had positive attitudes and were competitive. Russell (2007) also found that some teachers recruited students who w ere good at a competition when they were in 4 H, or who had experience within a certain area, while other teachers participate in C DEs that interest the students. Retention and Production Process Retention processes represent the transition of modeled acti vities into symbolic representation that can be remembered and recalled. Bandura (1986) stated that symbolic representation r etention and production are affected by coaching methods, knowledge of content, and the goals set forth by the team and the coach. Bandura (1986) stated, smoothly and automatically witho Production processes are the third component of modeling. Production processes require participants or observers to replicate a modeled behavior. Production processes govern the organization of learned subskills into new patterns (Bandura, 1986). Retention and production processes are represented as team practices, coaching methodologies, and

PAGE 36

36 different st rategies used to help teams acquire the skills needed to evaluate classes successfully. Rayfield (2007) found that c oaches trained their teams by sending them to summer camps, working with college livestock judging teams, attending practice contests and c onducting live animal practices. Subsequently, Rayfield (2007) concluded that live animal practices, practice contest, and giving oral reasons were the most important training methods when prepping a livestock evaluation team. Following Rayfield, Viogt (2 012) conducted a mixed methods study evaluating the practices of coaches of dairy, horse, and livestock evaluation CDEs. Voigt (2012) discovered which practices were perceived to be the most beneficial to expert coaches. Voigt found eight central tendencie s important to the expert coaches: (1) positive environment, (2) foundational knowledge, (3) support, (4) goals, (5) experience, (6) effective coaching, (7) expectations, and (8) youth development, which was the central tendency encompassing all of the oth er seven tendencies. Voigt then described the practices as being either coach focused practices or youth practices. Coach focused assion for coaching, positive motivation for coaching, and how the coach taught the basics of judging. Youth practices encompassed the coach assisting the youth in setting personal and team goals, motivational processes, and youth personal development. Mot ivational Processes Motivation is conceptualized in the study as the motivating factors for students to participate in the horse judging and livestock evaluation teams.

PAGE 37

37 Russell (2007) identified several themes th at determined how Oklahoma agricultural edu cators motivated their students to participate in CDEs. These themes were : (1) tradition and success of the chapter, (2) competition opportunities, (3) gaining life skills, (4) enabling students to have fun, (5) recruiting members, and (6) CDEs are a key p art of the curriculum. Russell concluded that within the area of tradition and study stat ed that there was either a long standing tradition of winning within that agricultural program, or that students were encouraged through rewards at practices, plaques, pins, banners, and additional competition. Furthermore, the teachers utilized alumni or community members who had experience in areas and events to train teams that were unfamiliar to the teachers. which serves as a driving tudy used competition within the class to determine which students will represent the chapter in competitions. One agriculture teacher stated Another agriculture teacher stated that the expectations and goals change based on the team, capabilities of the individual student, and the knowledge of the event that the agriculture teacher has. Sometimes the goal was to win the state contest, while o ther times the goal was to improve scores from competition to competition. Teachers had set a long term goal, often to win the state contest, but teachers also required the students to set short term goals for each practice (Russell, 2007).

PAGE 38

38 The agricultura (2007) study found that students gained industry knowledge, could communicate better through oral and written form, had better interview skills, were more responsible and dedicated, and ha d a strong work ethic. Russell (2007) also f ound that students gained leadership and teamwork skills and were more confident. Russell (2007) acknowledged that students should have fun when competing in study state d that they find ways to help the students have fun through overnight trips or making fun stops to and from the competition. In a study evaluating the motivating factors for youth participating in Horticulture CDEs, Jones (2011) found that students saw a h igh value in participating in the horticulture CDE because of career interests and the ability to compete for scholarships. The coaches, however, were intrinsically motivated to have students compete because they wanted their students to learn more about h orticulture and enjoyed teaching their students about horticulture. Jones (2011) found that old exams and quizzes, flashcards, and websites were the top resources used by students in preparation for the contest, while videos/DVDs, invitational contests, an d judging camps were used the least. Knowledge Base st The first step to teaching evaluation is to provide students with foundational knowledge such as terminology, specific industry standards, and performance measures (Moore, 2006). programs for any animal science commodity represent a unique opportunity to develop student knowledge, communication skills, personal character, and leadership that will

PAGE 39

39 & McCann, 1992 p.12). Cavinder, Byrd, Franke, and Holub ( 2011) team involvement creates an invaluable resource for students to gain critical thinking abilities an (2007) study used CDEs as a way to 56). Another stated they call it career development events and if these students are learning skills for the teacher s saw participation and placement in CDEs as a reflection of them as a teacher. One teacher stated 57). In a study ascertaining the use of equine course work used by teams who participated in the 2005 Horse Judging CDE in Virginia, Miller (2006) discovered that of the 32 responding teachers, 56% had some type of equine background. Most of the teachers taught a unit or course in equine management and saw the courses as beneficial to the students increased their animal industry knowledge. This statement was also supported by the work of McCann and McCann (1992) ; ex Cavinder et al. (2011) concluded that judging team experiences reinforce the content being taught within the classroom and places concepts in an industrial and practical

PAGE 40

40 sit uation. McCann and Mcann (1992) also stated that evaluation focusing on visual appraisal of livestock and selection for production have been a part of the animal science curriculum for over 75 years. Evaluation Criterion Moore (2006) stated that providing students with the evaluation criteria is teaching students what factors to look for when evaluating a class of livestock. P roviding the evaluation criteria evaluating each type of class 17). Wulf Risner and Stewart (1997) conducted a quasi experimental study to evaluate which teaching methods, either audio/visual and classroom instruction or live animal instruction, resulted in students performing the best in a horse judging contest. T he researchers concluded that classroom instruction was the best method to teaching horse judging content because the components of horse judging were concrete and specific. The structure of the classroom allowed the teacher to focus on specific criteria. The researchers admitted that student motivation and interest could decrease if classroom methods were the only instructional method used. Rayfield (2007) stated that coaches trained their teams by sending them to summer camps, working with college live stock judging teams, attending practice contests and conducting live animal practices. Subsequently, Rayfield (2007) concluded that live animal practices, practice contest, and giving oral reasons were the most important training methods when prepping a li vestock evaluation team.

PAGE 41

41 Criterion Application Moore (2006) stated that once students learned the evaluation criteria they need to learn how to critically evaluate a set of animals. Evaluation skills are a form of critical thinking and are transferrable to different situations (Moore, 2006). Bisdorf critical thinking [is] a reasoned, purposive, and introspective approach 25) These researches conducted a study of critical th inking dispositions among undergraduate agricultural communications students. The researchers used the University of Florida Engagement, Maturity Innovativeness assessment that ranked engagement, cognitive maturity, and innovativeness as indicators for cri tical thinking ability. Participants in the Bisdorf Rhoades et al. (2005) study ranked high in the areas of innovativeness and engagement. However, participants ranked low in cognitive maturity. Ozgun Koca and Altay (2009) found that middle school studen ts proportional instructors. The authors found that sixth grade students used a variety of strategies to formulate answers for proportional reasoning questions, while sev enth graders only used one method. Furthermore, these researchers found that students did not have the ability to discuss how an answer was reached. confidence in clinical reasoning skills as they participated in the case based learning (CBL) courses of veterinary school. Patterson (2006) found that as students progressed through the CBL courses their confidence increased in areas related to clinical reasoning: creating a rule out list, using a problem list, and se lecting a diagnostic test. Patterson (2006) concluded the

PAGE 42

42 confidence levels were subject to knowledge areas of the veterinary students. he] development of clinical reasoning skills involves both an acquisition of knowledge and ability to apply that knowledge through practice and Peteroy Kelley (2007) discovered that discussion group programs led to students earning higher grades on assessments and higher course grades. Peteroy Kelley (2007) observed that the discus sion group program helped students become more comfortable with course content due to repetition. Furthermore, the students within the study were able to answer questions more logically and sequentially. This led the authors to conclude that the discussion group program was successful at improving In horse and livestock evaluation there are numerous methods agricultural educators can employ for students to learn how to apply evaluation criterion. Students evaluate the strength and weaknesses of an individual animal, and then compare and contrast the differences between animals. Lastly, students learn to evaluate a group of animals into comparable pairs or a unique top and bottom animal with a close middle pair (Moore, 2006). Communication of Evaluation Moore (2006) stated that when preparing to communicate their (students ) findings, students This in essence is a reflection (Dewey, 1933) of the class the students evaluated, as well as the criteria used to evaluate the class. students make claims about each anim 17).

PAGE 43

43 Furthermore, Boyd, Herring, and Briers (1992) conducted a survey in Texas that examined the life skills 4 H participants thought they had gained through participation in 4 H compared to students who had not participated in 4 H. Researchers found that 4 H members ranked higher in their self perceived life skills t han the participants of the study who were not involved in 4 H. The 4 H members ranked high, especially in areas such as working with groups, understanding self, communicating, and decision making. The investigators found that as 4 H participation increase d so did the level of leadership skill development. Amongst the activities that enhanced skill development in 4 H members were leadership roles, method demonstrations and talks, public speaking, and judging events. Fitzpatrick, Gagne, Jones, Lobley, and Ph elps (2005) interviewed Maine 4 H alumni members and adult volunteers to evaluate the skills participants gained through participation in 4 H programs. The authors reported in their findings tha t alumni and volunteers thought that skills relating to divers ity acceptance, communication, team work, and numerous other skills were attained through participation in 4 H. Mor e than 80% of participants had plans to complete college, and 25% planned to obtain graduate or professional degrees. Nash and Sant (2005) c onducted a study of Idaho 4 H judging alumni. Within their study, participants identified animal judging as a critical part of their career success and skill acquisition. Participants stated that participation in judging improved their self confidence, dec ision making skills, communication skills, and motivation. McCann and McCann (1992) conducted a national study to ascertain the benefits of competing on a collegiate judg ing team. The participants, 1291 in total, represented

PAGE 44

44 members of livestock, horse, m eats, and wool judging teams at various universities and junior colleges across the nation and competed on t eams between the years of 1932 and 1989. The researchers found that most participants had participated in judging contests through organizations suc h as 4 H, FFA, or breed organizations. The members perceived substantial benefits from partic ipating on judging teams. Among these benefits were the development of communication skills, confidence, decision making skills, self discipline, and self motivati on, and the ability to accept criticism. Argumentation Foundational w ork inclusive act of critical thinking is that of argumentation (1958) set the precedence of evaluating discourse within the science classroom through the use of TAP. However, several authors have adapted the model for their individual studies. Erduran et al. (2004) recognized the troublesomeness of using the TAP model, as some parts were left ambiguous. However, many studies have utilized TAP for the benefit of instructing argumentation within the classroom. Based on the work of Mean to combine data, wa rrants, and backings into a single category. Zohar and Nemet (2006) concluded strong arguments consist of multiple justifications that are relevant and specific with accurate scientific data that support the conclusion. Zohar and consideration of scientific knowledge, (b) inaccurate scientific knowledge, (c) non 50). Erduran et al. (2004) operationalized TA P and identifying various levels of argument through their

PAGE 45

45 paper discussing the methodological approaches to evaluating argumentation ( Table 2 1). Table 2 1 Analytical Framework used for assessing the Quality of Argumentation (Erduran et al., 2004) Level 1: Level 1 argumentation consists of arguments that are a simple claim versus a counter claim or a claim versus a claim Level 2: Level 2 argumentation has arguments consisting of a claim versus a claim witheither data, warrants, or backings but do not co ntain any rebuttals Level 3: Level 3 argumentation has arguments with a series of claims or counter claims with either data, warrants, or backings with the occasional weak rebuttal Level 4: Level 4 argumentation shows arguments with a claim with a clea rly identifiable rebuttal. Such an argument may have several claims and counter claims. Level 5: Level 5 argumentation displays an extended argument with more than one rebuttal Contemporary l iterature Nussbaum (2002) recognized the potential for stude nts to develop argumentation within the social studies classroom as a way to understand historical events and current social issues and to increase participation in a democratic society. Nussbaum stated that students encounter difficulty stating both premi ses within an argument because they confuse the demands of formal and informal argumentation. Informal argumentation occurs in small groups where the premises often do not need to be stated. Formal argumentation however requires full explanation of an argu ment as an audience cannot ask for clarification. Nussbaum (2002) created a scaffolding worksheet to help students formulate the scaffold was to help student formulate the ir warrants but used common terms such as opinions and evidence. The worksheet also asked students how their evidence related to the opinion. Nussbaum used a class of sixth grade social studies students in

PAGE 46

46 California who had spent the year learning about c ities and participating in a city argumentation skills. The students used the worksheets to work through different topics of discussion each week in class, and Nussbaum ana lyzed the worksheets six different times. Nussbaum concluded that argumentation scaffolds can be used in a variety of content areas for students of all ages and cognitive levels. In a study of ninth grade students, Zohar and Nemet (2002) sought to improve a series of dilemmas in human genetics. The study concluded that teaching genetics through the use of dilemmas with an argumentation unit incr use and content know ledge scores increased more than the control group, whose argumentation score s did not change. abilities to learn scientific information and argumentation skills after a series of nine argumentation lessons over the course of a year with the initial and fina l lesson based within a socioscientfic issue. Von Aufschnaiter et al. (2007) found that students can create high quality arguments without specifically being taught argumentation to a great extent. Furthermore, von Aufschnaiter et al. (2007) concluded that argumentation is higher when they have more knowledge regarding the specific topic. 7).

