A national soil science curriculum in response to the needs of students, academic staff, industry, and the wider community
Final Report 2012
The University of Sydney (lead) The University of Adelaide The University of Melbourne The University of Queensland The University of Western Australia
Project team Alex McBratney (Project Leader) Damien Field (Education Leader) Tony Koppi (Project Manager) Lorna Jarrett (Research Assistant) Lyn Abbott Cameron Grant Peter Kopittke Neal Menzies Tony Weatherley
Report authors Damien Field, Tony Koppi, Lorna Jarrett, Alex McBratney, Lyn Abbott, Cameron Grant, Peter Kopittke, Neal Menzies and Tony Weatherley contact author: [email protected]
Acknowledgments
Support for the production of this report has been provided by the Australian Government Office for Learning and Teaching. The views expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the views of the Australian Government Office for Learning and Teaching.
Creative Commons notice for documents
With the exception of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms, and where otherwise noted, all material presented in this document is provided under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/).
The details of the relevant licence conditions are available on the Creative Commons website (accessible using the links provided) as is the full legal code for the CC BY 3.0 AU licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/legalcode).
Requests and inquiries concerning these rights should be addressed to: Office for Learning and Teaching Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education
GPO Box 9880, Location code N255EL10 Sydney NSW 2001
2012
ISBN 978 1 921916 66 3 (PDF) ISBN 978 1 921916 67 0 (Print)
A national soil science curriculum 2 Contents Executive Summary and Recommendations ...... 4 Introduction ...... 6 Intended deliverables and actual achievements ...... 6 Stakeholders ...... 7 Surveys ...... 8 Forums ...... 8 Curriculum and teaching considerations ...... 8 Methods ...... 9 Overall project approach ...... 9 Survey methods ...... 11 Forums ...... 12 World Congress of Soil Science (Brisbane, 1–6 August 2010) ...... 12 Soil science teaching principles ...... 12 Outcomes ...... 13 Overall outcomes ...... 13 Establishment of a Soil Science Community of Practice ...... 13 Soil Science Teaching Principles ...... 14 Student perspectives on the soil science curriculum ...... 15 Employer perspectives on the soil science curriculum ...... 17 Graduate perspectives on the soil science curriculum ...... 20 Main concerns from students, employers and graduates ...... 22 Joint units of study and guidelines for online learning of soil science ...... 24 Conclusions ...... 25 References ...... 27 Appendix 1: Soil science students’ perceptions of learning and teaching ...... 29 Appendix 2: Soil science graduates’ perceptions of learning and teaching .... 43 Appendix 3: Soil Science employers’ perceptions of learning and teaching .. 59 Appendix 4: Participants ...... 77 Appendix 5: Evaluation report...... 78
A national soil science curriculum 3 Executive Summary and Recommendations
This two-year project was intended to start a discussion about soil science higher education at the national level with all relevant stakeholders. The long-term aim was to involve all institutions that teach soil science, and for the project consortium to do the initial groundwork. This consortium (comprising The Universities of Adelaide, Melbourne, Queensland, Sydney (lead institution) and Western Australia) represents five states and the issues and challenges facing soil science higher education across a diverse educational and geographic landscape.
Stakeholders (academia, students, industry, graduates and professional bodies) were consulted through surveys and forums to develop a national approach to a curriculum that will produce work-ready graduates with the interdisciplinary knowledge, skills and capabilities relevant to the needs of Australia.
A national curriculum is here defined as: a curriculum that includes stakeholder considerations and is applicable at any higher education institution teaching soil science. This is an inclusive approach that aspires to synthesise the broad range of perspectives internal and external to academia.
The surveys of current students, employers and graduates concerned with soil science were the primary means of academia receiving feedback on the curriculum. Forums including students and representatives from the professional bodies (Australian Society of Soil Science Incorporated, and the accrediting body Certified Professional Soil Scientist) were held to discuss the survey findings and responsive actions required.
It was recognised that the soil science teaching context was strongly influenced by local staff expertise and local environmental factors, and that students had limited opportunity to engage with the circumstances elsewhere in Australia. As far as possible in the short timeframe, an intention was to develop joint units of study whereby the students could participate in investigating soil science issues away from their own location. Realistically this endeavour requires a long-term approach and the engagement of a wider range of institutions teaching soil science.
Highlights of the project There were outcomes from the project that were intended and some that were unexpected. A major highlight was discovering the strength of the soil science community of practice and the willingness of all stakeholders to participate in the project to benefit soil science education and to continue with post-project activities. This includes expressions of interest from universities not originally involved with the project. Notable highlights are:
• Strength of the soil science community of practice • Development and publication of the Soil Science Teaching Principles • The utilisation of sequential action-learning cycles to develop the outcomes • Forums that were effective, engaging and learning experiences for all stakeholders • Willingness of forum participants to engage in reflective practices • Participation of external learning and teaching experts from other disciplines
A national soil science curriculum 4 • Highly successful introduction of soil science higher education as a symposium at the World Congress of Soil Science • Publication of outcomes at conferences and in journals • Contribution to professional body practices, such as the Australian Society of Soil Science Inc. (ASSSI), International Union of Soil Sciences (IUSS), and accrediting bodies such as Certified Professional Soil Scientist (CPSS)
Recommendations The recommendations given here are synthesised from the input of all stakeholders through surveys and forums. These recommendations also draw on the Soil Science Teaching Principles (Field et al., 2011) which were created during the project.
Recommendation 1: Utilise the soil science teaching principles developed during the project because they reflect the views of all stakeholders.
Recommendation 2: The contribution of professionals in industry represents an opportunity for further demonstrating soil science relevance, practical application, and provision of real-life scenarios to enable problem-based learning.
Recommendation 3: Ensure engagement with activities that address the core body of knowledge required by industry and the application of scientific rigour to analytical techniques and meaningful interpretation of results.
Recommendation 4: Involve industry through a variety of appropriate methods, including placement of students, guest lectures, mentoring, suggestions and support for projects, and curriculum advice.
Recommendation 5: Utilise enquiry-based learning wherever possible to engage students in critical thinking and problem-solving and help them make connections between concepts in different contexts and systems and minimise rote learning.
Recommendation 6: Engage the students in authentic group activities and problem solving to enhance understanding and develop teamwork and communication skills.
Recommendation 7: Utilise practical laboratory and field activities, particularly field trips, wherever possible to enable the practical application of concepts, and for the students to engage with their teachers and peers.
Recommendation 8: Provide assessments that allow students to demonstrate conceptual understanding as developed by a variety of means.
Recommendation 9: Units of study should progressively build students’ writing skills in a range of authentic contexts involving different audiences.
Recommendation 10: Provide opportunities for students to have formative input into how the course is delivered thereby enabling changes to be made as required.
Recommendation 11: Sustain and further develop project outcomes by ensuring continuation of the engagement of national and international organisations, professional bodies and other stakeholders in educational activities.
Recommendation 12: Develop a core body of knowledge and standards for soil science, and involve the community in preparing for TEQSA.
A national soil science curriculum 5 Introduction
Intended deliverables and actual achievements Table 1 shows the deliverables that were intended at the project outset and the subsequent achievements. All of the intended deliverables have been completed or are in process. Some outcomes are considered as important achievements and were not envisaged at the beginning, such as the strength of the soil science community of practice as revealed by stakeholder participation and on-going engagement. The achievements summarised in Table 1 are detailed further in the report.
Table 1 Deliverables intended at the project outset and summary of subsequent achievements
Deliverables intended Achievements 1. Learning outcomes for soil science topics Forums and stakeholder feedback revealed and subjects taught by the consortium differences in approach and content and led 2. Description of the range of teaching participants to collaboratively develop Soil approaches used by teachers of soil science Science Teaching Principles. Post-project community development of Core Body of Knowledge (CBoK) is on-going 3. Student appraisals of teaching approaches Results of the survey of current students of soil and learning approaches adopted science and students’ participation in the second forum has informed the teaching principles and project recommendations 4. Consensus on the most effective contextual The Soil Science Teaching Principles were learning and teaching practices collaboratively developed through two project cycles 5. Report on limitations and missing Forum discussions revealed strengths and capabilities in learning and teaching of soil weaknesses that are being addressed by on- science and related disciplines. going joint teaching topics and development of the CBoK 6. Findings of the survey from graduates with Results of the survey of graduates in industry soil science experience in the workplace in revealed teaching priorities and informed the relation to their curriculum preparation project recommendations 7. Employer requirements for graduates with Results of the survey of employers in industry, soil science experience in their degree and their significant participation in forums, revealed teaching issues and informed the project recommendations 8. Report from forum discussions concerning This project report summarises the stakeholder teaching and learning practices, curriculum inputs through the surveys and forums of the revision, and limitations and capability project cycles deficiencies in response to cycle 1 and cycle 2 graduates and employer input. 9. Details of a curriculum that allows national The Soil Science Teaching Principles and input participation by students and academic staff from external curriculum experts from different from any location disciplines allowed participants to develop and apply guidelines for online learning in soil science 10. A proposal for a tried and tested platform for The online joint learning topics were developed enabling the implementation of the national on ‘Moodle’ which allowed convenient access by curriculum staff and students from any location 11. Proposal for the establishment of a national The on-going post-project activities include soil science education group as part of the professional bodies amongst the stakeholder ASSSI. participants 12. Discussion paper on the application of the This paper will be written following the completion project methodology and outcomes to of this report agriculture and related disciplines.
A national soil science curriculum 6 Stakeholders The stated project aim was to develop a national soil science curriculum using transferable learning and teaching approaches that produce work-ready graduates with the interdisciplinary knowledge, skills and capabilities relevant to the needs of Australia.
Academia is the traditional custodian of the university curriculum, and is influenced by a range of internal stakeholders (Kezar and Eckel, 2002). Even advocates for a more global or international curriculum (Ramsden, 2008; Svensson and Wihlborg, 2010) do not necessarily include all stakeholders. This project brought together for the first time the internal and external stakeholders (Figure 1) with a vested interest in a national curriculum for soil science. Ultimately, the curriculum must satisfy the needs of all stakeholders and this project facilitated a consultation process with representatives of the soil science community shown in Figure 1. An approach that involves external stakeholders is commonly used where degrees lead to professional practice such as in engineering, medicine, and law.
Figure 1. Stakeholders in the development of a national soil science curriculum
The task of arriving at a consensus on a national curriculum includes consideration of: • Different models practiced at different institutions • The fact that curricula are often content driven (e.g., Stoller, 2004) • Diverse employer, graduate, and professional body interests
Soil science is not recognised as a professional degree; in fact all soil science courses or programs in Australia are contained within other degrees such as agriculture or earth sciences. This adds to the complexity of arriving at a common consensus.
The community consultation process concerning the learning and teaching of soil science included three surveys and three forums.
A national soil science curriculum 7 Surveys The surveys were aimed at three different groups: • Current soil science students at six universities • Graduates in the workplace with a major in soil science • Employers of graduates with soil science experience
Current undergraduate students were asked about the learning and teaching of soil science in relation to their experiences and expectations. Graduates in the workplace were asked about how the training they had received as students had prepared them for their current job. Employers were asked a range of questions (given in the Appendices) including the preparedness of graduates for employment.
Forums A series of three forums was used to bring the stakeholders together to discuss learning and teaching issues in relation to the soil science discipline, analyse survey results and discuss their implications, and examine ways of optimising the student experience within the context of a distributed community and a diverse Australian physical environment.
The series of three forums were accumulative in their purpose: 1. Academic staff reflecting on their current practices, personal learning experiences, and the feedback from their current students 2. Further reflections on learning and teaching in response to the feedback obtained from graduates and employers (from surveys and in person) 3. Implementing joint units of study for students at different institutions based on learning and teaching reflections and stakeholder input
With input from the wide range of contributors shown in Figure 1, gathered via surveys and forums, the notion of a national curriculum evolved.
Curriculum and teaching considerations A national curriculum can be defined as: a curriculum that includes stakeholder considerations and is applicable at any higher education institution teaching soil science. This is consistent with the broad range of factors – internal and external to academia – that influence a curriculum as suggested by Hicks (2007).
With a stakeholder model, the internal process models (including teaching methods, content, assessment and so on, such as outlined by the Higher Education Academy of the UK, 2011) can be extended to include the external dimension as shown in Figure 2; the arrow indicating a desirable general direction for students where dependency is transformed to informed autonomy.
A national soil science curriculum 8 Active Knowledge, personal Student skills & learning application Stakeholder needs Passive Knowledge Control Facilitation Academic approach
Figure 2. Relationship between student learning, academic teaching approach and stakeholder influences
During this project, the learning and teaching processes involved in moving along the direction of the arrow were formulated through an iterative process with stakeholders to develop a set of teaching principles that are unique to soil science.
This report presents the outcomes of the surveys and forums that engaged the stakeholders and led to the learning and teaching recommendations for soil science.
Methods
Overall project approach The project approach used was a sequential action-learning model where the participants reflected on their own practices and experience to improve capability and performance. The participants moved through successive action learning stages, or cycles, building on the outcomes from each stage to inform the next stage, as shown in Figure 3.
A national soil science curriculum 9
Figure 3 The project cycles, activities and forums
Progressive action learning cycles like these were successfully applied to a related and relevant domain where different groups of stakeholders were successively brought together to learn from each other and maximise their effectiveness (Kelly, Reid, and Valentine, 2006). This action learning approach included planning, acting, reflecting and concluding (similar for example to Kolb, 1984, and Kemmis and McTaggart, 2001) of the various stakeholders in successive collaborative cycles designed to inform and improve capabilities of the system as a whole (Figure 3).
Cycle 1 started with the design of a survey for current students at the five partner institutions. The students were asked to complete the online survey to allow for analysis of their responses by the academic participants at Forum 1. Through analysis of the student responses and personal reflections on learning experiences, Forum 1 participants formulated a draft set of teaching principles applicable to soil science. These draft principles were to be further examined during the subsequent cycle of the project.
A national soil science curriculum 10 Cycle 2 involved the design and administration of two surveys; one for employers that was paper-based and mailed out, and the second survey that was available online for graduates in industry with a soil science major. The graduates were contacted via university alumni offices from the partner institutions and from the University of New England, thereby providing substantial responses from graduates from six institutions in total, as well as some responses from a few other institutions. Academic and employer participants at Forum 2 discussed the results of the analysis of these surveys, resulting in a revision of the soil science teaching principles amongst other recommendations.
Cycle 3 utilised the teaching principles to design and construct joint teaching units that were available online. At Forum 3, following discussions with three educational designers from different disciplines, the student, industry and academic participants evaluated these soil science teaching units. The online teaching units were subsequently revised and made available to the students from the partner universities.
Cycle 4 was (and is) concerned with connecting project findings with the wider soil science community, namely all the universities that teach soil science in any context, such as agriculture (taught at 12 Australian universities), and earth and environmental sciences. Representatives of the stakeholders shown in Figure 1 have been included throughout the project but all the universities that teach soil science (over 20 in total) had not been consulted. The key area identified as a significant unknown for the community was the ‘Core Body of Knowledge’ for soil science in any academic context. The consultation process initiated during Cycle 4 is leading to Forum 4 in December 2011 after the termination of the project per se. On-going community engagement is evidence of sustainable outcomes.
Survey methods Similar principles were applied to the design of the three surveys (students, graduates and employers) which comprised quantitative responses such as selections from a Likert scale and qualitative text responses. The qualitative data analysis was informed by the work of Boyatzis (1998) and Bogdan and Bicklen (2002).
The design of the survey (informed by Fowler, 2002) of current students included open-response boxes in most questions to allow students to express their ideas fully and avoid constraint by the survey design. The survey was made available online and responses were received from all five participating institutions. One hundred and seven students responded to the survey and made over 300 comments in total. This represents a response rate of approximately 24 per cent.
The surveys of employers of soil scientists and graduates who had majored in soil science were asked similar questions (given in the Appendix) about university teaching and preparation of graduates for the workplace and to recommend improvements. To enable an assessment of university preparation for workplace requirements, the layout of the quantitative questions comprised three columns: attributes, skills and knowledge statements in the centre; ranking of importance of these statements for the workplace on the left; and degree to which universities had prepared students for each statement on the right (based on a survey design by Scott, 2003). Fifty-two employers (37 per cent response rate) around Australia responded to a paper-based survey, and 205 graduates (unknown response rate) from six institutions (the University of New England also participated) responded to
A national soil science curriculum 11 the online survey. The graduates were contacted by email by their university alumni office and asked to complete the online survey.
Ethics approval was obtained for all project activities including the surveys and participation of teaching staff.
Forums The design of each sequential forum was based on adult learning principles (e.g., Schön, 1987; Brookfield, 1995; Canadian Literacy and Learning Network, 2011) using a combination of prior consultation on topics and structure, minimal information presentation, expert input as required, topics led by team members, workshop activities in small mixed groups of stakeholders, and plenary conclusions.
World Congress of Soil Science (Brisbane, 1–6 August 2010) A method for national and international input and dissemination was to utilise the WCSS which convenes every four years. The project team organised the first ever higher education forum at a WCSS. The half-day forum featured this Australian project amongst presentations from invited higher education leaders from the UK and US. This symposium was the best attended (460) of all the symposia at the WCSS, and the paper presented on this project (Field et al., 2010) was awarded the best presentation of the congress.
Soil science teaching principles The method for developing the soil science teaching principles was a cyclical process (Figure 3) where the first two forums, surveys, and published generic education literature were utilised. The first forum yielded suggestions based on student survey feedback and personal reflections of learning experiences by academic staff. Principles were abstracted from these sources with the aid of the generic teaching principles of Chickering and Gamson (1987) and Boyer (1998) to help identify the themes and develop a framework. It was found that all comments and suggestions made at Forum 1 could be grouped into themes similar to generic principles in the education literature.
At the second forum, re-examination of the principles found that although the generic principles were useful as a scaffold they did not help to identify the uniqueness of the soil science discipline nor the unique teaching approaches required. The principles were subsequently revised until the project team felt that the principles were appropriate for the discipline and the unique aspects were incorporated. The set of Soil Science teaching principles was therefore derived from broad community consultation and reflects the uniqueness of teaching Soil Science that generic teaching principles could not.
A national soil science curriculum 12 Outcomes
Overall outcomes Figure 4 shows a summary of the outcomes from the project activities. The forums and project activities by the stakeholders formed a community of practice concerned with soil science higher education. The outcomes from each forum led to developments for the subsequent forum. There were publication outcomes from forums 1–3 and an outcome from forum 3 was the topics for units of study available to students from participating universities. A forum (identified as Forum 4 in Figure 4 to demonstrate continuity) is outside the current project yet is a direct outcome. The forum will be concerned with the development of the Core Body of Knowledge for soil science by the extended community of all Australian universities teaching soil science.
