| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, N122Q Agricultural Science North, Univ. of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40546-0091
* Corresponding author (lgrabau{at}email.uky.edu).
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
Abbreviations: AJ, Agronomy Journal • 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 • UK, University of Kentucky
|
NOTES |
|---|
Received for publication December 28, 2006.
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
Over time, however, journal reviewers and editors have discovered that manuscripts related to the instructional endeavors of professionals in science-oriented disciplines often do not look like manuscripts in the research arena. For example, although it makes sense to pre-test and post-test students to determine whether or not the instructional strategies of their teachers have made an impact, it would seem a bit bizarre to pre-test or post-test a soil before and after a particular soil amendment is added. More specifically, since the experimental units in the teaching and learning venue are often students, studies of their responses to instructional strategies often enter the realm of social sciences. Plant and soil scientists may be much more comfortable with "randomized complete block designs" (Snedecor and Cochran, 1967) than with "ethnographic designs" (Creswell, 2005). This can make peer review a particularly daunting task, and could lead to the rejection of well-done educational research by scientists who simply do not have the training or experience to recognize the quality of what they are reviewing.
Several professional societies have addressed this dilemma by starting separate education-oriented journals within their overall scope of publications. For example, the American Chemical Society (2006) publishes the Journal of Chemical Education. Of course, organizations like the American Educational Research Association (AERA, 2006) publish top-flight journals (for example, American Educational Research Journal) in educational fields, but which often remain unread and uncited by plant and soil science teachers.
The ASA took that route in 1972 with the establishment of JAE. Before that time, manuscripts related to classroom instruction had been subjected to the same peer-review panels as were research manuscripts. Once JAE was established, teaching manuscripts were evaluated through an editorial process by editors, associate editors, and reviewers who were chosen specifically for their capabilities in the instructional arena. In 1992, JAE became the JNRLSE. With that name change, significant broadening in the scope of the journal was intended in two related ways: (i) manuscripts would be encouraged from authors well beyond whatever constraints the word agronomy might imply, and (ii) manuscripts would be encouraged from the members of an array of cooperating societies. Those societies now include: the American Association for Agricultural Education, the American Institute of Biological Sciences, the American Phytopathological Society, the American Society for Horticultural Science, the American Society of Plant Biologists, the Crop Science Society of America, the Ecological Society of America, the Entomological Society of America, and the Soil Science Society of America.
This article will be structured around two primary objectives: (i) to celebrate the centennial milestone by recounting the collective accomplishments in the publication of teaching manuscripts, and (ii) to identify key trends in ASA teaching publications during ASA's first 100 yr.
|
BEGINNING IN THE MIDDLE |
|---|
Of course, teachers who believe that their work is excellent would agree with those administrators. Some conclusions of the team of 50-yr anniversary writers are still credible today; for example, (i) the timeless tension between depth and breadth of preparation of B.S. graduates (Folks et al., 1958), and (ii) the constant challenge to reevaluate and revise curricula to provide students with the sort of education they need for the world they are entering (Swenson, 1958), rather than the world of two to three decades ago.
|
PAPER FLOW OVER TIME: THE FIRST 100 YEARS |
|---|
Publication rate slowed down considerably during the 1930s and 1940s; a total of 17 teaching papers were published in JASA during those 20 yr (less than one paper per year). From 1950 to 1957, 16 papers were published (two papers per year). In 1958 and 1959, a total of 17 papers were published; this extraordinarily high number was due to special symposia [a 50th anniversary celebration in 1958, and a session centered around Earl Butz's (1959) presentation in 1959]. From 1960 to 1971, the teaching publication rate settled back to a total of 33 papers (about three per year). In 1972, the first issue of JAE was printed, and included 26 peer-reviewed papers, perhaps indicating a latent appetite for papers related to instruction (or perhaps indicating that authors of such papers had not been able to get their work published in AJ?).
