A Course in Soil Morphology, Classification, and Survey- Objectives, Methods, and Student Response’

David2 T. Lewis

ABSTRACT Methods of writing instructional objectives have Theobjectives for a coursein soil morphology, been proposed by Mager (1962) and Gronlund classification, andsurvey were written in a manner (1970). Those proposed by Mager involve con- that stressedlearning outcomes. The objectives in- siderable detail, and in courses that require the stu- corporatedan overall goal statementfor the course dent to reach the higher levels of the cognitive’do- with specificbehavioral objectives derived from the main (Bloom, 1956), a very large number of in- stepsthrough which the studentmust go in orderto structional objectives are necessary. The technique masterthe coursematerial. Problem-typequizzes described by Gronlund makes use of an overall goal duringthe indoorsessions coupled with a problemin statement for the course. This goal statement is field surveywere used to evaluatethe progressof the oriented toward the future ability of the student studentsin the course.Students responded favorably in the course, in future courses, and in the real to the course,the typeof studentevaluation, and the world. The general behavioral objectives are then writtenobjectives. Additionalindex words: Student goals, Retesting, derived from the goal statement and are clarified by Instructionalobjectives, Cognitive domain, Geomor- listing the specific behavior required to meet each phology. objective. The general behavioral (instructional) objectives then become goals toward which the stu- SOIL morphology, classification, and survey dent works rather then steps to be learned one by are topics of interest and use to all agronomists. one. Therefore, many students of agronomy include a course on these topics in their undergraduate or METHODS graduate programs. Agronomy 477-877, entitled Soil Morphology, Classification, and Survey, has been taught for many years at the University of The objectives around which Agronomy 477- Nebraska to meet this need. In 1970 this course 877, Soil Morphology, Classification, and Survey, was reorganized around certain specific behavioral is organized are written according to the technique proposed by Gronlund (1970). At the beginning objectives. It is the purpose of this article to de- scribe these objectives, present the course outline each term, students are given a handout which and teaching methods to illustrate how the objec- shows the major course goal, the general instruc- tional objectives derived from ideas of the steps tives apply to them, and to present the student re- necessary to attain his goal, and the course outline sponse to the course. with quiz times indicated. The goal statement indi- Instructional objectives that place emphasis on cates that "it is the objective of this course to help the student and the goals he is to attain have found the student attain a satisfactory level of proficiency increasing use in college courses during the past 10 in the use and understanding of methods that must years (Elson, 1972). Courses in the College of Agri- be used to initiate and carry out a soil survey in the culture at the University of Nebraska have followed field. The following are goals toward which the this trend, and it has been required that all courses student is guided in order that he can meet the be revised to show the behavioral objectives that a objective." course sets forth. Arnold (1972) described a course in Food Science and Technology at Nebraska writ- 1. To describe a soil profile using the presently ac- ten according to these specifications. cepted soil horizon nomenclature 1.1 The student will recognize and describe differ- IContribution of the Dept. of Agronomy, Univ. of ences in soil texture, structure, color; consist- Nebraska, Lincoln. Published with the approval of the ence, horizon boundaries, and mineralogythat Director as Paper 3573, Journal Series, Nebraska Agr. are pertinent to the delineation and descrip- Exp.Sta. tion of soil horizons. 2Assistant Professor of Agronomy,University of Ne- 1.2 Thestudent will assign to the various horizons braska, Lincoln. he separates on the basis of the above proper- 80 JOURNAL OF AGRONOMIC EDUCATION, VOL. 2, NOVEMBER 1973 81

ties, the accepted nomenclature used to de- The listed objectives enable the student to see scribe soil profiles. what will be expected of him in the course and in- 2. To classify the soils the student describes and directly infer how an evaluation of him will be others described for him according to the classifica- tion system presently in use made. They divide the course nicely for testing 2.1 The student will recognize the name the purposes and establish for the instructor the ma- diagnostic horizons and other differentiating terials he can include in any tests to determine the criteria used to place a soil in its proper proficiency of each student in any phase of the category in the classification system. course. The following outline of the course is used 2.2 The student will use the diagnostic criteria he recognizes and names to place the soil with to help the student develop the necessary back- which he is working in its proper category. ground as they work toward the major course ob- 3. To recognize the physiographic positions on the