PAGE 47

47 Venville and Dawson (2010) found that instruction based on argumentation that contained rebuttals and counterclaims increased substantially, while the argumentation a bilities of the comparison group remained the same. Agriculturally r elated studies Thoron (2010) discovered that inquiry his study, Thoron used inquiry based instruction as a way to improve student learning in the agricultural science classroom over a 12 week time period. Thoron explained that the duration of time within the study could also lead to gains to argumentation. Burleson (2013) later used training modules to increase content knowledge and argumentation skills in students who participated in an agricultural sales FFA career development event. She concluded that argumentation skills did not have to be used during in struction in order for the students to exhibit argumentation skills in the contest. This finding was contradictory to the findings of Thoron (2010) and Zohar and Nemet (2002). Burleson (2013) explained that it is not necessary to directly teach argumentati on skills, and participation through the agricultural sales career development offers a chance for students to learn argumentation in an applied setting. Chapter Summary Chapt er 2 presented the theoretical framework and conceptual model used in this study. Observational Learning Theory states that observers learn new skills by observing models, practicing, and then reproducing the newly learned skills. The steps to teaching evaluation. The Conceptual model stated that

PAGE 48

48 observational learning is a fundamental piece to the instruction of evaluation and argumentation evaluation. The model also s increase as they progress through the four steps of evaluation. C hapter 2 also presented previous research about the identified variables within the study: skill acquisition through animal science pr oject and judging teams, coaching and training methods, equine and content curriculum, reasoning, and argumentation. These studies, in a brief summary, found that students attain valuable life skills by competing in animal science based project and contest Studies also found coaches and coaching methodology have a large effect on recruitment, student motivation, and success. Finally, argumentation skills can be built through the use of scaffolds and guides. All variables were identified by the researcher as influencing student success argumentation abilities. Chapter 3 will present the methods used to conduct this study and measure the argumentation scores of students.

PAGE 49

49 CHA PTER 3 RESEARCH METHODS Chapter 1 presented that student achievement and acquisition of transferrable skills are lacking within the American public school system (Casner Lotto & Barrington, 2007). Yet the Association for Career and Technical Education (20 12) stated that career and technical education provided students with opportunities to obtain transferrable skills while aligning with their interest wit h viable careers. Chapter 1 also presented the problem statement and research objectives that were inve stigated during this study. Chapter 2 presented the literature related to the current study. M any researchers have identified life skill acquisition as an important part of 4 H and FFA animal science based projects and competitions. Researchers (Rayfield, 2006; Voigt, 201) have also discovered the best recruiting and training practices for livestock, horse, and diary evaluation teams on the national level. The goal of this research was to ascertain the level of argumentation skills found among participants within the Florida State FFA and 4 H Horse Judging CD E/Contest in 2013. Chapter 3 will present an in depth discussion of the methods used to address the objectives of this study. This chapter discusses the research design, population and sample, instrumen ts used, data collection process, and the data analysis techniques. Research Design This study was a descriptive correlational study which sought to assess the argumentation levels of students who participated in the Florida State Horse Judging Contest. C orrelational research seeks to evaluate relationships and patterns between variables within a single group (Ary, Jacobs, & Sorensen, 2010). Correlation, denoted by r, assumes that the relationships between variables model a straight line; r is

PAGE 50

50 proportiona l to the slope of a line and indicates the strength of a relationship between the two variables (Agresti & Finlay, 2009). Davis (1971) stated correlations between .01 and .09 are considered negligible, .10 to .29 are low, .30 to .49 are moderate, .50 to 69 as substantial, .70 to .99 as very high, and 1.00 is perfect. Davis (1971) defined the standard to which the correlations are discussed in this study. The study was designed to follow the predetermined organization of the 2013 Florida horse judging prog ram that Science department. Participants had the opportunity to participate in two workshops was purposed to ins truct participants on how to evaluate different halter and performance classes. This first workshop took place in December of 2012 before the qualifying contest. The second workshop instructed participants on how to formulate a set of oral reasons and was conducted in March of 2013. Participants had to advance to the state contest by placing at a qualifying contest. The qualifying contest required participants to evaluate different classes of horses, take a knowledge assessment test, and answer questions p ertaining to the classes the participants evaluated. The state contest consisted of the participants evaluating eight placing classes four halter classes and four performance classes. The participants were assigned to four seperate groups for the duratio n of the contest. Each class consisted of four animals to be placed numerically from first (one) to last (four) based on the industry standards for the respective classes. The participants evaluated a class of performance halter geldings (class one), hunte r in hand (class two), performance halter mares (class three), and A rabian sport horse (class four). The performance classes consisted of

PAGE 51

51 western pleasure (class five), hunt seat equitation (class six), hunter under saddle (class seven), and reining (class eight). Reasons were given on two halter and two performance classes. The reasons were given after all the classes had been evaluated and judging cards were turned in. Participants were allotted an average of thirty minutes to formulate their reasons befo re presenting the m to a judge. The participants presented a two minute set of oral reasons to a judge who scored them from zero to fifty. The participants presented reasons on performance halter geldings, performance halter mares, hunter under saddle, and reining. One judge was assigned to evaluate the reasons for a given class. Population The population of this study was all participants who competed in the 2013 Florida FFA and 4 H State Horse Judging CDE/Contest in the state of Florida ( N = 6 5 ) However since oral reasons were only given at the s tate contest which qualifies students in both 4 H and FFA to compete at their respective national contest, the results were limited only to the sample. The population ( N = 6 5 ) consisted of all the teams who comp eted at the state contest in 2013. Each team member judged eight classes of horses ( four halter classe s and four performance classes), and then presented four sets of reasons (two halter classes and two performance classes). The classes used for oral reas ons were Performance Halter Geldings, Performance Halter Mares, Hunter Under Saddle, and Reining.

PAGE 52

52 Instrumentation With this study seeking to describe the argumentation level of students, the researcher developed two questionnaires to obtain demographic da ta on the students The researcher developed different questionnaires for students ( see Appendix A) and coaches ( Appendix B). The questionnaires were found to be acceptable for face and content validity by a panel of experts within the Agricultural Education and Communication department of the University of Florida. The questionnaires were distributed to the coaches via email three weeks prior to the CDE/Contest. Each packet contained: student questionna ire (Appendix A), coach questionnaire (see Appendix B), Internal Review Board consent forms for the parents (Appendix C) and students (see Appendix D), and cover letter (Appendix E). The c oach q uestionnaire (Appendix B) was used to ascertain the methods c oaches used to train teams and select team members. The c oach q uestionnaire includ ed four questions about basic demographic data of the team. Questions five through seven determined the amount of time the team practiced and how many practices the teams ha d in preparation for the contest. Questions eight and nine ascertained how often the teams utilized live animals, pictures, video, and other media to evaluate horses in practice. Questions ten and eleven gathered information on whether the team attended th Animal Science Department. Lastly, question twelve was a free response question that asked the coaches how they chose the participants who were on their judging team. The p articipant q uestionnaire (s ee Appendix A) gathered information related specifically to the student. Questions one through four included basic demographic

PAGE 53

53 information and determined the organizational affiliation of the participants. Questions five through nine ascertained the previ ous experience of the participant in horse judging, horse related events, judging related events, and speaking events. These questions were asked because the researcher anticipated a relationship between prior experience in the evaluation events, speaking events, and events related to horse content to the scores within the study. Questions ten through thirteen addressed efficacy in terms of each judging class. sc ores were used within this study. The researcher utilized an argumentation rubric created by Schen (2007) (Appendix E) and used by Thoron (2010) and Burleson (2013) of r easons were scored separately and then totaled for the total argumentation of the reasons set. Argumentation scores in this study could range from 0 to 20. The researcher developed a separate score card (see Appendix F) to help maintain clarity while eva luating the argumentation score of the oral reasons. This score card allowed the researcher to record participant numbers, class name, the competition reasons on ea ch pairing and the total argumentation score. Each reasons set was then correlated to the class placing score and reasons score. Interrater reliability was assess rf by a panel of experts at the University of Florida Agricultural Education and Communication Department and Animal Science Department and established at .91.

PAGE 54

54 Data Collection On the day of the contest coaches returned the questi onnaires and IRB consent forms. The contest was conducted according to the rules of Florida 4 H and the Florida FFA Association. The oral reasons were recorded using audio voice recorders. The researcher collected the scores from the contest coordinator an d the audio recordings. The researcher evaluated all the recorded reasons over a series of six weeks. The recorded oral reasons were analyzed using the argumentation rubric and correlated with the contest scores. Data Analysis The purpose of this study wa s to determine the extent to which students used argumentation skills when participating in the horse evaluation CDE and contest. The three objectives were to: 1. Determine the argumentation skills used by participants in a horse evaluation CDE and contest. 2. Examine the relationship between argumentation skill scores in the horse evaluation CDE and contest including: reasons scores, placing of classes, and overall scores. 3. Describe the argumentation levels of participants in the horse evaluation contest. In ord er to address the objectives of this study, data were analyzed using the SPSS version 2 0.0 for WindowsTM. Analysis of o bjective one was assessed through descriptive statistics, including mean, medians, modes, and standard deviations, to describe the part objective two and objective three. Chapter Summary Chapter 3 described the research methods used to conduct this study. As the study was meant to evaluate the argumentation levels of the st udents as they

PAGE 55

55 participate in the horse judging program, a descriptive correlational study was utilized. In order to answer the research questions, several steps were implemented. This study compared the scores of the participants in the horse judging CDE and contest to a researcher evaluated argumentation score. These scores were correlated in search for any relationships, and descriptive statistics were used to describe the argumentation scores of the participants. Instruments were assessed for face an d content validity by a panel of experts at the University of Florida Agricultural Education and Communication Department and Animal Science Depar tment. Chapter 4 will discuss in detail the results of the study.