From 1972 through 1983, JAE published one issue per year, averaging 23 peer-reviewed articles per year. Some leaders within ASA felt that even though this level of publication was considerably higher than ever experienced in the history of the organization, greater numbers of papers per year would be necessary to cover operating costs. Hence, from 1984 through 1991, JAE was published twice a year, and reached a peak of 46 peer-reviewed articles in 1990. However, the average for the twice-a-year publication rate was only somewhat higher than the once-a-year period of JAE (31 per year), so the decision was made to transform JAE into the Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Education (JNRLSE).
From 1992 to 1997, JNRLSE was published twice per year, and averaged 29 peer-reviewed papers per year. In 1997, JNRLSE went to an online posting on an as-approved basis; that is, as each manuscript was accepted, it was posted on the JNRLSE website (www.jnrlse.org; verified 22 Jan. 2008). In 1998, JNRLSE began publishing only one hard copy; and in 2005, a year-end CD version became an option for subscribers. From 1998 to 2006, an average of 20 peer-reviewed papers was published per year.
A number of developments in publication types, primarily related to the JNRLSE era, have come into play recently. From 1985 through 2006, 26 individuals have been honored in the "Profile" section of JAE/JNRLSE. The first to be so honored was R.H. Bray (Kurtz, 1984); the most recent was J. Wagenet (Ernst, 2004). Some of those profiled have been well-known in ASA circles for their instructional excellence: for example, Goodding (McGill and Hanway, 1987) and Metcalfe (Elkins, 1988), while others were held in high esteem for other professional activities. Since 1989, the top three undergraduate student essays from the national meeting competitions have been published. In 1992, JNRLSE made a case for decision case studies (Simmons, 1992), and published the first three such cases (Simmons et al., 1992; Crookston and Stanford, 1992; Grabau and Kane, 1992). From 1996 through the present, JNRLSE has published a total of 41 K–16 education papers. Web lessons became part of the JNRLSE repertoire in 2003; 34 web lessons have been peer-reviewed and published over the 4 yr since that recent start. Please note that although both full-length manuscripts and notes were counted in the above per-year averages, neither K–16 nor web lessons were included in such averages.
While preparing a list of all those who have contributed to the publication of peer-reviewed papers on teaching and learning during the first 100 yr of the ASA is beyond the scope of this article, acknowledgment should be given to each one who served as editor of either JAE or JNRLSE. Each of those listed in Table 1 has served with wholehearted professionalism.
|
|
BACK TO THE BEGINNING |
|---|
The first papers on crops instruction were not far behind: Fisher (1911) suggested a lecture/laboratory format, then described his assignment to his students to read journal articles, write abstracts from them, and make oral presentations in class (Fisher, 1912b). Fisher (1912a) also gave careful thought to an instructor's classroom behavior, advocating alertness to the circumstances of both traditionally aged and nontraditionally aged students, understanding of their level of prior knowledge of the subject matter, confidence—engendered by careful preparation—and the scrupulous avoidance of sarcasm. To integrate soils and crops understanding of his students, Roberts (1913) called for investment in "demonstration plats" to complement the theoretical instruction that students were receiving in their classrooms.
A substantial amount of effort went into attempting to standardize introductory courses in both soils (Miller, 1922; Buckman, 1923; Karraker, 1923) and crops (Fisher, 1911; Slate, 1921; Wentz, 1920; Etheridge and Fisher, 1923). Even though those who worked on these paired projects were from widely different geographies, they apparently believed that certain content in both soils and crops was transcendent, at least across the entire continental United States.
Haskell (1922) asked his professional colleagues to adopt an experimental approach to their teaching, just as most of them used in their research work. He called for "...definite experiments in the methods of teaching" and asked his colleagues to "Evaluate our crop teaching methods in terms of the human element rather than in terms of the subject matter itself."