Figure 4 Summary of outcomes from project activities with ‘Forum 4’ outside the current project
Establishment of a Soil Science Community of Practice
Representatives of the stakeholders shown in Figure 1 were brought together for the first time to focus on the higher education of soil science. This COP was instrumental in several developments and outcomes: • Soil science teaching principles • Student employer, and graduate perspectives on the soil science curriculum • Guidelines for online learning of soil science
A national soil science curriculum 13 • Joint units of study • On-going learning network (e.g., Forum 4, Figure 4)
The principles for teaching soil science were a product of all the stakeholders at the first two forums (Figure 3) and this community input resulted in the principles being accepted for publication in an international journal (Field et al., 2011). Community input also led to the curriculum recommendations and formative evaluation of the joint topics for units of study. The community has recently been extended to include all Australian universities teaching soil science and is currently engaged in development of the soil science Core Body of Knowledge and national standards which have been identified as a gap.
Soil Science Teaching Principles
The soil science stakeholders identified 11 teaching principles for soil science (Table 2), five of which are discipline specific and six are more generic. The recognition that there can be teaching principles that are discipline specific is novel yet should not be surprising. Teaching principles should be discipline specific because disciplines are recognised by their uniqueness, and it follows logically that the same teaching approaches cannot be applied to all disciplines with equal effect.
Table 2 Teaching Principles for Soil Science as developed by the community of stakeholders and published by the project team (adapted from Field et al., 2011)
Teaching Principles for Soil Science 1. Uniqueness Soil Science is a scientific discipline that should be taught by people experienced in Soil Science who appreciate the uniqueness and functions of horizons (which define profiles), aggregates and colloids and are able to make connections within the discipline and with other disciplines. (See Churchman (2010) for unique aspects of Soil Science.) 2. Fieldwork To demonstrate relevance and real-world connections and engage hands-on learners, use field and practical learning activities wherever possible and appropriate. Field activities are an important component of Soil Science as they help students to comprehend soil as part of the landscape and functioning ecosystem. 3. Jargon With students new to Soil Science, use every-day language, relate to familiar or current issues, and introduce Soil Science jargon gradually 4. Active learning Assist students to derive Soil Science theory by using current real problems, scenarios and case studies. 5. Connections To encourage the creation of connections, synthesis and integration, allow students to revisit concepts in different situations. 6. Systems To assist students develop systems thinking and transfer knowledge laterally and vertically and to appreciate that soil is part of larger systems, emphasise the nature and role of soil in various natural, managed, social and economic systems at local, regional, national and global scales. 7. Communication Allow students to interpret and present information and ideas in a variety of formats that resemble real-life scenarios where possible. 8. Authentic problems Allow students to solve contemporary, authentic, challenging problems in groups to enable them to apply their abilities and experience, learn from the multiple perspectives in the cohort, reinforce concepts, and
A national soil science curriculum 14 develop personal skills. 9. Feedback Provide students with timely, constructive and plentiful feedback to aid their learning. 10. Assessment The assessment regimes are aligned with the desired learning outcomes and group assessments are fair to all group members. 11. Outcomes The outcomes resulting from the application of these principles are that graduates are proficient in 5 areas: 1. Identification, understanding and application of the unique features of Soil Science 2. The role, context and relationships of Soil Science to other disciplines and society as part of interrelated systems 3. Identifying problems and designing relevant contextual solutions 4. The ability to coordinate and function within and between relevant groups and effectively communicate results 5. Manage self for personal development and lifelong learning
Student perspectives on the soil science curriculum
The survey questions and responses of current students at the partner universities are given in Appendix 1, and the summary is given here. 109 students responded to the survey and 84 completed the quantitative questions. 71 per cent of responses related to courses studied within the past twelve months and 85 per cent related to courses studied within the past 2 years. 44 per cent of respondents had studied one soil science course and 39 per cent had studied two. Only one respondent had studied five courses. The total number of courses reported on was 194.
Main concerns • While most courses incorporate higher-order thinking skills, they also involve a significant amount of rote-learning • Most courses are seen as helping prepare students for future employment; however this is because of discipline knowledge acquired rather than involvement with industry • Some courses are content-heavy: this means that not enough time is available for students to develop deep conceptual understanding through discussion, making links between concepts and applying their knowledge • Students report very little input into the learning agenda and appear to have very low expectations in this regard. They also appear to be uncomfortable with taking an active role in group-based activities. These attitudes will have to be challenged in order to improve learning outcomes both in discipline knowledge and graduate attributes • Field trips have a particular value for learning in soil science. Good field trips involve non-stop learning and are a memorable intellectual and social experience • Although real-life applications and real-world scenarios are incorporated into teaching, there is less input from industry. Most contact with industry representatives occurs during field trips • There may be a mismatch between the delivered (by staff), received (by students) and assessed curricula. 30 per cent of respondents either disagreed, or only slightly agreed that assessments allowed them to demonstrate what they had learned. The most effective assessments involve higher-order thinking tasks and require students to use their knowledge in a realistic way
A national soil science curriculum 15 • Contact with students is a strength: teaching staff are overwhelmingly seen as approachable, and students are able to get help when they need it
Conclusions and recommendations regarding the student perspectives The recommendations and their rationale are presented in Table 3. On the whole, it seems that a more active form of learning, such as enquiry-based learning (e.g., Boyer, 1998; Kahn and O’Rourke, 2005) starting early in the degree program would address many of the student issues.
Table 3 Recommendations based on the student survey responses
Recommendations Rationale Recommendation 1: Increased involvement Although students agreed that courses with employers represents a significant involve real-life scenarios, they report little opportunity for improvement of soil science involvement with industry. Most industry courses, e.g., guest lectures, provision of involvement took place during field trips or real-life scenarios for problem-based site visits and did not allow for extended learning, short site visits and internships. interaction between students and potential employers. Although courses were overwhelmingly seen as useful preparation for future employment, the reasons given related to the acquisition of discipline knowledge rather than insight into the range of possible future careers.
Recommendation 2: Promote higher order The survey respondents reported a thinking with activities such as enquiry based significant proportion of rote-learning in learning (e.g.,Boyer, 1998) to minimise the courses. Rote-learning implies memorising reliance on rote learning. information: meaningful learning, by contrast, involves students making connections between new information and existing knowledge (Ausubel 1963). This involves higher-order thinking, for example explaining rather than stating (Forehand 2005) and will also assist students to make meaningful connections between concepts (e.g., White & Gunstone 1992).
Recommendation 3: To improve and Outside of field-trips and laboratory-work, consolidate understanding, use guided and students are involved in relatively little group- moderated group-discussion wherever discussion and most time is spent in passive possible. Peer Instruction (Mazur 1997) can roles such as listening to didactic lectures. also be used to bring active learning into There is significant research evidence that lectures. listening to lectures is not effective in overcoming pre-existing misconceptions. Lectures were described by some students as being too long and filled with facts; they were also cited by relatively few students in the questions “most effective learning activity” and “I learn best from”. Although discussions were seen as better learning activities than lectures, working as part of a group was cited by the fewest students as the activity they learn best from. Additionally many comments about group-work were negative. This suggests that although students appreciate the value of discussions in building their knowledge and overcoming misconceptions, they may be uncomfortable
A national soil science curriculum 16 with taking an active role.
Recommendation 4: Spend more time Learners need to rehearse new knowledge in applying key concepts in different contexts order to transfer it successfully into long-term and activities. memory: this may account for the popularity of activities which allowed consolidation of learning.
Recommendation 5: Investigate the benefits Students appear to have very low of giving students an opportunity to have expectations of setting the agenda for their input in how the course is delivered. learning and being active learners. A minority of students agreed or strongly agreed that they had input into the learning agenda and their comments revealed that this input was limited to completing course evaluations or asking questions in class.
Recommendation 6: Use student feedback The students indicated that it is essential to to ensure assessment is aligned with the align assessment with the received intended curriculum (e.g., Bath et al. 2004; curriculum ( as supported by others such as Bruinsma & Jansen 2007; Wachtler & Troein Bruinsma & Jansen 2007; Plaza 2007). Since 2003). teaching staff can be expected to assess what they believe to be key content, it is important to ensure that the students learn what is intended.
Recommendation 7: Provide meaningful Examinations were the most commonly assessment that: criticised form of assessment, most likely • Has a clearly stated purpose because of an association with rote-learning • Focuses on the key concepts and short-term retention. • Allows students to demonstrate conceptual understanding • Includes collaborative knowledge construction
Recommendation 8: Utilise practical Practical work and field-trips in particular are activities, particularly field trips, wherever seen as the most valuable learning activities possible to enable the practical application in soil science. Students value the and/or the development of concepts, and for opportunities for hands-on learning as well as the students to engage with their teachers illustrated concepts learned in lectures. This and peers. also enables them to interact with teaching staff and with each other.
Employer perspectives on the soil science curriculum
Main quantitative concerns Details of the survey results of employers of graduates with soil science expertise are given in Appendix 2, and a summary is presented here. The 52 employers who responded to the survey concerning the assessment of a range of attributes, skills and knowledge for workplace importance (what employers ‘need’) and university preparation (what employers ‘got’) enabled a quantitative comparison to be made.
A range of attributes, skills and knowledge were rated on a 1–5 Likert scale, from “not at all important” (1) to “very important” (5). They were identified as being of
A national soil science curriculum 17 concern if their median rating for ‘need’ was 5 and there was a significant difference between what the ‘need’ of employers was and what the employers perceived they ‘got’. In order to determine the degree of disparity between what employers need and what units of study deliver for each attribute, we calculated the difference between “need” and “got” for each respondent, then calculated the mean difference for all respondents. The ranking given in Table 4 indicates the “very important” (Likert 5) attributes, skills and knowledge areas ordered by the difference between the means of ‘need’ vs ‘got’. The size of the difference between what employers ‘need’ and what they ‘got’ was used as a ranking of important areas to be addressed.
Table 4 Ranking of Important attributes, skills and knowledge according to that employers ‘need’ and what they perceived they ‘got’ (* employers considered that these qualities were largely beyond universities)
Rank Attributes, skills and knowledge Difference between the means of ‘need’ vs ‘got’ 1 Communication skills, written (e.g., developing a 1.8 contextual argument) 2 Identifying the core issue in a mass of detail 1.75 3 Data interpretation skills 1.65 4 Expressing technical concepts clearly, avoiding 1.51 jargon 5 Problem-solving skills 1.49 6 Project management skills* 1.48 7 Self-motivation* 1.45 8 Relating soil science to other disciplines 1.43 9 Good at relating to clients* 1.28 10 Field measurement / sampling skills 1.27 11 Keeping up to date with relevant developments 1.22 12 Discipline knowledge: Applied soil science 1.22 13 Team-working skills* 1.17 14 Discipline knowledge: Soil chemistry 1.09 15 Understanding theory 0.98 16 Discipline knowledge: Environmental impacts 0.95
The ranking on Table 4 indicates those areas with the biggest discrepancy between what the employers need and what they perceive their graduate employees have. The relatively low ranking of several areas of discipline knowledge (12 and below) suggests from these quantitative data that employers are relatively satisfied with the level of discipline knowledge of their employees. However, further elaboration by employers in free text responses indicates that this is not the case and that discipline knowledge is most important (discussed further below). As part of survey methodology, this highlights the value of qualitative responses to clarify quantitative choices made.
Employers also remarked at forums and in the survey text responses that four of the attributes (marked* on Table 4)) were beyond the scope of university teaching. While this may superficially appear to be the case, such as ‘self-motivation’ being
A national soil science curriculum 18 considered a personality trait, the way subjects are taught can influence student motivation (e.g., Biggs, 1989). Likewise, team-working skills are not necessarily innate and can be learned (e.g., McLoughlin and Luca, 2002).
Not surprisingly, communication skills are at the top of the list (Table 4) because communication is fundamental in most human activities, and particularly so amongst scientists who must relate to the general public (e.g., Burns et al., 2003) and be able to articulate evidence-based reasoning in a variety of contexts. Problem-solving skills (and aspects thereof) are also very important to soil science employers because these are fundamental to most areas of work.
Main qualitative concerns The feedback given by employers in their written qualitative responses revealed the following main concerns. • To avoid the perception that soil science is being “watered-down” with a loss of scientific rigour and basic discipline knowledge and skills, a strong grounding in a soil science core body of knowledge (CBoK), and preparation in the scientific method and data interpretation, were employers’ top priorities for graduate preparation by appropriate teaching • Given current environmental concerns, chemistry, especially environmental chemistry; and other environmental discipline knowledge, for example issues relating to land degradation and remediation, are the discipline areas employers see as top priorities for improvement • Outside of discipline knowledge, employers’ top priorities for improvement include communication skills, especially technical report writing; application of knowledge and technical skills; work-experience; and critical thinking/problem-solving skills
Conclusions and recommendations regarding the employer perspectives Based on the analysis of the quantitative and qualitative feedback from employers of soil scientists, gaps exist between new graduates’ performance and employers’ needs in many attributes, skills, and areas of knowledge. However, employers stressed that they do not expect Universities to do all the work of preparing graduates for work, and recognised the importance of on-the-job training. Table 5 gives the recommendations to address the concerns raised.
Table 5 Recommendations based on the employer survey responses
Recommendations Rationale Recommendation 1: Units of study need to Employers’ top written concerns address the core body knowledge that overwhelmingly related to discipline employers currently require knowledge. Scientific rigour was frequently cited as important; as were “basic laboratory Recommendation 2: Units of study must and field skills”. The discipline areas most address the development of scientific rigour, commonly cited by survey respondents of application of analytical techniques and current concern include chemistry, in meaningful interpretation of results. particular environmental chemistry.
Recommendation 3: Students should be trained in the relevant laboratory and field skills.
Recommendation 4: Universities need to During the second Forum, employers introduce graduates to evidence-based report discussed graduates’ writing skills in detail writing for a range of different audiences. and noted that reports must be tailored to suit the context. Good written communication was
A national soil science curriculum 19 seen as being a process of recording critical thinking and development of a logical argument without the use of excessive jargon.
Recommendation 5: The use of enquiry Students need training and support in the based learning (EBL) is advocated as a development of enquiry based learning skills means of induction into how soil scientists and processes, including demonstration of work, including critical thinking and problem strategies and provision of examples to give solving students a clear understanding of what is expected and how they should go about it. This would address critical thinking, argument-development, problem solving and the application to real-life situations
Graduate perspectives on the soil science curriculum
Main quantitative concerns Details of the survey results of graduates with soil science expertise in the workplace are given in Appendix 3, and a summary is presented here. 222 graduates responded to the survey and 204 completed all questions. 30 per cent of respondents had graduated within the last 10 years. The survey was concerned with the assessment of a range of attributes, skills and knowledge for workplace importance (what graduates ‘need’) and university preparation (what graduates ‘got’) enabled a quantitative comparison to be made.
A range of attributes, skills and knowledge were rated on a 1–6 Likert scale, from “not at all important” (1) to “extremely important” (6). They were identified as being of concern if their median rating for ‘need’ was 5 (”high importance”) or higher, and there was a significant difference between what the ‘need’ of graduates was and what the graduates perceived they ‘got’. The ranking given in Table 6 indicates the important skills, attributes and knowledge areas ordered by the size of differences between ‘need’ and ‘got’. The size of the difference between what graduates ‘need’ and what they ‘got’ was used as a ranking of important areas to be addressed.
Table 6 Ranking of Important attributes, skills and knowledge according to what graduates ‘need’ and what they perceived they ‘got’
Rank Attributes, skills and knowledge Difference between the means of ‘need’ vs ‘got’ 1 Good at relating to clients 2.75 2 Project management skills 2.15 3 Self-motivation 1.73 4 Presentation skills 1.48 5 Expressing technical concepts clearly, avoiding 1.47 jargon 6 Team working skills 1.44 7 Ability to consider the environmental / social impact 1.40 of actions
A national soil science curriculum 20 8 Ability to identify the core issue from a mass of detail 1.37 9 Discipline knowledge: environmental impacts 1.31 10 Problem-solving skills 1.29 11 Written communication skills 1.11 12 Ability to keep up to date with relevant developments 1.11
Table 6 indicates a range of attributes, skills and knowledge that are considered highly important. Relating to clients had the largest difference in the means of what graduates need and what they got at university. This is not surprising since little traditional academic learning is concerned with the clients of the business world. Most of the other attributes and skills listed are also of a generic nature and reflect the abilities required to perform well in the workplace.
That employers gave written communication as their top concern (Table 4) and graduate responses placed written communication as 11th rank (Table 6), suggests that graduates either do not perceive the importance of communication or consider themselves more competent than their employers do; or that employers and graduates have a different conceptual understanding of ‘communication’.
Main qualitative concerns Graduates in their written qualitative responses to “best aspects” and “significant missing aspects” from the curriculum and “suggestions for improvement” placed discipline knowledge at the top of the list. The best and missing aspects were both concerned with interdisciplinary and systems approaches, and environmental issues, especially chemistry. The next most commonly cited issues were the application of knowledge, and laboratory and field skills. Contact with industry was also noted as a missing aspect, and can be addressed through guest lecturers, hosts of site visits, collaborators in online learning and as employers of work-placement students. Critical thinking, problem solving skills and communication were cited as important.
Conclusions and recommendations regarding the graduate perspectives Based on the analysis of the quantitative and qualitative feedback from graduates in the workplace, recommendations are given in Table 7.
Table 7 Recommendations based on the graduate survey responses Recommendations Rationale Recommendation 1: Units of study should Discipline knowledge, particularly address graduates’ need for relevant environmental issues, chemistry and discipline knowledge at the time, (currently interdisciplinary and systems approaches, soil chemistry) are of primary importance to graduates at this Recommendation 2: Systems approaches point in time. should be built into the learning and teaching of soil science Recommendation 3: Universities should Graduates’ identified a significant need for seek to increase collaboration with application of knowledge in real-world professionals in industry. applications as well as contact with industry. Increased contact with professionals in industry affords opportunities for students to work on real-world problems. Recommendation 4: Universities should Laboratory and field skills, while not rated continue to provide fieldwork and laboratory highly in the quantitative data, were a top
A national soil science curriculum 21 work as part of units of study concern according to graduates’ comments. In particular, many graduates described field trips as one of the most valuable elements of soil science courses Recommendation 5: Units of study should Written communication skills were rated progressively build students’ writing skills in a highly in the quantitative data and also range of contexts emerged as an issue of concern in graduates’ comments. Recommendation 6: Engage the students in Graduates expressed the value of greater group-based authentic problems posed by association with industry as well as the ability employers to solve problems and improve communication skills
With respect to communication skills, comments from the graduates suggest that students should be exposed early in their studies to examples of good quality writing of the types that employers require; and should gain an understanding of their underlying structures and common elements. This may represent another opportunity for employers to be involved in units of study, as they have an unrivalled understanding of the different types of writing required. Higher-level courses should require students to generate different types of technical document as part of their assessment.
