Dec 2, 1981 - in social science, 6 in business/economics, and 41 in agriculture. Electives .... duction/technology emphasis in agronomy, the one with the most ...
Curriculum trends in crop production and management1 C. J. Nelson2 ABSTRACT The Agronomy curriculum at any institution needs to be dynamic with changes made to meet needs of the students, the profession, and society. Recent changes and anticipated changes in the curriculum for B.S. students in crop management and production have not been assessed for several years. Therefore, a survey was prepared and sent in 1981 to faculty at land-grant and 1890 institutions to document trends in curriculum change. About 68% of the crops-oriented majors presently enter a production-oriented position following the B.S. degree. These students take about 128 semester credit hours, including 10 hours in communications, 37 in mathematics, physical science, and biological science; 13 in social science, 6 in business/economics, and 41 in agriculture. Electives total approximately 18 hours. Credit hours in communications, mathematics, and business/economics are anticipated to increase in the next 10 years, probably to replace some of the elective courses. Most students take the first crops course as freshmen, except in the Northeast Region where they are sophomores because of a noted high frequency of transfer students. The beginning course in crop science, as well as courses in weed control, forage crops, grain crops, and the beginning course in soils were most frequently listed as the five highest-priority agricultural courses for the crop management curriculum. Major ' Contribution from Missouri Agric. Exp. Stn. Journal Series No. 9256. A version of this paper was presented on 2 Dec. 1981 at a symposium on "Fulfilling the educational needs of undergraduate students in crop production and management" at the annual meetings of ASA, CSSA, and SSSA in Atlanta, Ga. 1 Professor of agronomy, Dep. of Agronomy, Univ. of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211.
concerns for curriculum development included the need to increase the opportunities for experience, perhaps partially as a result of a noted increase in urban students. Adding laboratories to courses was also cited as being beneficial. Continued increases in curriculum emphasis for business, marketing, and computer technology courses are needed to lend support to the production emphasis, and to give more specialization to the student. The challenge from the increasing numbers of transfer students was associated with a renewed need for summer courses so that agricultural course requirements could be met in the shorter time. Summer courses may also be ideal for experiential development. Most institutions reviewed their curriculum at least every 5 years. The curriculum will need to become more structured, and the technical level of agronomy courses will need to continue to be increased. There is little opportunity to add new courses, thus presently-offered courses will need to be taught more effectively and information learned more efficiently. Additional index words: Enrollment, Credit requirements, Technical training, General education, Placement, Transfer students, Urban students, Science requirements, Communications requirements, Business requirements, Priority courses.
C
URRICULUM is continually changing, supposedly responding to needs of society and needs of the student. Changes in curriculum are not addressed at all institutions in a similar manner for many reasons. Curriculum is designed primarily by the faculty of an institution or department, and there may be time lags or misconceptions regarding perceived needs. There is also
NELSON: CURRICULUMTRENDS IN CROP COURSES divergence amongfaculty memberswithin a unit regarding general philosophy of the purpose of curricula in agriculture. Someargue the primary purpose of the curriculum is to develop technical skills to enhanceemployment opportunities. Others suggest the primary purpose is to increase the knowledgebase in the sciences and arts in order to nurture an interest in lifelong learning, to give a broader base for leadership development, and to develop an understanding of our society and the role of agriculture in it (Brown,1965). Hughes(1958) reviewed the histories of curricula and teaching of agronomy, and the role of the American Society of Agronomy(ASA) in those activities. The Morrill Act first prescribed that land-grant institutions "provide the liberal and practical education of the industrial classes in the several pursuits and professions in life." Since that time there has been controversy over how it should be accomplished. Early emphasis concentrated on arts and sciences because there was a small agricultural date base to teach (Keim, 1959). Later agricultural technologies developed, more and more agriculture courses were offered, with faculty and courses being divided into subject matter departments. Teaching was concentrated on facts generated from an agricultural base, with students being exposedto at least one course in the several agricultural disciplines. Soon