By 1925, Kenney (1925) apparently had endured just about all of the emphasis on good teaching that he could stand. Even though he was writing about a research/extension topic (promoting the use of legumes in crop rotations), he slipped the following two sentences into his very first paragraph: "We are told frequently that we are teachers and that much of our time should be devoted to the study and practice of the best methods of teaching. But at present, and no doubt for many years in the future, the soundness of our methods is and will be measured by the public and by our own administrative officers by the improvement we bring about in farm practice." Please note that Kenney (1925) does not mention whether or not he enjoyed classroom teaching!
|
CONNECTING THE BEGINNING WITH THE MIDDLE AND THE PRESENT |
|---|
Teachers have been doing surveys from the beginning of the ASA. Karraker (1923) surveyed soil science teachers to learn about their support for a standardized introductory soil science course. Stevens (1944) asked alumni to report on their most influential teachers and to identify the qualities that made such teachers influential. Sims (1974a, 1974b, 1974c) asked members of the then-51 active clubs in the then-Student Activities Subdivision to assess the ways in which they learned; students highly valued laboratory experiences connected with their courses. Schmitt (1988a, 1988b) surveyed fertilizer dealers and Barbarick et al. (1988) surveyed authors and subscribers of JAE.
Teachers have also been interested in using soil surveys in their classrooms for many years. Bear (1924) had his soil science students bring in soil samples from their home farms all across Iowa (that was back when most agronomy students grew up on farms), and then compared their experimental results against existing baseline data. Decades later, Drew and Eikleberry (1965) were using soil surveys to help their students learn about soil classification and mapping.
Examples of using emerging technology to improve teaching and learning include:
1. Fumigation rooms for crop laboratory supplies (Keim, 1925)
2. Slides for crop and weed identification (Hanway and Sander, 1952)
3. Radioactive isotopes for soil chemistry instruction (Himes, 1964)
4. Videotape clips (Burger and Aleamoni, 1972)
5. Auto-tutorial systems in audio-visual laboratories (Anderson, 1975)
6. "Reversed text transparencies" (Loynachan, 1986)
Attempts have also been made to attract students to undergraduate programs. Goodding (1948) found that most agronomy students came to the major after their freshman year, and advocated making the major better known to students earlier in their college careers. They reported their attraction to agronomy was triggered by a sincere interest and enthusiasm in themselves for the major, related to a positive presentation of the subject matter (Goodding, 1948). More recently, Beyrouty and Bacon (1986) reported on their efforts to attract more students. Indeed, the emergence of new majors in fields like agricultural biotechnology, natural resources, and sustainable agriculture (see below) has been spurred by low enrollments in traditional agronomy curricula at some of U.S. institutions.
Finally, it is not just in the 21st century that professors have been concerned about grade inflation! Wolfe (1923) showed the curve for over 5000 individual grades across 44 agricultural colleges to be skewed; fully 39% of students received grades in the "B" range (81–90%). Taylor (1954) found that grades were not distributed normally for any of the five courses he studied. More recently, Weil and Kroontje (1977) and Barbarick and Sabey (1978) came back to this issue, still looking for satisfying answers!
|
CONNECTING THE MIDDLE WITH THE PRESENT |
|---|
Two compelling papers (Keim, 1937; Corey, 1943) appeared in the relatively quiet years of the 1930s and 1940s. Keim (1937) considered that teachers come equipped with "natural teaching ability," consisting primarily of personality traits ("...dynamic, positive, pleasing, and able to hold the interest of others..." and character qualities (liking youth, "absolutely unselfish," organized). According to Keim (1937), departments should even be careful which undergraduate and graduate students selected as assistants, as it is from this pool that teachers are eventually drawn! Once the natural teachers have been identified, they simply need to be provided with the right training and experience, and they will do well. Stevens (1944) did not start with the same assumption as did Keim (1937); in fact, he simply sent a survey to 1700 members of the Botanical Society of America and the ASA, asking them to respond to prepared items as to the teachers who had been most influential on their professional lives. The top two factors came out to be that such teachers: (i) showed a keen interest in their subjects, and (ii) stimulated their students' intellectual curiosity. In addition, a "sense of proportion and humor" made the list, although Stevens (1944) himself suggested that a keen interest in one's subject might not mesh well with a sense of humor! Metcalfe's (1955) title, apparently chosen to draw in readers, was "Can Teachers Be Evaluated?" He said, "Teaching today lacks prestige..." and went about to try to repair that lack of prestige by devising a comprehensive system for the evaluation of teaching. He plainly indicated that student evaluations were not enough, and encouraged fellow teachers to include input from alumni, scores on standardized exams, peer reviews of classroom instruction, and teachers' own self-reflective statements. He specifically argued against what he felt was the most common practice: making snap judgments based on "grape-vine" stories. He did not mention subjecting one's instructional work to peer review as a journal article; apparently that was a big step in logic even for one like Metcalfe (1955), who had published a number of instructional articles.