Group-based work on authentic problems has the potential to address a number of the issues raised by graduates. Such activities could engage students with current or recent problems presented by employers and would require interdisciplinary approaches and critical thinking skills in order to address them. Students could be required to collect and analyse data and submit their findings and recommendations in a format used by employers.
Main concerns from students, employers and graduates
Combined issues The top concerns from students, employers and graduates are shown in Table 8 which contains a summary of the most common issues emerging from the qualitative and quantitative data received from graduates and employers. Issues related to discipline knowledge are listed first in Table 8 because they formed the largest category of issues raised in the qualitative data.
As noted above, in the quantitative questions, participants were asked to rate the importance for successful performance, of a discipline area, skill or attribute. They were then asked to rate the extent to which this need was met, i.e., how well universities were perceived to prepare graduates. The top issues were those categories rated as “very important” to successful performance and for which there was a significant difference between the rating of importance and the rating of how well universities prepared graduates. For the qualitative data, the top concerns were those occurring most frequently.
A national soil science curriculum 22 Table 8 Top concerns from employers (Emp.) and graduates (Grad.) and quantitative (Likert ratings) and qualitative data (written comments) and corresponding findings from the student survey
Issue Emp. Emp. Grad. Grad. Student survey findings quant. qual. quant. qual. Discipline knowledge: � � � � environmental issues Discipline knowledge: general � � � Discipline knowledge was the Discipline knowledge: chemistry � � � most common reason cited Discipline knowledge: � � when students were asked interdisciplinary / systems how their courses prepared approaches them for employment. Data interpretation / scientific � � method Applying knowledge and skills � � � e.g. field measurement / Students want more laboratory sampling techniques and and fieldwork or complain that laboratory techniques it is missing from their courses. Written communication skills: � � � � These were overwhelmingly technical reports, seen as the most effective communicating to non-discipline learning activities. experts. Critical thinking and problem- � � � � Most students agreed that solving courses should involve Keeping up to date with relevant � � � problem solving and critical developments thinking. Currently these activities comprise a relatively small proportion of the time Contact with professionals in � � Over one third of students industry / work experience recognised that courses involved input from industry, Self motivation � � Students not asked about this attribute* Interpersonal skills: team- � � Apart from field and laboratory working and relating to clients work, activities are relatively solitary Project management skills � � Students not asked about this attribute* Presentation skills � Students not asked about this attribute* Ability to consider social and � Students not asked about this environmental impacts attribute*
*Students were not explicitly asked about these skills and attributes because the structure of the project required the student survey to be developed and administered before the employer and graduate surveys, and the list of skills and attributes required for workplace performance was compiled during development of the latter two surveys. Although some attributes such as "relating to clients" would not be applicable to the student survey, others such as "presentation skills" could have been asked. Therefore potential exists to improve the structure of the surveys.
A national soil science curriculum 23 Joint units of study and guidelines for online learning of soil science
As shown in Figure 4, outcomes for joint units of study were of two kinds: a national field-based unit and online units. The field unit will be available to all Australian soil science students and is under development for implementation in 2012 under the auspices of the Australian Society of Soil Science Inc. The online units are initially available to students from the partner institutions; the first iteration of which was available in second semester 2011.
Development of the online units followed the process indicated in Figure 4. Several joint units of study were proposed by stakeholders (including employers and academics) at forum 2. Following forum, 2 and guided by the soil science teaching principles, draft topics were designed for online access. At forum 3, following presentations from external experts in online learning in different disciplines, the participants designed a set of criteria for the evaluation of online soil science units and used them to evaluate the draft online joint units. These criteria were compiled into a set of guidelines for online learning of soil science (Table 9) and utilised to refine the online units prior to offering them to the students. Jarrett et al. (2011) found that the guidelines developed by the activities of forum 3 were consistent with published principles for online learning developments (e.g., Herrington et al., 2006).
Table 9 Guidelines for online learning of soil science developed by the project participants (adapted from Jarrett et al., 2011)
Outcomes: 1. Unit outcomes must be well-defined. 2. Different institutions need to agree on shared goals for units. 3. The opportunity exists for appreciation of regional differences, for example in soil/climactic conditions and their impact on land use, to be an outcome. Assessment: 1. Assessment must be outcomes based 2. Assessment of group-work needs to be fair to all group members. 3. Freeman and McKenzie (2002), or similar tool to enable the confidential rating of self and peer contributions to teamwork, used to allow moderation of group marks based on individual contribution. Possible confrontation issues must be managed. 4. Self-assessment should be incorporated for a variety of purposes 5. Assessment tasks need to address the needs of staff, students and employers Content: 1. Content must be authentic and workplace-relevant. 2. Delivery should be non-linear with multiple-pathways to learning as well as opportunities for revisiting and integrating with prior knowledge. 3. Courses must include some laboratory work and it must be assessed. 4. High-level courses should be developing generic skills. Prior knowledge: 1. Courses are high-level (fourth year/honours, postgraduate) and students are entering from a variety of degree programs so required knowledge must be explicit. 2. In order for group-work to be effective, all members must have a minimum level of prior discipline knowledge. This issue can be addressed through provision of pre-entry testing so students can self-exclude if they lack the required knowledge AND/OR Scaffolding and support material provided for required knowledge. Communication and feedback: 1. Effective resources are required for communication between students in groups and between students and academics. 2. Students at different institutions must have equitable access to academics with particular domain expertise. 3. Communication between staff and students must be regular and must be verbal.
A national soil science curriculum 24 4. Conversations with people who are assessing students’ work (staff and peers). 5. Student feedback should be used to continually improve units of study. Timing: 1. When planning synchronous activities time zones must be taken into account. Stakeholders: 1. Course outcomes should align with employers’ needs. 2. Employers should be involved in providing material for case studies. Accreditation: 1. Cross-institution courses open up opportunities for benchmarking for accreditation purposes. Motivation: 1. Both staff and students must be motivated to participate in new ways of teaching and learning. Student expectations of courses must be managed. 2. Students must be motivated to participate in units through good design as well as their perceived relevance (including employer involvement) and value. They must also be motivated to work in a team, through the intrinsic factor of being able to tackle a larger, more authentic problem and the extrinsic factor of group assessment (e.g. Freeman and McKenzie (2002). Groupwork: 1. Group members should be randomly chosen rather than selected by students. 2. Groups should only be cross-institution if this serves a clear purpose. 3. Group work must involve tasks that cannot be done by individuals so teamwork is not contrived.
Institutional barriers to the uptake of the online units in 2011 are concerned with timing and governance procedure. Normally, units of study require detailed descriptions to be submitted and approved by the academic process well in advance of proposed delivery. This could not be achieved within the timeframe of our project so institutions that were able to participate in the joint units did so by utilising existing approved courses.
The proposed field-based unit has a longer time for development and involves the coordination of several stakeholders including universities and professional bodies. Strong support was expressed for this development by the stakeholders in attendance at the second forum.
Conclusions
This project brought together the relevant stakeholders in soil science higher education for the first time. The continued high level of engagement throughout the project indicated the strength of the community of practice.
The next challenge is to extend the community of practice to include all higher education institutions teaching soil science. This is being addressed by a post-project forum (5 Dec 2011) with a focus on the core body of knowledge (CBoK).
The cyclical nature of the project and engagement of stakeholders enabled a systematic process to be employed with outcomes from each cycle. The combination of surveys and forums allowed a community analysis and interpretation of survey feedback.
The use of action learning cycles facilitated community engagement enabling: • Free sharing of ideas • Evolution of the project
A national soil science curriculum 25 • Delivery of the expected outcomes • Development of unforeseen outcomes
Soil science teaching principles have been developed by the community for the first time and published in the international journal Geoderma. These teaching principles illustrate how teaching approaches and practices are discipline specific. International recognition of these teaching principles will need consideration by the international community led by the International Union of Soil Sciences.
Guidelines for online learning of soil science were developed by project participants and these are consistent with those published in the education literature.
The timeframe for widespread participation in joint units of study by students from any institution is beyond the two-year project. Nevertheless online and field-based activities have been initiated.
A national soil science curriculum 26 References
Ausubel, D.P., 1963. The psychology of meaningful verbal learning: an introduction to school learning, New York: Grune & Stratton. Bath, D., Smith, C., Stein, S. and Swann, R. 2004. Beyond mapping and embedding graduate attributes : bringing together quality assurance and action learning to create a validated and living curriculum. Higher Education Research & Development, 23(3), pp.313-328. Biggs, J.B. (1989): Approaches to the Enhancement of Tertiary Teaching, Higher Education Research & Development, 8:1, 7–25 Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K., 2002. Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to Theories and Methods. fourth ed. Allyn & Bacon. Boyatzis, R. E., 1998. Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Sage Publications. Boyer, E. L., 1998. The Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in a Research University. Reinventing undergraduate education: A blueprint for American research universities. Available: http://naples.cc.sunysb.edu/Pres/boyer.nsf/ [Viewed 26 February 2010] Burns, T.W., O'Connor, D.J. & Stocklmayer, S.M., (2003). Science communication: a contemporary definition. Public Understanding of Science, 12(2), pp.183–202. Brookfield, S. D. (1995). Becoming a Critically Reflective Teacher. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Bruinsma, M. & Jansen, E., (2007). curriculum mapping: integrating multiple perspectives on the curriculum. curriculum and teaching, 22(1), pp.25-45. Canadian Literacy and Learning Network (2011). Principles of adult learning. http://www.literacy.ca/?q=literacy/literacyprofessionals/principles Chickering, A and Gamson, Z., (1987). “Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education”, AAHE Bulletin, vol. 39, no. 7, http://honolulu.hawaii.edu/intranet/committees/FacDevCom/guidebk/teachtip/7prin cip.htm Field D. J., Koppi A. J., McBratney A. B. (2010). Producing the thinking soil scientist. Proceedings 19th World Congress of Soil Science, 1–6 August, Brisbane, Australia. Field, D. J., Koppi, A.J., Jarrett, L., Abbott, L., Cattle, S., Grant, C., McBratney, A., Menzies, N. and Weatherley, T. (2011). Soil science teaching principles. Geoderma, 167–168, 9–14. Forehand, M., 2005. Bloom’s taxonomy: Original and revised. Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology, 8. Fowler, F. J. (2002). Survey research methods. Sage. Freeman, M., and McKenzie, J. (2002). SPARK, a confidential web–based template for self and peer assessment of student teamwork: benefits of evaluating across different subjects. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(5), 551–569. Herrington, J., Oliver, R. & Herrington, A. (2006). Authentic Learning on the Web: Guidelines for Course Design In Khan, B. (Ed) Flexible Learning in an Information Society. Hershey PA: Information Science Pub. Hicks, O. (2007). Curriculum in Higher Education in Australia – Hello? , Retrieved 14/09/2011, from: http://altcexchange.edu.au/system/files/Curriculum%20in%20Higher%20Educatio n%20-%20HERDSA%20Full%20Paper.doc Higher Education Academy. (2011) Imaginative Curriculum. (Retrieved 14/09/11) http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/detail/resource_database/id174_Imaginati ve_Curriculum Jarrett, L, Field, D., Koppi, T., Kopittke, P., Abbott, L., Grant, C., McBratney, A., Menzies, N. & Weatherley, T. (2011). Guidelines for online learning in soil
A national soil science curriculum 27 science: a synthesis of ideas from academics, students and employers. In Proceedings of the 2011 Australian Conference on Science and Mathematics Education. The University of Melbourne. Kahn, P. and O’Rourke, K. (2005). Understanding Enquiry-based Learning (EBL). http://www.aishe.org/readings/2005-2/chapter1.pdf Kelly, T., Reid, J. and Valentine, I. (2006) Enhancing the utility of science: exploring the linkages between a science provider and their end-users in New Zealand. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 2006, 46, 1425–1432 Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2001). Participatory action research. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (Second ed., pp. 567-605). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Kezar, A. and Eckel, P. D. (2002). The Effect of Institutional Culture on Change Strategies in Higher Education: Universal Principles or Culturally Responsive Concepts? The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 73 (4), 435–460. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Mazur, E, 1997. Peer Instruction: A User’s Manual, Upper Saddle River, N.J: Prentice Hall. McLoughlin, C & Luca, J. (2002). A learner-centred approach to developing team skills through web-based learning and assessment. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33, 571–582. Plaza, 2007. Curriculum Mapping in Program Assessment and Evaluation. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 71(2). Ramsden, P. (2008). The Future of Higher Education Teaching and the Student Experience. Retrieved 2 Nov 2012 from: http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/BISCore/corporate/docs/H/he-debate-ramsden.pdf Schön, D.A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Scott, G. (2003), ‘Using successful graduates to improve the quality of curriculum and assessment in nurse education’. Paper presented at the Australasian Nurse Educators Conference, Rotarua, New Zealand, September 2003. Stoller, F. L. (2004). Content-based instruction: perspectives on curriculum planning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 24, 261–283. Svensson, L. and Wihlborg, M. (2010). Internationalising the content of higher education: the need for a curriculum perspective. Higher Education, 60, 595–613. Wachtler, C. & Troein, M., 2003. A hidden curriculum: mapping cultural competency in a medical programme. Medical Education, 37(10), pp.861-868. White, R.T. & Gunstone, R., 1992. Probing Understanding, Routledge.
A national soil science curriculum 28 Appendix 1: Soil science students’ perceptions of learning and teaching
Purpose of the survey
The student survey was part of the first phase of the project, which sought to build a picture of our current teaching and learning practices. When building a picture of a curriculum, it is important to compare student’ perceptions, ie: the received curriculum; with information from staff, ie: the delivered curriculum (Bath et al. 2004; Wachtler & Troein 2003). This process provides corroboration for information from staff and assesses the degree to which the intended curriculum is being received. One of our project deliverables is to assess how well we are meeting the needs of learners, who are one of our three groups of key stakeholders.
Method
The survey was designed by the research team and piloted with the project team. We asked how many soil-science related courses students had studied or were studying; when they had studied them; and the course names or codes. Students were then asked about different aspects of these courses; their preferred learning activities; and their experiences of discussing their work with teaching staff. We designed the survey with open-response boxes in most quantitative questions to allow students to express their ideas fully and avoid constraint by the survey design. We did not pilot the survey with students because the total number of students available to complete the survey was relatively small (about 450), and a pilot group would not have been available to complete the final version of the survey. The survey was made available online for 12 weeks. Approximately 450 students were contacted by staff via email and invited to complete the survey.
Treatment of quantitative and qualitative data
Between 88 and 84 students responded to the quantitative questions. According to Cohen and Manion (2007), a minimum of thirty participants is generally needed in order to enable statistical analysis, so our sample is sufficient to provide statistical power. Participants were able to give a separate quantitative response to each question for each subject they had studied, for example if one subject had involved a lot of rote-learning but another subject had involved very little. In order to calculate the percentages reported below, the total number of responses in each category in a queston (e.g. “strongly agree”) was calculated: this reflects the number of courses that were assigned to that category. The totals for all categories were then added to give the total number of courses reported on for that question. Either 88 or 85 students answered each quantitative question and reported on between 150 and 161 courses. For qualitative analysis, each question was treated and coded separatley, with codes allowed to arise from the data. Each comment was assigned one or more codes and code frequencies were counted. This qualitative data analysis method was informed by the work of Bogdan and Bicklen (2002) and Boyatzis (1998).
A national soil science curriculum 29 Part 1: Survey results What courses are being reported on? Question 1: How many subjects involving soil science have you studied recently? 109 students, 109 responses
Question 2: “Please enter a name for each soil science subject” 109 students, 194 responses
As Table A1-1 shows, nearly half of respondents had studied, or were studying, only one soil-related course and almost another 40 per cent had studied two. Only one respondent had studied five soil-related courses.
Table A1-1: Number of courses studied by respondents.
Number of courses studied One Two Three Four Five Number of respondents 48 42 14 5 1
Question 2 asked students to give a name, description or course code for the courses they had studied or were studying. Respondents named 190 courses. These were analysed qualitatively to determine what levels and disciplines were studied. Tables A1-2 is based on 91 course names from which course level could be inferred (e.g. “introduction” was assigned to level 1, “project” or “reseach” to level 4).
Table A1-2: Levels of courses reported on, based on 91 course names or codes.
Level 1 2 3 4 Number of 19 63 7 2 couses
Table A1-3: Course disciplines reported on, based on 190 course names/codes
Discipline Number of Discipline Number of courses courses Soil 55 Toxicology / 3 remediation Soil and water 41 Agronomy 3 Resource 27 Soils and society 2 management Earth processes 16 Chemistry 2 Plants 8 Tropical soils 1 Geology 6 Hydrogeology 1 Geomorphology 5 Edaphology 1 GIS 4 Biology 1 Ecology 4
A national soil science curriculum 30 How current is the survey data?
Question 3: “When did you study these courses?” 109 students, 194 courses
We asked students how long ago they had studied the courses, because courses studied recently are likely to be recalled better by the students and are also less likely to have undergone change since the students experienced them. 71 per cent of students reported on courses they had studied within the past 12 months and 85 per cent within the last two years. Therefore it is likely that the survey gives a good reflection of how students perceive their soil science courses.
Real-life scenarios and industry input
Involvement of industry in undergraduate learning is valuable in putting learning in context, enhancing students’ experiences and fosters the development of generic skills (McLoughlin & Luca 2002).
Question 4: “Activities and materials involved real-life or realistic scenarios and/or case-studies”. 88 responses, 161 courses. 81 per cent agreed or strongly agreed, 2.5 per cent disagreed or strongly disagreed
Of the 46 comments, five cited decision-making activities such as how soil properties affect construction activities or suitability for cropping. 18 comments reported that examples were given in lectures; 16 cited field trips and 9 cited laboratory or other practical work. There were ten negative comments: these involved issues such as a lack of practical work (4 comments) and failure to explain the relevance of soil analyses (4 comments).
Question 5: “Subject activities and materials involved input from industry”. 88 responses, 161 courses. 36 per cent agreed or strongly agreed, 22 per cent disagreed or strongly disagreed
Of the 28 comments, 12 reported no courses involving no contact with industry and 6 described limited contact, for example a single guest lecture or a lack of opportunity to talk to industry representatives. 12 comments reported industry involvement, 9 of which cited field trips or site visits. Only two comments described positive outcomes of industry involvement such as improved understanding of future employment requirements.
Preparation for future employment
Question 9: “I think the subject helped prepare me for future employment in a soil science-related area”. 88 responses, 158 courses. Over 70 per cent agreed or strongly agreed, 2.5 per cent disagreed or strongly disagreed, 8 per cent unsure
The above results suggest a strong perception that the soil science courses were useful preparation for employment.
Of the 24 comments describing how the courses had been useful, 14 cited discipline knowledge with three pointing out that further study was needed. Five comments stated that the courses had allowed them to apply their knowledge while one pointed
A national soil science curriculum 31 out that this element had been missing from their course. Three comments stated that the course content had been interesting or had stimulated their interest in the discipline. One comment cited “concepts and ways of thinking like a soil scientist” and one respondent described how the course had increased their confidence in their research ability.
