CHAPTER II. 

 Group I 



Explanations. The reasons for grouping" the data secured from 

 farmers in three classifications have already been given. In order 

 to make the results found in (iroup I comparable with the others, 

 values have been reduced to a percentage basis. 



\o time limit such as "during the last year'' was indicated. In 

 all cases, in this and in the other groups, the tables represent work 

 performed at any time in the vocational life of the individuals con- 

 cerned. 



It may be observed that (iroup I deals with 400 cases, where- 

 as Table 2, giving the si/.e of farms contains 3(>5, and Figure 3. show- 

 ing the age of the farmers who supplied the information, deals with 

 but .>(>! cases. This is due to the fact that not all farmers would 

 give their age and that the si/.e of the farms was not, in all cases, 

 known to the supervisors of agriculture who supplied this particular 

 information. 



Construction Work in Wood. The first table in (iroup I 

 (Table 5), shows how many farmers per thousand have done cer- 

 tain kinds of construction work in wood. The list is quite different 

 from the kind of work often advocated as a preparation for repair 

 and construction work on farms. Xear the top of the list arc many 

 kinds of work that the large majority of teachers of farm shop 

 work never attempted to teach. This ma}- be due in a large meas- 

 ure to the- following reasons: 



1. Traditional manual training ideals have influenced 

 shop work in agriculture-. 



2. Text and reference books reflect the same tendencies 

 to a greater or less degree. 



/>. Teachers have thought too much in terms of work that 

 can be performed entirely within the school plant. 



Table 5 shows the actual, as well as the relative number of 

 times that certain construction work is done. If \ve compare with 

 it, the kind< of work usually de-scribed in text books, we find con- 

 siderable discrepancy, particularly in the relative order of import- 



19 