after World War II the rapid proliferation of data made assimilation of facts difficult, and emphasis shifted to teaching principles and problem solving (Hughes, 1958). More attention was devoted to understanding why rather than to the learning of how and what. Further, it was generally argued that students should be exposed to fewer disciplines, with more detailed identification and solving of problems for the development of skills and self-confidence within a discipline (Thorne, 1958). In addition, students wouldbe exposed to the manners in which problems were solved in specific crops so that those principles could be applied to other crops and cropping practices. Apparently few schools shifted the course names, but rather brought the new philosophy into courses already being taught. The influence of Sputnik was quickly felt and the shift back to basic sciences in agricultural curricula began (Burger, 1960). Combining beginning courses among sister departments left room in the curriculum for the addition of more mathematics, science, and humanities. The specialization within departments was retained, but subdivisions emerged for emphasis on business, production or technical subjects, and science aspects of the curriculum (Acker, 1971). This change allowed the student to focus on various orientations of the agricultural curriculum while still being identified with a specific department. The advent of the agribusiness curriculum was of great importance (Anon., 1962). Even with the unquestioned shift in curriculum emphasis between World War II and the 1960s, Meyer (1967) felt the impact of the agribusiness concept was not fully recognized. This lack of realization was coupled with a complacency in universities and facul-
93
ties, perhaps because the function of education in agriculture was still unclear (Brown, 1965). No consensus could be reached regarding curriculum or whether emphasis should be on technical or basic education. Issues relating to transfer students, integration of agriculture and business curricula, and the urban students were just emerging. Urban students were advancing to join teaching faculties, and with a different backgroundand heritage, they beganto challenge the traditional agricultural curricula. Secondary schools were consolidating, adding counselors, and upgrading curricula leading Kroontje (1960) to conclude that upgrading of curricula in agriculture should be more feasible than ever. About this time, the National Academyof Sciences established the Commission on Undergraduate Education in the Biological Sciences (Anon., 1967b) and the Commissionon Education in Sciences (Anon., 1971) direct efforts toward curriculum evaluation in agriculture and natural resources. These reports suggested minimumcurricula in the biological sciences, physical sciences, and mathematics which exceeded the norm at that time for Land Grant universities. These criteria were probably not viewed by agronomy faculties as minimal requirements for all students, but rather remained identified with the science-emphasis curriculum that usually leads to graduate school. Thus, we have witnessed the melding of technical courses with additional business courses to form the business emphasis of agronomy, and additional science courses to form the science emphasis of agronomy to develop focused curricula. This change has left the production/technology emphasis in agronomy, the one with the most participants, to treadmill a compromising path between general and technical education. These students usually terminate their formal education with the B.S. degree, although there is genuine concern that 4 years is insufficient (York, 1958). Paradoxically, it this group of students that have received the least attention in curriculum development. In this paper, I have characterized curricula presently used by Land Grant institutions and 1890 colleges for a B.S. degree that is oriented toward crop production and management. Past trends and anticipated future trends in curricula emphasis are also evaluated. Faculty members, those most directly involved in curriculum change, were respondents to a survey. MATERIALS AND METHODS 3 in A survey wasprepared jointly with Moserand Flowerday order to evaluate present curricula in crop production and management,as well as to evaluate past and anticipated trends. Emphasisin the survey was placed on characterizing curricula for students interested in crop production and management whowill enter the job marketwith a B.S. degree. Seventy-twoLandGrant and 1890universities were sent surveys. Twocopies of the survey were sent to the departmentheads 3 Moser, L. E., and A. D. Flowerday. 1983. Providing experiential education for crop science students. J. Agron. Educ. 12:73-76.
94
JOURNAL OF AGRONOMICEDUCATION, VOL. 12,
Table1. Responses by regionfor semesterhoursrequiredfor a B.S. degreein agriculture. Shown are the number of undergraduates with agronomy-crops major,and percentagethat begin farming,agribusiness or publicservice; entergraduate or otherprofessionalschool;or enter non-agricultural positions NE
NC
S
W
Avg.