jective. landscape and interpret soil patterns on them in terms of soil properties and processes that formed 1. The relationship of soil morphology, classifica- and are forming the soils and landscape tion, and survey to other soil sciences and to sci- 3.1 The student will construct block diagrams that ence in general show and name the physiographic positions, 2. Details of soil morphology the soils on them, and the geologic materials in 2.1 Soil horizon nomenclature; its use and con- which the soils formed. cepts of soil genesis put forth by it 3.2 The student will describe the effect of position 2.2 Soil texture; concepts behind textural class on soil development and the geomorphic pro- delineations; effect of soil texture on other cesses that formed the landscape. soil properties and interpretation of soil for 4. To recognize the various geologic materials in various uses which soils have formed and are forming, to de- 2.3 Soil structure, color, consistence, coarse scribe how these materials were deposited, and to fragments date these materials according to the most recent- 3. Writing the soil profile description ly published Pleistocene nomenclature 4. Soil Classification 4.1 The student will use the physical properties 4.1 Review of the 1938 system of soil classifica- and physiographic position of the soils in the tion and its relationship to the new system field to judge in what geologic materials the 4.2 The most recent system of soil classification soils formed. 4.2 The student will describe the geomorphic pro- (Soil Classificati6n Taxonomy) cesses that led to the exposure of once-buried 4.21 Nomenclature and diagnostic horizons geologic materials at the surface so that soils 4.22 Categories in the system formed in them. 4.3 Relationship of soil classification to soil 4.3 The student will place approximate dates in mapping; relationship of the pedon, poly- terms of Pleistocene nomenclature on the pedon, taxonomic unit, and mapping unit events that led to the deposition of the geo- 5. Effect of the Pleistocene on environments and logic materials and the erosion cycles that ex- soil morphology; polygenesis of soils humed those that were buried. 6. Relationship of soils to geomorphic surfaces; ef- 5. To interpret data from soil survey reports of vari- fects of landscape forming processes on soil ous soil provinces in terms of soil genesis, classifi- morphology cation, and land use 7. Soil drainage; nomenclature and classes 5.1 The student will describe how each of the fac- 7.1 Soil permeability tors of soil formation led to the formation of 7.2 Surface runoff and infiltration rate soils that have properties ch’aracteristic of 7.3 Interpretation of soil drainage classes in terms those in each major soil province. of agricultural and nonagricultural uses 5.2 The student will devise soil suitability charts 8. Effect of parent material on soil morphology and that include the soils of these regions and the soil use interpretation of their properties in terms of 8.1 Soil minerals agricultural and nonagricultural uses. 8.2 Effect of mineral weathering on various 6. To initiate ~nd carry out a soil survey on a given aspects of soil morphology 320-acre tract of land and write a soil survey re- Effects of climate, vegetation, and time on soil port of his study of the soils on that land morphology 6.1 The student will include in his report his soil Services provided to the soil survey by laboratory map, soil series and mapping unit descriptions, facilities (Tour of Regional Soil Conservation soil-landscape relationships, and the major Service lab, Lincoln, Nebraska) chemical and physical properties of the soil 11. Preparation for mapping assigned tracts of land series he has mapped. 11.1 Landscape control of soils in Lancaster Co., 6.2 The student will also include interpretations .of Nebraska (area where student mapping is his .mapping units in terms of uses related to done) agriculture and urban land development. 11.2 Major soils in Lancaster County, Nebraska 82 LEWIS: COURSE IN SOILS

11.3 Use of aerial photographs as base maps, use (Bloom, 1956) can be judged and appropriate credit of the stereoscope, map symbols, match given. If it is evident that a student has failed to lines, inking. grasp the material covered by a quiz, he is allowed 12. Soil interpretations for various uses to take a similar quiz and drop the grade on the 12.1 Soil features that influence the degree of limitation a soil may have for urban uses first. This is done to makecertain that every stu- 12.2 Conservation farm planning; basis for as- dent can cope with as many of the problems that signment of soils to various capability units will confront him in the field as possible. In other 13. Writing the soil survey report words, it is not the aim of the quiz to punish the 13.1 Soil correlation student for not studying, but to help him learn the 13.2 The descriptive part of the report 13.3 The interpretative part of the report materials presented. Since he must be able to use 14. Class field trips the materials over which he is quizzed to make his 14.1 Morphological features of soils, landscapes, survey and interpret data from it, lack of compre- and parent materials as seen in the field in hension of any point in the course will hurt him in the mapping area the critical period whenhe is learning soil survey in 14.2 Group mapping of a 160-acre tract of land the field. 