(1985) Agronomic Terminology: Do Our Students Comprehend?

Agronomic1 terminology: Do our students comprehend?

William~ A. Anderson

ABSTRACT Table 1. Completelist of vocabularywords discussed in laboratory exercise devoted to agronomicterminology. A laboratoryexercise devotedto the instruction of Kindsof crops Storagestructures Forageterms commonagronomic vocabulary was incorporated into Rowcrop Bin Swath an introductorycrops course to reduce communication Drilled crop Silo Windrow problems,especially with urbanstudents. Terminology Foragecrop Elevator Curing Grain crop Ditch hay pretests showthat someminor differences wereappar- Feed(coarse) grain Climatic terms Pasture ent in the level of comprehensionof agronomicterms, Foodgrain Oceanicclimate Hay meadow but moreimportantly, pretests showedthat all students, Smallgrain Arid climate Nativeprairie Winterhardy regardlessof backgroundexperiences, were ill-equipped Conservationcrop Range Bumpercrop Cropand seed descriptions to fully comprehendterminology often used in introduc- Catch (emergency)crop Miscellaneousterms tory crops courses. Thelaboratory exercise did appear Green manurecrop Dormant Weed Pubescent Drill to be effective in improvingstudents’ understandingof Farmingsystems Glabrous Furrow vocabulary,especially that of the studentswith lifelong No-till farming Bootstage Seedfield farmingexperiences. Listing Rosette Male rows Strip cropping Awn Female rows Contour farming Tendril Researchplot Additional index words: Urbanstudents, Rural stu- Terrace Seedling Inoculation dents, Communicationdifficulties, Vocabularydevelop- Broadcastseeding Prostrate Nodules Solid seeding Sod Eutrophication ment,Laboratory exercise, Disadvantagedstudents. Fallow Bunchgrass Fenceline Skip rows Cropresidue Mulch Commoncorn terms Stubble Volunteer U.CHhas been written about two vital concerns Crop problems M in agronomic education recently: i) the need to Midrib Cornsilk Erosion communicate and to teach communication skills effec- Pollen Lodging tively (3, 7-10, 18), and ii) the need to assess and solve Corn shucks Chlorosis the problems resulting from the disparity of back- Corn shocks Lesion Corn shank grounds of students enrolling in colleges of agriculture Cornsilage today (1, 2, 4-6, 12-17, 19, 20). Hasslen (13) addressed Cornbelt Shotholing both concerns clearly when he stated that most agricul- Corncrib tural college instructors find it difficult to relate to students without traditional farm backgrounds. Using and understanding the terminoIogy and jargon associated was developed for use in the Introduction to Crop Sci- with agriculture is one of the areas where communica- ence course to teach commonagronomic terms relating tions break down between students with weak or non- to crop agriculture. Suspecting that even farm-reared farm backgrounds and the instructor (13, 14). Accord- students may have been lacking total vocabulary com- ing to Helsel et al. (15), the urban student’s technical prehension, all course enrollees, not just students lack- vocabulary is inadequate; thus teaching strategies dif- ing farm experience, were required to participate in the ferent from the traditional modes need to be imple- laboratory exercise. mented. A list of 74 terms (Table 1) was distributed to class The purpose of this article is to describe a laboratory memberswith space for them to write definitions. Most exercise developed for use in the Introduction to Crop terms placed on this list were words that: i) had not Science course at the University of Minnesota Technical already been discussed or defined in the lecture or College, Waseca (UMW),which focuses on the need for laboratory portion of the course, and ii) would be used better understanding of basic agronomic terminology. at a later date in either the introductory crops or more Also included is information concerning the students’ advanced courses often enough that an early under- initial level of comprehension of the vocabulary terms standing seemed essential for good communication. taught and the effectiveness of the laboratory exercise in Terms such as temperate climate, inflorescence, cotyle- providing a first step in acquainting new students with don, crown, forage, and cereal crop had already been some of the terminology necessary for successful com- discussed and were (I hope) part of the students’ munications in crop-related courses. vocabulary prior to the lab. There was no need to repeat words already defined in class unless visualization on THE VOCABULARY EXERCISE slides would reinforce student understanding. Only a t Contribution from the Ag Industries and Production Division, Out of concern for the disparity in backgrounds of University of Minnesota Technical College, Waseca 56093. rural and urban students at UMW,a laboratory exercise 2 Professor of Agronomy.

