Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 199
CHAPTER
23
Changing the Image of Agriculture
Through Curriculum Innovation
Jo Handelsman
Jerry A. Cherry, Rapporteur
The last decade was an exciting time to be part of the agricul-
tural community, which developed technological innovations of un-
paralleled drama. In the 1980s we witnessed events as unprec-
edented as the construction of the first tranegenic animal, the use
of remote-sensing systems for soil mapping, and the field testing of
the first genetically engineered plant. This was also the decade of
a new awareness and protectiveness toward our environment. From
this awareness grew a new land ethic that began to align environ-
mentalism with agricultural production. We replaced the vision of
the soil as a growth medium for high-yielding corn with a regard for
soil as a cherished resource and an integral part of our delicate
landscape. It was a decade of renewal and discovery.
Despite these rich, attractive images and ideas that are the real-
ity of agriculture in the late twentieth century, agriculture as a field
of study is dogged by conservative, dusty, and dull images. It is
regarded as a field of old-fashioned science and traditional technol-
ogy practiced with wanton disregard for the environment. Sadly,
students in our universities are more likely to associate agriculture
with pictures of dark-suited, austere, nineteenth-century professors
and one-horse plows than with casually dressed, twentieth-century
molecular biologists and computer terminals. Even rarer in stu-
dents' minds is an image of sophisticated teams of farmers, envi-
ronmentalists, and agricultural scientists developing farming strate-
gies that are friendly to the environment. The misconceptions about
modern agricultural science must be due in part to the image
that we in agriculture project. We are, and should be, proud of our
rich history and our tremendous successes, but we must not pro
199
OCR for page 200
AGRICULTURE AND THE UNDERGRADUATE
mote our past to the exclusion of the fulfilling future that is unfold-
ing.
I am often struck by the contrast between displays in the lobbies
of buildings on the University of Wisconsin campus. The agricul-
tural production departments often display rusty farm equipment
and sepia-toned photographs of a bygone era. in contrast, the ba-
sic science departments dazzle visitors with shiny high-tech equip-
ment or advertisements about study programs and recent research
discoveries. Similarly, milestones in production departments are
often marked with historical reviews paying homage to the past,
while our neighbors in the basic sciences hold scientific symposia
that honor their histories by teaching students how the past contrib-
uted to their current greatness. it is no wonder that our enrollments
are dropping even as those in our sister departments in the life
sciences are holding steady.
The content and pedagogy in many of our courses suggest that
agricultures projected image is indicative of a deeper problem.
1 believe that the need for change is surpassed only by the opportu-
nity for change. We can, and must, treasure and teach about our
past, but we must not stop there. We must show our students how
our past has contributed to the present and the future, which is rich
with potential for change and improvement. By so doing, we will
project our strengths, improve our image, and attract students to
our courses. Of greater importance, our courses will be current,
substantive, and interesting. Students who find their way to these
courses will be rewarded with a rich, intellectually fulfilling experi-
ence. I propose four challenges that, if they are met, will help to
dispel the image of agricultural studies as insular and outdated.
Meeting these challenges will potentially attract to courses in agri-
culture students from diverse social backgrounds and academic
disciplines. We have the opportunity to attract students with the
high-energy atmosphere that exists in agriculture today and to send
those students to their chosen professions with a knowledge of
agriculture's rich history and its challenging future. If we educate a
larger audience in agricultural courses during the 4 years of univer-
sity education, then we will generate a society that is more edu-
cated in the science and issues of agriculture.
I suggest that we challenge ourselves to find ways to (1) develop
basic science courses that use examples from the agricultural sci-
ences, (2) develop courses that explore the interface between soci-
ety and agriculture, (3) develop nontraditional pedagogy that results
in the active involvement of diverse perspectives, and (4) promote
diversity among our teachers and students. Our challenges are as
follows.
First, we need to find mechanisms to teach basic science courses
that use examples from the agricultural sciences. Some of the
most illustrative applications of basic science come from agricul
200
OCR for page 201
CHANGING THE IMAGE OF AGRICULTURE
sure. Well-chosen examples will provide students with vivid, lasting
images of how the basic science they have studied has been ap-
plied to problems of agricultural importance. The students will also
appreciate the intimacy of the link between agriculture and main-
stream basic science. If we place agricultural science in a broad
scientific context, we are more likely to attract a wide spectrum of
students.
This approach was tried in the Plant Pathology Department at the
University of Wisconsin. We replaced a traditional course in bacte-
rial pathogens of plants with a course that deals with the basic
principles of host-parasite interactions and critical analysis of scien-
tific papers by using examples from the plant pathology literature.
After the approach changed, enrollment in the course tripled. More-
over, students were drawn from a greater range of departments,
including those in basic biology, such as molecular biology and
biochemistry.
Second, we must challenge ourselves to explore the interface
between agriculture and other disciplines. By discovering the con-
nections, we may find new insights into our own science and its
societal context, and we may develop courses that attract students
from a tremendous range of disciplines. Agriculture has always
had a vast impact on economic development, societal structure,
human relations, and demography. Today, society is faced with
daunting choices about agriculture, and individuals are faced daily
with personal choices that affect or are affected by agriculture.
Courses that explore these impacts will contribute to developing an
awareness of how agriculture shaped our history and how it affects
our daily lives and decisions.
