| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
a Dep. of Agronomy, Kansas State Univ., Manhattan, KS 66506-5501
b Dep. of Agronomy, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette, IN 47907-2054
* Corresponding author (sjthien{at}ksu.edu).
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 TOPNOTES ABSTRACT INTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSTHE FIRST 25 VOLUMES,...THE SECOND 25 VOLUMES:...THE THIRD 25 VOLUMES:...THE FOURTH 25 VOLUMES:...CONCLUSIONSREFERENCES |
|---|
Abbreviations: AJ, Agronomy Journal • ASA, American Society of Agronomy • JAE, Journal of Agronomic Education • JASA, Journal of the American Society of Agronomy • JNRLSE, Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Education • PASA, Proceedings of the American Society of Agronomy
|
NOTES |
|---|
|
TOPNOTESABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSTHE FIRST 25 VOLUMES,...THE SECOND 25 VOLUMES:...THE THIRD 25 VOLUMES:...THE FOURTH 25 VOLUMES:...CONCLUSIONSREFERENCES |
|---|
Received for publication December 28, 2006.
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TOPNOTESABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSTHE FIRST 25 VOLUMES,...THE SECOND 25 VOLUMES:...THE THIRD 25 VOLUMES:...THE FOURTH 25 VOLUMES:...CONCLUSIONSREFERENCES |
|---|
The welfare of individuals, groups, nations, and our global community is linked inextricably to this educational movement focused, from its very beginnings, on bringing knowledge of crops and soils to students. In its entirety, this knowledge has undoubtedly been of such significance to have altered the course of civilization. At the 50th anniversary of the ASA, Harold D. Hughes (1958), Iowa State College, concluded that the force of agronomic education "grips the mind, steels the will, and tempers the soul in its high purpose." Most assuredly, his wisdom holds equally well now that we celebrate the 100th anniversary.
The Agronomy Journal, its predecessors, and successors have long served as the publication outlet for the teaching segment of the ASA. In commemoration of this journal's 100th anniversary, this article attempts to chronicle a century of agronomic education publications in the society's journals and bring recognition to the aggregate effort of our predecessors and colleagues. Their cumulative works constitute a knowledge base of such unparalleled significance that our reduction will be necessarily incomplete. For that, we apologize. Space constraints limited us largely to highlighting central points and leaving critical evaluations for future analyses. In trying to capture the essence of a century of effort, we are humbled by the talents, dedication, and achievements of those simply known as teachers. By consulting their past, we seek wisdom for the future, faced with the challenge that current educational impacts must parallel, or more probably exceed, those of preceding times.
|
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
|---|
|
TOPNOTESABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSTHE FIRST 25 VOLUMES,...THE SECOND 25 VOLUMES:...THE THIRD 25 VOLUMES:...THE FOURTH 25 VOLUMES:...CONCLUSIONSREFERENCES |
|---|
Our primary resource was the searchable 7-CD archive set of the previously listed journals through 2001, available from the American Society of Agronomy, 677 South Segoe Road, Madison, WI 53711. These resources were supplemented with hardcopy journals, post-2001 CDs, and the JNRLSE website (American Society of Agronomy, 2006).
Searches were based on the following key words: teaching, instruction, classroom, learning, instructor, teachers, grades, grading, courses, and curriculum. We noted the source of articles and compiled a ranking of the top-10 most-published universities (Table 1 ). For discussion purposes we have arbitrarily divided the time period of our search into four quarters. Articles were grouped into the following topic areas: course descriptions, teaching aids, teaching methods, teaching philosophy, curricula, advising/recruiting, student characteristics, evaluating students, and evaluating teaching. The prevalence of articles in each of these categories is presented in Table 2 , separated into 25-volume quarters.
|
|
|
THE FIRST 25 VOLUMES, PASA/JASA: VOLUMES 1–25 (1907–1933) |
|---|
|
TOPNOTESABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSTHE FIRST 25 VOLUMES,...THE SECOND 25 VOLUMES:...THE THIRD 25 VOLUMES:...THE FOURTH 25 VOLUMES:...CONCLUSIONSREFERENCES |
|---|
Before 1902, soils work at Iowa State College consisted of one course in soil physics. By 1916, "some thirty-odd" courses were being offered in soil physics, soil fertility, soil bacteriology, soil surveying, and soil management (Brown, 1916). Similar expansion of coursework in other universities gave rise to many articles describing course content, teaching methods, and curricular development.
In the first 25 volumes, 39 articles appeared based on the search criteria described earlier (Table 2). This body of work resulted from 30 different authors representing 16 universities or colleges. Eight institutions accounted for 76% of these early publications, led by Iowa State College (five), Kansas State Agricultural College, Cornell University, and Massachusetts Agricultural College (four each), and Purdue University, University of Missouri, Ohio State University, and University of Kentucky (three each). Thirty-four of the 39 articles (87%) had a single author. Seven authors contributed wholly, or in part, to 66% of the articles, including H.O. Buckman, Cornell University; (four) and J.B. Wentz, Iowa State College; M.L. Fisher, Purdue University; P.E. Brown, Iowa State College; F.E. Bear, Ohio State University; P.E. Karraker, University of Kentucky; A.B. Beaumont, Massachusetts Agricultural College; and M.F. Miller, University of Missouri (three each).