PAGE 56

56 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Chapter 1 presented that student achievement and acquisition of transferrable skills are lacking within the American public school system (Casner Lotto & Barrington, 2007). Yet, the Association for Career and Technical Education (2012) stated that career and technical education pr ovided students with opportunities to obtain transferrable skills while aligning with their interest with viable careers. Chapter 1 also presented the problem statement and research objectives that were investigated during this study. Chapter 2 presented the literature related to the current study. As presented in chapter two, many researchers have identified life skill acquisition as an important part of 4 H and FFA animal science based projects and competitions. Researchers (Rayfield, 2006; Voigt, 201) h ave also discovered the best recruiting and training practices for livestock, horse, and diary evaluation teams on the national level. The goal of this research was to ascertain the level of argumentation skills found amongst participants within the Florid a State FFA and 4 H Horse Judging C DE/Contest in 2013. Chapter 3 discussed the research design, population and sample, instruments used, data collection process, and the data analysis techniques. Chapter 4 will present the results of this study. Findings The purpose of this study was to determine the extent to which students used argumentation skills when participating in the horse evaluation CDE and contest. The three objectives were to: 1. Determine the argumentation skills used by participants in a horse evaluation CDE and contest.

PAGE 57

57 2. Examine the relationship between argumentation skill scores in the horse evaluation CDE and contest including: reasons scores, placing of classes, and overall scores. 3. Describe the argumentation levels of participants in the ho rse evaluation contest. Demographics of participants Participants completed a questionnaire designed to collect the basic demographic information. There was a total of 65 participants ( N = 65) at the Florida State Ho rse Judging contest. There were a tota l of 43 ( n = 43) respondents to the team member questionnaires, making for a response rate of 69%. The demographic questionnaire. Participant ethnicity was categorized into the gr oups of Caucasian, African American /Black Hispanic /Latino Asian/Pacific Islander, and other. Nearly all of the participants were cate g o rized as Caucasian ( n = 41 ) (Table 4 1). Table 4 1. Participant Ethnicity ( n = 43) Ethnicity n % Caucasian 41 95.3 Hispanic 1 2.3 Other 1 2.3 Participants were also asked to report on their gender. Most participants were female ( 95.3%) ( Table 4 2). Table 4 2. Participant Gender ( n = 43) Gender n % Male 2 4.7 Female 41 95.3 The age of the participants was also r ecor ded. of age to 18 years of age, with the majority of participants being either 16 years of age (41.9%) or 17 years of age (34.9%) ( Table 4 3).

PAGE 58

58 Table 4 3. Participant Age ( n = 43) Participant Age n % 15 4 9.3 16 18 41.9 17 15 34.9 18 6 14.0 Prior Experience Participants reported whether they were a member of FFA, 4 H, or both associations. Twenty eight participants were FFA members, eight were 4 H and seven said they were members of both associations ( Tab le 4 4). Table 4 4. Club Affiliation ( n = 43) Club n % 4 H 8 18.6 FFA 28 65.1 Both 7 16.3 P articipants also reported if they had any other experiences with horses, speaking events, or evaluation events. Most participants ( n = 29) had participated in other horse related events. Only 12 participants had competed at the state contest previously. Fifteen participants had competed in speaking events. Twenty two participants had been judging horses for longer than a year and 21 participants had judged in ot her judging events ( Table 4 5) Table 4 5. Prior experiences of participants ( n = 42) Prior Experience Yes % No % Participated in other Horse related events 29 69 13 31 Competed at the state contest previously 12 28.6 30 71.4 Participated in Speaking events 15 35.7 27 64.3 Participated in Other Judging events 21 50 21 50

PAGE 59

59 Over half ( 64.2 % ) of the participants had participated in horse judgi ng for one year or more and 35.7 % ( n = 15) had been participating in horse judging for less than one year ( Table 4 6). Table 4 6. Years of experience of horse judging participants ( n = 42) Years n % Less than 1 year 15 35.7 1 year 5 11.9 2 years 8 19.0 3 years 7 16.7 4 years 4 9.5 More than 4 years 3 7.1 Nearly half (45.2 % ) of the participants had not part icipated in any other evaluation based contest, and 47.6% of the participants had participated in other evaluation based contests for more than one year ( Table 4 7). Table 4 7. Years of experience in other evaluation events ( n = 42). Years n % No prior participation in other events 19 45.2 Less than 1 year 3 7.1 1 year 4 9.5 2 years 4 9.5 3 years 7 16.7 4 years 3 7.1 More than 4 years 2 4.8 Perceptions The last part of the participant questionnaire gathered information regarding rceptions towards different classes within the horse evaluation contest.

PAGE 60

60 Participants reported their perceived weakest event, best event, most enjoyed event, and least enjoyed event. The researcher classified each event as halter class, performance class, reasons, or other. Twenty two participants perceived that they were best at evaluating halter classes, and 19 participants stated they enjo yed evaluating halter classes. Ten participants perceived that they were best at evaluating performance classes, and 19 participants enjoyed evaluating performance classes. Seven participants stated they least enjoyed presenting oral reasons, and nine participants identified presenting oral reasons as their weakest event ( Table 4 8). Table 4 8 Perceptions of Horse Judg ing Participants ( n = 42 ) Halter Classes Performance Classes Reasons Other n % n % n % n % Best Event 22 52.4 10 23.8 0 0 10 23.8 Weakest Event 5 11.9 20 47.6 9 21.4 8 19 Most Enjoyed Event 19 45.2 19 45.2 0 0 4 6.2 Least Enjoyed Event 3 7.3 22 53.7 7 17.1 9 13.8 The coaches or advisors for each horse judging team were asked for fill out a questionnaire regarding the demographics of their team and their coaching practices. There were 17 teams present with 13 teams complet ing the questionnaire, making for a response rate of 76%. The coache s reported that the number of participants on their team ranged from three to seven, and the average was 4.15. The average practice lasted 1.46 hours. Teams averaged 13.15 practices in pre paration of the state qualifier

PAGE 61

61 contest. Teams averaged 3.85 live animal practices and 18.23 practices that utilized media such as video or pictures ( Table 4 9). Table 4 9 n = 13) Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Dev. Number of students on the team 3 7 4.15 .99 Number of males on the team 0 3 .38 .87 Numbers of females on the team 3 5 3.77 .6 Students who had been to state previously 0 3 1.25 1.29 Number of practices in preparation for qualifier contest 3 24 13.15 6.34 Number of pra ctices in preparation for state contest 5 60 15 14.47 Number of live animal practices 1 15 3.85 4.16 Number of media practices 8 60 18.23 13.27 Objective 1: Determine the argumentation skills used by participants in a horse evaluation CDE and contest. Objective one sought to ascertain the argumentation scores participants obtained when presenting their oral reasons. The rubric developed by Schen (2007) was adapted to accommodate the structure of oral reasons. During an oral reasons set, participants w ould present three claims, three grounds and warrants, three counterarguments and one rebuttal. Argumentation was scored on a scale of zero to 20. Descriptive statistics were analyzed using SPSS version 20 A score of zero represented the minimum score an d 20 was the maximum score. The mean for the argumentatio n score of oral reasons set one, performance halter geldings, referred to as A1, was 12.42 wi th a standard deviation of 3.18 The minimum score was 3 and the maximum score was 20. The

PAGE 62

62 mean for the ar gumentation score of oral reasons for oral reasons set 2, performance halter mares, referred to as A2, was 12.63 with a standard deviation of 3.19, a minimum score of 5 and a maximum score of 20. The mean argumentation s core for oral reasons set three, hun ter under saddle, referred to as A3, was 11.48 with a standard deviation of 2.9, a minimum score of 6 and a maximum score of 20. The mean argumentation score for oral reasons set four, reining, referred to as A4, was 11.25 with a standard deviation of 3.26 a minimum of 3 and a maximum score of 20 ( Table 4 10). Table 4 10 Argumentation Means of Participants ( N = 65) A1 A2 A3 A4 Mean 12.42 12.63 11.48 11.25 Std. Deviation 3.18 3.19 2.9 3.26 Minimum 3 5 6 3 Maximum 20 20 20 20 Note: A1 = Argumentation score for Performance Halter Geldings A2 = Argumentation score for Performance Halter Mares, A3 = Argumentation score for Hunter Under Saddle A4 = Argumentation score for Reining Objective 2: Examine the relationship between argumentation scores and p in the horse evaluation CDE and contest including: reasons scores, placing of classes, and overall scores. Objective two sought to identify the relationships that existed amongst argumentation scores of participants in the horse evalua scores were collect from contest officials and correlations were investigated using SPSS version 20. The placing scores and reasons scores for Performance Halter Geldings, Performance Halter Mares, Hunter Under Saddle, and Reining were correlated with the

PAGE 63

63 The range of sco res is presented in Table 4 11. Table 4 11 Participant Scores in Florida FFA and 4 H Horse Evaluation Contest ( N = 65) Placing Scores Range Mean SD Performance Halter Geldings 17 50 45.58 6.34 Hunter in Hand 30 50 40.89 5.60 Performance Halter Mares 25 50 42.28 6.88 Arabian Sport Horse 39 50 46.43 2.95 Western Pleasure 25 50 43.12 5.89 Hunter Seat Equitation 0 50 44.72 8.47 Hunter Under Saddle 25 50 40.58 7.49 Reining 29 50 41.31 5.70 Reasons Scores Performance Halter Geldings 24 48 39.11 5.72 Performance Halter Mares 25 43 34.2 3.6 Hunter Under Saddle 20 50 31.88 5.87 Reining 30 47 38.66 4.52 Overall Scores 420 549 489.06 33.20 Note: Overall Scores = the sum of all the placing scores and reasons scores Argumentatio n Score Relationships Argumentation scores were assessed using the Schen (2007) rubric to evaluate Performance Halter Geldings, Performance Halter Mares, Hunter Under Saddle, and Reining. Correlations were calculated using SPSS version 20, and the nomenclature suggested by Davis (1971) was used to described the relationships. Davis (1971) identified correlations ranging from .01 to .09 as negligible, .10 to .29 as low, .30 to .49 as moderate, .50 to .69 as substantial, .70 to .99 were identified as very high, and 1.00 is identified as perfect. The argumentation score and placing score for performance halter geldings had a negative negligible relationship at r = .03 Th e argumentation score and placing score

PAGE 64

64 for performance halter mares had a low relationship at r = 25 The argumentation score and placing score for hunter under saddle had a negligible relationship at r = .08. The argumentation score and placing score for reining had a negligible relationship at r = .10. In general, the argumentation score had negligible to low relationships with the placing scores in the contest. The argumentation score and reasons score for perf ormance halter geldings had a low relationsh ip at r = .16. The argumentation score and reasons score for performance halter mares had a moderate relationship at r = .33. Also, the argumentation score and reason s score for hunter under saddle had a moderate relationship at r = .32. Lastly, the argumenta tion score and reasons score for reining had a substantial relationship at r = .51. The argumentation scores had low to moderate relationships with the reasons scores, except for with the reasons score for reining. Reasons Score Relationships Reasons were assessed by judges at the 2013 Florida FFA and 4 H Horse Evaluation Contest. Scores could have ranged from zero to 50. The previous section reported the relationships between argumentation and placing scores, then reported the relationships between argume ntation and reasons scores. This section will report the relationships between reasons scores and placing scores. The reasons score and placing score for performance halter geldings had a low relationship at r = .29. Secondly, the reasons score and placing score for performance halter mares had a moderate relationship at r = .31. The reasons score and placing score for hunter under saddle had a low relationship at r = .16. Lastly a low relationship existed between the reasons score and placing score for reini ng at r = .21. Reasons scores had low to moderate relationships with the placing scores.