15. Independent mapping of a 320-acre tract of land 15.1 Field review of individual mapping and pro- The averages from the quiz grades have been file descriptions by the instructor. mostly in the A and B range with a few exceptions. This produces a grade distribution without the The student earns 4 semester credit hours for "typical" distribution curve. However,if a student this course. There are two 1-hour lecture periods earns a C, D, or F on a quiz, it means that he has and two 3-hour laboratory periods per week. It is missed some or all of the points of the material basically a field course, but since it is at present studied. It is the aim of the course to give the stu- taught during the spring semester, weather keeps dent commandover all of the material included in the students indoors a large part of the time. Soil the course. If he fails to grasp the material at first, cores taken in the fall with a Giddings hydraulic it fits the aim of the course muchbetter to allow soil coring device and frozen for storage are used in him to go back and try again until he has gained a the laboratory to give the students practice in the satisfactory mastery of the material. Fifty two per- technique of describing soil profiles. Soil survey re- cent of the students taking the course have retaken ports from various soil and physiographic provinces one and often several quizzes. Since the tests repre- are used as texts for study in soil genesis as it re- sent a considerable amount of student time in lates to various aspects of soil morphology. The preparation, they have retaken them only when use of soil survey reports for this purpose was de- their initial grade indicated a serious lack of com- scribed by Drew and Eikleberry (1965). The in- prehension of the material. A testing procedure door sessions are mainly designed to prepare the such as this tends to produce manyhigh grades and student to make his soil survey and to write a com- a few low ones with none in the "average" range. prehensive soil survey report. A student with a D or F quiz average is not per- One half of the grade the student earns is based mitted to proceed to the field survey part of the on his progress as shownon quizzes on the material course until his quiz grades indicate that he is ade- in the various units outlined by the objectives. quately prepared to do so. It is worthwhile noting There is at least one quiz, and sometimes two, per that this procedure makes heavy demands on in- unit. The quizzes are of the short-answer essay structor time. However, since we are working with type and are designed to confront the student with individuals, it appears to be worthwhile to concen- a problem situation that might arise in making a trate someextra effort on the individuals whofrom soil survey and interpreting data from it. They are time to time need the extra attention. so constructed that he can arrive at an answer using The other 50%of the grade the student earns is the information he has gained up to the time of the determined by his soil survey and his report. His quiz. Here the student must apply his information mapping and soil profile descriptions are reviewed to a situation, analyze it, and synthesize a logical in the field by the instructor or an assistant whohas solution. The questions are written so that the mapped in the field. The judgments the student steps through which he went to reach his solution makesin regard to soil genesis, classification, and are part of the answer. In that way his performance land use interpretations along with the accuracy of at the various levels of the cognitive domain his mapping unit descriptions and soil-landscape JOURNAL OF AGRONOMIC EDUCATION, VOL. 2, NOVEMBER 1973 83

diagrams constitute the remaining points on which In answer to question number 2, all but 3 of the the student is evaluated. 50 students said they were satisfied with the The course meets at its scheduled time until ap- quizzes as they were given, and were in favor of the proximately April 1. At this time in most years testing procedure and types of questions used. The field mapping can proceed. After two class field vast majority took the time to state that they could trips to look at profiles and landscapes in the area see no use in a final exam (a point on which their they will survey and to practice mapping as a group instructor is certainly in agreement) and that they on a 160-acre tract of land near their mapping area, approved of the lack of stress on memorized feed- the students pair off, and each pair is assigned a back in the course. Of the three that expressed 320-acre tract of land to map. Each pair then reservations about the testing system, one indicated meets with the instructor or an assistant once or that he would have preferred a final in addition to twice during the mapping period for a field review the quizzes, and two felt that it was not fair to of their work. A summing up period is scheduled those who passed the quizzes to allow a student to in the lecture room on the last day the class is have another chance if he missed the point of the scheduled to meet. No final exam is given. material covered on the quiz the first time around. Several students expressed a positive reaction