Soils Course Descriptions
"Instruction in Soil Physics" by A.G. McCall (1907–1909), Ohio State University, appeared in Volume 1 and can lay claim to the first journal article on agronomic education. McCall contended that the increasing "collection and publication of scientific data" had allowed soil physics to become a separate and distinct course. "A careful selection and systematic arrangement of topics" then faced teachers of this material. He outlined a soil physics course, including many laboratory exercises that would sound familiar today.
Thirteen articles on developing soil science courses appeared in the first 25 volumes. All but two dealt with the formation of introductory soil courses, making this the "genesis era" of introductory soil courses. As these courses began appearing on campuses, concern was voiced that "little or no organized effort has been made by our agricultural college teachers to outline and develop courses in soils that are reasonably uniform" (Stevenson and Brown, 1921). Miller (1922) pointed out concerns with the need to improve the "character" of laboratory work and described an introductory soils course that met the needs of students who would not take further courses in soils.
As soil courses were transitioning from chemistry departments to agronomy departments, Bear (1922) argued that teachers must show command of chemistry, biology, physics, and geology to the extent it is significant to soils and then have the capacity to lead the student to see the application of these sciences to soils. "Every ‘how’ of soil management," Bear wrote, "has a ‘why’ back of it" and an efficient instructor guides a student from knowledge of principles to their application.
Buckman (1923) called for standardization of introductory soils courses based on scientific principles that lay the foundation for further study in soils. He advocated relating fundamental scientific principles to soil knowledge in classroom studies and incorporating them into laboratory experiments. A good lab exercise, he suggested, uses general principles to "develop and expand ideas rather than teach technique."
In 1923, a committee studied the organization of introductory soils courses (Buckman et al., 1924). While finding a marked tendency toward standardization in lecture content and methodology, they found "rather disappointing" the lack of similarity in lab organization and content.
This was followed by a survey of the organization, teaching methods, and instructional features of the introductory course in soil science by the Committee on Soil Teaching Methods of the ASA (Buckman et al., 1928). They described a representative introductory soils course as covering one term, varying from 3 to 5 credit hours, averaging 44 students, and requiring a prerequisite introductory course in chemistry and, for many, geology, too. The lecture or lecture-recitation instructional format dominated and 76% of the courses included a laboratory in which only 19% used a teaching assistant. Of the courses studied, 85% required some field study, but these activities averaged only about 18% of the laboratory time, which was not considered to be a strong effort in light of the importance practical application of soil knowledge was given. Only 21% of the courses provided for any considerable study of the soil profile. Most lab exercises dealt with physical or chemical experiments, with only 35% offering a soil biology exercise. The committee recommended development of course objectives to assist selection of teaching material from an ever-increasing array of topics.
With introductory soil courses becoming more commonplace, the description of subsequent courses appeared. Brown (1921) called attention to the need for a soil bacteriology course, discussed the place such a course might occupy in the curriculum, and offered ways in which this particular subject matter might be presented.
Crops Course Descriptions
In the first 25 volumes, seven articles appeared dealing with the development of crops courses and their place in the curriculum. The first was by Fisher (1911) and summarized catalog descriptions of courses pertaining to farm crops. His suggestions for discussion and laboratory topics sound quite similar to modern courses.
Wentz (1920) published a very extensive outline of an undergraduate course in grain grading, complete with suggested field trips and motion picture films. Looking for some standardization, a year later, he surveyed university catalog descriptions of field crops courses (Wentz, 1921). Apparently little existed since at least 133 different titles were being used for field crop courses. Even when classified according to subjects covered, the number was reduced to 47, and of those 47 only 20 were offered by three or more colleges.
L.E. Call (1921), Kansas State Agricultural College, focused on placement of farm-crops courses in the curriculum. In a context all too familiar today, he wrestled with the placement of agronomic courses in relation to English and basic science courses outside agriculture and even the withholding of agricultural courses entirely in the freshman year.
W.L. Slate, Jr., Connecticut Agricultural College, summarized a roundtable on "Teaching of Field Crops" (Slate, 1921). Believing that a sufficient body of knowledge then belonged to the subject, he expressed the opinion that a real science of field crops was justified. He outlined a first course in field crops, including extensive information on pedagogy, content, and curricular placement. His six "aims of the course" were, perhaps, the first published set of learning objectives for this topic.
During this era, only three institutions offered an undergraduate course in crop ecology; the University of Illinois, Kansas State Agricultural College, and the Oklahoma Agricultural and Mechanical College (Klages, 1928). Hoping to expand this number, K.H. Klages, Oklahoma Agricultural and Mechanical College, outlined a course in crop ecology and ecological crop geography and developed a very convincing case for inclusion of such a course in the agronomic curriculum. His plea was bolstered by a list of 37 references suitable for class application. Then, Wentz (1932) published a very extensive outline of a crop breeding course. He suggested dividing the course according to fundamental principles rather than crop type. He favored this approach because it closely matched the way principles were studied in previous genetics and biology courses.
Teaching Methods
In the first 25 volumes, several papers addressed teaching methods. Call (1912) described an index card method of recording student results in soils laboratory, a system he claimed was necessitated by increasingly large class enrollments. Assigned readings that "extended the student's knowledge of the subject" were described and required abstracts that were brief, concise, neatly written, properly paragraphed, and devoid of misspelled words (Fisher, 1912a).