PAGE 65

65 Total Scores Total scores were c alculated as the summation of each type of score. The argumentation total was the summation of each argumentation score. Congruently, t he placing total was summation of the placing scores; the reasons total was the summation of the reasons scores. The overall total was the summation of the placing scores and reasons scores. The total argumentation score had a substantial relationship wit h the reasons total at r = .59. The total argumentation also had a moderate relationship with the overall total score at r =.32. Furthermore, the total argumentation score had a moderate relationship with the placing total score at r = .46. The total reasons score had a moderate relationship with the total placings score at r = .40. The total reasons score, also, had a very high relationship with the overall total score at r =.77 ( Table 4 12).

PAGE 66

66 Table 4 1 2 Argumentation Correlational Tables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 1.H1 -.04 ..23 .27 .38 .03 .19 .09 .29 .40 .28 .19 .35 .49 .52 .03 .12 .16 .02 .08 2.H2 -.25 .13 .18 .22 .15 .13 .14 .04 .03 .36 .17 .38 .18 .05 .03 .24 .12 .12 3.H3 -.12 .12 .16 .36 .01 .31 .31 .31 .16 .34 .65 .62 .14 .25 .32 .07 .22 4.H4 -.24 .08 .01 .07 .13 .10 .12 .02 .10 .32 .28 .12 .07 .04 .02 .0 4 5.P1 -.17 .10 .05 .47 .29 .32 .28 .43 .50 .57 .04 .10 .04 .17 .00 6.P2 -.08 .24 .15 .03 .06 .21 .14 .54 .44 .02 .20 .13 .01 .08 7.P3 -.25 .12 .26 .16 .05 .15 .46 .39 .07 .03 .08 .19 .00 8.P4 .16 .06 .08 .21 .0 7 .22 .19 .05 .18 .14 .10 .13 9.R1 -.67 .50 .54 .83 .41 .70 .16 .36 .39 .10 .29 10.R2 -.57 .57 .83 .36 .66 .26 .33 .36 .28 .35 11.R3 -.50 .82 .31 .63 .25 .31 .32 .22 .32 12.R4 -.78 .20 .52 .42 .54 .58 .51 59 13. R Total -.40 .77 .33 .46 .50 .32 .46 14.P Total -.89 .07 .27 .20 .09 .12 15.Total --.21 .42 .38 .10 .32 16.A1 -.75 .59 .67 .87 17.A2 -.76 .64 .91 18.A3 -.63 .85 19.A4 -.85 20.A Total -Note: H = Scores in halter classes; P = Scores in Performance Classes; R = Scores on oral reasons; R Total = Oral Reasons score total P Total = Placement scores total; A= Argumentation scores

PAGE 67

67 Correlation to Coaching Methods Correlations were analyzed between the answers to the coach question naire and team scores in placing reasons, and argumentation. Hours per practice recorded low negative relationships with number of practices held in preparation for the state contest ( r = .11) the number of media practices used by the teams ( r = .18) and the team argumentation score ( r = .26) The number of practices held in preparation for the state qualifying contest reported a low relationship with the number of live practices conducted at r =.22. The number of state practices reported low relationships with the team reasons score, and the team argumentation score at r = .11 and r = .21, respectively. The number of live animal p ractices reported low relationships with the number of media practices, and the team reasons score at r = .24 and r = .16, respectively. The number of media practices reported a low relationship the team placing score, and the team argumentation score at r = .12 and r = .17, respectively. The hours per practice had a moderate negative relationship with team placing score at r = .46. The number of practices in preparation for the qualifier contest reported moderate relationships ranging from r = .33 to r = .42 wi th number of practices in preparation for the state contest, the team placing score, and the team argumentation score. The number of live animal practices reported moderate relationships with the team placing score and the team argumentation score at r = .3 9 and r = .42, respectively. The team placing score reported moderate relationships with the team reasons score and the team argumentation score at r =.33 and r =.42, respectively. The number of practices for the qualifier contest reported substantial relat ionships with the number of media practices and the team reasons score at r =.52 and r =.58, respectively. The team reasons score reported a substantial relationship with the team

PAGE 68

68 argumentation score at r =.53. The number of practices in preparation for th e state contest had a very high relationship with the number of media practices at r =.91 ( Table 4 13). Table 4 1 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1.Hours of Practice -.09 .11 .02 .18 .46 .01 .26 2.Number of qualifier practic es -.38 .22 .52 .42 .58 .33 3.Number of state practices -.07 .91 .04 .11 .21 4.Number of live practices -.24 .39 .16 .42 5. Number of media practices -.12 .05 .17 6.Team placing score -.33 .42 7.Team reasons score -.53 8.Team argumentation score -demographic information, previous experiences in evaluation based events, and the erceptions of their abilities in horse evaluation. This section presents the evaluation contest. The halter placing score reported low relationships with the total reasons sco event at r = .29, r = .11, and r = .1, respectively The performance placing score reported low relationships with the total argumentation score (r =.10) perceive d least enjoyed event ( r = .27) Additionally, the performance placing score reported low negative relationships with the part the r = .18 and r = .20, respectively. The

PAGE 69

69 tota most enjoyed event at r = weakest event at r = .26 and r = r = .14. The total halter score reported moderate relationships with the total perfor mance r = .31 and r = .37, respectively. The total reasons score reported moderate relationships with the total performance, the total weakest event at r = .58. The rest of the relationships were reported as negligible ( Table 4 1 4 ). Table 4 1 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1.Halter Total -.29 .31 .11 .37 .07 .09 .1 2.Reasons Total -.35 .46 .31 .08 .03 .01 3.Performance Total -.10 .18 .2 .26 .05 4.Argumentation Total -.05 .14 .05 .08 5.Perceived Best Event -.26 .04 .11 6.Perc ieved most enjoyed event -.09 .14 7.Percieved least enjoyed event -.58 8.Percieved weakest event -

PAGE 70

70 Objective 3: Describe the argumentation levels of participants in the horse evaluation contest. The oral reasons of the particip ants were evaluated using an argumentation coded as categorical data and frequencies we re calculated using SPSS version 20. The oral reasons were evaluated using the terminology of Toulmin (1958) claims, grounds, warrants, counterarguments, and rebuttals. Due to ambiguity that was similar to the work of Venville and Dawson (2010), grounds an d warrants were combined into one construct. Claims, grounds and warrants, and counterarguments were evaluated three times in each oral reasons set, but rebuttals were only evaluated once per reasons set. Claims A claim is a conclusion statement that voic es the opinion or decision. Claims within this study identified the way a participant ordered two individuals in a class. C laims could obtain score of zero, one, or two. A zero score represents a claim that was not made or was irrelevant to the class. A sc ore of one represents a claim that was weakly made or does not present the criteria used within an evaluation w hile a claim that scored a two presents the criteria used for evaluation Figure 4 1 presents an example of scores for the claim construct withi n argumentation. Claim Score Example Claim statements Claim Score 0 No claim was presented. Claim Score 1 I placed horse 1 over horse 2. Horse 3 was a better performer than horse 2. Claim Score 2 I placed horse 1 over horse 2 finding horse 1 to be m ore balanced I placed horse 2 over horse 4 finding horse 2 to be higher quality mover. Figure 4 1. Examples of scores for claims

PAGE 71

71 Participants primarily scored a one on the claims portion of all the oral reasons. Within reasons set one, 64.6 % to 93.8 % s cored a one on each of the claims within the set. Two participants scored zero, meaning the participants did not state a claim, and 32.3 % of participants scored a two. A similar pattern was reco rded in reasons set two as 61.5% to 87. 7% of participants scor ed a one on the claims. Two participants did not offer a claim, and 7.7% to 35.4% scored a two on the claims. Within reasons set three, 72.3 % to 90.8 % of participants scored a one on their claims. Only two participants scored a 0 on either claim. 6.2% to 26.2 % of participants scored a 2 on th e claims within the reasons set. Participants who scored a one on reasons set four ranged from 73.8 % to 89.2 %. Up to four partici pants did not state a claim, w hile participants who scored a two ranged from 4.6 % to 24.6 % ( Table 4 15) Table 4 15 Claim scores for Participants in the 2013 Florida FFA and 4 H Horse Evaluation CDE and Contest ( N = 65) 0 1 2 n % n % n % Argumentation for Performance Halter Geldings Claim 1 2 3.1 42 64.6 21 32.3 Claim 2 2 3.1 55 84.6 8 12.3 Claim 3 2 3.1 61 93.8 2 3.1 Argumentation for Performance Halter Mares Claim 1 2 3.1 40 61.5 23 35.4 Claim 2 2 3.1 54 83.1 9 13.8 Claim 3 3 4.6 57 87.7 5 7.7 Argumentation for Hunter Under Saddle Claim 1 1 1.5 47 72.3 17 26.2 Claim 2 2 3.1 58 89.2 5 7.7 Claim 3 2 3.1 59 90.8 4 6.2 Argumentation for Reining Claim 1 1 1.5 48 73.8 16 24.6 Claim 2 4 6.2 56 86.2 5 7.7 Claim 3 4 6.2 58 89.2 3 4.6

PAGE 72

72 G rounds and warrants Grounds and warrants are the justifications and data used to support a claim. Similarly to a claim, grounds and warrants are scored on a scale of zero to two. Zero constitutes that no grounds and warrants were offered, or they were not related to the claim. A score of one represents grounds and warrants that were weakly su pport the made or are too general. A score of two represents grounds and warrants that sufficiently support the claim made and identify specific data. Figure 4 2 presents an example of scores for the ground and warrant construct within argumentation. Scor es Ground and Warrant statements Score 0 No ground or warrant was presented. Score 1 Horse 1 was more balanced. Horse 1 was more muscular Score 2 Horse 1 was more balanced easily dividing into thirds. Had a shorter back complimented by a longer underl ine. Horse 1 was more muscular having more bulging muscle in the rump and chest. Furthermore, offering greater delineation in muscle through the forearms, shoulders, and hips. Figure 4 2 Ground and warrant examples and scores Participants primarily sc ored a two on the grants and warrants section of oral reaso ns. Within reasons set one 66.2% to 89.2% of participants scored a two on grants and warrants. 10. 8 % to 32.3 % of students presented weak grounds and warrants that scored a one. Reason set reported that 61.5% to 92.3 % of participants scored a two on gr ounds and warrants. Between 7.7% and 35.4 % of participants offered we ak grounds and warrants. Up to two participants did not offer grounds and warrants throughout their reasons set. In reasons set thre e participants primarily scored a two (47.7 % to 83.1 % ). 16 % to 47.7% of participants offered grounds and warrants which scored a one. Only three

PAGE 73

73 participants did not offer any gro unds or warrants Within reasons set four between 40 % and 80 % of participants scored a two on grounds and warrants. Between 20 % and 55.4% of participants scored a one on ground and warrants, while three participants scored a zero ( Table 4 1 6 ) Table 4 1 6 Grounds and Warrant scores for Participants in the 2013 Florida FFA and 4 H Horse Evaluation CDE and Contest ( N = 65) 0 1 2 n % n % n % Argumentation for Performance Halter Geldings GW 1 0 0 7 10.8 58 89.2 GW 2 0 0 16 24.6 49 75.4 GW 3 1 1.5 21 32.3 43 66.2 Argumentation for Performance Halter Mares GW 1 0 0 5 7.7 60 92.3 GW 2 1 1.5 16 24.6 48 73.8 GW 3 2 3.1 23 35.4 40 61.5 Argumentation for Hunter Under Saddle GW 1 0 0 11 16.9 54 83.1 GW 2 1 1.5 22 33.8 42 64.6 GW 3 3 4.6 31 47.7 31 47.7 Argumentation for Reining GW 1 0 0 13 20.0 52 80.0 GW 2 3 4.6 2 4 36.9 38 58.5 GW 3 3 4.6 36 55.4 26 40.0 Note : GW 1 = Grounds and warrants 1; GW 2 = Grounds and warrants 2; GW 3 = Grounds and warrants 3 Counterargument Counterarguments are the verbalization that an alternate decision does exist. Within practice, counterarguments are also identified as grants. Counterrargument also receive scores ranging from zero to two with the same criteria as claims, grounds and