Higher-order thinking
Bloom’s Taxonomy classifies tasks according to their cognitive complexity. The revised model (Forehand 2005) has six levels. The lowest level is classified as remembering, with higher-order tasks described as understanding, applying, analysing, evaluating and creating.
Question 6: “The subject activities involved me applying my knowledge to give explanations, justify decisions, make predictions or suggest solutions to problems”. 88 responses, 160 courses. 72 per cent agreed or strongly agreed, less than 4 per cent disagreed or strongly disagreed.
According to students, higher-order thinking tasks are a significant part of coursework. However, when asked about the proportion of rote-learning in their course, respondents reported a significant proportion of rote learning.
Question 10: “How much of the subject content involved rote-learning (memorising facts and figures)?”. 85 responses, 151 courses. 14 per cent of courses involved less than 20 per cent rote-learning over 34 per cent of courses involved 60 per cent or more rote-learning.
This suggests that although higher-order thinking is part of most courses, it is a relatively small part. Chemical formulas, equations, names of soil types and horizons were the main items rote-learned.
Contributing to the learning agenda
One of our project’s aims is to foster the development of autonomous, independent learners. However the majority of students have limited control over what and how they learn.
Question 7: “I was able to contribute to the learning agenda e.g. by choosing experiments or essay topics or giving feedback during lectures so the lecturer could focus on what I needed to learn”. 88 responses, 160 courses. Nearly 41 per cent agreed or strongly agreed, 24 per cent disagreed or strongly disagreed.
However, analysis of the 21 comments revealed that students’ expectations of involvement were very limited. Five comments described discussions or asking questions in class. According to four comments there was no choice or opportunity for input and another four comments cited course evaluations; which is not an opportunity for setting the learning agenda. Only four comments actually described such opportunities: three cited choice of assignment topic and one described how extra lectures were arranged in response to students’ feedback about difficulties with topics.
A national soil science curriculum 32
Do assessments reflect the knowledge and skills learned?
Question 8: “The assessments allowed me to demonstrate the knowledge and skills I had learned”. 88 responses, 158 courses. Over 70 per cent agreed or strongly agreed, under 5 per cent disagreed or strongly disagreed.
Although most participants agreed with the statement, less than 24 per cent strongly agreed. This is worrying because it is vital (Biggs 1996) that assessments are aligned to course outcomes. The lack of strong agreement suggests that this is not the case. It may indicate a mismatch between what staff and students perceive as key content. Some comments gave their reasons for considering assessments effective or otherwise: these are given below:
“Excellent form of assessment to show what was really understood not just regurgitating onto paper from study notes”. “The course had an exam, typical of most courses. Whether or not this is the best way for someone to demonstrate their knowledge is another debate!” “Mostly exam type questions. But because questions are often broad, I don't know what the marker wants from the answer which can make it very frustrating”. “Exam was main criteria, which made it impossible to keep knowledge over a period of time”. “Interpretation of observations were a great way of getting us to think about the processes occurring and to discuss them amongst other students, improving our own understanding and that of others”. “Too much emphasis on essay writing for its own sake - with topics from left field”. “We needed to demonstrate on how well we understood the whole idea, since all of them are connecting to each other”.
From these comments is can be seen that students value assessments which involve higher-order thinking and which reflect the reality of how knowledge is used.
Are the ways we deliver the subject meeting our students’ needs?
Question 11: “Apart from laboratory work and fieldwork, how much of your subject activities involved group work or group discussions?” 85 responses, 150 courses
We asked students not to count lab-work or field-trips in this question as, at undergraduate level those activities are invariably undertaken in groups and we wished to determine what non-experimental group-work the students were participating in. The results show that this work is relatively solitary: almost a third (32.7 per cent) of courses involved less than 20 per cent group-work or group discussions, with 61 per cent of courses involving less than 40 per cent group activities. 6.7 per cent of courses consisted of more than 80 per cent group activities. The students made 25 comments about group activities: only one of which was negative:
“The less of them there are, the better”.
A national soil science curriculum 33 Eight participants reported little or no group work; two of these were from people studying externally and relying on online interaction. Two comments described significant amounts of group work:
“Only one report was individual”. “Most assignments were group work. Class activities also involved small group discussions”.
Fifteen comments described activities: these were discussions (seven comments); presentations (four comments) and problem-solving (three comments). Three respondents reported group assignments.
According to one participant:
“Tutes were v.helpful where we broke down lecture material & summarised as a class”.
Group activities such as discussions, problem solving and giving presentations, are intrinsically active learning opportunities. They also require communication and interpersonal skills which are valued by employers (ACNielsen Research Services & Australia. Dept. of Education 2000)
Question 12: “How much of the time did you spend in a passive role such as listening to lectures, following set procedures in laboratories, solving set problems in tutorials?” 85 responses, 152 courses
Less than 6 per cent of participants reported spending under 20 per cent of their course time in a passive role, while according to 60 per cent of students, passive learning took up more than 60 per cent of their time. One in eight students reported spending 80 per cent or more of their course time in a passive role. These results are worrying as there is significant evidence that passive learning is not effective (Hake 1998; Johnston, I. & Millar, R. 2000; E. Mazur 1996; Tanahoung et al. 2009).
Respondents made 19 comments describing where passive activities took place and whether or not they were effective. Lectures were the most common passive activity. Three students made negative comments about passive activities and seven made positive comments. One negative comment noted that activities designed for active learning were ineffective and difficult to understand. The other two are discussed below. Of the seven positive comments, four suggested that passive activities helped the students to learn and one explained that they would have “messed up” laboratories if not given instructions to follow. The following three comments illustrate the importance of conceptual understanding, particularly in making sense of practical work; and the ineffectiveness of lectures on their own as a means of fostering conceptual understanding:
“Tutorial problems are the most helpful as you have to apply what you learnt in lectures on a fundamental level. Then you can begin to understand more what you're trying to achieve in a lab, rather than just following instructions”.
“I think that lab work was too short and too fast (we had 2 hours of prac instead of 3 hours), so quite hard to grab the point of the practical”.
A national soil science curriculum 34 “We spent lots of time in long lectures. They're necessary to get the information across but it can be difficult to learn from just the lectures without having practical examples too”.
Question 13: “The way the subject is taught suits the way I like to learn” 85 responses, 155 courses
Students appear to be comfortable with the emphasis on passive learning: almost 60 per cent agreed or strongly agreed with this question and only 10 per cent disagreed or strongly disagreed.
Students were asked to describe the kinds of activities that suit them best.
Consolidation of learning was the major theme, with 12 out of 29 comments outlining the importance of revisiting applying knowledge. Seven of these described how course structure contributes to consolidation through concepts. being introduced in lectures then applied in laboratories or fieldwork. Two comments praised lectures that are conceptually linked together across the Semester. Quizzes, calculations, practical reports and assignments also consolidated learning.
Five participants reported that they learn best through hands-on activities in laboratories. However, one participant noted that when student numbers are too high, effective learning in labs cannot occur.
Four comments described the importance of up-to-date, relevant real-life examples and problems to illustrate theory.
Three comments described being encouraged to take learning further with independent research and although four comments discussed groupwork, only one of these was unconditionally positive: two pointed out that the success of groupwork depends critically on the attitude and motivation of all group members. These findings suggest that students have an expectation of traditional lecture-dominated, teacher-centred, passive learning; and do not feel comfortable with student-centred, open-ended activities, whether individual or group-based. Since one of the project aims is to promote active learning in order to better prepare students for employment, it will be necessary to challenge students’ comfort with passive learning.
Question 14: “If there are differences between how the subject is delivered and what you want, please tell us more”. 35 responses
Participants made a total of 47 comments about how courses had not met their needs. These were categorised according to the types of issues rasied and the results summarised in Table A1-4. Laboratories and fieldwork are the most significant sources of dissatisfation, overwhelmingly because of a lack of sufficient time in the laboratory or field. Lack of time for discussion and long, complex, theory- heavy lectures were the next most common complaints.
A national soil science curriculum 35 Table A1-4: Differences between how subjects were delivered and what was wanted (35 responses)
Category Number of Issues raised and representative quotes comments Laboratories 11 Six wanted more or "better" practical work or complained that there were no laboratories. Two complained that lab time was used for tutorial or theory work. Two wanted more staff involvement or more experienced staff. One wanted more laboratory time so that work was not rushed. Fieldwork 9 All wanted more fieldwork or said that fieldwork was missing from the course Lectures 8 Three comments said that lectures were long, complex and boring, one that they need to be better prepared and one that they repeated what was in the learning guide and were therefore seen as a waste of time. Other issues included lack of prior access to lecture notes and lack of access to audio-recordings. Content 6 Four comments asked for spefific content (one of these referred to laboratory content), one complained of too much content and one wanted to see experiements more explicitly linked to theory. Assessment 6 Issues included assessment of material not covered in lectures; too many essays and lack of choice of assignment topics. Discussion 5 All wanted more discussion time, with one specifying online discussions. Scaffolding 5 One respondent had struggled with group discussions where no-one in the group felt they knew much about the subject; another had felt overwhelmed by a course which turned into a “mini-thesis”. Other issues raised were assumed knowledge and explanations that integrated with prior knowledge. Real-world 4 “Guest lecturers talking about specific and current applications issues in a specific industry. An opportunity to see the machines and equipment used in the soil science labs by our lecturers and other researchers”. Practicalities 4 Two comments cited textbooks not being prescribed or not being available. Other issues involved excessively long days (which may lead to cognitive overload and failure to retain information) and lack of direct access to lecturers during remotely-delivered lectures. Relevence 3 "That was all we ever talked about, and towards the to degree end it seemed like these words were just thrown into the lectures to make them seem relevant to the course!" "The subject had little relevance to my study field and even if it did this was not mentioned in lectures"
A national soil science curriculum 36 The following comment in contrast, illustrates what one respondent saw as the characteristics of an ideal subject:
“Excellent subject. Highly recommended. Good balance of lecture-tute-prac-field work. All necessary & applicable skills and techniques learnt which I feel I would use in the field. Assignments related perfectly to prac & lecture material. Revising for exam was FUN because I enjoyed what I was learning & felt that the way I was being assessed was a good reflection on the type of material taught”.
Question 15: “Activities I learn best from”. 84 responses
Participants were given seven different types of learning activity and asked to respond to the statement “I learn best from” for each activity with “strongly disagree” “disagree” “slightly disagree” “slightly agree”, “agree” or “strongly agree”. The types of learning activity were informed by the work of Kolb (1984). Table 2 summarises the responses. It can be seen that the participants tended to respond positively to every form of learning: at least 50 per cent of students agreed that they learned best form every activity while in all cases less than 14 per cent disagreed. In light of this, it may have been better to ask the students to rank the activities in order, because arguably students cannot learn “best” from all activities. However, in spite of this limitation it is still possible to discern some trends in the data. As table A1-5 shows, field-trips were considered the best learning activity by many more students than were self-directed practicals, lectures or group-work. Mirroring this result, the largest number of “disagree” or “strongly disagree” responses occurred for self-directed practicals, lectures or group-work.
Table A1-5: Types of activities students learn best from
Activity % disagree or strongly % agree or disagree strongly agree Field trips 4 79 Thinking about ideas and 1 73 theories Practical work where we have 1 68 a set procedure to follow Discussions 4 67 Practical work where we work 7 54 out the procedure ourselves Watching and listening to 13 52 lectures Working as part of a group 7 50
These trends back up some findings from elsewhere: for example, field-work was the most popular activity in terms of effective learning, while group-work was relatively unpopular, with one respondent commenting:
“Group work can be frustrating if it follows the slowest person in the group”.
Although students claimed in the previous question that the lecture-dominated courses suit the way they learn, lectures were the second least-popular activity, with the greatest percentage of students disagreeing that they learned best from lectures. Respondents preferred “cookbook” laboratories to those where they devised their
A national soil science curriculum 37 own procedures: this may reflect discomfort with open-ended and self-guided tasks or it may be due to a lack of confidence in the laboratory. The effectiveness of thinking about ideas and theories as a learning activity probably reflects the fact that consolidation of learning is an important part of learning for our students, with new concepts having to be integrated with existing knowledge, applied in context and revisited from different perspectives.
Question 16: “It’s easy to discuss my work with the teaching staff”. 84 responses.
The students were positive about their working relationship with staff, with 74 per cent agreeing or strongly agreeing; and 4 per cent disagreeing and 1 per cent strongly disagreeing.
Questions 17 and 18: “Please tell us about the learning activity that was most effective for you and why”. 56 responses
Table A1-6 summarises the responses to these two questions. Field-trips and other practical work were overwhelmingly seen as the most effective learning activities. The most common reason given was that “learning by doing” results in more meaningful learning. Involvement with knowledgeable staff was also highly valued in all aspects of learning.
Table A1-6: Most effective activity (56 responses)
Activity Number of Reasons and representative quotes responses Field-work 24 Three comments specified report-writing following field- trips. Seeing and interacting with soil is important for effective learning. Real-life application of theory. “It challenged me to find solutions to new problems. It required me to study and ask questions about the topic”. “I learn best from hands-on activities”. Practicals / 22 Giving meaning to lectures. laboratories The opportunity for discussion. Two comments specified report-writing following laboratories. E.g: “It gave me the chance to examine the data and formulate some reasoning as to what was happening, requiring research and an understanding of the experiment”. Lectures 7 “The lecturer is engaging and knowledgeable“. Tutorials / 6 “Tutorials were best because lecture content would be discussions further explained after having time to process it. Could take questions and discuss”. Presentations 3 “Because it required that you understand a topic to a high level in order to relay the concepts to others. This is integral in the real world”. In-depth 2 Discussions took place during field-trips and tutorials.
A national soil science curriculum 38 discussions “Because you can only understand so much from a with lecturers book. Need explanations and positive feedback from an educated mind”. Assessments 1 “Authentic, educative assessment tasks, with prompt feedback”.
Question 19: “Any other comments?” 32 responses.
Participants made 25 positive, four neutral and only three negative comments. The most common comment was that they had found the subject interesting, often more so than they had expected to. Three respondents attributed this to knowledgeable, well-organised and approachable lecturers and four considered the subject socially and environmentally important; potentially increasingly so:
“Soil science is really going to be more and more important in future because of degrading environment. Managing land in a way to solve the environmental problems is really important”.
Two negative comments cited excessive memorising of information. As one respondent pointed out, soil science is a vertically organised discipline, with new learning dependent on prior understanding of underlying concepts. This means that if early concepts are missed then much subsequent material is confusing.
Part 2: Collaborative qualitative analysis of students’ comments by attendees of Forum 1
During our first Forum, attendees worked in four groups of between three and five people, to qualitatively analyse sets of student comments from the survey. The method for this activity was reported in Jarrett et al. (2010). Briefly, prior to the activity the researchers assigned all comments to one or more of 22 categories. Four of these categories were chosen to form the focus of the group discussions, ie: each of the four groups analysed the data set for one category. The categories we chose were: “active learners”, “careers”, “most effective activity” and “effective learning”, each of which contained between 18 and 25 comments. Any potentially identifying information was removed and spelling corrected but no other changes were made. The four sets of student comments were printed and the pages cut into strips, with each strip containing a single comment. This was to prevent the participants perceiving them as an ordered list with the associated primacy / recency (Jersild 1929) effects; to help participants to focus on each comment individually; and also to allow participants to physically organise the comments into groups to aid their analysis. Each group was asked to summarise the students’ ideas and formulate two learning principles related to their category. Their responses are given below.
Group 1: Effective activities and reasons given Tutorials • Make students think • Involve more explanations of concepts • Give students more time to process information Field trips • Are significant because of their relevance: making sense and real-world connections
A national soil science curriculum 39 • Students can’t learn soil science without seeing soil • Provide more contact time with lecturer Practicals • Give students more time to think • Involve data interpretation Other activities– minority • Poster presentations, group presentations • Thinking outside the square
Learning principles for effective activities • Learning should be based on thinking rather than remembering • Extra time should be provided for thinking and processing • The most effective activities involve learning by doing; hands-on and experiential.
Teaching constraints that stand in the way of these activities • Non-flexible syllabus • What students want is most expensive in time and money • Assessment driven • Can assessment be flexible? • Handbook driven – can’t change easily
Group 2: Conditions which foster active learners • Provision of freedom or choice e.g. in how an assignment is to be presented • Field work: students need to work on a real problem • Group activities • Interaction with other group members or staff • Talking to staff • Overcoming laziness • Need to “switch” students on • Instilling students’ confidence in their abilities • Different learning styles need to be catered for • Avoiding competition (in group work)
Teaching principles for fostering active learners • Students must be empowered, motivated and challenged • Activities must be related to real-world situations and must be seen as relevant
Group 3: Effective learning • Students embrace learning if given responsibility (e.g. selection of soil / problem) • Preference for real-life examples – reinforced with industry contact • Link to “current” issue – desirable • Learn by doing (in context) • Passive learning is not necessarily bad! • Logical structure (to learning / discipline)
A national soil science curriculum 40 Group 4: Preparing students for future careers Students reported exposure to research and/or researchers but NOT to industry. Industry was not clearly defined to the students; they expected to see some connection to agriculture.
Students experienced no link between exposure to real-world problems at university and relevant industries or future careers. • Students weren’t introduced to industry • They felt they were somehow expected obtain a career without guidance • Other students reported limited exposure to industry, with no allowance for real interaction between students and industry representatives • Activities must have relevance to young people It is important to remember that some students are not planning to go into soil science.
