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 stu- dents 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 compre- hension 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 agri- culture 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.