PAGE 74

74 warrants. Figure 4 3 presents example of scores for the counterargument construct within argumentati on. Scores Counterargument statements Score 0 No counterargument was presented. Score 1 I grant Horse 1 was more balanced. I grant Horse 1 was more muscular Score 2 I grant Horse 1 was more balanced easily dividing into thirds. I grant that horse 1 wa s more muscular, and offered greater amounts of bulging muscle through the rump and rear. Figure 4 3. Counterargument examples and scores Counterarguments among participants varied greatly. Within reason s set one, between 24.6% and 52.3 % of participant s did not offer a counterargument. Forty % to 55.4 % of participants offered coun terarguments that scored a one, 7.7% to 23.1% offered counterarguments that scored a two ( Table 4 14). Reasons set two saw similar scores, as 24.6 % to 41.5 % of participants did not off a counterargument. Between 47.7% and 53.8 % of participants presented counterarguments that scored a one. Between 10.8 % t and 21.5 % of participants scored a two on the counterargument. Within reasons set three, between 36.9% and 60 % of participants did present a counterargument. Between 33.8 % and 55.4 % of participants presented countera rguments that scored a one. 6.2% to 13.8 % of participants scored a two on either of the counterarguments within the reasons set ( Table 4 16). The percentage of student s who scored a zero on the counterarguments in reasons set four ranged from 33.8 % to 52.3 % However, 26.2 % to 50.8 % of participants scored a one, while 3.1 % to 12.3 % of participants presented counterarguments that scored a two ( Table 4 17)

PAGE 75

75 Table 4 1 7 C ounterargument scores for Participants in the 2013 Florida FFA and 4 H Horse Evaluation CDE and Contest ( N = 65) 0 1 2 n % n % n % Argumentation for Performance Halter Geldings CA 1 16 24.6 34 52.3 15 23.1 CA 2 20 30.8 36 55.4 9 13.8 CA 3 1 1. 5 21 32.3 43 66.2 Argumentation for Performance Halter Mares C A 1 16 24.6 35 53.8 14 21.5 C A 2 20 30.8 33 50.8 12 18.5 C A 3 27 41.5 31 47.7 7 10.8 Argumentation for Hunter Under Saddle CA 1 24 36.9 32 49.2 9 13.8 C A 2 24 36.9 36 55.4 5 7.7 C A 3 39 60 22 33.8 4 6.2 Argumentation for Reining C A 1 22 33.8 35 53.8 8 12.3 C A 2 28 43.1 33 50.8 4 6.2 CA 3 34 52.3 29 44.6 2 3.1 Note: CA = Counterargument Rebuttals Rebuttals represent the final argument that while an alternative placing exists th e Rebuttals were only presented at the end of each oral reasons set. However, rebuttals still received a score ranging from zero to two with the same criteria. A zero score meant that participan ts did not attempt a re buttal, w hile a score of one represented a weak rebuttal that did not support the grounds or warrants. A score of two was given to rebuttals that were supported by grounds and warrants. Figure 4 4 presents example of scores for the rebuttal construct withi n argumentation. Scores Rebuttal statements Score 0 No rebuttal was presented. Score 1 However, the horse was still the most structurally incorrect However, the horse was still the least balanced individual. Score 2 However, the horse was the most str ucturally incorrect, being post legged. Figure 4 4. Rebuttal examples and scores

PAGE 76

76 Within reasons set one 18.5 % of participants did not offer a rebuttal and received a score of 0. 27.7 % of participants offered weak rebuttals that received a score of one. 5 3.8 % of participants offered high quality rebuttals that received a score of two. In regards to reasons set two, 9.2 % of participants received a score of zero. Secondly, 38.5 % of participants presented rebuttals that received a score of one, and 52.3 % of p articipants offered rebuttals that received a score of two In reasons set three 16.9 % of % received a score of one, and 53.8 % received a score of two ( Table 4 1 8 ) Table 4 1 8 Rebuttal scores for Partici pants in the 2013 Florida FFA and 4 H Horse Evaluation CDE and Contest ( N = 65) Category 0 1 2 n % n % n % Rebuttal for Performance Halter Geldings 12 18.5 18 27.7 35 53.8 Rebuttal for Performance Halter Mares 6 9.2 25 38.5 34 52.3 Rebuttal for Hunter Under Saddle 11 16.9 19 29.2 35 53.8 Rebuttal for Reining 11 16.9 17 26.2 37 56.9 Chapter Summary Chapter 4 presented the results from the study that aligned with each objective and also identified the demographic data of the participants in the study. The objectives were: (1) Determine the argumentation skills used by participants in a horse evaluation CDE and contest; (2) Examine the relationship between argumentation skill and scribe the argumentation levels of participants in the horse judging contest. The findings presented in this chapter will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter 5. Chapter 5 will present the conclusions, recommendations, and implications

PAGE 77

77 regarding the f indings as present. The Chapter 5 will also provide a discussion of the overall findings of the study.

PAGE 78

78 CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS The purpose of this study was to determine the extent to which students used argumentation skills when participating in the horse evaluation CDE and contest Chapter 1 presented that student achievement and acquisition of transferrable skills are lacking within the American public school system (Casner Lotto & Barrington, 2007). Yet the Association for Ca reer and Technical Education (2012) stated that career and technical education provided students with opportunities to obtain transferrable skills while aligning with their interest with viable careers. Chapter 1 also presented the problem statement and re search objectives that were investigated during this study. Chapter 2 presented the literature related to the current study. As presented in chapter two, many researchers have identified life skill acquisition as an important part of 4 H and FFA animal sc ience based projects and competitions. Researchers (Rayfield, 2006; Voigt, 201) have also discovered the best recruiting and training practices for livestock, horse, and diary evaluation teams on the national level. Chapter 3 discussed the research design, population and sample, instruments used, data collection process, and the data analysis techniques. Chapter 4 presented the results from the study that aligned with each objective, and also identified the demographic data of the participants in the study. This chapter will p rovide a discussion of the study as a whole and provide recommendations for agricultural educators and horse judging coaches, event coordinators, and suggestions for further research.

PAGE 79

79 Objectives The purpose of this study was to determ ine the extent to which students used argumentation skills when participating in the horse evaluation CDE and contest The three objectives were to: 1. Determine the argumentation skills used by participants in a horse evaluation CDE and contest. 2. Examine the relationship between argumentation skill scores in the horse evaluation CDE and contest including: reasons scores, placing of classes, and overall s cores 3. Describe the argumentation levels of participants in the horse evaluation contest. Methods This st udy was a descriptive correlational study which sought to assess the argumentation levels of students who participated in the Florida State Horse Judging Contest. Correlational research seeks to evaluate relationships and patterns between variables within a single group (Ary, Jacobs, & Sorensen, 2010). Correlation, denoted by r, assumes that the relationships between variables model a straight line; r is proportional to the slope of a line and indicates the strength of a relationship between the two variab les (Agresti & Finlay, 2009). Davis (1971) stated correlations between .01 and .09 are considered negligible, .10 to .29 are low, .30 to .49 are moderate, .50 to .69 as substantial, .70 to .99 as very high, and 1.00 is perfect. Davis (1971) defined the st andard to which the correlations are discussed in this study. This study followed the agenda of the complete horse judging program in the State of Florida which is facilitated Data w ere collected a t the 2013 Florida State Horse Judging CDE and contest. This contest is the state contest for FFA and 4 H, teams in both organizations had to

PAGE 80

80 compete at a qualifying contest at the State Fair of Florida. The contest was conducted according to the 2013 rule s and procedures of the Florida Horse Judging program. The state contest consisted of the participants evaluating eight placing classes four halter classes and four performance classes. The participants were assigned to four groups for the duration of the contest. Each class consisted of four animals to be placed numerically from first (one) to last (four) based on the industry standards for the respective classes. The participants evaluated a class of performance halter geldings (class one), hunter in hand (class two), performance halter mares (class three), and Arabian sport horse (class four). The performance classes consisted of western pleasure (class five), hunt seat equitation (class six), hunter under saddle (class seven), and reining (class eight). Reasons were given on four of the classes two halter, and two performance classes. The reasons were given after all the classes had been evaluated and judging cards were turned in. Participants were allotted an average of thirty minutes to formulate their reasons before presenting then to a judge. The participants presented a two minute set of oral reasons to a judge who scored them from zero to fifty. The participants presented reasons on performance halter geldings, performance halter mares, hunter unde r saddle, and reining. One judged was assigned to evaluate the reasons for a given class. After the contest, the researcher evaluated the oral reasons using the argumentation rubric developed by Schen (2007). Participants could score between 0 and 20. The data was analyzed using SPSS version 20. Descriptive statistics were assessed, followed by an evaluation of the relationships between argumentation scores,

PAGE 81

81 placing scores, reasons scores, and the total scores for the competition. Thirdly, responses to the coach questionnaires and team total were analyzed to see if there were any relationships. The responses to the participant questionnaires, and participant scores were also analyzed to see if any relationships existed. Lastly, descriptive statistics were evaluated to gain an understanding of which argumentation constructs participants used when constructing arguments. Summary of Findings The findings of this study are summarized according to the objectives. This s within the 2013 Florida State Horse Judging contest (N = 65) participants competed in the state horse judging contest that department. The oral reasons portion of the contest was audio taped, and the Schen (2007). Demographics and perceptions D emographic and perceptional data were recorded using a questionnaire. The majority of participants (95.3%) were categorized as Caucasian ( n = 41), with one participant identifying as Hispanic /Latino The majority of participants were female (95.3%) Participants were primarily 16 years of age (41.9% ) or 17 years of age (34.9%). Twenty ei ght participants were FFA members, eight were 4 H members and seven said they were members of both associations. Only 12 participants previously competed at the state contest Twenty two participants had been judging horses for longer than a year and 21 pa rticipants had judged in other judging events.

PAGE 82

82 T t classes within the contest. Twenty two participants perceived that they were best at evaluating halter classes, and 19 particip ants stated they enjoy ed evaluating halter classes. Ten participants perceived that they were best at evaluating performance classes, and 19 participants enjoyed evaluating performance classes. Seven participants stated they least enjoyed presenting oral r easons, and nine participants identified presenting oral reasons as their weakest event. preparing their teams for the state contest. P ractice lasted 1.46 hours on average Teams aver aged 13.15 practices in preparation for the state qualifier contest and 15 practices in preparation for the state contest. Teams aver aged 3.85 live animal practices and 18.23 practices that utilized media in the form of video or pictures Objective One Obj ective one sought to ascertain the argumentation skill used by participants in the horse judging CDE and contest. The mean argumentation score of oral reasons set one performance halter geldings which was referred to as argumentation score one (A1) was 12. 42 with a standard deviation of 3.17. The mean argumentation score of oral reasons set 2 performance halter mares, referred to as argumentation score two (A2), was 12.63 with a standard deviation of 3.19. The mean argumentation score for oral reasons set t hree hunter under saddle, referred to as argumentation score three (A3), was 11.48 with a standard deviation of 2.9. Lastly, the mean argumentation score for oral reasons set four reining, referred to as argumentation score four (A4), was 11.25 with a sta ndard deviation of 3.26. With the median score of all argumentation scores being 10, participants within this study consistently scored higher than the median.