Semesterhours, no. 127 126 130 127 128 Students,no. 58 134 74 45 83 Production agriculture,~/a 56 76 68 67 68 Graduate school,~/a 21 17 22 21 20 Non-agriculture, o~o 21 7 10 12 12 ~"AmericanSociety of Agronomy regions: NE= Northeast, NC= North Central, S = Southern,W= Western. of agronomyor crop science where such departments existed. In others the surveys were sent to heads of the appropriate department or division where curricula associated with crop production and management would be offered. Heads were asked to refer the two copies to faculty in their administrative unit that could best respond. The two faculty were invited to visit together to fill out the questionnaire or they could fill it out individually. Our goal was to get one questionnaire returned per institution. Fifty-two usable responses were received for the curriculum portion of the survey. In several cases more than one faculty memberwas involved in the single response from a given institution. Six institutions returned two separate responses so objective data were averaged giving 46 of 72 (64%) responses on an institution basis. Whenresponses were divided according to ASAregions there were 8 responses from the Northeast (NE), 9 from the North Central (NC), 16 from the Southern (S), and 12 from the Western (W) Region. The University Puerto Rico-Mayaquez campus also responded. The four 1890 colleges that responded were all in the Southern Region and were included in that sample. Respondents were asked to evaluate trends in broad subdivisions of the curriculum by responding more, less, or the same for the previous 10 years, and their anticipation for the next 10 years. These were coded as ÷ 1 = more, - 1 = less, 0 = same, with the mean providing quantitative estimates of trends. Respondents were also asked to mark their response regarding the relative role of the group of courses in the curriculum on a continuum line between 1 = general education and 5 = technical training. Responses on the continuum were estimated to the nearest 0.5 unit, and then averages calculated. Other objective data were calculated directly. Those institutional data reported in quarter units or other systems were converted to semester units for presentation. Subjective responses were evaluated by listing responses related to broad issues, both negative and positive; e.g., transfer students, urban students, and science requirements. Specific responses were then grouped subjectively into general issue categories for compiling. No attempt was made to characterize these responses according to region or enrollment. RESULTS
AND DISCUSSION
Regions tended to be similar in the credit-hour requirement for a B.S. degree emphasizing crop production and management (Table 1). Overall, 7 institutions required only 120 semester hours, while 1 each had a requirement of 142, 140, and 136 hours. Twenty-two institutions required between 126 and 130 credit hours. The NC institutions had more undergraduates majoring in crops-agronomy than did institutions of other re-
1983
Table2. Semesterhoursrequiredfor a B.S. degreein agriculture. Shownare numberof undergraduateswith agronomy-crops major,andpercentagethat beginfarming,agribusinessor publicservice; entergraduateor otherprofessional schools;or enternon-agricultural positions. Responses wereclassified accordingto number of undergraduate majorsin agronomy-crops
Institutions,no. Semesterhours Students,no. Production agriculture,e/0 Graduateschool,% Non-agriculture, ~/0
100
15 127 24 66 22 12
18 129 67 68 20 12
13 128 163 71 19 10
gions (Table 1). Further, a higher proportion of those students entered production agriculture in farming, agribusiness, or public service. A lower proportion of students graduating from NE institutions would make that same decision. The mean estimate of 20°70 of students entering graduate or professional school tended to be rather consistent over regions. Students earning B.S. degrees from NE institutions were more likely, and those from the NC were more unlikely, to enter a nonagricultural profession than were those from other regions. Credit hours required for the B.S. degree were not associated with number of undergraduate majors in crops-agronomy at the institution (Table 2). Distribution of B.S. students into anticipated employment activities was remarkably similar in small enrollment institutions and large enrollment institutions. This finding suggests that institutions with smaller enrollment have given adequate priority to the various segments of job placement, even though the curriculum would probably be less flexible because fewer courses were offered. The curriculum was subdivided into subject areas so components could be analyzed. Owing to errors or