Corey (1943) asked, "What changes should the course of study bring about in students"? He called for instructors to design each of their courses based on very specific behavioral objectives, then craft experiences appropriate to such objectives, and finally evaluate the success of the course based on the degree to which students provide evidence of the behaviors intended for development. If teachers have known this deep wisdom for so long, why do some teachers consider course content to be the primary focus and evidence of student learning to be of secondary interest? Perhaps that is partly because Corey (1943) was an educational psychologist rather than an agronomist.
Ahlgren (1951) saw Corey's (1943) ideas through a slightly different lens, concluding that too many instructors were then focusing on a "welter of seemingly unrelated facts" rather than helping students to understand and apply crop production principles. Smith (1964) argued that teaching of crop production principles (e.g., storage of carbohydrate reserves in roots of some perennial forage plants) should be given priority ahead of crop production technologies (e.g., the planting rate for corn in a given climatic zone). Interestingly, Smith (1964) cites exactly two references (Corey, 1943; Ahlgren, 1951). Cardwell (1985) followed the teaching philosophy of the above teachers, and influenced many to choose agronomy as their profession.
Pendleton (1955) believed that an earlier emphasis on extra-curricular activities had gotten entirely out of hand, and was then threatening the educational enterprise itself. Pendleton (1955) wrote, "Regardless of the forces that erected it, the barrier now constitutes a self-sustaining philosophy, and students hew to it mightily. But like a rapidly rotating flywheel of ever increasing momentum, it has arrived at the speed of disintegration. Symptoms of its fragmentation can be seen in widely different sections of the United States." Pendleton (1955) lists several such symptoms, including poor attendance when invited speakers come, lack of participation in religious groups, poor support for previously strong student clubs, and "general immaturity." Over 50 yr later, some undergraduate advisors believe that more contemporary distractions (e.g., cell phones, personal music players) significantly impede student engagement in academic pursuits.
|
CONNECTING THE PRESENT WITH THE FUTURE |
|---|
Before that time, journal articles related to instructional efforts (whether resident or extension education) had to compete head-to-head with research articles in the Agronomy Journal. In 1954, papers from the "Agronomic Education" division were first marked as such in the table of contents; although that practice disappeared until 1957, from 1958 through 1971 all such papers appeared under a separated listing, almost always at the very bottom of the table of contents for any given issue. While this listing may have been intended to make it easier for educators to locate papers of direct interest to them, it may have been perceived as a way to elevate "real" research papers by marking the agronomic education papers as something else.
John Graveel (1992), who chaired the JAE Ad Hoc Study Committee established by the ASA Board of Directors in 1989, and would later serve as JNRLSE Editor (two separate terms) wrote, "Based on the survey findings and discussions with the JAE Editorial Board, the members of the Resident Education and Extension divisions of the American Society of Agronomy, the JAE Study Committee recommended the following: (i) JAE should change its format and broaden its scope and coverage, and (ii) the current title should be changed to Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Education." The editorial board of JNRLSE was charged with nothing less than remaking JAE in an entirely new image, complete with not only a much more inclusive title, but also with a much broader target audience in terms of authors, subscribers, and readers. The paragraphs below should give you a good idea of some of the strategies that JNRLSE, with appropriate credit to JAE, has taken to move this journal forward into the 21st century.
In this section, 10 important trends that emerged during the JAE/JNRLSE era will be highlighted in the order of their first appearance as peer-reviewed articles in these journals, including: (i) helping students enhance their writing skills; (ii) enhancing instruction through the use of computer-based simulation models; (iii) working internationally to help sister institutions develop their higher education systems; (iv) integrating concepts in senior-level, capstone courses; (v) thinking about the needs of diverse students; (vi) developing games to better engage students in their own learning; (vii) writing reflective memoirs to pull together career-long insights; (viii) preparing decision case studies for student groups to work through together; (ix) developing new courses and programs in the emerging areas of natural resources, biotechnology, and organic/sustainable agriculture; and (x) providing a peer-review "seal of approval" for web lessons for students and professionals in a distance learning format. Some would argue that 10 trends are about five too many, while others would argue that other important ideas have been left out (such as critical thinking, K–16 education, and distance learning).