PAGE 83

83 Objective Two Objective two was to examine the relationship between argumentation skill scores in the horse evaluation CDE and contest including: reasons scores, placing of classes, and overall scores Argumentation scores were assessed using the Schen presented oral reasons on Performance Halter Geldings, Performance Halter Mares, Hunter Under Saddle, and Reining. The argumentation score and placing score for performance halter geldings were reported as a negative negligible relationship at r = .03. The argument ation score and placing score for performance halter mares reported a low relationship at r = .25. The argumentation score and placing score for hunter under saddle were reported as having a negligible relationship at r = .08. The argumentation score and pla cing score for reining reported a negligible relationship at r = .10. The argumentation score and reasons score for performance halter geldings reported a low relationship at r = .16. The argumentation score and reasons score for performance halter mares re ported a moderate relationship at r = .33. Also, the argumentation score and reasons score for hunter under saddle reported a moderate relationship at r = .32. Lastly, the argumentation score and reasons score for reining reported a substantial relationship at r = .51. The reasons score and placing score for performance halter geldings reported a low relationship at r = .29. Secondly, the reasons score and placing score for performance halter mares reported a moderate relationship at r = .31. The reasons score and placing score for hunter under saddle reported a low relationship at r = .16. Lastly a low relationship between the reasons score and placing score for reining at r = .21.

PAGE 84

84 The total argumentation score reported a substantial relationship with the reason s total at r = .59. The total argumentation also reported a moderate relationship with the overall total score at r =. 32. T he total argumentation score reported a moderate relationship with the placing total score at r = .46. The total reasons score reported a moderate relationship with the total placings score at r = .40. The total reasons score, also, reported a very high relationship with the overall total score at r =.77. Objective Three T his study identified the usage of claims, counterarguments, and re buttals for argumentation This study combined the constructs of grounds and warrants within the study, as the separation of the two in an oral reasons set can become ambiguous. Claims were identified as the placing of each animal throughout the oral reas ons. Cl aims were evaluated three times: first within a top pairing, second within a middle pairing, and lastly, in a bottom pairing. Within each set of reasons the majority (61.5 % to 93.8 % ) of participants presented claims that scored one. Grounds and wa rrants were identified as the actual reasons that led participants to their placements. Within this construct, participants predominantly scored a two in each class and pairing (47.7 % to 92.3 %). Counterarguments were identified as the acknowledgment of a different view point or placing. Counterarguments in this study were observed when a participant recognized or stated the possibility of placing a pair of animals a different way. This construct had a greater variability in scores as participants scored ei ther a one or a zero. Interestingly, the first three reasons sets presented a pattern of participants scoring a one on the f irst and second counterargument and then omitting the third. Participants primarily scored a one on the counterarguments in the four th reasons set.

PAGE 85

85 As defined by Zohar and Nemet (2002), rebuttals constitute that an argument is high quality. This study identified rebuttals as the closing to an oral reasons set. Almost half of the par ticipants (52.3% to 56.9% ) scored a two on their rebu ttals in each of the reasons sets. Conclusions The population for this study was the participants who had advanced to the Florida State Horse judging contest. The conclusions from this descriptive correlational study are as follows: 1. The majority of part icipants in this study were Caucasian female, and ranged in between 16 and 17 years of age. 2. Participants perceived themselves to be the bes t at evaluating halter classed and worst at evaluating performance classes. 3. Team practices lasted between one and two hours. Teams conducted, on average, 13 practices for the state qualifier contest, and averaged 15 practices for the state contest. 4. P articipants exhibited mid to high argumentation skill abilities 5. There is not a direct relationship between placing a class of four animals and argumentation skills 6. Participants who can formulate oral reasons can also formulate affective argumentation. 7. Teams that have participants with high argumentation skill place higher in the horse evaluation contest. 8. The re is an indirect relationship between the ability of participants to place a class of 9. In this study, participants presented high quality argumentation that had claims, grounds and warrants, counterarguments, and reb uttals. Implications

PAGE 86

86 Implications Demographics and participant perceptions Conclusion: t he majority of participants were Caucasian female, and either 16 or 17 years old. It was expected that the majority or participants would be Caucasian and female. A s 44 % of the National FFA membership is female, and 67 % is Caucasian (National FFA, 2012). The findings are also supported by Croom, Moore, and Armbruster (2009) that 92.2% of students participating in a national CDE in 2003 were white, and that female hel d a majority in national CDE participation. Pate (2008) and Thoron (2010) identified a majority of students enrolled public school school based agricultural science program were categorized was Caucasian Also, Burleson (2013) identified a majority CDE par ticipants were classified as Caucasian presented an equal split on gender. Conclusion: p articipants perceived themselves to be the bes t at evaluating halter and worst at evaluating performance classes P articipants repo rted that they thought they were be st at evaluating halter classes and enjoyed evaluating these classes more. Conversely, participants reported that evaluating performance classes was their least enjoyed class, and they perceived themselves to be worst at evaluating performance classes. These perceptions could be contributed to the wide array of classes that are eligible to be in a horse judging contest. Halter classes are based strictly on the conformation of the animal. These classes are evaluated on sim ilar criteria such as structural correctness, balance, muscularity, quality, and breed characteristics. Performance classes, however, present a unique challenge by requiring the participant to evaluate horses that are moving in an arena simultaneously, or that are

PAGE 87

87 performing a designated pattern. While similar criteria such as obedience or manners, consistency, and quality of movement are being evaluated, participants may also have to learn different patterns, penalties, deductions, and disqualifications for each class. Conclusion: t eam practices lasted between one and two hours. Teams conducted, on average, 13 practices for the state qualifier contest, and averaged 15 practices for the state contest. Coaches in this study repo rted team practices averaged one and half hours of practice. Coaches also reported conducting 13 practices in preparation for the state qualifier contest, and 15 practices for the state contest. This is supported by Burleson (2013) who stated that teachers, on average, train ed CDE te ams for six weeks. Objective One: Determine the argumentation skills used by participants in a horse evaluation CDE and contest Conclusion: Participants exhibited mid to high argumentation skill abilities argumentation scores were consiste ntly above the median score for argumentation rubric. P 3.18), 12.63 (SD = 3.19), 11.48 (SD = 2.9), and 11.25 (SD = 3.26) on performance halter geldings, performance halter mares, hunter under saddl e, and reining, respectively A score of ten indicated that a participant had scored a one on each segment of an argument; claim, ground, warrant, counterclaim, and rebuttal. The averages, however, indicate that participants can formulate reasons and argum entation that contain claims, grounds, warrants, counterclaims, and rebuttals. The argumentation scores of participants in this study were higher than the argumentation scores found in Burleson (2013) study and consistent with the scores of participants who received inquiry based instruction in Thoron (2010) study

PAGE 88

88 Objective Two: Examine the relationship between argumentation skill, reasons scores, placing of classes, and overall scores in the horse judging CDE and contest. Conclusion: There is not a d irect relationship between placing a class of four animals and argumentation skills The relationships between the placing scores and argumentation scores were negligible and the relationship between placing scores and reasons scores was low. T he negligibl e relationships indicate d that there is not a link between ability of participants to place a class, and the ability of participants to create argumentation. Furthermore, the ability of participants to place a class has no real bea ring on a b ilities to create oral reasons. However, as Moore (2006) stated, participants must understand the criteria used for evaluating class before they can communicate their decisions accurately. The negligible relationship can be expected according to v on Aufs hnaiter, Erduran, Osbourne and Simon (2007) who explicitly related to the stude Conclusion: Participants who can formulate oral reasons can also formulate affective argumentation. Participants who can speak oral reasons well have high argumentation skills. Reasons scores and argumentation scores relationships ranged from low to very high. Participants that had a high reasons score also had a high argumentation score. The total reasons score and total argumentation score had a moderate relationship. This study provided evidence that participants who created oral reasons also have a strong likelihood of creating high quality arguments As ment ioned in previous chapters, arguments are the presentation and defense of a given stance. Oral reasons were seen to mirror this construct. The respective argumentation and reasons scores

PAGE 89

89 aid in identifying the link between oral reasons and argumentation. V on Aufshnaiter et al. (2007) provide d further support for this conclusion, as reasons are taught based on the evaluation class and the importance of each construct within a reason set. Conclusion : t eams that have participants with high argumentation skill place higher in the horse evaluation contest. The total reasons score reported a very high relationship with the overall score within the competition. Reasons are a determining factor within the overall score, therefore high scoring participants, had hi gh scoring reasons, and high argumentation scores. This relationship was expected as reasons scores are part of the overall score within the competition. However, the link between reasons scores and placement scores require deeper discussion. This relation ship indicate d that there is a link between an oral reason. This can be expected considering that Moore (2006) identified that communication of evaluation was the last step in training an evaluation team, and that the preceding steps were to establish a knowledge base, evaluation criterion, and application of the criteria. P articipants first had to know how to place a class before they could communicate the placings. Thoron (2010) found that students who ar e taught inquiry based instruction scored hig her on content knowledge scores and argumentation. Furthermore, Zohar and Nemet (2002) stated that participants who had a knowledge base of a subject could create effective arguments. Conclusion: t here is an in direct relationship between the ability of participants to According to the results of this study, the total reasons score also reported a moderate relationship with the placement total. The ability to place classes well overall,

PAGE 90

90 will lead to the ability to give affective reasons, which also leads to high argumentation ability. Objective three: Describe the argumentation levels of participants in the horse evaluation contest. Conclusion: i n t his study, participants presented high quality argumentation that had claims, grounds and warrants, counterarguments, and rebuttals Participants present claims that obtained a score of one. These primary level claims only indicate the initial placing and do not identify the grounds on which separated the individual animals. Primary level claims such as these only indicate d the initial placing and d id n ot identify the grounds that se parated the individual animals. Participants stated how a pairing was place d but did not identify the grounds on which they placed the class. Venville and Dawson (2010) support these findings as they identified these claims as a level one argument. Participants presented grounds and warrants that primarily scored a two. Found ationally, oral reasons require participants to state the factors that separated the two animals in each class. As Moore (2006) stated, participants have to know the evaluation criteria for evaluating a class. Moore (2006) also stated that students are (p. 17). Through oral reasons, students are reflecting upon the criteria used to evaluate the class (Moore, 2006). at they teach their team members terminology and how to evaluate a class; by doing this team members have the knowledge needed to discern the grounds and warrants needed to support their claim. Venville and Dawson (2010) support these findings, as partici pants in their study scored high in this area on the pretest.