omissions in someresponses the total curriculum considered was only 125 credits (Table 3). It was assumed that the relative distribution was indicative of the total curriculum. Few major differences occurred among regions or enrollment size (Table 4) so national averages are emphasized. A possible exception was communications courses (composition, speech, journalism, etc.) taken by the average crops major, where there was an average of 7.5 credit hours in the NE and 8.4 in the W, but 10.3 credit hours in the NC and 11.4 in the S. Reasons for the different emphasis among regions concerning communications were not explored. Although there has been a slight trend to increase emphasis on communications over the last 10 years (0.1) is clear that this area will receive more emphasis (0.5) the next 10 years (Table 3). The NE region rated the latter as 0.8 while other regions were about 0.4, perhaps reflecting that the low credit hour requirement (7.5) the NE (Table 4) is not perceived to be adequate. On the "purpose scale" the respondents felt that communications were more critical for a general education than for vocational training (as scored on a continuum where 1.0
NELSON: CURRICULUMTRENDS IN CROP COURSES Table 3. Distribution of credit hours for a typical B.S. graduate in crop production and management. Trends in emphasis over the last 10 years ( - 10) and predicted for the next 10 years ( + 10) are indicated by increased emphasis (1.0), same (0.0), or decreased emphasis ( - 1.0). Purpose scale indicates, by response along a continuum, that the curriculum segment is largely for general education (1.0) or vocational training (5.0) Trends Area Communications Mathematical sciences Physical sciences Biological sciences Social sciences, Arts Business, Economics Agriculture Crops related Other Other areas (electives)
Credits
- l0
+ l0
Purpose scale
10 7 14 16 13 6
0. l 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0
0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.5
1.9 2.8 3.0 3.3 1.7 3.2
28 13 18
0.1 0.0 - 0.1
0.2 0. I - 0.3
4.0 3.7 2.5
indicated that the courses were predominately for general education, and 5.0 indicated the courses were predominatelyfor technical training or a job related skill). York (1961) suggested that communications skills were an important job-related skill. He cited two studies where recent graduates suggested additional communications emphasis was needed to improve both written and spoken English, largely to improve techniques of delivery. The probability of increasing the mathematics requirement during the next 10 years is strong (Table 3). This conclusion relates partly to the need to add a course in computerscience as a later section will verify. No breakdownon the exact courses was requested in the survey, but in 1965 a special working group in plant and soil science indicated courses in probability and introductory calculus were minimal (Anon., 1967a). The increased mathematics requirements were predicated partially on the belief that these wererealistic goals since secondary schools would be offering advanced courses. Whenrepresentatives of other agricultural disciplines met together, their final recommendationwas for inclusion of a semester of college algebra and a semester of trigonometry (Anon., 1967b). However, the entire group agreed on the desirability for exposing students to probability, biometrics, and computerscience. Mathematics in the crop managementcurriculum was intermediate on the technical training to general education continuum (Table 3). Sometechnically oriented crops courses require understanding in mathematics as an integral part of a general education that was recognized by the respondents. In fact the series of courses that were most strongly supported for general education, and least supported for technical training, were social sciences and humanities (including such classes as foreign languages, psychology, philosophy, music, sociology, and geography). Trends also suggested that this component of the curriculum had changed least in the last 10 years, and would unlikely change in the next 10 years. Curriculumcredits in the physical sciences (including chemistry, biochemistry, physics, and geology) averaged 14 hours, and in the biological sciences (in-
95
Table 4. Distribution of credit hours for institutions by region and with enrollments in crop management and production Region~"
Enrollment
NE NC
S
W 100
8 7 15 17 14 4
l0 7 14 14 14 6
Il 8 15 17 12 6
8 7 12 17 14 6
9 8 13 18 15 6
10 7 14 16 11 6
Il 7 15 14 15 6
27 8 16
27 14 22
27 16 16
28 11 18
27 12 13
29 12 22
26 14 17
credits Communications Mathematical sciences Physical sciences Biological sciences Social sciences, Arts Business, Economics Agriculture Crops related Other Other(electives) See footnote, Table 1.