Principles for preparing students for future careers • We need to identify relevant industries using information from teaching staff, industry and graduates. We need to develop a process for this • We need to achieve real industry involvement • We must remember that we are training people to be soil scientists. We must train people to recognise that soil science is integral to other professions e.g. viticulture, agronomy, environmental science
References ACNielsen Research Services & Australia. Dept. of Education, T. and Y.A.E. and I.P., 2000. Employer satisfaction with graduate skills : research report / ACNielsen Research Services, Canberra: Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Available at: http://www.dest.gov.au/archive/highered/eippubs/eip99- 7/eip99_7pdf.pdf, http://www.dest.gov.au/archive/highered/eippubs/eip99- 7/execsum99_7.htm [Accessed January 11, 2011]. Ausubel, D.P., 1963. The psychology of meaningful verbal learning: an introduction to school learning, New York: Grune & Stratton. Bath et al., 2004. Beyond mapping and embedding graduate attributes : bringing together quality assurance and action learning to create a validated and living curriculum. Higher Education Research & Development, 23(3), pp.313-328. Biggs, J., 1996. Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32(3), pp.347-364. Bogdan, R.C. & Biklen, S.K., 2002. Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to Theories and Methods 4th ed., Allyn & Bacon. Boyatzis, R.E., 1998. Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development, Sage Pubns. Bruinsma, M. & Jansen, E., 2007. curriculum mapping: integrating multiple perspectives on the curriculum. curriculum and teaching, 22(1), pp.25-45. Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2007. Research methods in education, Routledge. Forehand, M., 2005. Bloom’s taxonomy: Original and revised. Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology, 8. Hake, R.R., 1998. Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six- thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66, pp.64–74. Jarrett, L., Field, D. & Koppi, T., 2010. Promoting reflective dialogue through group analysis of student feedback. In Proceedings of the 16th UniServe Annual
A national soil science curriculum 41 Conference (2010). 16th UniServe Annual Conference (2010). The University of Sydney, pp. 53-59. Jersild, A., 1929. Primacy, recency, frequency, and vividness. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 12(1), pp.58-70. Johnston, I. & Millar, R., 2000. Is there a right way to teach physics? CAL-laborate, 5(October), pp.10-14. Kolb, D.A., 1984. Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Mazur, E., 1996. Peer Instruction, Upper Saddle River, N.J: Prentice Hall. Mazur, Eric, 1997. Peer Instruction: A User’s Manual, Upper Saddle River, N.J: Prentice Hall. McLoughlin, C. & Luca, J., 2002. Keeping an anchor watch: industry partnerships as a basis for learning. In Winds of change in the sea of learning: Proceedings of the 19th ASCILITE conference, Unitec, Auckland, Unitec Institute of Technology. Plaza, 2007. Curriculum Mapping in Program Assessment and Evaluation. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 71(2). Tanahoung, C. et al., 2009. The effect of Interactive Lecture Demonstrations on students’ understanding of heat and temperature: a study from Thailand. Research in Science & Technological Education, 27(1), p.61. Wachtler, C. & Troein, M., 2003. A hidden curriculum: mapping cultural competency in a medical programme. Medical Education, 37(10), pp.861-868. White, R.T. & Gunstone, R., 1992. Probing Understanding, Routledge.
A national soil science curriculum 42 Appendix 2: Soil science graduates’ perceptions of learning and teaching
Part 1: Survey results
Question 1: “To which of the following does your employer primarily belong?” 222 responses
Participants were asked to select from a list, the sector to which their employer primarily belonged; and to state their job title or describe their main duties. Table A2- 1 shows the quantitative responses to question 1. Agriculture was overwhelmingly the leading category with 34 per cent of responses.
Table A2-1: Employment sector – quantitative data
Sector No. of responses Agriculture 75 Other 32 Environmental 31 Management 26 Education 24 Research 18 Horticulture 8 Mining 5 Quarantine 2 Forestry 1
Of the 222 graduates who answered question 1, 191 provided more details. Results of qualitative analysis of these are given in Table A2-2. Note that some responses were assigned to more than one category e.g. water management consultancy. Some respondents specified more than one role. Although only 8 per cent of respondents identified research as their employer’s main sector in the quantitative section, 16 per cent of those who made comments identified research as part or all of their role. This most likely reflects the fact that research is carried out within many of the other sectors. By contrast, the environmental and education sectors were identified by the same percentage of respondents in the qualitative and quantitative questions.
Table A2-2: Graduates’ employment sectors – qualitative data
Employment % of Details sector or type respondents Research 16 Not including postgraduate students. Environmental / 13 Environmental scientists, ecologists, conservation consultants. Two respondents specified contaminated land. Education 11 Including six high-school teachers, three of
A national soil science curriculum 43 whom teach agriculture; and one TAFE teacher in horticulture. Consultancy 9 Including hydrology, livestock, environmental, agricultural. Management 8 Five project managers / project officers. Water management 7 Three specified groundwater, two cited salinity, one worked in Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) and one in recycling and efficiency. Agronomists 6 Farmers 4 Including farm managers. Livestock, fruit and sugar-cane. Soil scientists 3 Postgraduate 3 Three specified PhD. One specified previous students employment as an environmental scientist. Wine industry 3 Includes two vineyard managers Science 2 Included writing / editing, journals and media communication relations. Soil fertility 2 Fertilisers and plant nutrition Weed management 2 Weed control, weed ecology Organic agriculture 1 Certification manager.
Question 2: Importance of, and focus on, graduate attributes and skills. 222 responses
Graduates were given a list of 22 graduate attributes and skills: for each of there they were asked to indicate how important each attribute is for performance in their current job; and the extent to which their soil science course(s) focused on it.
Respondents made 104 comments in response to the question “Any other comments or information for example specialist software (e.g. GIS, stats packages), other people skills etc.”. These are summarised in Table A2-3.
Table A2-3: qualitative data on graduate attributes and skills Issues raised % of Notes comments GIS 34 GIS is critical to soil science – 5 comments Statistical packages 24 Statistix (2); Genstat (5); JMP (2); Statistica (1) Modeling 10 Including nutrients, hydrological and climate modelling Study was too long 10 ago to comment Discipline knowledge 9 Focus should be on fundamentals (4); Long- is important timescales / systems thinking (3) Study was taken 7 Most comments focus on the importance of prior to computers computers to contemporary work
A national soil science curriculum 44 Scientific method 7 Critical thinking skills; data-collection, analysis and communication, scientific rigour, error- computation Databases 5 Flexibility in software 4 Ability to use different packages of the same expertise type, necessity of updating skills as software is updated Sensors 2 Software for processing input from transducers Project management 2 software
The importance of specialist software, particularly GIS and statistics packages, is evident, with over half of all comments referring to software of these types. However there is also a significant focus on the importance of core discipline knowledge and scientific method. The comments pertaining to scientific method are given below: “Error analysis of our experiments. I think that this was one of the most useful concepts I've ever learned.”.
“It is the exposure to good scientific process, critical thinking and more importantly communication of results that is important!”
“It may be worthwhile to have core and electives. The core focuses are science based: theory, data collection, data analysis, reporting/ presentation and current knowledge. In all, the student has a firm foundation understanding of science”.
“In 1951 Prof Leeper did not have software, but he sure had scientific rigor”.
“We had to use mechanical calculators which forced us to focus on the data and its interpretation within the context of the current theory and understanding. Modern software is so easy to use even without a sound understanding of the basic theory. I often encounter recent graduates who appear to lack this basic understanding but do not see their lack of knowledge as a reason for caution in the use of modern GIS and statistical software. The focus should be on the basics and theory rather than the software”.
Question 3: “How long did it take you to become proficient in your job?” 222 responses
Figure A2-1: Perceived time to achieve job proficiency.
A national soil science curriculum 45 The responses to question 3 shown in Figure A2-1, in addition to comments made, show that graduates overwhelmingly perceive that job proficiency takes years.
Table A2-4: comments on time to achieve job proficiency, (105 comments)
Issues raised % of Notes response s “Still learning” 26 Job evolves 11 Attaining proficiency is an ongoing process because of changes in role and scientific or technological developments Broad experience 9 A wide range knowledge and skills is required, increasing time required for proficiency. Postgraduate 7 Described as “essential” by two graduates study Discipline 6 Knowledge of other disciplines may help; specific knowledge knowledge may have to be learned; knowledge must be integrated across disciplines Mentoring 5 Mentoring or working with discipline experts was an important part of professional development Site-specific 5 Knowledge and its application are often site- or region- knowledge specific Applying 5 It takes time and experience to learn to apply theory knowledge
105 respondents provided comments on the time taken to achieve proficiency: these were analysed qualitatively as before and results are summarised in Table A2-4. 22 comments specified the time required for proficiency; these were: over ten years (12 comments); five-to ten years (four comments) and one to four years (six comments).
Question 4: Importance of, and focus on, different discipline areas 222 responses.
As for question 2, graduates were given a list of 22 discipline areas and asked for each to indicate how important each attribute is for performance in their current job; and the extent to which their soil science course(s) focused on it.
Respondents made 75 comments about discipline knowledge; these are summarised in Table A2-5.
Table A2-5: comments about discipline knowledge (75 comments)
Issues raised % of Notes responses Wanted 19 Respondents specified discipline knowledge knowledge missing from their courses and important to their careers. This is detailed below. Soil science 8 The subject needs more coverage in schools; the needs a higher range of possible careers and applicability of the
A national soil science curriculum 46 profile discipline is not sufficiently emphasised Basics needed 8 Strong knowledge of fundamental concepts is required for graduates’ jobs. Good coverage 7 Courses were effective in delivering knowledge of of fundamentals fundamental concepts Left the 7 Respondents were working outside the broad discipline discipline and not using their knowledge Inspiring 5 Inspiring and effective lecturers strongly influenced lecturers interest in topics.
Among the 14 comments that described what was missing from courses, themes of applying knowledge; an Interdisciplinary / systems approach; and a focus on soil health emerged strongly. These appeared, often together, in nine comments. Although soil-plant interactions arguably are part of a systems approach, these interactions were specified in three comments without reference to applying knowledge, a systems approach or soil health. Finally, two comments specified soil degradation and rehabilitation: this could be grouped with soil health. To illustrate these themes, Table A2-6 gives representative comments with the corresponding categories.
Table A2-6: Discipline knowledge wanted by graduates – representative comments and corresponding categories.
Category No. of Notes and representative quotes responses Interdisciplinary / 7 “It tended to be compartmented into subjects rather systems taking a systems approach where there is a emphasis on how each of these areas interact with each other”. Soil-plant 7 “More focus on the influence of soils on the interactions distribution of vegetation communities”. Soil health 4 “My role is concerned with healthy functioning landscapes. If not then why not and what can be done about it”. Degradation / 2 “No reference to specific land degradation issues rehabilitation eg erosion, salinity, fertility decline, acidification, acid sulfate soils”.
Figure A2-2 indicates overlap between the above themes. Relative sizes of sets and interactions are approximate. Overlapping ellipses show where comments were assigned to multiple categories. The relative sizes of the ellipses and areas of overlap indicate the relative numbers of comments assigned to each category. For example, all of the comments categorised under “health” were also categorised under “systems”; and most of them were also categorised under “soil-plant interactions”. Comments categorised under “rehab”, by contrast, were not categorised under any of the other categories.
A national soil science curriculum 47
Figure A2-2: visualisation of themes emerging from data on wanted discipline knowledge from question 4.
Question 5: “What were the TWO most important ways your university soil course(s) prepared you well for professional work?” 206 responses, 390 comments
Table A2-7: Categories of response for question 5 (best aspects) 390 comments
Issues raised %. of Category description and representative quotes responses Discipline 39 Knowledge without specific reference to its knowledge application in context or problem-solving: sub- categorised in Table 9. Applying 15 Applying knowledge in context e.g. to determine knowledge fertiliser requirements or impacts of different management practices. Applying skills 12 Skills specific to soil science e.g. field testing, texture analysis, test interpretation. Includes laboratories and field trips. Problem solving 9 Finding and applying relevant information to solve / thinking skills problems; working independently; self-efficacy; critical thinking; learning how to learn. Scientific 8 Generic skills e.g. hypothesis building, data method collection and analysis, attention to detail, research skills Communications 7 Writing and presentation skills, discipline terminology, communicating to stakeholders. People 4 Learning to work as part of a group; future industry contacts; inspiring lecturers. University 2 Specific learning activities (not including practicals activities and field-work which are grouped with “applying
A national soil science curriculum 48 skills”) “Ability to show my knowledge of soil science through practicals, test, exams and assignments”. Enthusiasm 2 “My course gave me a life long interest in soils”. “Great enthusiastic lecturers”. New knowledge 2 “It aimed to inspire by teaching leading edge concepts”. “Current research advances”.
Table A2-8: Categories of discipline knowledge for question 5 (best aspects)
Category % of Category description and representative quotes responses Unspecified 39 “Well rounded course”; “Understanding of underlying scientific principles”. Chemistry 15 Interdisciplinary 13 Soil as a complex system linked to living things and / systems water; “A holistic approach”; integrating information across disciplines; importance of soil to society. Pedology 12 Including classification, morphology and soil processes. Plants 9 How water and nutrients affect plant growth; how soil characteristics affect vegetation; plant identification. Physics 8 Fertility 3 Use of fertilisers; relationship between fertility and parent material (could be considered a sub-category of “plants”).
Tables A2-7 and A2-8 summarise the results of qualitative analysis of responses to question 5. The largest single category of responses was general positive comments about the discipline knowledge taught; this was closely followed by application of knowledge in context.
Question 6: “What were the TWO most significant aspects that were missing from your university soil course(s)?” 206 responses, 338 comments
Responses to question 6 were analysed using the same categories as for question 5 in order to enable direct comparison; however additional categories were added where necessary. Tables A2-9 and A2-10 summarise the results of general categories and discipline knowledge, which again comprised the largest group of responses.
A national soil science curriculum 49 Table A2-9: Categories of response for question 6 (missing aspects) 338 comments.
Issues raised %. of Category description and representative quotes responses Discipline 49 Sub-categories in Table 11. knowledge Applying 13 “Practical, real-world experience”. “Application of knowledge knowledge to agricultural production”. Applying skills 9 “Soil sample interpretation”. “Soil type identification in the field”. Industry 8 Work experience; awareness of job opportunities; contacts links with industry. Communication 4 “Presenting importance of soil research to stakeholders”. Business skills 4 Project management; time management; budgeting; leadership; financial issues. Technology 3 GIS, spatial analysis People 3 “More students”. “Teamwork to bring together different disciplines”. Thinking and 2 “Emphasis on the integration of skills and knowledge problem into a systems approach to problem solving”. solving “Sourcing information form external sources”. University 2 “We needed more time, although that is a common activities complaint for interesting courses”. “Few extended projects”.
Table A2-10: Categories of discipline knowledge for question 6 (missing aspects)
Category No. of Category description and representative quotes responses Interdisciplinary 21 “Interactions between soil physics, chemistry and / systems biology”. “Relevance to other disciplines”. “Social importance of soils”. Environmental 20 Soil carbon; contaminants; salinity; acidity; remediation; impact of fertilisers on water quality; sustainability; organic farming methods. Biology 11 Including 4 microbiology Plants 11 “Understanding the plant / soil interface”. “Developing nutrient programs”. “Relationships of soil types to plant communities”. Hydrology / 5 hydrogeology Landscape 5 assessment / analysis / climatology / relationships / connectivity / hydrology
A national soil science curriculum 50 Geology 4 Engineering 3
Question 7: “What other experiences had an impact on your professional preparation?” 138 comments
Graduates’ descriptions of other experience which contributed to their professional preparation are summarised in Table A2-11.
Table A2-11: Other experience which contributed to professional preparation (138 comments)
Category %. of Category description and representative quotes responses Work 30 Work experience placements during study or paid experience positions following graduation Other courses 14 Other undergraduate or postgraduate courses (non soil- science) Farming 13 Growing up on a farm; having family who farm; work placement on a farm; working on a farm Postgraduate 12 MSc and PhD research study Field work 7 Field trips at university or work experience specifically referring to field work People 7 Professional networks, inspiring lecturers, mentoring programs, working with experienced professionals Rehabilitation 7 Volunteer or paid positions / conservation work Teaching 3 Including teaching done during study Membership 2 Royal society; ASSSI Overseas 2 Experience in developing countries experience
Question 8: “Do you have any suggestions for improvement to your university soil course(s)?” 134 comments
Responses to this question formed the focus of one of the activities in Forum 2. For that activity, the responses to date were categorised by the researchers and analysed by the forum participants. The results of that activity are reported in Part 2 of this report. The findings shown in Tables A2-12 and A2-13, however, are based on an analysis of the entire data set using the same categories as for questions five and six.
A national soil science curriculum 51 As with questions five and six, there was a strong focus on discipline knowledge. However, practical application of knowledge and links with industry were key concerns.
Table A2-12: Suggestions for improvement of courses (134 comments)
Issues raised %. of Notes and representative quotes responses Discipline 51 Details in Table 14 knowledge Applying skills 18 12 comments specified the value of field trips Industry 16 Guest lecturers, industry placements; aligning courses to industry’s needs Applying 13 knowledge Enthusiasm 7 All comments asked for more emphasis on the relevance and importance of soils, and on delivering courses so as to engage students Thinking skills 6 Including 3 requests for problem-based / case- based learning and 5 requests for opportunities for graduates to be involved in ongoing learning. New knowledge 4 Avoid outdated knowledge and methods and make sure that what is taught is in line with best practice in industry Technology 3 Spatial modeling Communications 3 Including 2 comments about communicating soil science to non-discipline experts
Table A2-13: Discipline knowledge requested in response to question 8 (suggestions for improvement)
Categories % of Category description and representative quotes responses Environmental 22 Including 6 comments specifying rehabilitation of degraded land Interdisciplinary 16 / systems Basics 15 “Cover a broad base”; “Solid preparation in the basic sciences” Plants 7 Soil-plant interactions Mathematics 7 Mathematics and statistics Specialties 4 “Better focus on specialties – all modern courses are too generalist”; “Focus on more than just Pedology, soil chemistry and soil physics” Non-local soils 4 Including overseas soils Biology 6 Including 1 microbiology Geology 4 Hydrology 3 Engineering 3
A national soil science curriculum 52 Demographic information: questions 9 and 10
Figure A2-3 shows the number of courses taken at each year level. 200 graduates answered this question. At first year level, the overwhelming majority of graduates took only one soil course. The number of courses taken increased with increasing year level. Third year courses attracted the largest number of students, closely followed by second year courses, ie: more students study soil science at intermediate and advanced level than at beginning level. Only eight students took Masters by coursework courses compared to 42 Masters by research or PhD.
100 90 80 70 60
50 one 40 two 30 three 20 four 10 0
study of units took who graduates of Number First year Second year Third year Honours Masters by Masters by coursework research / PhD Number of units of study taken at each level
Figure A2-3: Numbers of courses taken by respondents at each year level
Out of 204 responses, 36 per cent were female and 62 per cent were male.
Year of graduation.
Although the majority of respondents completed their degrees more than ten years ago, respondents who had participated in the last ten years formed the largest group by decade, as shown in Table A2-14. In addition, some respondents reported multiple degrees: these are shown in Table A2-15.It is reasonable to assume that the experiences of those who graduated in the last 10 years are similar to the experiences of current students. Less recent graduates are likely to have had different experiences; the most commonly cited being lack of computers. However these less recent graduates have had more, and more varied work experience; and so are in a better position to evaluate what skills and knowledge are required for successful employment. Table A2-16 shows respondents’ current employment status: over 90 per cent of respondents are currently employed.
Table A2-14: year of graduation.
Year 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s
Number of responses 7 33 24 26 34 62
A national soil science curriculum 53
Table A2-15: additional soil science degrees undertaken by respondents
Number of degrees 2 3 4
Number of responses 8 5 1
Table A2-16: Current employment status of respondents
Employment status Full-time Part-time Casual Semi- Retired retired
% of responses 73 17 1 2 7
Part 2: Additional qualitative analyses of graduate data
This section reports on qualitative analyses carried out for, and during, the second project Forum. Both analyses focused on a specific question. The first was an analysis of question 6: “What were the two most significant aspects that were missing from your soil science course(s)?” carried out by the researchers in response to issues raised during the Forum; it formed part of the Forum 2 report. The second analysis was carried out by Forum attendees during the Forum. It focused on question 8 “Do you have any suggestions for improvement of your soil science course(s)?” and aimed to develop changes to teaching practice that could address the most significant issues raised.