Increasing diversity in student populations prompted Fisher (1912b) to write guidelines for instructors who outlined the benefits of knowing the background of students, balancing administrative and teaching responsibilities, and classroom management. In the way of timeless advice, he noted that "preparation frees the instructor from nervousness, dignity without overbearing promotes respect, and politeness wins over those who are inclined to be rude and makes firm supporters of the gentlemen in the class." He concluded by noting that "charity for the frailties of men is a useful quality of any instructor."
Papers appeared describing the utility of field plats (Robert, 1913), a field problem in soil management (Beaumont, 1922), and converting a forage crops course from lecture to "the problem method of teaching" (Henson, 1923). J.H. Parker (1923) detailed the field crops lab at Kansas State Agricultural College as did F.D. Keim (1927) for the University of Nebraska.
Bear (1924) required all soil management students to bring a sample of soil from their home farms for laboratory study. He then had students check their lab data with that published in soil surveys. A sand table used to demonstrate soil landscape differences and the action of the plow bottom was another way of illustrating field processes in the classroom (Beaumont, 1926).
Teaching Philosophy
As agronomic education left infancy and started its maturation phase, philosophical views began appearing. Karraker (1919) questioned the value of having all students take the laboratory segment of the introductory soils course. He cited the difficulty in developing lab exercises that accurately portray field conditions and the realization that not all students in this course will become soil specialists as reason for this stance.
S.B. Haskell (1922), then Director of the Massachusetts Agricultural Experiment Station, published a plea for experimental work in crops teaching. In the formative era of agronomic course development, Haskell asked whether the image of crops courses being recognized by students as "cheap" credits was due to inherent limitations of the subject matter or to limitations of teachers. Ruling out the former, he asked why the ASA should not do experimental work in determining the value of different teaching methods. He challenged the ASA to undertake such a study to "guarantee the essential worthwhileness of time spent by students in crop studies."
In 1921, a committee considered adding a national student organization to the ASA but no action resulted. In June 1932, Dr. P.E. Brown (ASA President) appointed another special committee to consider this question. The committee consisted of E.R. Henson, chair (Iowa), H.K. Wilson (Minnesota), F.D. Keim (Nebraska), J.W. Zahnley (Kansas), and G.H. Dungan (Illinois) and in the fall of 1932 the National Student Activities Section was accepted as a subsidiary organization of the ASA (Metcalfe, 1957).
|
THE SECOND 25 VOLUMES: JASA/AJ VOLUMES 26–50 (1933–1958) |
|---|
|
TOPNOTESABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSTHE FIRST 25 VOLUMES,...THE SECOND 25 VOLUMES:...THE THIRD 25 VOLUMES:...THE FOURTH 25 VOLUMES:...CONCLUSIONSREFERENCES |
|---|
More pedagogical topics received attention during this quarter-century than during the first period. An overwhelming majority of articles in this period dealt with teaching philosophy (Table 2). Articles also emphasized evaluating teaching for improvement, teaching methods, and student characteristics, especially as they related to advising issues. An overall shift away from articles detailing course descriptions was noted and articles on teaching aids began appearing.
Teaching Philosophy
Keim (1937) described traits of a high-quality agronomic teacher, speculating that "it may not take a very smart man to be a university professor, but it does take a very wise university professor to be a good teacher." Many of his 12 "essential features which should characterize the agronomy teacher" would likely appear on current-day lists.
Bear (1942) philosophized on the future of soil science with this quote that seems appropriate for curricular guidance today: "If I could be a young man again, I would like nothing better than to start over in this field of endeavor. I would want to start back a little farther in the pure sciences and to take a little longer to prepare myself in the fundamentals of mathematics, physics, chemistry, and biology. But I would want, also, to spend more time in the field actually working with the soil; running it through my fingers; watching it roll off the moldboard; studying the location of the roots of plants in it; and talking and learning from the farmers who live on the land and earn their bread from it by the sweat of their brows."
Others philosophized on the need for agronomists to have broad training. "The background for agronomic training should be a thorough grounding in fundamentals, a predisposition to look for relationships, and adventures among ideas. It seems that these can best be had from courses in literature, philosophy, and the basic sciences" (Pendleton, 1954).
A final philosophical article of the period, by R.M. Swenson (1958), director of resident instruction in the College of Agriculture at Michigan State University, quoted a study showing that bright students congregate in institutions with high indices of scientific achievement and suggested, "Since this is true for institutions, we can assume the same is true for colleges within a university and for curricula within a college. This would indicate that if we desire to have the best students in agronomy we should make the agronomy major the most challenging in the college of agriculture and equal to any in the university." He also cautioned that a proposal of this type "does not meet with favor."
Teaching Evaluation
Agronomic educators, it can be argued, have some unique teaching challenges in their pursuit of teaching excellence. Most would agree that no one "best" method exists for teaching a particular lesson given the variability among teachers, students, and educational environments. In recognition of these circumstances, articles in this era began addressing the connection between improved teaching and increased learning, as well as which activities held promise for better teaching or learning outcomes and their applications. Professors reported on a variety of assessment techniques used to determine if a teaching change resulted in more effective learning of intended objectives. Typically, improvement claims relied on comparing how students experiencing two different processes accomplished the same objectives. If more students accomplished more objectives with one instructional process than with the other, the former process was considered to represent an improvement.