Even though Fisher (1912b) outlined a plan for high-quality, student-composed abstracts very early in ASA's history, student writing was not a major focus of teachers until much later. Burger and Jackson (1973) reported significant improvements in student writing after the students had received "English counseling." By 1985, the writing across the curriculum concept had emerged, and a pair of papers (Parrish et al., 1985; Brumback et al., 1985) by the same team of authors caused many teachers to consider their ideas of "writing to learn" and "learning to write." Wiebold and Duncan (1991) reported on a whole-class writing assignment, and Grabau and Wilson (1995) developed a strategy to grade multiple papers from each student in their large enrollment classes. Motavalli et al. (2003) put their students' writing into an environmental context, which matched the course they were teaching. Many believe that the effectiveness of teaching about and practice with writing is more effective if it is done in a context in which the students themselves are engaged.
The earliest simulation models published in JAE appear to have been ASMAG (Singer, 1975) and SIMED (Holt et al., 1976). Many more followed in the 1980s, including several with clever names: PNUTMOD (Ingram et al., 1981), CROPROD (Waldren, 1984), SOILPIT (Lear et al., 1986), YIELDFIT (Barreto and Westerman, 1987), MOSOYVAR (Helsel et al., 1987), and FORBEEF (Stringer et al., 1987). Such publications continue to appear in JNRLSE up through the present. Although such simulations may have utility beyond the undergraduate classroom, it is clear that JAE/JNRLSE have been a primary (and therefore, valuable) outlet for the peer-review and publication of such work.
The collective international influence of ASA teachers has surely been considerable; however, publications from higher education development projects have been scarce. Reports have been published about work in Argentina (Smucker and Lucas, 1975), Turkey (Fribourg, 1976), Lebanon (Ryan, 1982), and the Nordic/Baltic states (Tigerstedt et al., 1998); such reports provide good insights as to what has worked (and what has not worked) in those contexts. Perhaps the low number of papers is due to a perception of modest value of reports about emerging higher education systems to an audience that believes that the U.S. higher education system is far ahead of others. Still, U.S.-based teachers can learn from others, especially those who have been involved in past higher-education.
Capstone courses have gained some attention in ASA journals; the first such course appears to have been one developed by Elkins (1983), who described his agronomy course as a "senior level course to put all the pieces together." More recently, Arthur and Thompson (1999) reported on 5 yr of experience with a natural resource capstone course (involving a new, local issue each year), and Albrecht et al. (2006) have described their whole-farm nutrient-management capstone course (for students in crop and soil science and in animal science). Judging by these three reports, and considering the author's own unpublished experience, capstone courses require intense effort by instructors to be effective in "pulling all the pieces together."
While Fisher (1912a) reported dealing with a diverse audience, his audience differed primarily in age rather than in ethnicity or gender. Like much of the rest of U.S. society, consideration of how individuals with other types of diversity may require different teaching and learning approaches came much later. Collins and Pesek (1983), Klepper (1986), and Kuehl et al. (1987) raised their voices publicly about including women in the instructional arena. Helsel and Hughes (1984) suggested that urban students may have different needs than traditional rural students, whereas Jordan and Williamson (1990) highlighted the needs of minorities. Progress toward gender and minority inclusivity is being made, but it appears that work may still need to be done in this area. Some believe that faculty who are involved in teaching undergraduates have been at the leading edge of that inclusivity, and that this inclusivity has allowed their students to reap the benefits of involvement in a more diverse teaching and learning environment.