73 74 JOURNALOF AGRONOMICEDUCATION, Vol. 14, No. 2, Fall 1985

few terms (such as erosion) already used in class were Table 2. Percent correct responses to vocabulary pretest questions repeated during the exercise for reinforcement. based on class rank. Freshmen Seniors Class Vocabulary word tested (n = 98) (n = 11) mean HOW WELL DO BEGINNING CROP SCIENCE Row crop 43.9 63.6 45.9 No-till farming 74.5 72.7 74.3 STUDENTS UNDERSTAND VOCABULARY? Volunteer corn 89.8 100 90.8 Bin 85.7 90.9 86.2 Seniors earned a higher pretest average score than Oceanic climate 43.9 36.4 43.1 Male rows 74.5 72.7 74.3 freshmen(76.7070 vs. 71.2070). Also, seniors outscored Chlorosis 69.4 63.6 68.8 freshmenon individual term recognition in 20 of the 30 Curing 75.5 100 78.0 Furrow 98.0 100 98.2 items tested (Table 2). Erosion 99.0 100 99.1 Most seniors were Agriculture Business majors; thus Broadcast 98.0 100 98.2 their agronomy course background was limited. One Tendril 37.8 63.6 40.4 Forages 96.9 100 97.2 might conclude that their grasp of agronomicterms was Strip cropping 76.5 100 78.9 largely indirect, based on use of terminology in courses Shank 63.3 81.8 65.1 Fallow 31.6 36.4 32. l other than those offered in the agronomycurricula. Green manure crop 50.0 72.7 52.3 To more fairly comparescores of students based on Cornsilk 71.4 45.5 68.8 farm experience level, seniors were ignored, since all Pubescent 62.2 54.5 61.5 Boot stage 49.0 36.4 47.7 seniors had farm background, and since senior test Awns 26.5 54.5 29.4 scores were higher than freshmen scores. As a group, Sod 62.2 54.5 61.5 freshmenwith life-long farm experience knew71.7070 of Lodging 76.5 81.8 77.1 Silage 89.8 100 90.8 the vocabulary items on the pretest. Freshmen with Crib 93.9 100 94.5 several years of experience (ResponseII) averaged72070. Dormant 75.5 90.9 77.1 Range 85.7 81.8 85.3 Freshmen with part-time experiences (Response III) Eutrophication 49.0 72.7 51.4 averaged 65.3070 on the pretest. Not enough freshmen Weed 78.6 81.8 79.8 with limited exposure (Response IV) and no experience Stubble 91.8 90.9 92.7 (Response V) were enrolled to make any conclusions Mean 71.2 76.7 71.8 regardingthese groupsas separate entities. The lack of large differences in vocabulary comprehension may be due to the lack of Response IV and V Table 3. Percent correct responses by freshmen survey groups to students sampled; at other institutions these response follow-up exam questions as compared to corresponding pretest responses.~ groups may make up much large percentages of the introductory classes. On the other hand, the lack of Survey group(experience level) large differences in vocabulary comprehension among l(n = 66) II(n = 9) lll(n = 12) (Lifelong (5 or (Summer, the groupssurveyed leads to the possible conclusion that experience) our growing awareness of the disadvantages of non- moreyears) weekends) farm students maybe blinding our realization that even Vocabulary Follow- Follow- Follow- wordtested Pretest up Pretest up Pretest up students with significant farm experiences may be Row crops 48.4 92.4 44.4 88.9 33.3 91.7 deficient in certain communicationskills for effective Chlorosis 71.2 69.7 77.8 66.7 66.7 66.7 learning. Curing 69.7 95.4 77.8 77.8 83.3 75.0 Anotherpossible explanation for the lack of differ- Shank 62. l 86.4 77.8 88.9 50.0 83.3 Boot stage 48.5 77.3 66.7 77.8 41.7 66.7 ences might be that students who enroll in agriculture Lodging 75.8 87.9 77.8 77.8 83.3 66.7 colleges with lesser farm experiences have becomeac- Dormant 72.7 89.4 88.9 88.9 83.3 91.7 quainted with manyof the vocabularyterms in other life Green manure 50.0 86.4 4~.4 88.9 50.0 66.7 experiences, in somecases better than their farm-back- Only the pretest scores of those whotook the foll0wup examare presented in ground friends. Perhaps their familiarity with the this table. Pretest scores of students whodropped the course are not included. vocabularyexplains their decision to enroll in the agriculture college, since knowledgeof the terms must lead an agricultural glossary (11) available from the to somesecurity. University of Minnesota would be better equipped to It’s disheartening that students in the class, as a keep pace with their peers. Perhapsall students, not just whole, understoodonly 71.8070 of the terms on the pre- urban students, should carry a good agricultural test. Howmany of us wouldsuspect that, as we instruct glossary with them to keep pace with their course in- classes, 50070 or moreof the enrolled students might not structors. Or better yet, we should be sure to devise fully understand the meanings of words such as "row teaching strategies to assist students in becomingac- crop," "fallow," "boot stage," or "awns?" Or that quainted with agricultural terms. less than two-thirds of the freshmen understood words such as "pubescent," "sod," "shank," and "green DID THE VOCABULARY LABORATORY HELP? manurecrop?" (Table 2). Do students continue to experience these communica- Table 3 notes the scores of the class on the vocabulary tion difficulties as they advanceto higher level agrono- portion of the final exam. Pretest meanfor the eight mycourses? Helsel et al. (15) noted that students using selected questions was 64.4070, while the follow-up test ANDERSON: STUDENT UNDERSTANDINGOF TERMINOLOGY 75 109 students. Tests were corrected and analyzed as to z~ 100 I overall score and response to each question. Pretests were not returned to students, although some preliminary results were discussed with the class soon ~ 40 after the analyses were completed. The vocabulary ex- 10% 14% ercise was taught 5 weeks after the pretest was ad- 20 2% ~, u~ ministered. Three weeks after the vocabulary exercise, 0 students were given their final exam, which included Lifelong