eluding botany, zoology, and genetics) averaged 16 hours (Table 3). Collectively they account for about credit hours, whichis slightly less than 25o70of the total curriculum requirements. The perceived purpose of these credits in the curriculum is more technically oriented than expected, as indicated by a rating of 3.0, which is midwaybetween the two extremes on the scale. This is an attitude that is seemingly healthy in our science-based discipline, but it mayalso indicate that the science requirements are generally of an applied nature and could be increased to strengthen the students’ general education (Young, 1967). The business/economics requirement of the curriculum will surely be increased during the next 10 years (Table 3), a sharp transition from the constancy over the last 10 years. Coincidentally, starting approximately 25 years ago there has been an increased emphasis on business courses in agricultural curricula. Apparently there still is either a strong need for more business courses in the production-emphasis curriculum, or the businessemphasis curriculum is not strong enough in science and agronomic technology to have students qualify as bona fide agronomists. Edwards’ reports that more B.S. degree recipients in agronomyenter business than any other type of employment. This trend is apparently being recognized by faculty. Manyindustries are encouraging more business and economics in the curriculum, emphasizing courses in marketing, sales, and business administration (Anon., 1976). Agriculture courses account for about 40 credit hours of the curriculum, and are anticipated to have a slight increase in emphasis during the next 10 years (Table 3). They are clearly the segment of the curriculum concerned mostly with technical training. In addition, broad educational value is placed on agricultural courses because the rating on the scale was not as skewed toward 5.0 as the ratings for communication and social science were skewedtoward 1.0. The 33o70(41 of 125 credits) of the curriculum that is devoted to agricultural courses in and associated with the major is slightly less than the 40°70 recommended by Brunner (1963) and by Brown (1965) for achieving a good ’Edwards, G. E. 1980. Education of soil scientists: Am. Soc. Agron. Abstr., p. 3.
A perspective.
96
JOURNALOF AGRONOMIC EDUCATION,VOL. 12, 1983
ance between specialization and generalization in technical agriculture. The breakdown of "agronomy/crops related" vs "other agriculture" may be misleading because no definition was given in the questionnaire for the term "crops related" (Table 3). Undoubtedly, several respondents included broad categories such as pest managementand agricultural engineering in this classification. There was little variation amongregions in the crops-related course requirements (Table 4). In contrast, requirements in the "other agriculture" category ranged from 8 to 16 hours. Institutions in the NEtended to require students to complete fewer credits in agriculture. There was no clear indication of greater emphasis being given to other categories in the curriculum in that region (Table 4). The subdivisions in curriculum structure were not related to student enrollment (Table 4). Again, this finding suggests that even though some institutions have fewer students, and perhaps fewer course offerings, they have retained a similar distribution of discipline emphasis in the curriculum. There were no differences in past or anticipated trends when the data were subdivided into regions or enrollment. Further, the purpose scales of the groups of courses were consistent among regions or enrollment sizes (data not shown). In the middle 1960s several studies and surveys were made on the distribution of credit time in curricula (Brunner, 1963; Brown, 1965). The conclusion was that about 50°7o of the credits should be directed toward general education, including about 12 credits in communications, 9 in mathematics and statistics, 12 in the physical sciences, 14 in the biological sciences, and 18 in humanities and social studies. This "minimal" credit requirement was assumedto be useful for all universities and for each of the science, professional and business emphases. It appears that after 20 years our curriculum is approaching those goals, but is still low in communications and mathematics. In the earlier studies social sciences did not exclude economics, and agriculturally related courses did not include economics. That may account for the apparent strong emphasis given earlier to social science and humanities. Wheneconomics, which is usually agricultural economics, was added to the agriculture portion of the curriculum, the total was 38070, which is close to the recommended 4007o. Eighteen hours of the curriculum were considered "other" which included military ROTC,physical education, and electives (Table 3). The trend analysis showedthat credit hours in this category were being deemphasizedduring the last 10 years, and are going to be deemphasized even more over the next 10. This would be a consistent trend with earlier studies (Brown, 1965) that suggest electives should constitute about 1007o of the curriculum. The purpose scale showed students select their electives to meet purposes of both general and technical education (Yocum, 1960). The proportion of transfer students and prerequisite requirements influence the time a typical student enters the crops curriculum (Table 5). Responses suggested
Table 5. Class and semester that students normally take their first crops course. Data are classified by region~
Class:l: Semester{}
NE
NC
S
W
2.0 1.2
1.1 1.2
1.1 1.5
1.1 1.4
See Table 1. Class was 1.0 = freshman, 2.0 = sophomore. Semester was 1.0 = first, 2.0 = second. Table 6. Courses most frequently indicated when respondents were asked to list the five highest priority crops-related courses for a B.S. curriculum in crop production and management Responses I. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.