Games can draw in students in a remarkable way. Apparently the first such paper in JAE/JNRLSE was about turf management (Dannenberger and Rieke, 1985). Both Raun et al. (1997) and Davis (1997) came out with games related to the nitrogen cycle in 1997. More recently, Nerbonne (2003) published a game called the "Rancher's Dilemma," which helps students learn about the difficulties inherent in utilization of open access resources. Meanwhile, Sulzman (2004) invited her introductory soil science students to come to an optional recitation session to learn more about soils by playing carefully designed games. Such creative games appear to engage students in a mildly competitive format, yet, if well-designed, may help students reach an instructor's intended learning objectives.
Nelson (1986) wrote compellingly about his 35 yr in agricultural instruction. More recently, Thien (2003) and Simmons (2004) have also written reflective memoirs about their careers in agronomic education. Simmons (2004), who led a campus-wide group of faculty from diverse disciplines who were also writing their memoirs, believes that such memoirs are a combination of narrative and reflection, and are of immense value both to the writer and to the reader. In fact, Simmons liked writing his memoir so much that he has recently done another one (Simmons, 2006). How good it seems to have thoughtful, still-employed faculty record their own learnings across the decades. The second-best alternative appears to be commissioning someone who knew/knows them well to review all the available materials and write a "life review" on their behalf.
Decision cases have been a very important contribution to teaching and learning in agricultural sciences ever since Steve Simmons and Kent Crookston of the University of Minnesota brought in Melvin Stanford, a retired business professor from then-Mankato State University with extensive experience in the development and use of case studies, to help them develop decision cases in agriculture. Those three individuals collaborated on a now-classic case ("The Worth of a Sparrow"; Crookston et al., 1993), and this idea has resulted in 40 decision cases in JNRLSE. Such cases put students in a key decision-maker's role, and students are not given information on how the case was ultimately resolved. An accompanying "teaching note" provides discussion questions as well as suggestions for facilitation of the case development. Most recently, Autrey et al. (2006) have published a higher education decision case, while Pierzynski and Vaillant (2006) have published a decision case on remediation. Although the development of a high-quality decision case requires intense instructor effort, such cases have proven to be remarkably resilient, holding their classroom value for long periods of time. Critical to the continued production of such cases has been the emergence of JNRLSE as a prime publication outlet, with high quality standards set in Simmons' (1992) decision case guidelines and maintained by many authors and editorial board members since that time.
The University of Kentucky (UK) has not had an undergraduate program in "agronomy" since 1994. However, like many other institutions, UK has undergraduate programs in agricultural biotechnology and natural resource conservation and management (both established in 1994), and is just now implementing a new curriculum in sustainable agriculture. Many papers on such new courses and curricula have come out in the past decade. Public or student responses to agricultural biotechnology have gained considerable attention (Sohan et al., 2002; Fritz et al., 2004). Thompson et al. (2003), Jungst et al. (2003), and Miller (2003) have all recently reported on work with natural resource programs. Of course, faculty at Purdue have had an environmental science program since 1972 (Graveel et al., 1997). Many more universities have subsequently developed programs in the natural resource area. An interest in organic and/or sustainable agriculture has been around for quite some time, but undergraduate courses and programs in this area have been relatively rare. During the past 5 yr, JNRLSE has seen five papers in this area: Bhavsar (2002), Karsten and O'Connor (2002), Wiedenhoeft et al. (2003), Falk et al. (2005), and Jordan et al. (2005). With appropriate administrative support, faculty are willing, even eager to create new courses and curricula that fulfill the needs of undergraduate and graduate students in emerging fields.
Finally, Patty Hain and Don Lee of the University of Nebraska coordinated a broadly based effort to bring field professionals up-to-speed with on-line training modules on emerging agricultural topics (Hain and Lee, 2003). They sought out the editorial board of JNRLSE, and asked for help to create an appropriate review system for such web lessons. That proved to be a challenge, but JNRLSE was ultimately successful in coming up with an appropriately rigorous system of peer review for this new material. The first such web lesson (Hain and Lee, 2003) has been followed by 33 additional peer-reviewed web lessons through 2006. Many more such materials are expected to be submitted for publication in the coming years, and the value of such lessons to their intended audience has been well documented.
|
CONCLUSIONS |
|---|
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 |
|---|
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
or Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Education (JNRLSE)
from 1972 through 2007.