Stephen Corey (1943), an educational psychologist from the University of Chicago and keynote speaker at a 1943 symposium on agronomic teaching, listed three steps for improved instruction: development of learning objectives, selection of appropriate learning experiences, and determination of whether learning has occurred. He wrote that "the evaluation or measurement of learning is frequently the most fruitful so far as the improvement of the total instructional program is concerned. In other words, to start here usually leads to far reaching consequences." This noteworthy article outlines the evaluation of teaching effectiveness in much accordance with current approaches. He cautioned against adopting "the venerable method of appraising the worth of a teacher which has been for some mature person to enter his class and watch what he does. This method rather completely misses the point. It is as if we were to evaluate a method of traffic control in a given city by watching the policeman rather than the traffic. In a teaching situation we should watch the learners. It is their progress which indicates whether the instruction is good or poor."
A student survey during this era identified, by a considerable margin, that "interest and enthusiasm" of instructors in their subject was the most significant factor explaining why undergraduates majored in agronomy (Goodding, 1948). The same survey found that the term agronomy was either very vague or almost meaningless to students at the beginning of their college career and concluded that opportunities in the agronomic field should be more fully made known to freshmen.
D.S. Metcalfe (1955), Iowa State University, was the first to evaluate the connection of teaching improvement and teacher evaluations, pointing out that the low esteem accorded teaching in a science-based field, the difficulty in developing an appropriate evaluation instrument, and finding agreement as to the meaning of the outcomes were all obstacles in the reliability of evaluations. He maintained that along with the need for developing criteria that defines good teaching, it must also be properly recognized and rewarded.
Teaching improvement was the topic of the First Southern Regional Work Conference on Agricultural Instruction held in 1955. A group of faculty addressed questions dealing with stimulating teachers to improve, defining "good" teaching, and identifying how teaching excellence can be evaluated and recognized (Fleming, 1958). At the same conference a group of deans addressed how to select, train, develop, and keep good teaching faculty.
The teaching improvement issues described in the second quarter-century of the journal closely match those reported in subsequent years. Evidently, these same agronomic education issues exist yet today because solutions have been hard to find.
Advising
In recognition of all teaching responsibilities, articles dealing with students advising began appearing in this period. H.K. Wilson (1954), Pennsylvania State University, wrote of the accepted practice of shifting more responsibility to students to make thier own decisions as to curriculum and detailed courses, a practice considered desirable and worthy of encouragement. He noted the difference between advising and counseling and suggested that it was not practical to expect all advisers to also qualify as counselors.
Thompson (1955), Mann (1955), and Goodding (1955) addressed aids to effective counseling, including use of test scores and high school grades, counseling on a personal basis, and the objectives of good advising and counseling. There was agreement on the necessity of advisers being available and on administrators recognizing the importance of sound advising and counseling and seeing that time is provided for these duties. The primary objective of good advising was described as teaching students to make their own decisions and to assume responsibility for those decisions.
J.D. Pendleton (1955), Virginia Polytechnic Institute, wrote about putting academic pursuits and extracurricular activities in the right perspective. He argued that the "mindblock" to greater technical, sociological, economic, and political achievement by college students following graduation could be removed by putting a strong emphasis on recognizing and developing great ideas and relationships while in college. Pendleton argued that such an achievement can be a vital role of extracurricular activities. He further developed this idea in an article calling for recognition of extracurricular activities as the logical agencies for developing and trying these new attitudes (Pendleton, 1957).
Course Descriptions
While course descriptions dominated publications in the first period, only six of the 52 articles during this period described course content. As before, introductory soil and crop science courses were described but with particular attention to the laboratory portion of the course (Throckmorton, 1939; Collings, 1948). A field problem consisting of a study of actual farm resources and management practices followed by recommendations for changes was described as successful in tying pedagogical theory to agronomic practice (Beaumont and Thayer, 1953). Another article described how training teams for collegiate crops judging contests represented a highly interesting phase of agronomic teaching and needed proper recognition in the agronomic curriculum (Ayers, 1953). A seminar course describing basic ideas and techniques on how to teach was described in 1955 and called for its inclusion in all graduate student programs (Senn, 1955).
At Michigan State, a new, survey-type, introductory soil science course with no chemistry prerequisite was described as "highly satisfactory" (Turk et al., 1948). This course enrolled 891students during the calendar year 1947 from agriculture, the liberal arts, engineering, and veterinary science schools. The authors identified four important considerations in teaching such an introductory course: (i) use the best and most enthusiastic members of the staff, (ii) pay careful attention to course objectives, (iii) use interesting subject matter topics, and (iv) apply teaching methods and procedures appropriate to such a broad audience.
Teaching Aids
Educators were willing to describe classroom teaching aids such as mechanical collection of soil cores, methods for displaying soil monoliths in the classroom, and how to preserve plants in plastic mounts (Lynd, 1950; Smith et al., 1951; Finnegan, 1951). Articles about using Kodachrome slides and overhead projector transparencies for classroom application were also published (Hanway and Sander, 1952; Burger, 1958).
