Horticulture Course Development in Agricultural Education

Agricultural Education Course Development

Abstract

  • Agricultural education teacher licensure programs face increasing coursework requirements; limited available credit hours make this challenging.
  • Purdue University has developed a new course titled ‘Greenhouse and Landscape Fundamentals for Educators’ within its Agricultural Education Teacher Licensure B.S. degree program.
  • Data for course development was derived from multiple sources:
    • Evaluation of current Agricultural Education coursework
    • Review of state and national standards for Agricultural Education
    • Survey of Indiana agriculture teachers
  • Survey findings from 72 respondents showed:
    • 61% taught in greenhouses
    • 62% felt unprepared for greenhouse operations due to their undergraduate coursework
  • Teachers indicated a need for more coursework on topics such as:
    • Greenhouse management
    • Landscape design
    • Landscape installation and maintenance
    • Plant identification
  • The new course is intended to fill gaps in required coursework, better preparing students for teaching careers in these areas.
  • Key terms:
    • Agricultural Education, course development, horticulture education, pre-service teacher development, undergraduate education

Introduction

  • Teacher licensure programs in Agricultural Education are confronted with the challenge of increasing coursework requirements alongside shrinking credit hour availability (AASCU, n.d.).
  • Streamlining educational programs often leads to reduced credit hour requirements.
  • Graduates often lack depth in agricultural content, which is critical for teaching in secondary schools, which frequently include horticulture, landscape design, and related courses.
  • Many secondary schools utilize greenhouses for educational purposes; however, teachers often have minimal or no training in greenhouse management or landscape design.
  • This gap leads to an eventual shortage of well-prepared teachers in gardening and landscape education as careers associated with these fields are gaining momentum (BLS, n.d.).

Course Development Objectives

  • The newly developed course aims to address the gaps in horticulture and landscape education. It replaces the advanced horticulture course option in the curriculum, which does not align with academic standards for Agricultural Education.
  • The course development is underpinned by theoretical frameworks:
    • Constructivism: Emphasizes the learner's active role in their development and cognitive growth.
    • Social Cognitive Theory (SCT): Highlights self-efficacy as a component critical to student learning, requiring mastery through skill application and practice (Ambrose et al., 2010; Bandura, 2001).
    • Self-Determination Theory: Focuses on creating relevant and supportive learning environments.

Methods of Course Development

  1. Evaluation of Coursework:
    • Analysis of existing coursework required for the Agricultural Education degree at Purdue University.
    • Comparison of academic standards from multiple national agricultural education curricula.
  2. Needs Assessment:
    • A needs survey was conducted among both practicing Ag Ed teachers and preservice students at Purdue University.
    • The survey included questions about teaching experiences, curricula used, confidence in horticulture/landscape skills, and greenhouse access.
    • The survey resulted in 72 responses, although some lacked complete data.
  3. Development of the Syllabus:
    • The insights from the analysis and survey results informed the creation of the syllabus, objectives, content delivery methods, and assignments for the new course.
Results and Discussion
  • Survey results demonstrated a deficiency in skills and knowledge surrounding horticulture and landscape education, indicating a clear demand for preservice teacher courses in these areas.
  • Respondent experience levels varied; the majority were graduates of Purdue University's Ag Ed program.
  • Key findings from the survey showed:
    • Desired Topics for Further Learning:
      • Greenhouse management (66.1% wanted to learn more)
      • Landscape design (42.37%)
      • Landscape installation and maintenance (28.81%)
      • Plant identification (23.73%)
  • Respondents' preparedness to teach was gauged on a Likert scale; a significant percentage felt only moderately prepared.
  • Conclusively, 61% taught in greenhouse settings; however, 62% lacked confidence in their ability to operate and maintain said greenhouses, contradicting the skills required for consistency in basic plant science education (Albritton & Roberts, 2020).

Course Structure and Delivery

  • The course runs for one semester, meeting twice weekly and is held in a horticulture teaching lab with access to greenhouse resources.
  • Instructional methods integrate:
    • Lectures and guest speakers
    • Hands-on activities and micro-teaching opportunities
  • Learning outcomes include:
    1. Identify and apply basic propagation techniques.
    2. Interpret funding sources for greenhouses and landscape design equipment.
    3. Apply integrated pest management (IPM), irrigation, and propagation techniques within greenhouse operations.
    4. Analyze landscape design software for practical applications in landscape architecture.
  • Course assignments include:
    • Development of teaching resources for greenhouse plants/landscape plants
    • Lesson planning for propagation and landscape design labs
    • Implementation of greenhouse developmental plans and landscape design activities
    • Regular quizzes assessing subject matter understanding
  • The course debuted in Spring 2018, enrolling 21 students, and gained recognition in the curriculum plan of study the following year.
  • Student evaluations indicated high satisfaction (e.g., course rated 4.9/5.0 on one assessment).
  • Feedback was used to continually refine the course structure and content.