Crop or Plant science Weedcontrol Forage crops Grain crops Soils, Soil science Crop physiology Plant breeding Soil fertility, soil management Management systems Crop ecology, Fiber and oil crops, Plant pathology Plant genetics Botany, Entomology, Plant physiology, World crops Crop and weed identification Bioclimatology, Crop quality, Range management, Resource management, Rice production, Root crops, and Seed technology
35 26 25 23 16 12 lI 10 10 8 5 3 2 1
that students in the NEusually did not take their first course until they were at least a first-semester sophomore. In contrast, students in the NCoften took their first course in the first semester of their freshmanyear. Students in the S and Winvariably took their first class as freshmen, but in nearly half the institutions they took it in the second semester. Subjective responses from manyNE institutions indicated that the challenges of transfer students could be a factor causing delayed enrollment in the first crops course. The high number of transfer students in the NE, who enter the curriculum later, may also influence the total number of agricultural courses taken (Table 4). Again no difference was noted when the data were arrayed according to enrollment (data not shown), suggesting the difference was due more to region than to enrollment. Respondents were asked to indicate how frequently they normally evaluate their curriculum. Several written responses indicated that it was a continual or an ongoing process, 12 indicting annually, 9 indicating every 2 years, 7 indicating every 3 to 4 years, 9 indicating every 5 years, and 5 indicating every 6 to 8 years. One respondent indicated that curriculum review at that institution occurred only about every 10 years. Someinstitutions indicated their formal review coincided with catalog updates. Written comments suggested that some institutions require a formal curriculum review every 3 to 5 years. Other respondents suggested that curriculum review occurs most often when a new staff memberis hired. Here distinctions need to be made relative to the impact of instructor changes vs. course requirement changes. Unquestionably, new philosophies or orientations to teaching may occur from techniques and priorities new faculty use in both the advising and teaching mode. Collectively these
NELSON: CURRICULUMTRENDS IN CROP COURSES Table7. Generalizedresponsesmadeto open-ended request for opinions onoverallnational trendin curricula forcropproduction andmanagement, andfor associated factorsrelativeto curriculum. Writtencomments weregrouped into general categories forpresentation Opinion
Responses
National trends Increase opportunities for experience Increase business, marketing, and computer technology Increase production emphasis Increase specialization of student Increase pest management Integrate crop management, management systems, problem solving
24 14 11 6 5
Associated factors Increase in urban/female students Challenges of transfer students Should address need for summercourses Need for laboratories with courses Benefit of experience for job placement
24 18 12 11 8
activities can have a large impact on perceptions of students relative to the discipline in general, required courses, and curriculum emphasis. Within the crops-related course area each respondent was asked to list the five highest priority courses in their respective curriculum for B.S. degree candidates (Table 6). Since class names were not consistent they were grouped according to similarity in title, e.g., Crop Science, Plant Science, and Introduction to Agronomy were combinedwhenit was clear they were the introductory course. Somerespondents listed fewer than five courses, and some did not fill in that portion with course titles. Most institutions emphasizedthe introductory crop or plant science course, whereas others were emphasizing a course in botany as the beginning course. A few institutions listed both a plant science and a crop science course, in which case only one was counted. Seven respondents wholisted courses did not list the beginning course, indicating that, while it was probably a requirement or prerequisite, it was not one of the highest priorities. A course oriented toward weedscience or weedcontrol was the next most frequent, perhaps reflecting the emphasis on pest managementin the curriculum (Table 7). Alternatively, regardless of geographic region or major crops in the area, some knowledge of weed control is necessary. Courses focusing on commodities such as forages and grain crops still form a mainstay in curricula despite the trend over the last few years to emphasize courses such as crop physiology and crop ecology. After the beginning or introductory soils course, soil fertility or soil management was the most frequently indicated soilsoriented course. This response suggests that soilsoriented courses play the major supportive role of the crops curriculum. Courses oriented toward integrating crop and soil managementor management systems also rated high. Plant breeding rated higher than plant genetics, and plant pathology rated higher than entomology. Crop and weed identification may be handled in laboratories associated with other courses, and thus be underemphasized as a separate course. Several courses of a regional nature received one listing.