Golden Anniversary
Two papers presented at the Golden Anniversary Meeting of the American Society of Agronomy, held in Atlanta, GA, in November 1957, focused on agronomic education. Metcalfe (1957) detailed the formation of the Agronomic Education Division of the society, being accepted at the national meetings in 1952. He presented an informative history of the division's birth and outlined how it could develop into an effective part of the society. Hughes (1958) published his presentation on 50 yr of resident agronomy teaching at these same anniversary meetings. His paper represents a thorough and rich summary of agronomic education in its formative years. Also during the Golden Anniversary meetings, a group representing industry, experiment station directors, and the undergraduate student subdivision addressed the current status of (i) agronomic training to meet the demands of an increasingly technical agriculture, (ii) specialization vs. generalization in training agronomists, (iii) motivating the agronomist of the future, and (iv) professional competence and pride (York, 1958; Thorne, 1958; Mulvaney, 1958; Watkins, 1958).
This era witnessed an ever-quickening rate of agronomic science expansion and necessitated an ever-widening scope of agronomic education. Not only did agronomic educators meet this challenge, but an increase in the overall quality of their publications was also apparent. Collectively, the advances in agronomic education of this era were not only necessary, but very essential to the needs that lie ahead.
|
THE THIRD 25 VOLUMES: AJ, VOLUMES 51–75 (1959–1983) AND JAE, VOLUMES 1–12 (1972–1983) |
|---|
|
TOPNOTESABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSTHE FIRST 25 VOLUMES,...THE SECOND 25 VOLUMES:...THE THIRD 25 VOLUMES:...THE FOURTH 25 VOLUMES:...CONCLUSIONSREFERENCES |
|---|
Although each quarter century has shown an increase in number and breadth of pedagogical topics receiving attention, this quarter-century saw a virtual explosion of topics. We found a rather even distribution of articles reporting on teaching methods, course descriptions, student characteristics, teaching aids, and teaching philosophy (Table 2). Next in order of number of publications were the topic areas involving curriculum issues, classroom demonstrations, computer topics, grading/examinations, and course/instructor evaluation concerns. In summary, course content issues were still of primary note but teaching/learning processes became more visible. Because there were so many more papers published in this era, most topic areas received more attention than in previous quarters.
Appearance of the first issue of JAE marked a significant event of this period. Following ASA Executive Committee approval the previous year, JAE was established in 1972 as an outgrowth of AJ. In the words of ASA President J.R. Cowan in the foreword of the first volume (1972), JAE was created "in recognition of the inadequacy of the AJ for meeting the needs of agronomic educators." The new journal provided increased visibility for a wide variety of agronomic education articles, many of which would not have been accepted by AJ, and papers dealing with agronomic education quickly ceased appearing in AJ.
Teaching Methods
Based on the quantity of articles in this era, agronomic educators were examining how innovative teaching methods affect learning. Milford (1974) reminded colleagues that although innovations can be received enthusiastically, students still valued teacher–student interactions, teacher attitudes, and teacher inputs along with methodology and techniques.
A variety of unique teaching methods were being tested at many locations, including the senior project (Lambert, 1978), small group discussions (Smith and Schafer, 1978), self-instructional materials (Brecheisen and Keim, 1980), undergraduate research projects (Fehr, 1980), and instructional objectives (Stucky, 1981; Vietor and Milford, 1982).
Articles on the effective role of teaching teams, either combinations of faculty or faculty and graduate students, began appearing (McFee et al., 1980; Hargrove and Frye, 1980; Knauft, 1983). Use of graduate students as teachers and their pedagogical training was described (Hargrove and Frye, 1980), as was the best use of graduate students in audio-tutorial courses (Foth et al., 1979). Using undergraduates as teaching assistants was also reported (Barbarick and Post, 1974).
The first attention to learning as a process also came during this era. Recognition of students as learners with individual needs was bringing new teaching ideas into the classroom (Milford, 1974; Schafer, 1975; Postlethwait, 1978; Riley and Jutras, 1978). The impacts of pass/fail concepts and multiple testing on learning were being explored (Stucky and Cook, 1976; Lewis, 1977). The first attention to the role of cognitive psychology in instruction improvement also came during this era (Helsel and Hughes, 1983).
The use of computers quickly found its way into agronomic education. The first articles on computerized instruction occurred in 1975 with descriptions of a soil water simulation program (Boast, 1975) and a soil–crop management simulation game (Singer, 1975). As applicability of computers to education increased, more computerized crop/soil management applications appeared (Holt et al., 1976; Nofziger, 1980; Ingram et al., 1981; Vietor et al., 1982; Sorenson, 1983; Van Scoyoc and McFee, 1983). Other uses reported for computers included grading and class record keeping. These efforts certainly pioneered a movement destined to become significant in the future of agronomic education.
Course Descriptions
As in previous periods, articles reporting on course content and organization remained prevalent. In earlier eras articles included under this heading would have dealt with defining agronomy as a science separate from fields such as chemistry, physics, biology, and so forth. In contrast, during this era agronomy, as a separate field of science, seemed to be rather well understood and accepted. This allowed articles to focus on how best to refine and expand the role of agronomic sciences in the classroom.
Along with the widening view of agronomic sciences, some new content areas began appearing in courses, including micro-heterogeneity in soils (Hutcheson, 1964), soil surveys (Drew and Eikleberry, 1965), land use planning (Beatty and Lee, 1972), equilibrium concepts (Hassett, 1973), corn maturity predictions (Wolf et al., 1974), watershed microcosms (McColl, 1975), atmospheric dispersion (Takle, 1975), photorespiration (Wolf and Carson, 1975), and catastrophe theory (Zartman, 1981).