Graduate feedback – most significant aspects missing from soil science courses. This section describes the results of a comparison between responses to the question: “ What were the two most significant aspects that were missing from your soil science course(s)?” for all 222 respondents, and 66 respondents who graduated on or after 2000, ie: within the last ten years. For the purpose of the analysis it is assumed that the experiences of post-2000 graduates are broadly similar to those of current undergraduates. The purpose of this was to identify whether any issues were becoming of more concern as missing aspects or whether changes to coursework had helped to address missing aspects. Tables A2-17 and A2-18 compare the responses of all graduates with those who had graduated on or after 2000.
A national soil science curriculum 54 Table A2-17: Most significant missing aspects – comparison of all graduates with post-2000 graduates
Categories Notes and representative quotes % of all % of grads Post- 2000 grads Industry Career opportunities, guest lectures, 8 13 workplace experience Communication skills 4 3 Business skills Budgeting, time-management, 4 6 project management; leadership Research Data-collection, analysis and 6 7 reporting; scientific method Society Impact of soil science on wider 2 3 society
Table A2-18: Discipline knowledge categories for most significant missing aspects – comparison of all graduates with post-2000 graduates
Categories Notes and representative % of all % of Post- quotes grads 2000 grads Environment Erosion, contamination, 26 16 rehabilitation Multidisciplinary Relating soil science to other 21 28 approach disciplines Soil / plant interactions Including nutrients 11 9 Hydrology 5 9 Geology 4 9 Chemistry 4 9 Physics 2 0 Urban soils 1 2 Pedology 0 2
Summary of findings It is notable that comments hydrology and geology are around twice as common among post-2000 graduates. This may reflect the increased need for cross-discipline approaches to soil science.
Chemistry is almost twice as common as an issue among post-200 graduates: it was also the second-highest discipline area among “best aspects”. This suggests that chemistry is an important discipline area for successful performance and that either it is becoming more so, or recent graduates are receiving less preparation in chemistry than previous graduates. However, chemistry did not feature significantly in
A national soil science curriculum 55 “suggestions for improvement. It is possible that, because graduates were limited to two responses to this question, most graduates have more pressing concerns.
Communication (which included comments about reports and presentations) is cited less often as a missing aspect by post-2000 graduates. This suggests that our courses have improved with respect to incorporating this skill. More recent graduates also focused less on discipline knowledge as a missing aspect. However, comments coded “multidisc” were much more common among post-2000 graduates. Examples of these comments are given below:
Integration with geology and engineering (another year!) Interaction between chemical, biological, physical & relationship to animal health in grazed pastures I believe there is a lack of a holistic approach Focus on relevance of soil science to other disciplines More interaction would have been good, instead of each part taught separately
Post-2000 graduates were also more concerned about information on future careers.
Within discipline areas, more recent graduates cited chemistry more frequently as a missing discipline area. This concurs with data from employers, for whom chemistry was a prime concern. Geology / geomorphology, contamination and issues relating to water (hydrology, hydrogeology, irrigation) were also cited more frequently. In contrast, environmental issues were less frequently cited as missing by more recent graduates.
Forum Session 3 – Graduate suggestions for Improvement This session involved groups analysing graduate responses to the question: “Do you have any suggestions for improvement of your soil science course(s)?”
Between them, the four groups analysed all 150 suggestions given by graduates. Groups were asked to identify the most significant issues raised by the graduates, and suggest three possible teaching practices to address these issues. The groups’ findings are shown in Tables A2-19 to A2-22 below:
Table A2-19: Group A:
Most significant issues raised Three possible changes to address issues by graduates 1. more practical / field 1. very early fieldwork – soil pits, experience measurements 2. “real-life job stuff ‘n’ that” 2. work experience? 3. regarding soil in the Recent graduates talking to undergrads landscape / ecosystem / Link concepts to real-life examples (lectures, environment pracs) 3. soil mapping and linking to cognate disciplines PROVIDE BASIC SCIENCES BEFORE TACKLING APPLIED SCIENCE
A national soil science curriculum 56 Table A2-20: Group B:
Most significant issues raised by graduates Three possible changes to address issues 1. Need more experiential learning and 1. Introduce industry industry involvement university co-op PGM 2. Improve teaching style* (make more 2. Design pracs and relevant** to working world) and show how assignments that align basic tools can be used (e.g. maths, stats) with real-world * personal motivation, passion expectations (“client”- focus) ** lecturers with credibility (experience in industry) 3. More practical field- work, especially EARLY
Table A2-21: Group C:
Most significant issues raised by Three possible changes to address graduates issues (Discipline areas) 50 per cent “fundamental”, 50 per 1. Fundamental – stronger basic cent “specific” sciences 1. Fundamental Super efficient: cram / exam 2. Environment / systems Year 1 – 2: geology / hydrology thinking 2. Env / systems thinking: 3. Contamination / remediation Year 3 team facilitated learning + problem- Less significant: based 4. Agriculture 3. Remediation (applied ecological 5. Biology approach) case-based on-site peri- urban / rural 6. Organic
7. Other locations / global
Table A2-22: Group D:
Most significant issues raised by Three possible changes to address issues graduates 1. Practical experience / 1. Industry engagement professional engagement - excursion / field trips and 2. Numerical and engaging companies communication skills - guest lectures by industry 3. Contemporary knowledge / - placement / work experience methods 2. Communication courses / skills - specific course - incorporate into existing course 3. Update slides
A national soil science curriculum 57 Summary of findings
1. Practical / experiential learning was suggested by all four groups.
2. Early field-work was suggested by two groups.
3. Links to industry people were suggested by three groups.
4. Tackling real-world problems was suggested by all four groups.
A national soil science curriculum 58 Appendix 3: Soil Science employers’ perceptions of learning and teaching
Survey results Questions 1-3 were screening questions to determine whether the survey recipient needed soil science expertise and employed graduates who had studied soil science as a substantive component of their degree(s).
Question 4: Importance of graduate attributes and skills; and extent to which graduates meet these.
Employers were asked to rate a list of attributes and skills; to list any specialist software applications and were invited to provide written comments.
16 respondents specified software applications. The main types are listed in Table A3-1. Other comments were qualitatively analysed and findings summarised in Table A3-2.
Table A3-1: Types of software application listed by employers
Type of software No. of responses GIS (5 comments specified ARC) 8 Modeling 5 Statistical 3 CAD 2
Table A3-2: Employers’ comments about required attributes and skills (24 comments).
Issues raised Notes and illustrative comments % of responses Discipline Geology; geomorphology 29 knowledge “The most important attributes [include] having a strong grounding in the science” “We find environmental science graduates do …not have enough detailed knowledge in any area” “Giving them the capacity to be able to learn is most critical. Need good theoretical and skills base for this”. Applying Laboratory skills 21 knowledge “Application of theoretical knowledge to real-life problems requires multidisciplinary knowledge and expertise. The latter cannot be expected in a new graduate but the former is vital”. Skills that should Business practices; impact of actions on society 17 be learned on the and the environment; potential to contribute to job future directions Communication Risk communication; communication with non- 17 specialist as well as specialist audiences; writing
A national soil science curriculum 59 skills; Individual “Self-motivation is a personality trait – cannot be 8 personality taught” Thinking and “Critical thinking skills are poor” 12 problem-solving Working “If I was to specify the most important element; it 8 relationships would be establishing client relationships” Business skills Economics / financial management; time 8 management
Question 5: Importance of discipline knowledge areas; and extent to which graduates meet these.
Table A3-3 summarises employers’ comments about discipline knowledge areas.
Table A3-3: Employers’ comments about required discipline knowledge areas (12 comments).
Issues raised Notes and representative comments % of responses Basics “A really good grounding in the theory of soil 25 science is essential” “Graduates need a broad understanding and … willingness to learn on the job” Applying “We would expect them to have basic laboratory 25 knowledge and and field skills” skills “for us a valuable soil science graduate is one who can understand and investigate technical issues of crop production and convert these into a practical and profitable long term farming system” Depth of “the courses need to have depth not breadth and 17 knowledge this can occur in Honours etc. too many graduates are generalists who can describe and observe without understanding” “Graduates from universities where soil science is a small component of the degree ( ie: a few subjects) are far less useful than those graduates that have soil science as the primary focus of the degree and have studied 4 or 5 of these discipline areas”. Multidisciplinary “Multi-discipline graduates are critical for our 17 knowledge organisation. We would not employ a person who posessed soil skills alone. NRM, agronomy basics all crucial to working within regional communities”. Urban soils can Urban soils are seen as applied soil science 17 be learned on the job Postgraduate Masters or thesis 17 study is required Hydrology / 17 hydrogeology
A national soil science curriculum 60 Questions 6-8: Overall satisfaction with soil science graduates and graduates form other disciplines.
Participants were asked to rate their overall satisfaction, on a Likert scale, with soil science graduates; with graduates from disciplines other than soil science, in order to gain insight into how soil science graduates compare with graduates from other disciplines; and with soil scientists who trained at TAFE or with other providers.
The Likert ratings for overall satisfaction are summarised in Figures A3-1 to A3-3 and comments about soil science graduates on Table A3-4. The disciplines from which graduates were employed are listed in Table A3-5 and the issues raised about these graduates are summarised in Table A3-6.
30 25 20 15 10 5 Number responses of 0 very dissatisfied neutral satisfied very dissatisfied satisfied
Figure A3-1: employers’ overall satisfaction with soil science graduates (54 responses)
30 25 20 15 10 5 0 very dissatisfied dissatisfied neutral satisfied very satisfied
Figure A3-2: employers’ overall satisfaction with graduates from other disciplines (47 responses)
A national soil science curriculum 61 16 14 12 10 8 6 4
Number responses of 2 0 very dissatisfied neutral satisfied very dissatisfied satisfied
Figure A3-3: employers’ overall satisfaction with soil scientists from TAFE and other providers (24 responses)
These results suggest that employers are similarly satisfied with graduates from soil science and other disciplines, but less satisfied with people trained in soil science at TAFE and other providers.
Table A3-4: employers’ overall satisfaction with graduates – summary of comments (29 comments)
Issues raised Notes and representative comments % of responses Satisfied “Mostly satisfied. They are keen and have the 17 capacity to learn”. “Generally people training in soil science (applied) e.g. from agricultural science course etc. are able to put matters into perspective”.
Negative “Sadly, new graduates tend not to make it past 14 probation”.
Applying “Lack of broad-scale knowledge and experience 14 knowledge in geomorphology as it relates to soil science. Graduates need a better ability to "read" the landscape in order to understand potential impacts”. Half of comment claimed that graduates’ ability to apply knowledge is not good. Discipline Discussed below. Half of these comments were 14 knowledge – depth clearly negative. and breadth Motivation “Most do not have the precise skill sets needed, 10 nor do we expect such a fit. A basic degree is a license to learn and attitude and aptitude are important ingredients”. “Work ethic is good” Communication Both comments were negative; general 7 communication and report-writing skills were discussed. Discipline “Graduates benefit a multi-disciplinary degree 7 knowledge – (e.g. NRM, agriculture science) acquiring a
A national soil science curriculum 62 multidisciplinary "systems" approach to thinking and problem approaches solving”.
Depth and breath of discipline knowledge
Two comments discuss a lack of sufficient depth of knowledge; one of these blames the problem on the integration of soil science into environmental science. According to one comment, graduate knowledge is too narrow. Another comment complains of a move away from core knowledge. These comments are quoted below:
“Very few graduates studied only soil science. Degrees are NRM focussed and therefore graduates are "generalists"”. “Teaching of soils has been integrated into "environmental science". The quality of coursework has declined”. “Most of the ones I have taken on over the years have far too narrow an education and really take a long time to get any value out of”. “There seems to have been a shift from focussing on core soil science disciplines of pedology chemistry and physics into GIS etc. What we really need are those core skills, though computer skills and spatial analysis skills are important”.
Table A3-5: other disciplines from which respondents employed graduates
Discipline No. of employers who employed this discipline Environmental science / ecology / 17 environmental engineering Chemistry / chemical engineering 7 Agriculture – livestock 4 Biology / botany 3 Geology 3 Hydrology / water management 3 Agriculture – plants 2 BSc general science 2
Table A3-6: issues raised about graduates form other disciplines
Issues raised Notes and representative quotes No. of comments Applying knowledge and “Across all applied science degrees there is 2 skills a watering down of pure science theory e.g. people in first year not being required to do pure chemistry but being allowed to do a dumbed-down course”. “Very difficult to find graduates with good mathematical skills and with field-applied- soil science skills”. Multidisciplinary “Crop agronomists are the people we 2 approach typically look for who can integrate a wide range of agricultural disciplines into a production focused agribusiness” “Important not to have focussed on one speciality”.
A national soil science curriculum 63 Other disciplines “There is more to choose form hence we can 2 preferred get better quality staff”. Soil science graduates Soil discipline knowledge is key to business 1 preferred area
Question 9: How responsive are universities to the needs of industry in the way they prepare soil science graduates?
Employers were asked to rate the responsiveness of universities to their needs. Likert ratings are shown in Figure A3-4 and comments are summarised in Table A3- 7.
35 30 25 20 15 10 5 Number responses of 0 very unresponsive neutral responsive very unresponsive responsive
Figure A3-4: Responsiveness of universities to industry’s needs for graduate preparation (44 responses)
Table A3-7: employers’ comments about responsiveness of universities (18 comments)
Issues raised Notes and representative comments No. of responses Little or no contact “Have not tried to influence teaching” 11 Wanted specific Pedology; GIS; spatial statistics 3 knowledge and/or Laboratory and field skills skills “Soil science graduates really need a broader education and need to focus less on agriculture which is the easy end of the stick”. Positive comments “compared to when I studied soil science there 2 is a much better focus today on main stream agricultural soils and related issues and not solely on soils of convenience close to Sydney”. Universities are out of “They have no idea of our needs and therefore 2 touch would not be seen as responsive to our needs in any way”.
A national soil science curriculum 64 Question 10: “What would be your top two priorities for Universities to improve the preparedness of soil science graduates for work in your organisation?”
92 responses
Responses were qualitatively analysed and the most common issues raised are summarised in Table A3-8. Over half of employers’ comments specified discipline knowledge: this is detailed in Table A3-9.
Table A3-8: Employers’ top two priorities for improvement (92 comments)
Issues raised Notes and representative quotes % of comments Discipline knowledge Detailed in Table 9 58 Communication Report-writing; communicating findings and 16 implications of land-management decisions to clients and multi-discipline teams Applying knowledge Application of concepts to real-life situations 12 Applying skills Data-analysis and interpretation; field 12 measurements; laboratory skills Work experience “More practical work experience knowledge of 12 organisations like ours” “Aim to develop a benchmarked workplace learning scheme for at least five years after graduation, with external accreditation by industry - national an international. Maybe link to ASSSI - CPSS”. Thinking and problem- Problem solving skills were discussed in half 11 solving of comments. “Ability to identify core issue form detail”. Independent thinking Industry contacts Guest lectures; mentoring 5 “More emphasis on commercial realities” Technology GIS; remote sensing; modeling 5 One comment asked for LESS emphasis on technology Working relationships Teamwork; interactions with clients 5
Table A3-9: Employers’ top two priorities for improvement – discipline knowledge (53 comments)
Issues raised Notes and representative quotes % of comments Environmental Contamination; rehabilitation; sustainability in 25 agricultural systems; soil carbon; acidification; sodicity; salinity; erosion Contamination was raised in one third of these comments Chemistry “A working knowledge of soil chemistry” 11 Basics “Get back to basics - make the courses 11 harder focus on pure soil science elements don't get distracted too much by technology”. “Reduced focus on fine details of soil properties. These are fine for post grads or
A national soil science curriculum 65 specialised academia but such fine detail is often irrelevant for environmental consultants”. “Good general knowledge of soil science”. Pedology “Pedology - graduates have to quickly learn 9 not just the basic skills and standards but be able to "read" the soil profile data and the landscape”. Physics “Reasonable chemistry / physics / maths”. 9 Multidiscipline “Integration of soil science into related 8 disciplines e.g. plant nutrition, agronomy, remediation” Geomorphology “Landscape literacy” 8 Hydrology “Hydrology of the landscape -> salinity, 6 runoff, erosion and the part soils play”
Question 11: “How easy / difficult is it to recruit soil science graduates?”
50 responses
30
25
20
15
10
5 Number responses of 0 very easy easy neutral difficult very almost difficult impossible
Figure A3-5: Ease / difficulty of recruiting graduates with a focus on soil science
As Figure A3-5 shows, most employers find it relatively difficult to recruit graduates who have focused on soil science. This is reflected in the large number of comments about the importance of basic soil science discipline knowledge.
Question 12: Preferences for training and productivity of newly-recruited soil science graduates.
52 responses
Employers were asked to rate their agreement with three statements about the training and productivity of new graduates:
“They must be ready for productive work immediately”
“I prefer to train them for my business needs”
“They will learn on the job”.
A national soil science curriculum 66 They were also invited to comment. Likert ratings are summarised in Figures A3-6 - 8, and comments in Table A3-10.
Although employers tended to agree with all three statements, which can probably be attributed to acquiescence response bias (Holbrook 2008) agreement was strongest for the statement “they will learn on the job”, and weakest for “they must be ready for work immediately”. This suggests that employers do not expect new graduates to be fully work-ready, but expect a substantial part of their training to take place on the job. Analysis of employers’ comments in response to this question provides a more detailed picture. According to these comments, what employers expect universities to provide is graduates with core discipline knowledge and technical skills; critical thinking and problem-solving skills; and writing skills. They need graduates with enthusiasm, flexibility and the ability to learn, but comments made elsewhere in the survey suggest that employers consider these to be personality traits rather than something universities can provide.
30 25 20 15 10 5 Number responses of 0 strongly agree neutral disagree strongly agree disagree
Figure A3-6: employers’ responses to the statement: “They must be ready for productive work immediately”
35 30 25 20 15 10
Number respones of 5 0 strongly agree neutral disagree strongly agree disagree
Figure A3-7: employers’ responses to the statement: “I prefer to train them for my business needs”
A national soil science curriculum 67 35 30 25 20 15 10
Number responses of 5 0 strongly agree neutral disagree strongly agree disagree
Figure A3-8: employers’ responses to the statement: “They will learn on the job”.