97
Responses to an open-ended question regarding opinions on national trends in curriculum for crop production and managementwere difficult to quantify. Statements were listed from each respondent and then subjectively grouped according to frequency (Table 7). The leading area of concern was to improve opportunities for gaining experience, with more than 7507oof the respondents suggesting internships or some form of onthe-job training. This suggestion was associated with factors such as the large increase in numbers of urban students, the role of experience in developing skills and confidence, and the benefit for gaining employment (Table 7). However, none suggested that the experience be a required part of the curriculum. This finding is consistent with the parallel survey of Moser and Flower3 day. In support of data in Table 3, respondents recognized a need for increases in business, marketing, and business managementcourses (Table 7). It appears that the projected increase in mathematics (Table 3) will met by a computer science course. It was not clear whether the computer component in the curriculum would be oriented more toward business decision making or toward increasing the specialization of the student concerning problem solving in pest and crop management. More production emphasis in the curriculum and a more specialized curriculum ranked number 3 and number 4 in national trends. These appear similar, yet are distinct in their focus. The production emphasis was oriented toward decision making related to crop management problems. A genuine concern was raised by several respondents that students must be able to integrate knowledge to generate alternative solutions to problems, and then be able to use information to determine the pros and cons of each alternative. This concern is partially borne out by the emphasis already given to courses in crop and soil managementor management systems in the curriculum (Table 6). Perhaps rankings and 6 regarding pest and crop managementshould have been included with the production emphases. However, I elected to present themseparately to illustrate the diversity of emphasis given this overall area by the respondents. Commentsregarding the specialized curriculum were focused on the perceived problems of training general agronomists who lack comprehension or depth in a more narrow area of this broad discipline. Respondents suggested that specialization wouldnot allow the student to learn more technical aspects of a broad area, but would improve problem solving in the more narrow area. This may be construed to mean that there will he less flexibility in the B.S. program, with students entering a more defined curriculum than at present. Alternatively, it may imply that problems or commodities of regional importance will receive emphasis in development of principles and expertise, with reliance on translation of methods and principles to solve problems in other crops. There is still a need for major emphasis on pest management (Table 7), especially weed control.
98
JOURNALOF AGRONOMIC EDUCATION,VOL. 12, 1983
course in weed science was ranked as a high priority in the curriculum (Table 6), but there was also a need expressed for more integrated approaches beyond identification of weeds and application of chemicals. The challenges of transfer students were mentioned frequently (Table 7), most often with regard to developing a quality agronomy program in only 2 years. Some also commentedabout difficulty in scheduling internships or cooperative programs during the regular school term because many courses are offered only one term annually, thus requiring students to be in residence both terms. As a result there is a need to consider summer course offerings to alleviate scheduling problems, and to provide laboratory and field experience for urban students. Brunner (1963) reviewed curriculum trends in colleges of agriculture to consider many factors including the image of the agricultural graduate. Someof his concerns were to document that transitions were occurring in the curricula, and that agriculture was emerging with an image of science. Commonbasic minimumrequirements were being set for all students in agriculture and introductory courses were being consolidated. Recently Bertramson(1980) questioned whyit is still difficult reach a consensus amonginstitutions and our colleagues regarding curricula. He suggested a minimumcore requirement for agronomy, albeit modest, as a beginning. His suggestions were similar to the findings for the average curriculum in mysurvey (Table 3) except that suggested 10 credit hours of biology. There was a range amonginstitutions responding to my survey regarding credit hours in each category suggesting validity to Bertramson’s point of view. Several institutions are below this recommendationin at least one category. There have been few outside pressures other than persuasion to make a part of the curriculum uniform. The current effort by American Registry for Certification in Agronomy, Crops, and Soils (ARCPACS)may be a significant factor. The irony, however, is that curricula are formed, modified, and implemented by the faculty of universities who are protecting academic freedom, as well as being responsible for deciphering a myriad of inputs and biases to formulate the curriculum. Since the academic atmospheres and faculties vary widely from institution to institution, it is not surprising that a wide variation exists in curricula. Evenso, I must agree with Bertramson (1980) that we should be able gain consensus on the non-agricultural portions of the curriculum including communications, science, humanities, and social sciences. The agricultural portion should be fine-tuned, so that local or regional issues can be emphasized, and unique abilities of the faculty can be exploited. Myexperiences with students, as well as evaluating results of the survey, suggest that a crop production and managementcurricula should be sciencebased, with a clear degree of specialization. Urban students face additional problems of gaining confidence to cope in a rural-oriented agriculture environment. For all students, competency in production