Conclusion

  • The creation of Greenhouse and Landscape Fundamentals for Educators is a direct response to the identified educational gaps within Agricultural Education programs.
  • The course serves to instill confidence and prepare preservice Ag Ed students with necessary horticulture and landscape skills pertinent to secondary education.
  • Ongoing assessments and adaptations to course content are crucial for keeping pace with educational and industry developments in horticulture and landscape management.

References

  • AASCU. (n.d.). AASCU Teacher Preparation Report. American Association of State Colleges and Universities. Retrieved Oct. 15, 2018.
  • Albritton, M. C., & Roberts, T. G. (2020). Agricultural Technical Skills Needed by Entry-Level Agriculture Teachers: A Modified Delphi Study. Journal of Agricultural Education, 61(1), 140-151.
  • Ambrose, S. A., et al. (2010). How learning works: Seven research-based principles for smart teaching. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley and Sons.
  • Assor, A., & Kaplan, H. (2001). Mapping the Domain of Autonomy Support. In: Eklides, A., et al. (eds.), Trends and Prospects in Motivation Research. Dordrecht: Springer.
  • Bandura, A. (2001). Social Cognitive Theory: An Agentic Perspective. Annual Review Psychology, 52, 1-26.
  • BLS. (n.d.). Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment Statistics. Retrieved May 15, 2020.
  • Kaplan, H., & Madjar, N. (2017). The Motivational Outcomes of Psychological Need Support among Pre-Service Teachers. Frontiers in Education, 2(42).
  • Lovett, M. C. (2001). A collaborative convergence on studying reasoning processes. In S. Carver & D. Klahr (Eds.). Cognition and Instruction: Twenty-five years of progress (pp. 347-384). Mahwah, NJ: Earlbaum.
  • NCTQ. (2013). Teacher Prep Review. National Council of Teacher Quality.
  • Schunk, D. H., & Usher, E. L. (2019). Social cognitive theory and motivation. The Oxford handbook of human motivation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  • Seifert, T. (2004). Understanding student motivation. Education Research, 46(2), 137-149.
  • Weldon, T. (2013, Aug.). Reducing Time to Degree by Cutting Credit Creep. Council of State Governments.

Based on the provided note, here's an analysis of the skills researchers would need, the likely audience, and the writing style:

Skills Researchers Would Need:

  • Research Methodology: The paper details a systematic approach to course development, including literature review, needs assessment (surveys), data collection, and analysis. Researchers would need strong skills in designing and conducting educational research.
  • Data Analysis: The note presents survey findings with percentages (e.g., 61% taught in greenhouses, 62% felt unprepared). This indicates a need for statistical analysis skills to interpret survey data.
  • Curriculum Development/Instructional Design: The core of the paper is about creating a new course. Researchers would need expertise in curriculum theory, learning objectives, instructional strategies, and assessment.
  • Subject Matter Expertise: Deep knowledge in Agricultural Education, horticulture, landscape design, greenhouse management, and plant science is evident and crucial for developing relevant course content.
  • Academic Writing and Citation: The presence of an abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, conclusion, and extensive references indicates a need for clear, concise academic writing, argumentation, and proper citation practices (e.g., APA style).
  • Theoretical Framework Application: The paper references Constructivism, Social Cognitive Theory (SCT), and Self-Determination Theory, suggesting researchers need to understand and apply educational theories to their work.

Likely Audience:
The primary audience for a paper like this would be:

  • Agricultural Education Faculty and Researchers: Those involved in teacher preparation programs, curriculum development, and educational research within agricultural fields.
  • University Administrators and Curriculum Committees: Individuals responsible for approving and implementing new courses and academic programs.
  • Educational Policy Makers: Particularly those concerned with teacher licensure requirements and educational standards in vocational or agricultural education.
  • Practicing Agriculture Teachers: To understand the rationale behind preservice teacher training and potentially inform their own professional development.

Writing Style:
The writing style is:

  • Academic and Formal: It adheres to the conventions of scholarly writing, using objective language and avoiding colloquialisms.
  • Informative and Descriptive: It clearly describes processes (course development methods, course structure), presents data, and explains findings.
  • Structured: The note follows a typical research paper format with distinct sections (Abstract, Introduction, Course Development Objectives, Methods, Results and Discussion, Course Structure and Delivery, Conclusion, References).
  • Evidence-Based: It relies on data from surveys, references existing academic standards, and cites relevant educational theories and prior research (e.g., Albritton & Roberts, 2020; Bandura, 2001).
  • Precise: Specific percentages and details are provided from the survey results, and course learning outcomes are clearly articulated.