Table A3-10: summary of employers’ comments about work-readiness of graduates (21 comments)
Issues raised Notes and representative quotes % of comments Graduates must “We emphasise monitoring and data-collection” 48 be able to apply “Need basic lab / field skills” skills “A good background of scientific rigour from their tertiary institution” Discipline “The unis’ problem is to … ensure they are well- 24 knowledge is grounded in the theory of soil science and its required interactions”. “Staff are of course trained in the needs and practices of the organisation. However, without basic soil science training from a university this is a pointless exercise”. Attitude Enthusiasm; initiative; ability to learn; flexibility 29 Employers have “Expecting a university to produce vocation 29 realistic experience is not realistic” expectations “We don’t expect a new graduate to walk straight in and solve a complex production issue or launch immediately into higher level productivity matters. Graduates “The unis’ problem is training in the process of 19 should be trained problem solving”. in thinking and “A good, analytical mind”. problem-solving Support “On-the-job mentoring is vital”. 19 “The key issues are giving students a structured workplace with freedom”. Communication “The unis’ problem is training in … how to 10 skills communicate science”. “Good writing skills… are what we are after”. Graduates need “We have never yet had a graduate that does not 10 training need additional training”.
A national soil science curriculum 68 Question 13: Length of time to full productivity of graduates
Figure A3-9 shows employers’ responses to the statement: “For new soil science graduates the length of time to full productivity is typically”
25
20
15
10
5 Number responses of 0 less than a 1-3 4-6 7-9 10-12 more than month months months months months a year
Figure A3-9: Length of time to full productivity
Only two employers expected full productivity from graduates in less than 4 months, while almost half expected full productivity to take more than a year. Employers’ comment for this question are summarised in Table A3-11.
Table A3-11: Employers’ comments about time required for full productivity (17 comments)
Issues raised Notes and representative quotes % of comments Elaborated on 1/3 of comments specified 4-5 years; 4 comments 53 time required specified 9-18 months; one comment specified 5- 10 years. Understanding “Practical and deep understanding of soils requires 18 discipline lots of learning and experience”. knowledge “Typically it takes 4-5 years to fully comprehend what they were taught at uni”. Learning to “People need to observe how farming systems 12 develop work and think about issues and also consider solutions solutions that are economic and practical”. Learning “As environmental scientists there are too many 12 environmental codes of practice and guidelines to cover, none are regulations covered at uni - at all. You should consider being more like the engineering faculty and have students apply guidelines as part of the curriculum”.
A national soil science curriculum 69 Question 14: Would you recommend that people seeking a career in your industry do a degree with a soil science focus?
53 responses
Figure A3-10 shows employers’ Likert responses to question 14. These responses are overwhelmingly positive, with only two employers saying that they would discourage students from studying soil science; and over 80 per cent saying that they would recommend or strongly recommend soil science.
Employers’ comments in response to this question, shown in Table A3-12, elaborate on why soil science is valued. It is seen as being the common element linking a number of disciplines and therefore has relevance across a wide range of jobs. It is also seen as having more rigour than environmental science.
30 25 20 15 10 5 Number responses of 0 strongly discourage neutral encourage strongly discourage encourage
Figure A3-10: Employers’ responses to the question: “Would you recommend that people seeking a career in your industry do a degree with a soil science focus?” (52 responses)
Table A3-12: Employers’ comments about whether or not they would recommend studying soil science (20 comments)
Issues raised Notes and representative quotes % of comments Soil science “In our business I want a graduate with education in 30 strongly crop management and productivity issues including recommended soil science and an appreciation of environmental / required and resource management. So I would like to see that they have done significant soil science during their course work”. “Best speciality for any aspect of landscape management”. “All environmental / agricultural graduates should have a focus on soil science and its importance to their chosen fields of study”. Importance of “It has a strong impact on a number of disciplines” 20 soil science as “Soils are the common resource supporting a discipline agriculture. Understanding where, how”. Employment “It's a very rewarding career but we have in 15 issues providing a career path for young graduates. It's a state government priority and employment policy
A national soil science curriculum 70 constraint, and the tendency to employ people on a temporary basis to deal with one-off issues”. “The treadmill of constantly having to seek external funding for work is something that should be made clear to all science undergrads”. “Most professional soil scientists in Queensland now reside in DERM, but there remains a need in the old DPI to retain skills in soils to obtain complete value from the skills of those soils personnel in DERM”. General “Helps, but is not essential”. 15 positive comments Postgraduate “I tell all young people that if they expect to work in 10 study needed research in any form of science they will need to do a PhD and that a basic degree or even hons will only get you a technical job”. Soil science is “This is a very powerful degree, far more useful 10 better than than most environmental degrees”. environmental “It's the best grounding available. Environmental science science degrees are too "airy-fairy" and unfocussed”.
Question 15: “How likely is your organisation to continue employing university graduates with a focus in soil science?”
As Figure A3-11 shows, employers overwhelmingly envisage continuing to employ soil science graduates in the future, with over 80 per cent saying they were likely or very likely to continue employing such graduates.
30
25
20
15
10
5 Number responses of 0 very unlikely neutral likely very likely unlikely
Figure 11: Employers’ perceived likelihood of employing soil science graduates in the future (52 responses)
Question 16: Why / why not is your organisation likely to continue employing these graduates?
Employers were asked to comment on the reasons for their perceived future demand for soil science graduates. Their responses are summarised in Table A3-13.
A national soil science curriculum 71 Table A3-13: Employers’ responses to question 16
Most common Notes and representative quotes % of issues raised comments Discipline “Soil issues form a major part of the organisation's 48 knowledge and focus, ranging from climate change C- skills needed sequestration, waste application to land, behaviour of contaminants, catchment management etc. soil scientists are an essential part of any multidisciplinary teams working in these areas”. “The focus would not only be soil science but any one working in productive cropping agriculture does need a good appreciation and working knowledge of soils and soil related issues including how soils relate to precision agriculture etc. Currently we are suffering significant water shortages but we do intend to employ more graduates when conditions improve and a knowledge of soil science will be important along with crop agronomy”. “Managing soils is a big component of agricultural production”. Employment Funding availability, especially Government funding 16 issues related to policy Project requirements; Increasing “Demands for soil science information are 11 demand increasing to deal with identifyin and protecting agricultural land, assessing soil -related natural hazards and for planning purposes. This will be driven by rising world population, food security, climate change, peak oil, peak fertilisers and environmental damage. also, many soil scientists are baby boomers who will retire in increasing numbers in the next 5 years”. Negative “We try however, NOT to employ new graduates. 9 comments The lack of professionalism is bloody irritating. BUT we are desperate for soil scientists…”
Question 17: Any other information or comments
We received 17 responses to this question; the issues most commonly raised are summarised in Table A3-14.
Table A3-14: Any other comments.
Most common Notes and representative quotes % of issues raised comments Discipline Chemistry (e.g. pyrite oxidation); physics (e.g. 47 knowledge erosion) related to mine wastes Geotechnical investigation skills Acid sulfate soils Sampling techniques Groundwater chemistry and physics GIS Soil profile description and physical measurements
A national soil science curriculum 72 Database management Soil ecology Integration of discipline knowledge e.g. physics, chemistry, microbiology and people. Workplace Industry experience for undergraduates 12 experience “I have found through bitter, painful experience that a business should have 2 or more experienced soil specialists per graduate. Soil science services are now often supplied by very small businesses that struggle to reach this ratio so give up employing graduates after a couple of failures”. Shortage “We do not seem to attract the really top graduates 12 which is unfortunate as a career in consulting can be rewarding both financially and intellectually and requires scientific rigour just like an academic career”. “We placed an ad for a level 1 position soil scientist. We did not get one applicant with a soil science degree (or even a chemistry degree) all 30 applicants were either biologists, ecologists or geologists”. Communication Teaching soil management skills to farmers 12 Academic writing
Questions 18 and 19: Employers’ contact with Universities
We asked employers to rate how often they were in contact with Universities for workplace experience programs; unit of study advisory committees; research and development projects; consulting; or other reasons. Responses are summarised in Figure A3-12. “Other” in Figure A3-12 included student supervision; thesis presentations and recruitment opportunities; and CRC. Four employers reported no contact with Universities at all.
35 30 25 20 15 5 times a year or more 10 1-4 times a year 5
Number responses of 0 no don't know
Figure A3-12: Employers’ contact with Universities (50 responses)
A national soil science curriculum 73 Eight employers made comments about contact with Universities: these are given in Table A3-15 below:
Table A3-15: Employers’ comments about contact with Universities
It would be good to have more contact but most QLD unis do not have lecturers in areas of interest to us e.g. pedology, land resource assessment
Regular contact and sit on committees
I personally do not have any involvement with universities but can see benefit from it
We are attempting to further relationships with LaTrobe uni and CSU.
Guest lectures in specific areas can be stimulating for students and help them define career goals
All of the above. A recent collaboration between DEEDI (old DPI) and UQ will expand these. (dk0 specialist staff will be jointly employed by DEEDI and UQ)
We sporadically need to hire large numbers of staff for short-term projects Technical officer employment on these projects is often available for 6-12 months. Requires >2 years uni soils work completed.
Workplace: not sure of frequency. Our group has taught summer courses. Consulting: strong collaboration.
Most employers have relatively little contact with Universities; particularly in the areas of Course advisory committees and student supervision. Most contact is in the form of workplace experience and research and development; with the majority of employers having some involvement in these activities.
As Figure A3-13 shows, the majority of employers feel that this level of involvement is insufficient; only one employer thought it was too much. Four employers provided comments, two of which stated that they were too busy to take advantage of opportunities.
35 30 25 20 15 10
Number responses of 5 0 too little it's about right too much
Figure A3-13: employers’ perception of the amount of contact they have with Universities.
A national soil science curriculum 74 Questions 20-22: Demographic information
Figures A3-14 to 17 summarise the number of employees including contractors, primary area of business and primary location.
30 25 20 15 10 5 Number responses of 0 6 or fewer 7 - 20 21 - 99 100 or more
Figure A3-14: Number of employees including contractors
As has been made clear by comments elsewhere in the survey, these numbers are not fixed but depend on project requirements. One employer with 6 or fewer employees had up to 25 employees for large projects.
25
20
15
10
5
0
Figure A3-15: Primary area of business (52 responses)
A national soil science curriculum 75 25
20
15
10
5 Number responses of 0 Qld NSW Vic SA WA Tas NT ACT
Figure A3-16: Primary location – state or territory (51 responses)
As Figure A3-16 shows, employers from all States and Territories are represented in this survey, with almost half of respondents primarily located in the most populous State. Two employers gave multiple primary locations.
30
25
20
15
10
5 Number responses of 0 Rural Regional centre Capital city
Figure A3-17: Primary location – rural, regional centre or capital city (50 responses)
Half of all responses came from employers in capital cities; however rural and regional employers were also well-represented.
A national soil science curriculum 76 Appendix 4: Participants of forum
Lyn Abbott Dave Anthony Helen Carter Stephen Cattle Deli Chen David Chittleborough Chris Daly Martin Fey Damien Field Cameron Grant Nathan Heath Pat Hulme Lorna Jarrett Peter Kopittke Tony Koppi Simon Leake Stuart Macnish Iain McAlpine Alex McBratney Richard McEwan Brigid McKenna Dave McKenzie Mike McLaughlin Neal Menzies Annie McNeill Kylie Miller Phil Mulvey Brian Murphy Courtney Peirce Talitha Santini Manju Sharma Balwant Singh Ron Smernik Robert van de Graaf Lori Watson Tony Weatherley Ichsani Wheeler Helena Woolum Iain Young
A national soil science curriculum 77
Attachment 5: Final Evaluation Report 2012
A national soil science curriculum in response to the needs of students, academic staff, industry and the wider community
Prepared by Helen Carter
1. Purpose of the Report
This Evaluation Report provides a final commentary on the project processes and project outcomes of the Project entitled " A national soil science curriculum in response to the needs of students, academic staff, industry and the wider community" (NSS). It does not seek to make a value judgment in terms of the authenticity or merit of the outcomes achieved. The role of the evaluator on this project has been primarily formative in nature, intended to guide the project team toward better processes for managing the project, oversight of outcomes in terms of meeting the stated timelines and for suggesting ways for promoting dissemination of project outcomes.
This summative evaluation report reviews the project process in terms of the overall effectiveness of project management and communication strategies in achieving project outputs. It suggests some possible pointers to success factors and some factors that may have impeded success. It also includes a discussion of the project outcomes in terms of the effectiveness of the dissemination strategies employed and looks at the potential for scalability and sustainability.
2. Project Background in Brief
The Project was a collaboration between five universities comprising the Universities of Adelaide, Melbourne, Queensland, Sydney (lead institution) and Western Australia. It was funded by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council, which has subsequently disestablished in 2011. This report goes to the newly established Office for Learning and Teaching, the replacement body for the Council.
The core project team consisted of at least one member of each of the institutions concerned, plus an identified Project Leader, Project Manager and Research Assistant all based at Sydney. In addition, a large reference group containing experts in the field, employers and representatives from relevant professional bodies contributed to the project. Please refer to Appendix A for a complete list of participants.
The project aim was to develop a national soil science curriculum using transferable learning and teaching approaches that produce work-ready graduates with the interdisciplinary knowledge, skills and capabilities relevant to the needs of Australia. The approach used was an incremental four-cycle process: 1. Identify sector-wide issues concerning learning and teaching soil science; 2. Encapsulate the industry perspective by consulting employers and soil science graduates in the workplace about the curriculum; 3. Scope and implement the platform for delivering the required revised curriculum at a national level; and 4. Disseminate outcomes nationally and internationally to agriculture and related disciplines.
3. Methodology
The basis of the agreed methodology for the project evaluation is a two-part, process and outcomes based approach. The evaluation approach has an agreed set of questions to be addressed for each stage. The approach to the evaluation has been both formative and summative in nature and in brief it has involved: • Reviewing processes and outputs as they have occurred at key points of the project; • An initial survey after the first forum (Appendix B); • Discussions with key project team members; and • A survey of key stakeholders at the project conclusion.
The data to inform this evaluation comes from a review of project processes, attendance at project team meetings, a survey after the first forum, a content review of project documentation provided from the Project Manager and unstructured discussions with both project team and reference group members.
Prepared by External Evaluator: Helen Carter Page 2 of 14
This final evaluation of the NSS Project is informed by the interim evaluation report, a review of the Final (draft) Project Report and the responses from the survey of stakeholders.
4. Stakeholder Surveys
Individual surveys were conducted of key stakeholders, including the project team members and the reference group members1 (Attachment 1: Participant survey) and institutional sponsors (Attachment 2: Sponsor survey). These were sent out mid- January 2012 at the conclusion of the Project, in conjunction with the dissemination of the draft Report from the Project. Out of 48 total respondents there were 19 full responses, 1 partial response and 1 opt-out response in total to the surveys sent out.
The responses to the stakeholder survey provided input on the overall effectiveness of project management and communication strategies, including an indication of critical success factors and possible impediments to success of the Project. The survey responses also provided input to views on the effectiveness of the dissemination of the Project outcomes and where possible at this early stage give indications of the potential for scalability and sustainability of same.
The following sub-sections summarise the responses to those questions from the various stakeholder groups.
4.1 Project Team Member Responses One of the features of the formative evaluation of this project has been the interaction with project team members and reference group members brought together to discuss learning and teaching issues in relation to the soil science discipline at 3 Project Forum Meetings. This has been useful to have direct feedback from project and reference group members and to help team members identify issues and act on them in an appropriate timeframe.
The summative survey of team members provides an indication of their ability to be critically self-reflective and provides a valuable insight into the workings of this project and areas for consideration and improvement. All but two team members have provided a response to the survey.
Recipient Summary Total Count: 10 Responded: 8 Opted Out: 0
Process Overall team members considered their Project to be a success: “much has been achieved in setting up appropriate linkages and developing concepts and material for effective teaching” and “The project brought together soil scientists from
1 Due to the close involvement of the reference group members in the project, they were sent the same survey as the project team members.
Prepared by External Evaluator: Helen Carter Page 3 of 14
around Australia and achieved a consensus on a common curriculum”. One comment was made however, that “Yes (a success), although it is very unfortunate that funding has not been provided for a major follow-up project”.
In terms of team members identifying why their Project was a success in achieving its stated outcomes, there were several factors identified, which have been summarised as:
1. Consultation – there was wide consultation and involvement in this project in that the project was able to bring together a range of stakeholders including academics, industry, students and graduates to consider the learning and teaching of soil science from a national perspective. The project initiated and maintained dialogue between soil scientists from all major teaching institutions. It successfully used a consensus approach to arrive on national standards for soil science teaching and articulated the vision internationally. 2. Management/Leadership – there was a clearly articulated aim, a commitment to action learning principles, a strong project leader, an experienced project manager and a good focus on outcomes/dissemination. The project was professionally run and managed. The project staff were highly committed to the success of the project and worked in a professional and effective manner. 3. Engagement – Commitment of the participants was seen as ‘exceptional’ both from the sense of community that was perceived to have developed but also through being seen as addressing important issues in the training of soil science students. All stakeholders remained engaged and committed throughout the project and this was evidenced by good attendance at the post-project meeting, which was self-funded by participants.
There were no suggestions to further improve how the project was managed, or how resources were allocated, etc. All suggestions made related to the lack of further funding to further develop the community of practice that emerged from the project. The development of the community of practice was an unexpected positive outcome from the project.
Products Team member responses to their final products ranged from superb and excellent, to good but with provisos. They were particularly happy with the: • Identification of areas of teaching needing to be addressed; • Development of teaching principles; and • Work around online learning guidelines.
As indicated there were some provisos and these related to further development, specifically, the ‘core elements’ (Core Body of Knowledge) was reported as remaining an unfinished piece of work. Also, it was suggested that the online learning guidelines require further work as related to the development of cross institution courses. The barriers to cross institution courses are significant and
Prepared by External Evaluator: Helen Carter Page 4 of 14
would only be possible with further funding to develop buy-in and commitment to the program.
The considered significance of the project outcomes in relation to the higher education sector by the project team related to: the development of discipline- based teaching principles and its relationship with standards; and the potential for shared national resources is seen as a positive outcome.
The realisation that teaching principles can be unique for a discipline, as well as including generic principles common to all disciplines was a strong motivator and engagement driver for academic staff and industry participants alike. It was observed that the development of unique teaching principles for every discipline would benefit the HE sector as a whole. This has further implications for standards as it points to the need for the unique features of disciplines to be recognised. With the fragmentation of soil science expertise at Australian universities2, any assistance with collating student learning resources in this area is seen as significant.
The perceived usefulness of the outcomes of the project was generally reported as useful or very useful by the team. The difficulty of different teaching models (length of courses, delivery methods, etc.) was reported by one team member as an issue.
4.2 Reference Group Responses This project was unusual both in the size of the reference group and the potential for involvement in the project. As a result, reference group members generally had a strong awareness and engagement with the project.