Several years Part-time Limited None eight multiple choice vocabulary questions selected (5 or more) (summers)(farm visits) from the pretest. FARM EXPERIENCE LEVEL Fig. !. ~arm experience level of fresbmeo i~troductow crops student THE STUDENT SAMPLE BASED ON at the University of MiBoesota TecbaJcal College, Waseca; ~1, RANK AND EXPERIENCE Z984. Of the 109 students sampled, 98 were freshmen, and mean for the same eight questions was 81.2%. The class 11 were seniors (second year students at this 2-year tech- as a whole did appear to improve in its understanding of nical college). All seniors said that they had lived and agronomic terms. workedon the family farm all their life (ResponseI). Accompanyingthe vocabulary list was a set of 106 Response I was checked by 7307o of the freshmen, color slides. The laboratory instructor provided the nar- Response II by 10°70 of the freshmen, Response III by ration as the laboratory was taught. Time required to 14%, Response IV by 2% and Response V by none (Fig. complete the narration was variable, but typically 1). In the college as a whole, only 52°7o of the students ranged from 60 to 75 min. This included a 5-min break have farm backgrounds (Personal communications with after half of the terms had been discussed. Someterms the UMWUniversity Relations Director, who estimated required two to three slides to fully explain the concepts percentages by noting addresses--rural vs. city routes). involved, and at times the projector was turned off to Thus students without significant farm experience seem use the chalkboard, show other types of explanatory to be focusing their studies elsewhere. media, and in general to break the monotony of Becauseall seniors indicated lifelong farm experience continual slide usage. Students were asked to define (Response I), one might conclude that retention of stu- terms periodically, or to share their reactions to the nar- dents with strong farm backgrounds is higher at this rated definitions, which seemed to stimulate interest in institution. Or possibly, students wholack farm back- the exercise. The vocabulary exercise has been taught ground, yet are required to take the Introduction to for four quarters: Winter 1984, Summer1984, Fall Crop Science course, are more apt to enroll in the course 1984, and Winter 1985. during their freshmen year. No data are available to Prior to the Fall 1984 course offering, a pretest was support either contention. developed to measure the vocabulary comprehension of To detect differences in the abilities of students as af- incoming students. The test consisted of 30 multiple fected by farm experience levels to learn the vocabulary, choice questions covering selected vocabulary words the data were assembled to compare freshmen survey from the laboratory exercise. The pretest is not printed groups I, II, and III (Fig. 2). Freshmenwith lifelong farm here, but is available at no charge upon request from the experience scored an average of 85.6070 on the follow-up author. exam vs. 62.3% on the same pretest questions, a differ- Five statements concerning the backgrounds of the ence of 23.3 percentage points. Freshmenwith several (5 students preceded the test. Students were asked to select or more) years of experience scored 82.0% on the the statement that best described their farm experience follow-up exam vs. 69.5070 on the pretest questions, an level. The statements were: improvement of 12.5 percentage points. Freshmen with I) I have lived and worked on my family farm all mylife. pretest II) I’ve lived and worked on a farm for the past 5 or more years. ~ 100 i III) I have some farming experiences (worked during follow-u~ exam the summers or weekends; have assisted neigh- 801o2. 6 6 bors, friends). IV) I have visited some farms, but do not have significant work experience on farms. V) I have no farm background, have spent little or no time on farms, do not have significant work experience on farms, but do have an interest in Lifelong Several years Part-time agriculture. (5 or more) (summers) Students were asked also to identify their class rank FARM EXPERIENCE LEVEL (freshman or senior). The pretests were administered Fig. 2. Mean vocabulary test scores of freshmen for pretest and during the second lecture session, Fall quarter 1984, to follow-up exams as affected by farm experience level. 76 JOURNAL OF AGRONOMIC EDUCATION, Vol. 14, No. 2, Fall 1985 part-time experience (summers, weekends) scored on an average of 76.1% on the follow-up test as compared to 61.5% on the pretest, an improvement of 14.6 percentage points. The differences in improvement may imply that students with lesser experience in farming may be disadvantaged in their abilities to learn the vocabulary as compared to students with lifelong experiences.

CONCLUSIONS

Students who lack farm background have weaknesses in basic agronomic terminology that require correction. But lack of communication skills such as inadequate terminology recognition is not attributable only to those without rural upbringings. We need to keep in mind that students with farm backgrounds don't necessarily share our wealth of agronomic terminology either. Farm background may be helpful in our student's at- tempts to improve their recognition of terms basic and common to crops courses. Bridging the gap between capabilities of students with and without meaningful farming experiences is still a goal we must strive to meet in the years ahead. Overall communications can be improved in the class- room by inclusion of laboratories such as the vocabulary exercise described herein, at least as a first and partial step, as we develop new teaching methods and materials to address the concerns of communications and background disparities.