Environmental issues, while always fundamental to agronomic sciences, began receiving attention in agronomic education articles in the early 1970s. The first descriptions of environmental courses appeared from the University of California–Riverside (Page and Letey, 1972) and Southern Illinois University (Stucky, 1973). Other contributors addressed the inclusion of environmental topics into agronomic curricula (Dregne and Pettit, 1972; Letey and Page, 1972; Huddleston and McIntosh, 1973).
Descriptions of creative and novel course organizations illustrated that agronomic education was helping pioneer pedagogical innovation. An adaptation of Sam Postlethwait's audio-tutorial approach to individualized learning developed in Purdue University's Biology Department (Postlethwait et al., 1969) first appeared in agronomy from W.J. Flocker (1972), University of California–Davis. That was soon followed by H.D. Foth (1973), Michigan State University, describing his novel mastery learning program that included elements of audio-tutorial instruction. Audio-tutorial classes at four other universities were described in the same year: Iowa State University (Green et al., 1973), University of Guelph (Stoskopf and Jenkinson, 1973), University of Missouri (Larson et al., 1973), and Kansas State University (Thien, 1973). Another course from the University of Nebraska appeared 2 yr later (Anderson, 1975).
Other innovative course organizations included using independent research projects (Nelson et al., 1973; Elkins, 1974), undergraduate seminars (Twamley, 1973; Frye and Click, 1976), open classroom learning centers (Russell and Biggar, 1974), cropping problem sets (Vietor and Lucey, 1978), and self-guided field trips (Darmody, 1983).
Student Characteristics
In the 1970s the background of students choosing to major in agronomy reflected an ever-widening segment of society, and attention to their performance and experiential offerings grew. By 1980, urban men and women were recognized as constituting the majority of agricultural students (Bentley, 1980). Nonfarm students entered courses with less knowledge about crop production than did farm students, but the two groups performed equally well on achievement quizzes within the course (Poland et al., 1983) and in final grades (Burger and Seif, 1975). Laboratories were found to be the most widely used form of experiential education and were considered very effective for a wide variety of experiences if updated to meet current needs. Internships also were rated as being effective in providing agricultural experience, as was working on an educationally based school farm, but both were not heavily used at this time. Independent study was generally considered the least effective method of providing experience (Moser and Flowerday, 1983).
Teaching Aids
Though many instructional aids undoubtedly were in use before they were reported, this era found authors willing to share numerous self-designed novel approaches or others transferred into the agronomic setting. Certainly this willingness to publish ideas allowed for timely adoption and rapid spread of improved educational concepts. Shared ideas included utilizing learning keys and flow diagrams (Miller and Manning, 1970; George and Pepper, 1972; Thien, 1979; Climo, 1982); providing writing assistance (Burger and Jackson, 1973; Fuccillo, 1978); involving students in field days (Wilfong et al., 1974); writing class newsletters (Frye, 1977); using microfiche, time lapse films, and slide-tape sets (Burger and Seif, 1978; Cooper, 1983); and growing crop gardens (Patterson and Jones, 1978; Engle, 1979).
Teaching Philosophy and Change
The period between 1959 and 1983 saw many transformations within our society; thus, it is not surprising to see articles evaluating these changes and their impact on agronomy students, curricula, professors, and university departments. The transition to the JAE provided a timely and fitting outlet for chronicling the evolution of agronomic education.
In 1959, three agronomists published their remarks from a symposium on how changes in agriculture were challenging agronomic education. M.A. Anderson (1959), Iowa State University, suggested meeting these challenges by reorganizing curricula to include more basic sciences and providing a more global perspective. H.B. Cheney (1959), Oregon State College, questioned the proper balance between vocational and scientific training, how best to integrate the sciences and humanities, and the adequacy of agronomic curricula to prepare students for the increasing breadth that was defining agronomy. W.F. Keim (1959), Purdue University, described how changes in agriculture were also changing (i) agriculture students, (ii) the need for curricula to bolster the fundamental understanding of the basic sciences, and (iii) teachers and administrators. These same general issues pervaded later articles pondering the past, present, and future of agronomic education (Wagner, 1963; Darlow, 1965; Kellogg, 1974; Bentley, 1980).
Agronomic departments in land-grant institutions provide the ideal learning environments to accommodate change. They gave purpose, organization, and stimulation to study. Their structure provided for easy vocational guidance and gave students a clear picture of the need for both specific and general knowledge. Within this structure, students received exposure to future applications of their current learning (Peterson, 1959).
H.E. Myers (1962), University of Arizona, chronicled the centennial of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Morrill Act, which led to the establishment of a national system of higher education in the form of land-grant colleges and universities. He documented the role these institutions played in the development of the United States and saw them poised to make similar contributions in the future roles. The origins of the land-grant philosophy and the influence these institutions have had on agronomic education were excellently documented by Peterson (1977).
Evaluating Teaching
This era showed gathering interest in teacher evaluation. Foth (1972) concluded that teacher characteristics alone offered an unreliable basis for effective teacher evaluation and called for effective evaluations to also include measurement of student learning. To that end, he promoted mastery learning programs as having great potential for effectively evaluating teachers by measuring how much their students learn (Foth, 1973). In support of Foth's earlier report, Burger and Brandenburg (1980) found that a majority of students and faculty felt the need for developing instruments capable of evaluation both student learning and teacher effectiveness.