Recipient Summary Total Count: 37 Responded (Partial/Complete): 10 (1 / 9) Opted Out: 1
All but two of the reference group members who responded to the survey regarded the project as a success. Of the two varying comments, one was concerned with it being too early to tell whether the project was a success or not and the other respondent had not had enough involvement with the project to make this judgement. In terms of identifying the processes that may have contributed to the success of the project, responses identified a combination of clearly communicated outcomes and alignment of these with fora and activities; the quality and passion of the people involved, including academics, industry and practitioners; and the ownership of the project by all participants.
Reference group members in the main were okay with how the project was managed, however, there were two suggestions made: the first was for the project to travel to rural areas to get feedback from soil science and
2 Soil science is not recognised as a professional degree; in fact all soil science courses or programs in Australia are contained within other degrees such as agriculture or earth sciences.
Prepared by External Evaluator: Helen Carter Page 5 of 14
agriculturalists and other land management specialists in rural and regional areas; and secondly, that it could have involved more practising professionals.
The products were generally regarded as valuable, with comments such as “The products from the survey and fora are sound and very suitable as a foundation for development of a curriculum”. Although one participant would have liked input from more practitioners, others regarded this as world class in its outcomes and commended the methodical consultation with all stakeholders and broad dissemination of outcomes.
The final project outcomes were generally seen as useful with some provisos around the emphasis on teaching theory versus applying in practice. The following comment probably best sums up the general feeling of reference group members: “IN bringing teachers from different universities together with employers - brilliant. IN laying a common approach to a National curriculum also brilliant. IN achieving the additional funding to put it into action - not so brilliant”
4.3 Institutional Sponsor Responses From the commencement of the project in 2009, to its conclusion in in 2011, there has been a change in the leadership of all four institutions. As a result there were only two responses from the senior sponsors of these projects, with one essentially an opt-out having only recently taken on the role of DVCA.
Recipient Summary Total Count: 4 Responded (Partial/Complete): 2 (1 / 1) Opted Out: 0
In the case of the single, complete response, this was very favourable. The outcomes were seen as generally, significant in that the project constitutes another discipline-based contribution which parallels similar lines of enquiry in other fields, at present. In response to the question regarding overall judgement of the usefulness of the products, they were seen as highly useful to Soil Science and the utility it extends to such things as envisaging shared courses, etc.
“This is an important project whose focus on a core body of knowledge and detailed reflection on teaching and learning approaches in the field, provides a strong foundation for on-going discussion and collaboration, to the benefit of the discipline and students within it.” (Professor Jane Long)
5. Discussion of Project Outcomes
The evaluation plan outlined a set of questions to be focused on in the final evaluation of project outcomes. These are addressed under the follow sub- sections in terms of the effectiveness of dissemination strategies and whether or not they are sustainable and scalable.
Prepared by External Evaluator: Helen Carter Page 6 of 14
5.1 Effectiveness of Dissemination Strategies There have been a range of dissemination activities, including: 3 very engaging action-learning forums as part of the project; a number of publications including a paper presented at the World Congress of Soil Science which was awarded a prize for best paper and has now led to the introduction of soil science higher education stream at the World Congress of Soil Science; development and publication of Soil Science Teaching Principles; contribution to professional body practices, such as the Australian Society of Soil Science Inc., International Union of Soil Sciences and accrediting bodies such as Certified Professional Soil Scientist; and culminating in the distribution at the end of the Project in the Final Report.
There is also a stated commitment by the project team to further dissemination activities after the Project completion, such as Forum 4 (5 December 2011) with a focus on the core body of knowledge.
The Forums and action learning cycle approach was highly effective at engaging participants in the project, was effective in gaining contributions from stakeholders in an efficient way and helped participants reflect on their own practices. The participation of external learning and teaching experts from other disciplines, helped with this self-reflection. The facilitation and organisation of forums was quite exceptional and was evidenced in the evaluation from the initial survey and re-iterated in the summative survey. All stakeholders were well communicated with, developed a shared understanding of the project aims and again, as evidenced by the summative survey data, were viewed largely in the positive.
The action-learning model has worked well and has resulted in a coherent and logical sequence of outcomes. The project's activities have been disseminated though journal articles, conference papers, sessions etc. The levels of engagement both within the project team and with stakeholders have been high and sustained throughout the project. (Reference Group Member)
A significant, unintended outcome of the project was the formation of the soil science community of practice and the willingness of all stakeholders to participate in the project to benefit soil science education and to continue with post-project activities, including expressions of interest from universities not originally involved with the project. The project participants have identified that there are still further areas for development and it would be beneficial to utilise the goodwill from this project to further the development of the core body of soil science knowledge, to actively promote the publication of the discipline based teaching principles for soil science and to further explore the development of online guidelines.
All possible efforts must be made to build on the foundation established via the recently completed project. Extra funding needs to be allocated to the very dedicated and competent project team for the next stage of their soil science teaching developments - before they disperse and become involved with other projects. (Reference Group Member)
Prepared by External Evaluator: Helen Carter Page 7 of 14
It is probably worthwhile adding the inclusion of the rural perspective, could also be addressed.
5.2 Scalability and Sustainability In order to make comment on the scalability and sustainability of project outcomes you need to be able to engage with the content quality, structure and layout of project products and particularly to survey end users of such products. This is outside the evaluation scope, so instead the comment is constrained to the potential for scalability and sustainability of project outcomes and some suggestions to increase this potential.
Scalable Project outcomes for this purpose is defined as something that can be ‘easily’ disseminated either individually, through professional organisations, institutionally or sectorally. Sustainable Project outcomes, in this brief duration since the completion of the project, are defined as something that can be maintained, updated and added to.
As previously mentioned, there have been a substantial number and type of dissemination activities undergone throughout the duration of the project. These have ranged from publications, informal and formal presentations and fora. The inclusion of a higher education soil science stream at the World Congress of Soil Science is strong evidence of the sustainability of the project outcomes. Also, the development of the teaching principles provides a strong framework for any future development. The commitment to a community of practice is also quite strong but will require leadership and therefore some further commitment of resources.
This project made me want to continue working in the area of soil science teaching and to collaborate more broadly with my Australian colleagues in teaching. (Reference Group Member)
It has been recommended that the project members contact the national soil science organisation with a view to hosting project outputs, as this is where the most potential exists for scalability.
Certainly the potential is there for the Project outcomes to be scalable and sustainable and the existing products make a valuable contribution to the sector.
6. Conclusion
The project team are to be highly commended for the effective way they have worked together on achieving the outcomes from this Project. The openness and critically reflective nature of the project team, has meant there was a commitment to improving the quality of the project outcomes throughout the project.
This project was able to bring together most relevant stakeholders in soil science higher education for the first time. The cyclical approach that the project took
Prepared by External Evaluator: Helen Carter Page 8 of 14
ensured the engagement of stakeholders and facilitated a systematic process in the development of project outcomes.
A future challenge is to continue and to extend the community of practice to include all higher education institutions teaching soil science.
The project team was able to work within the budget provided and used the goodwill the project generated to host a further unfunded activity. The NSS Project has also met its commitments as stated in the original Project Proposal to ALTC (Appendix C: Mapping of Outcomes against Objectives).
The NSS Project has provided some well researched materials to provide guidance for soil science teaching for the first time and these have been published internationally. Further work is needed to have these teaching principles recognised by the international community. From a quality standards viewpoint, these teaching principles have demonstrated the potential importance of developing discipline-specific teaching approaches and practices. At the conclusion of this Project it is important to find ways to facilitate the on- going dissemination and development of these materials and to continue the research into this important area.
Prepared by External Evaluator: Helen Carter Page 9 of 14
Appendix A: Participants
Project team Alex McBratney (Project Leader) Damien Field (Education Leader) Tony Koppi (Project Manager) Lorna Jarrett (Research Assistant) Lyn Abbott Cameron Grant Peter Kopittke Neal Menzies Tony Weatherley Richard MacEwan
Reference group Dave Anthony Stephen Cattle Deli Chen David Chittleborough Chris Daly Martin Fey Nathan Heath Pat Hulme Simon Leake Stuart Macnish Richard McEwan Brigid McKenna Dave McKenzie Mike McLaughlin Annie McNeill Kylie Miller Phil Mulvey Brian Murphy Courtney Peirce Talitha Santini Manju Sharma Balwant Singh Ron Smernik Robert van de Graaf Lori Watson Ichsani Wheeler Helena Woolum Iain Young
Prepared by External Evaluator: Helen Carter Page 10 of 14
APPENDIX B: Survey Results from Forum 1 On 6 April 2010 at the ATP in Sydney a Workshop titled: “Learning and teaching in Soil Science and where we are at as a discipline in Australia” was organised and facilitated by Tony Koppi, Lorna Jarrett and Damien Field, from the University of Sydney.
The proposed outcomes from the Workshop were for: • A team committed to each other and the project; • The identification of effective teaching approaches for soil science; • The identification of our discipline strengths and areas needing support; • Prioritisation of changes required; and • Agreement on the next phase of the project.
Feedback from Workshop Participants At the end of the workshop, participants were asked to complete a one-page survey to provide their feedback on the day’s events. There were seven 5-scale likert questions and four open ended questions. The first six questions asked participants about the positive aspects of the workshop and the seventh question queried whether the project could be run better. The open-ended questions queried both negative and positive aspects of the workshop. 8 participants responded to the survey questions. The responses to the 6 positive questions were all rated Agreed to Strongly Agreed. On the question about ‘progressing well as a team’, the response was unanimously Strongly Agreed. Similarly, in response to the question ‘communication is generally effective between the team members’, 7 out of the 8 responses Strongly Agreed. Conversely on the question about ‘I should be consulted more on project matters’ responses rated between Strong Disagree to Disagree, with one Neutral comment.
Qu# Question SD3 D N A SA Total 1 The workshop debriefing was 2 6 8 useful 2 I have a clear understanding of 4 4 8 what is happening next in the project 3 We are progressing well as a team 8 8 4 I know what I need to do for the 2 6 8 project 5 I understand better what this 2 6 8 project is about 6 Communication is generally 1 7 8 effective between the team members 7 I feel that I should be consulted 5 2 1 8 more on project matters Table 1. Responses to Likert Scale questions – numbers
3 SD = Strongly Disagree, D = Disagree, N = Neutral, A = Agree, SA = Strongly Agree
Prepared by External Evaluator: Helen Carter Page 11 of 14
100% 80% 60% SA 40% A 20% N 0% D SD
Table 2. Responses to Likert Scale questions – percentages
Following the likert scale questions, there were four open format questions. Responses to the ‘discussion topics were good because’ resulted in 7 responses (included in Table 3. over). The responses highlighted the focused nature of the workshop and commented favourably on the opportunity it raised for all to be involved.
Comments - Discussion topics were good because: Everyone had a say and we have a working strategy Specific issues were raised and resolved Gave an opportunity for all to offer their opinion which was quite diverse, from this the Group could distil some good ideas Everyone participated Clear agreement amongst team members that the issues were important and that consensus solution could be achieved Very focused and well organised schedule for the day Focused Table 3. Comments
Responses to the ‘discussion topics were not so good because’, resulted in 3 responses (included in Table 4. below). One response indicated the workshop lost focus, contrary to the comments above.
Comment - Discussion topics were not so good because: Lost focus All discussion topics were good Toward end of day - although still very good Table 4. Comments
Responses to the ‘next team meeting would be better if’, resulted in 2 responses (included in Table 5. below). One response indicated that the meeting would be better if it stuck to time.
Comment - Next team meeting would be better if: Stick to time N/A
Prepared by External Evaluator: Helen Carter Page 12 of 14
Table 5. Comments
Finally, responses to the ‘next team meeting would be better if’, resulted in 4 responses (included in Table 6. below). One response indicated the workshop could have provided some data beforehand and that too much time was spent on the questionnaire part of the workshop. All other responses were positive.
Comments - Next team meeting would be better if: We need to have data / information beforehand so we have time to consider it. We spent too much time on the questionnaire because we didn't see it until the meeting started All okay Wonderful Thank you to Sydney Uni. Excellent initiative Table 6. Comments
The overall results from the survey of workshop participants overwhelmingly demonstrate how well the workshop was received. The workshop achieved its proposed outcomes, specifically of: a team committed to each other and the project; of sharing ideas and strategies for effective teaching; and of prioritising and agreement on the next phase of the project. Most importantly the workshop provided a safe and supportive environment, where all had a voice. The workshop also allowed for discipline strengths and areas needing support to be identified. The next task will be to build on the energy created by this workshop to help participants to continue to see the value of this project in terms of a national soil science curriculum.
Prepared by External Evaluator: Helen Carter Page 13 of 14
APPENDIX C: Objectives mapped against Outcomes
(from Final NSS Report P.6)
Outcomes Objectives 1. Learning outcomes for soil science topics Forums and stakeholder feedback revealed and subjects taught by the consortium differences in approach and content and led 2. Description of the range of teaching participants to collaboratively develop Soil approaches used by teachers of soil science Science Teaching Principles. Post-project community development of Core Body of Knowledge (CBoK) is on-going 3. Student appraisals of teaching approaches Results of the survey of current students of soil and learning approaches adopted science and students’ participation in the second forum has informed the teaching principles and project recommendations 4. Consensus on the most effective contextual The Soil Science Teaching Principles were learning and teaching practices collaboratively developed through two project cycles 5. Report on limitations and missing Forum discussions revealed strengths and capabilities in learning and teaching of soil weaknesses that are being addressed by on- science and related disciplines. going joint teaching topics and development of the CBoK 6. Findings of the survey from graduates with Results of the survey of graduates in industry soil science experience in the workplace in revealed teaching priorities and informed the relation to their curriculum preparation project recommendations 7. Employer requirements for graduates with Results of the survey of employers in industry, soil science experience in their degree and their significant participation in forums, revealed teaching issues and informed the project recommendations 8. Report from forum discussions concerning This project report summarises the stakeholder teaching and learning practices, curriculum inputs through the surveys and forums of the revision, and limitations and capability project cycles deficiencies in response to cycle 1 and cycle 2 graduates and employer input. 9. Details of a curriculum that allows national The Soil Science Teaching Principles and input participation by students and academic staff from external curriculum experts from different from any location disciplines allowed participants to develop and apply guidelines for online learning in soil science 10. A proposal for a tried and tested platform for The online joint learning topics were developed enabling the implementation of the national on ‘Moodle’ which allowed convenient access by curriculum staff and students from any location 11. Proposal for the establishment of a national The on-going post-project activities include soil science education group as part of the professional bodies amongst the stakeholder ASSSI. participants 12. Discussion paper on the application of the This paper will be written following the completion project methodology and outcomes to of this report agriculture and related disciplines.
Prepared by External Evaluator: Helen Carter Page 14 of 14
Soil Science Survey - Participants
Introduction
The final report of the ALTCfunded Project: “A national soil science curriculum in response to the needs of students, academic staff, industry and the wider community“ was released at a National Forum held on the 5 December 2011 at the University of Sydney. If you have not received a copy, please email Tony Koppi
As you would be aware, the major aim of the Project was the development of a National Curriculum for Soil Science in each of five Australian Universities, all of which have been members of this Project. You have been contacted because of your involvement as a project team member / reference group member.
As External Evaluator to this Project I need your input to assist me in providing a final report to the Office for Learning and Teaching (DEEWR), the replacement body for the ALTC who funded this Project. I hope you are able to respond with considered answers to the following questions, based on your reflective review of the abovementioned Report, related published papers (listed in the Report) and your involvement in the Project Forums to date.
It is important that we get some input from you and I realise it is a small imposition but if you could make your responses to the following survey by January 21 2012, I would be grateful. All responses, except those made under Section D will be treated as confidential.
Thank you in advance for your assistance in this.
Helen Carter
External Evaluator SoilSci Macquarie University NSW 2109 Phone: +61 (0)2 9850 9454 Email: [email protected]
Page 1 Soil Science Survey - Participants
SECTION A. PROCESS
1. Do you think the Project has been a success in terms of achieving the outcomes it set out to achieve? 5
6
2. Can you identify any critical factors as to why this might have been the case? 5
6
3. What might you have changed about how this project was managed / resources allocated / other? 5
6
Page 2 Soil Science Survey - Participants
SECTION B. OUTCOMES
Please take some time to review the following Products relating to the development of a national soil science curriculum: • Identification of core elements of a national soil science curriculum • Teaching principles for soil science • Guidelines for online learning of soil science • Implications for students, graduates, employers
4. Your considered judgement of the Products: good / bad / indifferent / other? 5
6
5. Your considered judgement of the Products: significance to the Higher Education sector? 5
6
6. Your considered judgement of the Products: usefulness? 5
6
Page 3 Soil Science Survey - Participants
SECTION C. IMPACT
For teachers in relation to the development of teaching principles for soil science:
7. Have you changed your teaching practice as a result of your involvement in the project?
nmlkj Yes
nmlkj No
If Yes, can you please describe how your practice may have been positively influenced? 5
6
Page 4 Soil Science Survey - Participants
SECTION D. OVERALL COMMENTS
8. Would you like to make any comments overall on this Project, its Products and/or its Processes? 5
6
Page 5 Soil Science Survey - Project Sponsor
Introduction
The final report of the ALTCfunded Project: “A national soil science curriculum in response to the needs of students, academic staff, industry and the wider community“ was released at a National Forum held on the 5 December 2011 at the University of Sydney. You have been recently emailed a copy of this report. If you have not received a copy, please email Tony Koppi
The major aim of the Project was the development of a National Curriculum for Soil Science in each of five Australian Universities, all of which have been members of this Project, including yours.
It is important to have your input as an institutional representative and project sponsor to assist me in providing a final report to the Office for Learning and Teaching (DEEWR), the replacement body for the ALTC. I appreciate this might be a small imposition but if you could send me your responses by completing the online survey by January 21, 2012 I would be grateful. All responses, except those made under Section C will be treated as confidential.
Thank you for your assistance in this and please contact me if you have any further queries.
Kind regards, Helen Carter
External Evaluator SoilSci Macquarie University NSW 2109 Phone: +61 (0)2 9850 9454 Email: [email protected]
Page 1 Soil Science Survey - Project Sponsor
SECTION A. COMMUNICATION
1. To what degree have you been aware of the progress of this Project? 5
6
2. Why do you think this is the case? 5
6
3. What has been your main source of information? 5
6
Page 2 Soil Science Survey - Project Sponsor
SECTION B. OUTCOMES
Please take some time to review the following Products relating to the development of a national soil science curriculum: • Identification of core elements of a national soil science curriculum • Teaching principles for soil science • Guidelines for online learning of soil science • Implications for students, graduates, employers
4. Your overall judgement of the Products: good / bad / indifferent / other? 5
6
5. Your overall judgement of the Products: significance to the Higher Education sector? 5
6
6. Your overall judgement of the Products: usefulness? 5
6
Page 3 Soil Science Survey - Project Sponsor
SECTION C. QUOTABLE QUOTES
7. Would you like to make any public comments on this Project, its Products or its Processes? (These may be quoted with your name and title in the Final Evaluation Report.) 5
6
Page 4