Numerous examples of courses that examine the interface of
plant pathology and society are cropping up in universities across
the country. These are popular with students majoring in history,
environmental studies, journalism, economics, and education, be-
cause students are personally motivated by the relevance and time-
liness of the topics to learn the science.
Third, I challenge us to be more creative in our choices of peda-
gogy. We must construct courses that actively involve students in
the process of learning and teach them to synthesize information
and solve problems. This is not only sound educationally but will
also project the image of a field that is full of debate and delibera-
tion and one that is open to new ideas.
I suggest three pedagogical approaches that stimulate student
involvement. The first is the use of constructive conflict. This in-
volves deliberately generating two sides to an issue and drawing
the students into debate by requiring them to adopt a point of view
and defend it. For this approach to be most successful, it is critical
to demonstrate explicitly to the students the value of evaluating
multiple points of view in learning to appreciate the complexity of a
201
OCR for page 202
AGRICULTURE AND THE UNDERGRADUATE
concept or issue. The second approach is the use of cooperative
learning techniques, which require that the students work together
noncompetitively toward a common goal. This approach is particu-
larly useful for problem-solving exercises or for achieving consen-
sus. Lastly, a pedagogical philosophy that is too broad to discuss
fully in this context is feminist teaching. Briefly, the feminist ap-
proach is to develop a nonhierarchical classroom structure in which
each member is an equal, respected contributor. In the feminist
classroom, mutual respect is required and reinforced, providing an
environment that is ideal for promoting creativity since it is condu-
cive to taking intellectual risks. It can also be less threatening than
the traditional classroom and therefore is an excellent environment
for teaching analytical skills, since criticism is delivered and per-
ceived as helpful and not personally threatening and disagreement
is perceived as valuable and stimulating. Collectively, these and
many other pedagogical tools can contribute to the construction of
stimulating, dynamic learning atmospheres.
Fourth, we must attract a more diverse student body to dispel
the image of insularity. I believe that pedagogy is the most impor-
tant tool to do so, but there must be others. Agriculture's image
will change if teachers of agriculture are perceived as soliciting,
and even demanding, alternative viewpoints. Finally, classrooms
that respect, value, and include the contributions of the students
will be more likely to attract women and minorities, who often
express a sense of alienation, exclusion, and disenfranchisement in
the traditional classroom. 1 challenge us to find ways to interest
women and minorities in agricultural science, to attract them to our
courses, and to provide them with the positive environment, neces-
sary stimulation, and sufficient feedback so that they feel that they
are valued members of our educational community.
RAPPORTEUR'S SUMMARY
Jo Handeleman presented several challenges regarding curricu-
lum innovation and the integration of agriculture-related courses
into university curricula. The subsequent discussion emphasized
the barriers and resistance to integrating agriscience into university
curricula.
One participant expressed the belief that agriculture is best mar-
keted as a basic science. Some participants felt that basic science
fosters an exciting and challenging career image, while traditional
discipline- and production-related courses project a comparatively
mundane image. There was considerable discussion concerning
the development of courses in colleges of agriculture that empha-
size the basic sciences, with the objective of attracting students
from outside colleges of agriculture and the cross-listing of courses
202
OCR for page 203
CHAbJGJNG THE IMAGE OF AGRICULTURE
in the agricultural sciences with the courses offered in basic sci-
ence departments. Although basic science departments frequently
object to and fail to accept such courses, several successful ex-
amples were provided. Somewhat surprisingly, there was a gen-
eral consensus that faculty who teach the traditional agricultural
sciences could offer greater resistance to such courses than faculty
in basic science departments; several participants indicated that
they had experienced greater resistance to innovation within de-
partments and colleges than they had external resistance. There
was also general agreement that colleges of agriculture lack ag-
gressiveness in developing innovative courses and pursuing inno-
vative teaching techniques.
Motivational factors were considered to be a barrier to curricu-
lum revision. Effective revision can be handicapped by lack of
incentives and rewards; certainly, the development of new courses
is time-consuming and detracts from research efforts. Moreover,
new courses sometimes fail to be implemented because of univer-
sity bureaucracies. Cumbersome committee structures were criti-
cized for being resistant to change. Problems with traditionalism
and territorialism within departments and colleges were discussed.
Some participants held the opinion that traditional departmental structures
should be discontinued.
Internal and external perceptions of colleges of agriculture were
considered an impediment to effective curriculum revision. It was
emphasized that the role of colleges of agriculture differs at differ-
ent institutions, but colleges of agriculture tend to project a poor
image in comparison with the images of some other colleges within
a university system. Both faculty and students were criticized for
contributing to this problem. lt was recognized that faculty and
students within most colleges of agriculture tend to have compara-
tively traditional and conservative philosophies. There was general
agreement that colleges of agriculture would benefit immeasurably
from increased diversity.
Colleges of agriculture tend to suffer from insufficient representa-
tion of women, minorities, and others with diverse social and cul-
tural backgrounds. Every effort to promote diversity within our
system was encouraged.
In summary, the discussion group believed that it is feasible and
proper to integrate agriscience and business into university cur-
ricula. Although external impediments to such innovation will fre-
quently be encountered, internal resistance can be the greatest
impediment.
203
Representative terms from entire chapter:
science departments