PAGE 91

91 Counterarguments presented the greatest amount of discrepancy as participants scored either a zero or a one. Within the oral reasons set, a counterargument is called a grant. This is the acknow ledgement that the lower placed animal has something worth discussing positively. Many participants either did not attempt a counterargument or presented a primary level grant. This can be expected as Venville and Dawson (2010) observed that participants i ncreased in higher quality arguments that utilized counterarguments and rebuttals after instruction on how to create arguments. Participants exceled at rebuttals, presenting rebuttals which earned a score of two. once throughout the reasons set. Participants could identify the negatives in the last placing animal and could readily describe why the animal was placed last. Venville and Dawson (2010) stated that rebuttals c onstitute high quality arguments. Discussion This study investigated the argumentation skills of participants in the horse judging con t est and CDE, following the work of Thoron (2010) and Burleson (2013). Similarly to these two studies, this study inves tigated the argumentation level of participants who are involved in agricultural science and education Like Burleson (2013), this study investigated argumentation of participants in a Career Development Event. However, this study also involved a portion o f 4 H participants. As an alternative to Burleson (2013) this study investigated the use of argumentation of participants without a treatment or experiment. The results of this study indicate d that argumentation skills do exist among participants within the Horse Judging CDE when giving oral reasons. More substantially, this study support ed the central idea of Kuhn (1990) that argumentation skills are latent

PAGE 92

92 within students, and can be improved upon with a short intervention. While this study did not prov ide the intervention, teams had to practice presenting oral reasons in order to prepare for the state contest. This study suggest ed that the horse judging CDE and contest caters to the development of transferrable skills that Cassner Lott and Barrington st ated that students need. Furthermore, the evidence that transferrable skills are obtained through participation in Horse Judging and other evaluation events is supported by the work of Cavinder et al, ( 2011 ), Rayfield ( 2007), and Voigt ( 2012). However, this study identified a specific skill, argumentation, which Beyer ( 1937 ) stated was the culmination of critical thinking. Furthermore the findings of this study were substantiated by Burleson (2012) who found that participants did not necessarily have to be t aught argumentation in order to have high quality arguments in the Agricultural Sales CDE v on Aufschnaiter, Eduran, Osbo urne, and Simon (2007) provide d an even stronger pillar for these findings, as they found that students can create high quality argumen ts without specifically being taught argumentation. It is important to note that the relationship between argumentatio n scores and reasons scores were low to very high. T he relationship between reasons set one and argumentation set one performance halter geldings, had a low relationship at r = .16. This could be due to several factors such as novelty, nervousness, forgetfulness or stress The other reasons scores and argumentation had moderate relationships. R easons set four and argumentation set four rei ning, had a very high relationship at r = .51. This primarily had to do with the way participants presented their oral reasons. Not only did students state how the pairing was placed but they also described the criteria

PAGE 93

93 that separated the two individuals. T he participants exhibited a greater depth of thought when discussing counterarguments and rebuttals. There appeared to be a disconnect among placing scores, reasons scores, and argumentation scores. While the total placing score and total reasons score re ported a moderate relationship, the relationship between placing score total and argumentation score total was low. However, reasons and argumentation are the defense of the chosen placing. Reasons and argumentation are an explanation of the thought proces s behind the placing. F luctuations in relationships could be due to the coaching formats used to evaluate the separate classes. Halter classes such as performance halter geldin gs and performance halter mares are based purely on the appraisal of the animal correctness, balance, muscling, and quality. R eining, trail, and western riding classes are scored based on each maneuver or obstacle an animal executes Scored classes (reining, western riding, trail) require participants to score each maneu ver and assign a p oint value to the maneuver. These scores are added together and then the animals are placed first to last based on their total score s The act of thinking about each maneuver adds to participants abilities to formulate grounds, warrants, counterarguments, and rebutta ls within an argumentation set because within a scored class the identification of a maneuver score is the ground, the correctness of the maneuver is a the warrant, the admission that another performer completely an equally ch allenging maneuver is a counterargument, and the statement that the total score was higher or the quality of the maneuver was better is the rebuttal.

PAGE 94

94 communicate a deci sion are critical in developing a more skilled workforce. Industry leaders are constantly looking for employees who have the skills that are obtained through this CDE. As stated in McCann and McCann (1992) for any animal science comm odity represents a unique opportunity to develop student knowledge, communication skills, personal character, and leadership, which will ultimately strengthen the employment skills and marketability of graduates 12) Horse e valuation with participants presenting oral reasons promotes argumentation skills that may transfer into the skills called for by industry leaders. Recommendations for Practitioners Based on the findings of this study, the following recommendations were made for practitioners in se condary school agriculture education and horse evaluation coaches: 1. A griculture teachers and horse judging coaches should improve student performance and efficacy towards performance classes such as Hunter Under Saddle, Western Pleasure, Reining, and Hunt Seat Equitation through the increased performance class practices, attendance of invitational contests, clinics, and live practices. This will allow for students to get used to the pace of a live performance animal class. 2. Teachers and coaches should teach participants how to create and present oral reasons when initially beginning practices. Furthermore, reasons should be spoken at each practice in order to help students become more familiar with presenting and creating oral reasons. 3. W ithin creating reaso ns, emphasis should be placed on making claims, counterarguments and rebuttals. 4. H orse judging practices should last about one and a half hours and there should be about 28 practices to help prepare for the state contest.

PAGE 95

95 Recommendations for Event coordi nators Based on the findings of the study the following recommendation w as made for event coordinators: 1. educators and coaches prepare students for contest. Recommendatio ns for Further Research Based on the findings of the study the following recommendations were made for future research : 1. meat, and land evaluation. 2. T his study should be re plicated with a great number of participants and in other states where participants present oral reasons. 3. This study should also be replicated and the oral reasons be transcribed and evaluated for factual evidence and common themes. 4. Further research shou ld be conducted to compare teacher or coach argumentation skills to the performance of the teams they train. 5. Argumentation scores within the evaluation CDE should be compared to an argumentation test that participants take after the contest. Chapter Summary Cha pte r 5 presented the summary of the objectives that guided this study. This chapter also provided conclusions based on the findings of the study, and offered recommendations for agricultural educators and horse judging coaches, event coordinators, and futu re research. The objectives of this study were: (1) determine the argumentation skills used by students who participate in a horse judging CDE and contest, (2) examine the relationship between argumentation skill, reasons scores, placing of classes, and ov erall scores in the horse judging CDE and contest, and (3) describe the argumentation levels of participants in the horse evaluation contest.

PAGE 96

96 The findings of this study indicated that participants average argumentation scores were about the rubric median. There were low to very high relationships reported between reasons scores and argumentation scores. P articipants were able to formulate reasons that progressed through each construct of the argumentation rubric. The findings of this study indicate that pa rticipation in the horse evaluation CDE and contest aid in the development of argumentation skills.

PAGE 97

97 APPENDIX A PARTICIPANT QUESTIONNAIRE Please answer the questions fully and to your best ability. Name:______________________________ School/County Name: ____________________________________ Gender: ____ Male or _____Female Ethnicity: (circle or X all that apply) ___Caucasian ___African American ____Hispanic ____Asian/Pacific Islander Other:______ Age: I am a: ____ 4 H Member ____FFA Member ____Both Do you participate in other horse related events? What are they? Have you participated in the State horse judging contest before? (circle or X one) ___YES ____NO If yes, how many times?______ Do you participate in speaking event s? (circle or X one) ___YES ____NO If yes, which ones? How many years have you participated in horse judging?( (circle or X one) ___Less than 1 year ___1year ___2years ___3years ___4years ___More than 4 years Have you participated in other jud ging events? (circle or X one) ___YES ____NO If yes, for how many years? (circle or X one) ____Less than 1 year ___1year ____2years ___3years ____4years ____More than 4 years. What event do you think you do the best at evaluating? What event in horse judging do you enjoy the most? What event in horse judging do you least enjoy? What do you think is your weakest event?

PAGE 98

98 APPENDIX B TEAM QUESTIONNAIRE School/County Name:_____________________________________________ How many students are on you r team? ___3 ___4 ___5 How many males do you have your team? ___0 ___1 ___2 ___3 ___4 ___5 How many females do you have on your team? ___0 ___1 ___2 ___3 ___4 ___5 Have your team members participated in the state contest before? How many? How many hou rs does your team practice normally last? (circle one) ___Less than 1 hour ___1 2 hours ___2 3 hours ___3 4 hours ___more than 4 hours How many practices did your team have in preparation for the contest in February? (circle one) __1 __2 __3 __4 __5 __6 __7 __ 8 __ 9 __10 __11 __12 __13 __14 __15 __16 __17 __18 __ 19 __20 other _____ How many practices did your team have in preparation for the State contest? (circle one) __1 __2 __3 __4 __5 __6 __7 __ 8 __ 9 __10 __11 __12 __13 __14 __15 __16 __17 __18 __ 19 __20 other _____ How many practices did your team evaluate live horses? (circle one) __1 __2 __3 __4 __5 __6 __7 __ 8 __ 9 __10 __11 __12 __13 __14 __15 __16 __17 __18 __ 19 __20 other _____ How many practices did your team use pictures, videos, or some other media to evaluate classes? (circle one) __1 __2 __3 __4 __5 __6 __7 __ 8 __ 9 __10 __11 __12 __13 __14 __15 __16 __17 __18 __ 19 __20 other _____ Did your team attend the horse judging clinic hosted by the University of Florida in December? (circle one) ____YES ____NO

PAGE 99

99 Did your team attend the reasons clinic hoste d by the University of Florida in March? (Circle One) ____YES ____NO

PAGE 100

100 APPENDIX C PARENTAL CONSENT FORM Dear Parent/Guardian: arg umentation skills exist amongst participants in the horse judging contest The results of this study will be used to improve the instruction and the contest for programs state wide. These results may not directly help your child today, but will benefit f uture students. evaluated by a researcher, analyzed, and then deleted upon completion of the study. The audio files will be stored in a secure location and your child extent of the law. There is no risk involved in participating in this study. please contact Kendrick L. Spencer, Gra duate Assistant, at kendricklspencer@ufl.edu or Dr. Andrew C. Thoron, Assistant Professor, at athoron@ufl.edu or (352) 392 0502, or mail this form back to Agricultural Education and Communication Department, University of Florida, P.O. research participant may be directed to the UFIRB Office, University of Florida, Box 112250, Gaine sville, FL 32611, (352) 392 0433. Parent/Guardian: _______________________________ Date: ________________

PAGE 101

101 APPENDIX D INFORMED CONSENT FOR PARTICIPANTS Protocol Title: Evaluating argumentation skills of participants in the horse judging contest. Pl ease read this consent document carefully before you decide to participate in this study. Purpose of the research study: The primary purpose of this study is to determine if students who participate in the horse judging contest have argumentation skills. What you will be asked to do in this study: You will be asked to participate in the horse judging contest. Additionally, the oral reasons portion of the contest will be recorded. The recorded audio/video tapes will be securely stored and then destroyed a t the completion of the study. Time Required: No additional time is required other than the time at the competition. Risk and Benefits: There are no anticipated risks or benefits to your participation in this study. Confidentiality: Your identity w ill be kept confidential to the extent allowed by law. Voluntary participation: Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. There is no penalty for not participating. Right to withdraw from study: You have the right to withdraw from the st udy at any time without consequence. Whom to contact if you have questions about the study: Kendrick L. Spencer, Graduate Assistant, Agricultural Education and Communication Department, P.O. Box 110540, P: (352) 392 0502, F: (352) 392 9585, kendricklspencer@ufl.edu Dr. Andrew C. Thoron, Assistant Professor, Agricultural Education and Communication Department, P.O. Box 110540, P: (352) 392 0502, F: (352) 392 9585, athoron@ufl.edu Whom to contact about your rights as a research participant in the study: UFIRB Office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611 2250; P: (352) 392 0433 Agreement: I have read the procedure described above. I voluntarily agree to participate in the procedure and I have received a copy of this description. Participant: ____________________________________________ Date: ________________ Principal Investigator: ____________________________________ Date: ________________

PAGE 102

102 APPENDIX E LETTER TO COUNTY EXTENSION AGENT S AND AGRICULTURAL EDUCATORS Dear County Extension Agent/ Agricultural Educator, Congratulations on qualifying for the 2013 State Horse Judging Contest. We are looking forward to a great competition. By qualifying for the state contest your team was se lected to be in a research investigating the argumentation skills and participation level of teams who qualified for the state contest. The information gained in this study will contribute the body of knowledge about skills gained by students who participate in competitions in FFA and 4 H. It is important to receive your input on the subject of how evaluation team members are chosen and the abilities the y gain from competing in the contests. Attached is a simple questionnaire about how you prepare your team for the horse evaluation contest. Please complete the questionnaire so that we might find further information that describes academic skills studen ts obtain by participating in contests. Thank you in advance for your participation and good luck. Thank you, Kendrick L. Spencer & Dr. Andrew C. Thoron

PAGE 103

103 APPENDIX E ARGUMENTATION RUBRIC Schen, M.S. (2007). Scientific reasoning skills development in t he introductory biology courses for undergraduates. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus.