technology and classroom experiences in managerial decision-making are critical. As students become more specialized it maybecomeas important to the individual reared in a corn-soybean area to have a work experience in a cotton or ranch area as is presently perceived for our urban students (Moser and Flowerday3). Further, courses, rather than curriculum, will need to focus on development of technical skills, evaluation of situations, and provide adequate experience to allow students to makedecisions confidently. At present the basic vs. applied aspects of the average curriculum are probably suitable (Duvick, 1982). While the survey generated many comments regarding changes in emphasis (Table 7), only two responses suggested more science courses, and they were from institutions with a lower-than-average science requirement. A weighted mean of 3.0 was calculated based on the number of credits and the purpose scale of the entire curriculum (Table 3). This mean suggests that, overall, the curriculum is midway between being primarily for general education (1.0) and primarily for vocational training (5.0), a situation that maybe a reasonable compromise. Brown (1965) reviewed undergraduate education agriculture and concluded that general education courses are critically important to all students, but are more important to those individuals who assume administrative or policy-making positions than to those who remain in technical positions in agriculture. It is also clear that not all college graduates can or want to be in leadership positions, thus their priority must be on continued learning of the basic technical skills of the discipline. Not surprisingly, agricultural graduates just finishing their studies indicated that courses in technical skills and business were the most important (Brown, 1965). Courses in communications and mathematics also rated high, whereas American history and physics were considered much less valuable. Undoubtedly, those opinions were based on the need for technical competence to enter the job market. Only later, when they advanced into managerial positions, did the remainder of the curriculum take on importance. In support of this realization, college administrators placed much greater emphasis on general education courses than on technical courses as a primary focus of the curriculum (Brown, 1965). Several respondents recognized the dilemma of having a more specialized curriculum without increasing course credit requirements. Some suggested that production agronomy may need to become a 5-year program. Milford and McBee (1980) described a professional Master of Agriculture degree program that is oriented toward providing students additional educational experiences to fill managerial roles. The program adds 36 credit hours and an internship beyond the B.S. degree. Courses most often taken were those associated with culture and managementof crops, plant protection, soil properties, finance, and economics. Conspicuous by their absence were additional courses in science and mathematics. The program has been
NELSON: CURRICULUM TRENDS IN CROP COURSES
focused primarily on advanced technical training and provides a clear view of the relative importance between science and technology in educational objectives. There is little question that the emphasis and teaching of science and biology have changed over the last 20 years. This change has caused institutions to initiate courses in crop physiology and crop ecology. They usually attempt to help bridge the ever-widening spread between the teaching of molecular biology and of crop culture. The chasm will continue to widen, but with no more room in our curriculum for more courses (Table 3), it will be necessary to change the level and scope of instruction of our present courses. This trend, in essence, will not cause change in curricula, but rather changes in courses. More and more, our crops courses will require careful sequencing, correct prerequisites, and intense efforts to cover technical aspects and practice for decision making. Quality in undergraduate education in the future will be more dependent on the efficiency and depth of individual courses. The curriculum will be structured so that there will be no margin to compensate for lack of learning in related courses (Etzioni, 1978). Responses were solicited on curriculum trends over a 10-year period, which may be a short time to expect major changes. A 20- or 30-year period may have been more realistic. Yet we have tomorrow's graduates in our classes today, and we owe them the best possible educational opportunity. In these days of accountability and rights of access to education we must continue to ask ourselves if we are doing our best to provide that opportunity.
99