to STUDENTRESPONSE AND DISCUSSION knowing what materials were to be emphasized on the exams, and three actually took the trouble to v;,rite that they enjoyed the quizzes. Soil Morphology, Classification, and Survey has The majority of the students felt that the course been offered following the previously discussed ob- covered most of the topics they had hoped to study jectives and outline for 2 years (one semester per during the semester. One indicated that he could year). During this time, 50 students have taken the answer the question better in 4 or 5 years after he course. Of this number, 13 have been graduate had worked for a while. Several felt that we had students, 6 have been juniors, and 31 have been limited our outlook on soils by confining the soils seniors. A questionnaire was given to the students studied to those in the continental United States, at the end of each semester. It was hoped that the and one felt that we extended ourselves too greatly answers to these questions would show student re- by studying soils in regions other than Nebraska. action to the course and help the instructor better Everyone seemed to think that group practice in fit the course to student preferences in future mapping the 160-acre tract of land prior to going to semesters. The students were asked the following the field to map independently was beneficial to questions: them. During the first semester that this was incor- 1) Doyou feel that the course was logically presented and the materials explained clearly? If not, sug- porated in the course, a period of rainy weather gest a means to impr6ve on these aspects of the reduced our field time to the point where not course. enough time was available to complete the practice 2) Doyou feel that the testing system was fair, ade- session. The weather favored the group during the quate, and helpful in the learning process? Would next semester and the practice session went as you have preferred hour exams and/or a final? scheduled. Field reviews of the mapping during the Werethe type of questions asked satisfactory to you? time following the practice session showed vastly 3) Wasthere anything that you hopedto get from the superior work compared to those where the prac- course that was not covered? tice session was rained out. It therefore appears to 4) Wasthe experience of practice mappingas a group be a very worthwhile procedure. prior to independent mappinguseful to you? All felt that the field mapping was useful, and no 5) Doyou feel that the field survey part of the course is useful? If not, with what wouldyou replace it? one indicated that it should be replaced with some 6) Any other comments,negative or positive, about other form of exercise. Most indicated that it was the course, instructor, your fellow students, class- the most useful part of the course. Here they could roomfacilities, the political situation.., anything? immediately apply the work in the classroom to a~ The answer to question number 1 was unani- project in the field, giving them a sense of accom- mous in the affirmative. The only student to re- plishment which one student stated was seldom felt spond in a manner other than "yes" or "I think it in courses he had completed at the University. One was logically presented" indicated that it was the student seemed to feel that writing the soil survey only course he had taken that he could not think report was too time consuming, but he admitted of a thing to change. that he had "learned a lot" from it. 84 STOSKOPF & JENKINSON: LECTURE-TUTORIAL IN AGRICULTURE There were many different responses to question understanding a soil survey, but to help them see number 6. Most took it seriously, and several wrote how this knowledge is applied in the survey. Prob- on the back of the questionnaire to complete it. ably all the levels of the cognitive domain are ap- There were no negative responses to the course or proached in the course. To go from the definitions instructor, and several were decidedly positive. of horizon nomenclature through application of Most students had a favorable response to the type this nomenclature to a soil profile being described of exam questions that allowed them to see the ap- to the evaluation and interpretation of soils and plication of the quiz questions toward the goals of landscapes in terms of soil genesis and/or land use the course. Several were specific in noting that requires that the student apply acquired knowledge they could tell what the exams would be like and to a situation which he must evaluate and synthesize how they fit with the course objectives. Most also some conclusion based on his knowledge. The stated seemed to approve of a lack of memorized feedback objectives lead him in this direction and the prob- and of being able to use what they had learned to lem-type exam coupled with a comprehensive field reach a solution to what one student called "prac- problem allows him to complete the process. In tical problems". this way the thinking of the student at the various The aim of supplying the students with objec- levels of the cognitive domain can be evaluated, and tives in the form shown is to help them learn not the course objectives remain oriented toward learn- only the basic knowledge necessary to making and ing outcomes rather than the learning process.