PAGE 104

104 APPENDIX G ARGUMENTATION SCORE SHEET Contestant Number: 4 H/FFA: Class: Reasons Score: Placing: 1 st Pair Scores C Total GW CA 2 nd Pair Scores c Total GW CA 3 rd Pair Scores C Total GW CA R

PAGE 105

105 LIST OF REFERENCES Ary, D ., Jacobs, L. C., & Sorenson, C. (2010). Introduction to Research in Education (8 th ed). Belmont, CA: Wadswort h, Cengage Learning. Agresti, A., & Finlay, B. (1997). Statistical methods for the social sciences (3 rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall. Beyer, B. K. (1937). Practical strategies for the teaching of thinking. Boston, MA.: Allyn and Bacon. Bisdorf Rhoades, E., Ricketts, J., Irani, T., Lundy, L., & Telg, R. (2005). Critical thinking dispositions of agricultural communic ation students. Journal of Applied Communications 89 (1), 25 34. skills gained by youth participating in the 4 H beef project. Journal of Extension 42 (5). Retrieved from : http://www.joe.org/joe/2004october/rb6.php Burleson, S. E. (2013) The Effects of FFA Agricultural Sales CDE Training Modules on the Development of Content Knowledge and Argumentation Skill (Unpublished Gainesville Fl. Boyd, B. L., Herring, D. R., & Briers, G. E. (1992). Developing life skills in youth. Journal of Extension, 30(4). Retrieved from: http://www.joe.org/joe/1992winter/a4.php Cavagnetto, A., & Hand, B. (2012). The importance of embedding argument withi n the science classrooms. In M.S. Khine (Ed.), Perspectives on Science Argumentation: Theory, Practice and Research (pp. 39 53). New York: Springer Cavinder, C. A. Byrd, B., Franke, J., & Holub, G. (2011). Texas A&M University student life skill developme nt and professional achievement from participation on a collegiate judging team. NACTA Journal 55(1), 60 62. Davis, J. A. (1971). Elementary survey analysis. Englewood, NJ: Prentice Hall. Dailey, A. L., Conroy, C. A., & Shelley Tolbert, C. A. (2001). Using agricultural education as the context to teach life skills. Journal of Agricultural Education, 42 (1), 11 20. doi:10.5032/jae.2001.1011

PAGE 106

106 Doerfert, D. L. (Ed.). (2011). National research agenda: American Association for ch priority areas for 2011 2015 Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University, Department of Agricultural Education and Communications. Retrieved from http://aaaeonline.org/files/research_agenda/ AAAE_NRA_(2011 15)_full_report.pdf Erduran, S., Simo n, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPp ing into argumentation: science discourse. Science Education 88, 915 933. England, L. M. (1996). Training methods of national FFA judging teams Unpublished thesis, Texas Tech University, Lubbock Tx FlaglerLive (2012, May 14). FCAT scores plummet statewide, sending education officials in a panic. FlaglerLive.com. Retrieved from: http://flaglerlive.com/38177/fcat scores plummet/comment page -1/ Fitzpatrick, C., Gogne, K. H., Jones, R., Lobley, J., & Phelps, L. (2005). Life skills development in youth: Impact research in action. Journal of Extension 43 (3). Retrieved from: http://www.joe.org/joe/2005june/rb1p.shtml Halpern, D. F. (1989). Thought and knowledge : An introduction to critical thinking. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Hathaway, C. (2008). North Carolina 4 H horse program: Developing e ffective o ral Reasons North Carolina State University. Harder, A. (2006). The neglected life skill. Journal of Extension, 44(1). Retrieved from htttp://www.joe.org/joe/2006february/comm1p.shtml Hendricks, P. (1998). Targeting life skills model. Retrieved from: http://www.extension.iastate.edu/4H/lifeskills/homepage.html Jimnez Aleixandre,M. P., & Erduran, S. (2008). Argumen tation in Science Education. In S. Erduran, & M.P. Jimnez Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in Science Education (pp. 1 27). New York: Springer. Jones, A. J. (2011). Motivational factors related to youth performance in a horticultural career development e vent Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana. Levine, M. (2007). The essential cognitive backpack. Educational Leadership, 64 (7), 16 22. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational leadership/apr07/vol64/nu m07/The Essential Cognitive Backpack.aspx McCann, J. S. & McCann, M. A. (1992). Judging team members reflection on the value of livestock, horse, meats, and wool judging programs. Professional Animal Scientist 8:3, p.7.

PAGE 107

107 Meyrick, M. K. (2011). How stem edu cation improves student learning. Meridian K 12 School Computer Technologies Journal. 14(1). Retrieved from: http://www.ncsu.edu/meridian/summer2011/meyrick/print.html Means, L.M., & Voss, J.F. (1996). Who reasons well? Two studies of informal reasoning a mong children of different grade, ability, and knowledge levels. Cognition and Instruction 14(2), 139 178. Miller, J. H. (2006). Education Programs: Course Offerings Compared to Career Development Event Participation Doctoral dissertation). Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College R ecord, 108 (6), 1017 1054. Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org Moore, L. (2006). Four steps to teaching evaluation skills. The Agricultural Education Magazine, 78(6), 16 17. Nash, S. A., & Sant, L. L. (2005). Life skill development found in 4 H animal ju dging. Journal of Extension 43 (2). National Center for Excellence in Education. (1983). A Nation At Risk (NCEE Publication No.065 000 00177 2). Gardner, DP: Author. Washington, DC. National FFA Organization (2012). National ffa career development events handbook. 16, 219 222. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core Standards: English Language Arts Appendix A Washington, DC: National Governors Association Center for Best Practic es, Council of Chief State School Officers. Nussbaum, E. M. (2002). Scaffolding argumentation in the social studies classroom. The Social Studies 93 (2), 79 83. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (2009). Programme for international stude nt assessment. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/ pisa2009/pisa2009keyfindings.htm Ozgun Koca, S. A., & Altay, M. K. (2009). An Investigation of Proportional Reasoning Skills of Middle School Students. Investigations in Mathematics Learn ing 2 (1), 26 48. Patterson, J. S. (2006). Increased student self confidence in clinical reasoning skills associated with case based learning (CBL). Journal of Veterinary Medical Education 33 (3), 426 431.

PAGE 108

108 Peteroy Kelly, M. A. (2007). A Discussion Group Pr ogram Enhances the Conceptual Reasoning Skills of Students Enrolled in a Large Lecture Format Introductory Biology Course. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education: JMBE 8 (1), 13. Phipps, L. J., Osborne, E. W., Dyer, J. E., & Ball, A. L. (2008). Handbo ok on agricultural education in public schools (6th ed.). Clifton Park, NY: Thomson Delmar Learning Purdue University (2012). Basic Reasoning Skills. Retrieved from http://education.purduecal.edu/Vockell/EdPsyBook/Edpsy7/edpsy7_reasoning.ht m Rayfield, J. ( 2006). An assessment of recruitment and training practices of the National FFA livestock career development event (Doctoral Dissertation) Retrieved from Texas Tech University Libraries ( http://hdl.handle.net/2346/17680 ) Roberts, G. T. (2006). A philosoph ical examination of experiential learning theory for agricultural educators. Journal of Agricultural Education, 47(1), 17 29. doi: 10.5032/jae.2006.01017 Russell, C. (2007). How secondary Oklahoma agricultural education te achers motivate their students to participate in career development events thesis). Ohio State University, Columbus, Oh. Russell, C. R., Robinson, J. S., & Kelsey, K. D. (2009). Motivating Agriculture Students to Participate in Caree r Development Events. Career and Technical Education Research 34 (2), 103 118. Rutherford, T.A., Tounsend,, C.D., Briers, G., Cummins, F.,& Conrad, C.R. (2002). Leadership self perceptions of WLC participants. Journal of Agricultural Education. 43(2), 22 3 3. doi: 10.5032/jae.2002.02022 Schen, M.S. (2007). Scientific reasoning skills development in the introductory biology courses for undergraduates. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus. Tenney, W. A. (1977). The FFA at 5Q A Golden Past A BrighterFuture. Alexandria, VA: National FFA Supply Center Texas Education Agency (2012). Student assessment division. Retrieved from http://www.tea.state.tx.us/student.assessment/ The Association of Career and Technical Education (2012). CTE at a glance. Retrieved from http://www.careertech.org/career technical education/ Thoron, A. C (2010). Effects of inquiry based agrisciene instruction on student argumentation skills, scientific reasoning, and student achievement (Doctoral dissertatio n). Retrieved from http://etd.fcla.edu/UF/UFE0041468/thoron_a.pdf

PAGE 109

109 Thoron, A.C., & Myers, B.E. (2008). Agriscience: Sustaiing the future of our profession. The Agricultural Education Magazine, 80(4), 9 11. Toulmin, S.(1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. United States Department of Education. (2007) No child left behind elementary and secondary education act. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/landing.jhtml United States Department of Education (2011) Race to the top fund. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/index.html United States Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). The Condition of Education 2012 (NCES Publication No. 20 12 045). Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2012045 United States Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). Highlights from TIMSS 2007: Mathematics and Science A chievement of U.S. Fourth and Eighth Grade Students in an International Context (NCES Publication No. 2009 001 Revised). Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2009001 University of Florida Animal Science Department. (2012) Horse J udging. Retrieved from http://animal.ifas.ufl.edu/youth/horse/Judging.shtml University of South Carolina, Center for Teaching Excellence (2012). 7 Things to about teaching styles. Retrieved from http://sc.edu/cte/guide/teachingstyles/index.shtml#develop Vaughn, P. R., Keith, L., & Lockaby, J. (1999). The FFA Organization: Needed then & needed now. The Agricultural Education Magazine. March April 1999, 71(5). Argumentation 19, 347 371. V enville, G. J., & Dawson, V. M. (2010). The impact of a classroom intervention on grade 10 students' argumentation skills, informal reasoning, and conceptual understanding of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 47 (8), 952 977. Voigt, M. A. (2 012). Promising practices of dairy, horse, and livestock evaluation C areer Development Event coaches Von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osbourne, J., & Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Case stu their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 101 131.

PAGE 110

110 Ward, C. K. (1996). Life skill development related to participation in 4 H animal science projects. Journal of Extension 3 4 (2), n2. Warren, C., & Alston, A. J. (2006, March April). Developing the renaissance agriculturalist: Preparing agricultural students for careers. The Agricultural Education Magazine, 78 (5), 18 19 Wilson, B. E., & Curry, W. K. (2011). Outcomes of integra ted agricscience processes: A synthesis of research. Journal of Agricultural Education. 52(3), 136 147. doi: 10.5032/jae.2011.03136 Wulff Risner, L., & Stewart, B. (1997). Using Experiential Learning to Teach Evaluation Skills. Journal of Agricultural Educ ation 38 (3), 43 50. doi: 10.5032/jae.1997.03043 through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 39(1), 35 62.

PAGE 111

111 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Kendrick L. Spencer grew up in Apple Springs, Texas. His family owned a small commercial cow President for the McGee Bend District FFA Association his sophomore year of high school, then served as the Area IX FFA Association President his senior year. Kendrick graduated from Apple Springs High School in 2009 as the Salutatorian. Kendrick then attended Texas A& M University and received his Bachelor of Science degree in agricultural science in 2012. Kendrick was also a member of the Texas A&M Collegiate Horse Evaluation team from 2010 to 2011. Kendrick student taught at Cedar Park High School, in Cedar Park, Texa s, under the guidance of Mr. Jack Winterrowd Kendrick was a member of the Alpha Gamma Rho, professional agricultural fraternity until January of 2011. While enrolled at Texas A&M University Kendrick continued to own and operate a small purebred Beefmaster cattle operation in Following the completion of the B.S. degree in 2012, Kendrick accepted a graduate teaching and research assistantship with the Agricultural Education and Communication Department of the University o f Florida to begin work on a Master of Science. As a graduate teaching and research assistant, Kendrick taught various courses within the department, and conducted research in various areas of agricultural education.