Evaluation efforts sought evidence of teaching quality by measuring the most reliable traits. Earlier analyses by D.J. Stucky (1978), Southern Illinois University, showed that students linked lecturer effectiveness to those they perceived as most knowledgeable. Other characteristics highly linked to teacher effectiveness were enthusiasm, logic, and utilization of familiar examples. In a later study, he reported that "presentation of material in a logical sequence" had the highest correlation to a teacher's evaluation rating (Stucky, 1980).
A.R. Hilst and W.W. McFee, Purdue University, provided faculty and administrators a formula that used easily accessible data for quantifying teaching loads of individual instructors and departments (Hilst and McFee, 1975). Their formula went beyond tallying contact hours and student numbers to accounting for nontraditional class structures, counseling, advising graduate students, and directing special problems.
Curricula
Curricula reflect ongoing changes in society, the profession, and students; thus, they were quite regularly described. Typically, these articles surveyed colleagues and compiled and compared curricular requirements. Generally, agronomic curricula demonstrated considerable flexibility and a timely incorporation of essential changes in the profession into individual courses.
Early in this era, H.S. Brunner (1963), U.S. Office of Education, described the recommendation for an undergraduate curriculum in agriculture science, production, or business put forth by the Committee on Educational Policy in Agriculture of the Agriculture Board in the National Academy of Sciences–National Research Council. It suggested 65 credits in general education (50% of total for graduation) proportioned as follows: 12 credits in communications, 18 credits in humanities and social studies, 9 credits in mathematics and statistics, 12 credits in physical sciences, and 14 credits in biological sciences. In addition the major field should include 26 credits (20% of total), have 26 credits (20% of total) supporting the major field, and 13 elective credits (10% of the total).
Twenty years later, C.J. Nelson (1983), University of Missouri, compiled data from 52 departments teaching agronomy and/or crop science and found that the average curricula consisted of 10 credits in communications, 7 in math, 13 in social sciences, 14 in physical sciences, and 16 in biological sciences for a subtotal of 60 credits (48% of the total). The major field required 28 credits (22% of total) and 13 in supporting courses (10% of total). Elective courses represented 18 credit hours (14% of total).
|
THE FOURTH 25 VOLUMES: JAE VOLUMES 13–20 (1984–1991) AND JNRLSE VOLUMES 21–35 (1992–2006) |
|---|
|
TOPNOTESABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSTHE FIRST 25 VOLUMES,...THE SECOND 25 VOLUMES:...THE THIRD 25 VOLUMES:...THE FOURTH 25 VOLUMES:...CONCLUSIONSREFERENCES |
|---|
|
Teaching Methods
Beginning with an editorial entitled "The Case for Case Study" (Simmons et al., 1992), many case studies have been published in JNRLSE, covering a wide range of agronomic-related issues. The increasing number of published case studies provide teachers a classroom activity aimed at enhancing critical thinking, problem-solving, and decision-making skills in students. In 2006, ASA published Case Studies, a compilation of 48 case studies that appeared in the JNRLSE between 1992 and 2005. While individual case studies are often quite specific to local situations, each one models a teaching method with universal application.
The laboratory provides an excellent environment for improving experiential learning skills, and agronomic educators have demonstrated much creativity in their development of new or improved exercises. These innovators didn't hesitate in sharing their efforts with colleagues either, as 29 articles in this era reported on using the laboratory experience to foster learning through inquiry. Examples include simplification of complex concepts (Corak and Grabau, 1988; Hershey and Stutte, 1991; Fennessy et al., 1992; Owens and Johnson, 1996), demonstration of field-scale events (Hoover and Beeson, 1990; Levy and Graham, 1993; Taylor et al., 1997; Stromberger, 2005), and introduction of state-of-the-art knowledge, such as automated assay (Basta, 1995) and geographic information systems (Scott and Smith, 1995).
Teaching Aids
Computers became the most prevalent new teaching aid of these times. While interest in adapting personal computers to improving education began before this quarter, its applications continue to multiply. Agronomic educators have used computers in a wide variety of formats, including to assist learning (Barbarick, 1985; McAndrews et al., 2005), to simulate various plant and soil processes (Barak, 1990; Wullschleger et al., 1992; Cassel and Elrick, 1992), to assist in management decisions (Waldren, 1984; Danneberger and Rieke, 1985; Thien, 1986; Stringer et al., 1987; Cross, 1993), to model a variety of agronomic concepts (St. Martin and Skavaril, 1984; Wery and Lecoeur, 2000), and as a common tool to bring modern applications such as geographic information systems into the classroom (Lee et al., 1999; Stout and Lee, 2004). At least 33 articles described using computers in instruction in this era, but references seemed to decline in the most recent 5 yr. This apparent anomaly is probably related to our search criteria, which did not include such terms as GIS, GPS, or digital soil maps in this count. Computers are so pervasive in our teaching activities today that they no longer merit mention in titles and key words in many articles involving their use.
Public demand for access to education without coming to campus (distance education) has grown. Electronic technology that began with the telephone (Mullen et al., 1979), and expanded through radio, video tapes, and closed-circuit TV, has now migrated to the World Wide Web with high speed internet connection and a variety of broadcast downloads. Each tool found some application in expanding education outside the classroom. Two off-campus graduate programs at Iowa State University (Woolley and Crawford, 1987) and the University of Illinois (Miller and Schrader, 1989) are described, followed by a review of the Illinois program (Brandau et al., 2001). Experience with distance delivery of courses via satellite and other means was also described (Ferguson et al., 1992; Salvador et al., 1993).
An evaluation of an internet distance course (Lippert et al., 1998) offers insight into the effectiveness of this form of education. Others are considering how "improvements in internet instruction based on learning styles and strategies" can occur (Speth et al., 2006).
Course Descriptions
New course descriptions in this era dealt mostly with either integrating themes from the broadening world of agronomy or applying novel learning concepts to fundamental agronomic topics.
One new topic in this era was organic farming, including a case study about nutrient management for organic farming (Mikkelsen, 2000) and a course on organic farming principles and practices (Bhavsar, 2002). A course centered on agroecology, in this case coupled with service learning, illustrated the breadth appearing in agronomic education (Jordan et al., 2005). Other new issues being integrated with agronomic topics include international dimensions (Ryan et al., 1985); politics, science, and hunger (Fairbanks, 1990, McIntosh, 1993); sustainable agriculture (Weil, 1990; Salvador et al., 1993); environmental issues (Barbarick, 1992; Graveel et al., 1997; Pierzynski and Thien, 1997); biotechnology (Ferguson et al., 1992); professional ethics (Fick, 1996); and policy (Karston and O'Connor, 2002).
Course changes reflecting pedagogical adaptations include such examples as designing a course around using the principles approach (Cardwell, 1985), using management team analyses (Schweitzer, 1986), setting learning goals with instructional objectives (Wells et al., 1986), comparing systematic and nonsystematic instruction (Milford et al., 1991), and teaching with a problem-based learning approach (Amador and Gorres, 2004).
Student Characteristics
Concern for the oral and written communication abilities of students has received attention in educational articles throughout the century. C.F. Eno (1984), University of Florida, used his ASA presidential address to call for improved communication skills for agronomists. In this era, many articles focused on improving communication, both writing skills (Fuccillo, 1978, 1984; Fuccillo and Book, 1984; Parrish et al., 1985; Brumback et al., 1985; Foster, 1988; Wechsler, 1989; Wiebold et al., 1990; Wiebold and Duncan, 1991; Motavalli et al., 2003) and discussion skills (Karr et al., 1988; Davis and Wolf, 1988). The persistent quest for improving communication abilities seems not yet to be resolved and leaves a looming challenge for future educational efforts.
Teaching Philosophy
Teaching philosophy statements reveal the seasoned reflections of the author while at the same time provide guidance for those in the flexible stage of professional development. Milford (1984) suggested that a teacher needs a sense of individuality and a system of values that can be shared with students. Thien (2003) saw an understanding of learning processes as key to increasing his teaching effectiveness and student learning. S.R. Simmons (2004), University of Minnesota, believes that growth as an effective teacher is enhanced when individuals reflect deeply about their own teaching and learning beliefs and why they believe as they do. V.B. Cardwell (2005), University of Minnesota, described how the expanding concept of agronomy brings requirements for multiple levels of understanding into teaching and learning. These philosophical musings continue to affirm the emphasis on student learning as the ever-present gauge of teaching quality.
New Directions
The widening scope of agronomy can be evidenced by changes in journal titles, university department and college names, course descriptions, and curricula revisions. F.P. Miller (2003), Ohio State University, called for heightened attention to natural resource stewardship and the future role education programs can play. Movement in that direction is seen in several environmental/natural resource curricula descriptions (Thompson et al., 2003; Madewell et al., 2003; Barker and Graveel, 2004).
In 1996, JNRLSE broadened its function to include material designed to improve understanding of agricultural sciences by elementary and high school students and to provide an outlet for discussion of teaching experiences at all levels by introducing a section of the journal devoted to "K–16 Science" (Ernst and Graveel, 1996). This attention to the transfer of university-level agronomic education to assist K–12 education then began to appear in several articles (Lane and Fritz, 2000; Guertal and Hattey, 1997).
|
CONCLUSIONS |
|---|
|
TOPNOTESABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSTHE FIRST 25 VOLUMES,...THE SECOND 25 VOLUMES:...THE THIRD 25 VOLUMES:...THE FOURTH 25 VOLUMES:...CONCLUSIONSREFERENCES |
|---|
Within the body of knowledge representing the first 100 yr of agronomic education lie the valued efforts of many dedicated teachers. Their passion for passing knowledge along to succeeding generations seems matched only by their understanding of teaching as a life-long influence on learners. From our brief comments about the past, we hope to stimulate you into consulting with some of your esteemed predecessors through their writings and find validation of your efforts toward making a difference in a future agronomic historical record.
As global pressures increase the demands on the profession of agronomy, the types of advances in education that led to the development of highly educated, productive people will continue to be in demand. The consequences of neglecting attention to issues of food production, the environment, and resource conservation are unimaginable. From the past we gain awareness of a pattern for success as well as the good judgment to realize one can only prepare for, not regulate, the future. The state of agronomic education seems poised to impact its second century of learning as capably as it did in its first century.
All rights reserved. No part of this periodical may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
TOPNOTESABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSTHE FIRST 25 VOLUMES,...THE SECOND 25 VOLUMES:...THE THIRD 25 VOLUMES:...THE FOURTH 25 VOLUMES:...CONCLUSIONSREFERENCES |
|---|
