ATTENTION:
BEFORE YOU READ THE ABSTRACT OR CHAPTER ONE OF THE PROJECT TOPICS BELOW, PLEASE READ THE INFORMATION BELOW.THANK YOU!
INFORMATION:
YOU CAN GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT OF THE TOPIC BELOW. THE FULL PROJECT COST N5,000 ONLY. THE FULL INFORMATION ON HOW TO PAY AND GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT IS AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE. OR
YOU CAN CALL: 08068231953, 08168759420
WHATSAPP US ON: 08168759420
TEACHING INTRODUCTORY LIFE SCIENCE COURSES IN COLLEGES OF AGRICULTURE: FACULTY EXPERIENCES.
Insignificant numbers of college students declaring STEM majors creates concern for the future of the U.S. economy within the global marketplace. This study highlights the educational development and teaching strategies employed by STEM faculty in teaching first-year students in contextualized life science courses, such as animal, plant, and food sciences. Teaching strategies employed by faculty were reported as largely influenced by the “way they were taught.” Faculty members shared they used ‘lecture’ and ‘laboratory’ interchangeably as both educational environment and instructional practice. This study provides evidence for engaging university teaching faculty in a systematic process of professional development in teaching and learning processes. This work was supported by the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Higher Education Challenge Project 222938 and Hatch Project 215317.
Higher education faculty play an important role in the science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) pipeline as they assist in developing the next generation of scientists and engineers (Executive Office of the President of the United States, 2013). Particularly, faculty teaching introductory STEM college courses play a critical role as the courses they teach serve as a gateway for students to either continue or exit their scientific interests pending their learning experiences and evaluative performances (Labov, 2004). These early educational experiences are critical as there is an urgent need to attract and develop the next generation of agricultural scientists (Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, Experiment Station Committee on Organization and Policy—Science and Technology Committee, 2010). This urgency is predicated by projections indicating that STEM occupations are expected to grow in the years 2008-2018 by 17%, doubling the rate from the previous decade (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2011).
These projections leave industry professionals questioning the ability of the U.S. workforce to meet the global demands of the 21 century (Chen, 2009). Their questions are valid when examining the minimal number of college students declaring STEM majors (Chen, 2009; Duncan, 2009; Executive Office of the President of the United States, 2013) furthering the concern that a lag in the development of skilled STEM professionals has serious implications for the future of the U.S. economy within the global marketplace. 1 Mark Balschweid is Professor and Head of the Department of Agricultural Leadership, Education, and Communication, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, 300 Agricultural Hall, Lincoln, Nebraska 68583-0709, Telephone: 402.472.2807, [email protected] 2 Neil A. Knobloch is Associate Professor of Extension Education in the Department of Youth Development and Agricultural Education, Agricultural Administration Building Room 225, 615 W State Street, West Lafayette, IN 47907-2053, Telephone: 765.494.8439, [email protected] 3 Bryan J. Hains is an Associate Professor in the, Knobloch, and Hains Teaching Introductory Life Sciences Journal of Agricultural Education 163 Volume 55, Issue 4, 2014 When evaluating students’ college experiences, it is best to begin with the introductory course. Introductory science courses provide college students with their first scientific impression and experience in a college classroom. Labov (2004) stated that for many students: Introductory science courses often give undergraduates their first and, for many students, their last formal exposure to a deeper understanding of science.
Thus, introductory courses might be the only opportunity to provide a basic level of scientific literacy for the educated lay public. (p. 212) Students should be engaged to learn science within these courses. Kuh, Cruce, Shoup and Kinzie (2008) found that educationally purposeful activities that engage students are positively related to academic outcomes such as first-year student grades and persistence between the first and second year of college. If professors are one of the greatest influences on learning (Umbach & Wawrzynski, 2005), it is imperative to understand how professors think about the content and the methods they use to help students learn content and concepts in specific domains. Bok (2005) criticized higher education because there is little to no discussion about how professors teach. Current teaching practices in higher education rely heavily upon the transmission of knowledge by an expert at the front of the class (Conti, 2004), and is a method that higher education faculty learned well through observing the teachers they had while sitting in classes as a student (Lortie, 1975). Conceptual Framework The conceptual framework for this study was informed by two foundational educational theories; Lortie’s theory of apprenticeship of observation (1975) and Schön’s theory of reflective practice (1987).
Lortie states that unlike many other occupations, teachers’ socialization into the profession starts when they are students. Many faculty have the mindset ‘teaching is lecture’ so embedded in their schema that it becomes difficult to perceive any other method of instruction. As a result, not only do faculty ‘do what they were taught to do’ but they continue the cycle by training their STEM undergraduate and graduate students, and future faculty members in this same instructional paradigm. In addition, Schön (1987) posits that examining teaching reflectively is a means of developmental insight and can provide a basis for professional development. If faculty members can reflect upon their own beliefs about teaching and learning it could lead to faculty awareness of a need for further development. We chose to look specifically at three contexts within the life sciences as a means to better understand how faculty facilitate learning in introductory courses in animal science, food science, and plant science. We were particularly interested in how these introductory life science courses might help students learn in contextualized STEM learning experiences. Cruce et al. (2006) suggested that their findings on the impact of effective educational practices “may be particularly important for those students who enter postsecondary education with the least educational capital” (p. 379). Post-secondary Emphasis on Teaching and Reflection Faculty who teach in U.S. colleges and universities, typically, are not pedagogically prepared and they begin teaching as untenured faculty without prior experiences or formal training in teaching and learning (Academy of Distinguished Teachers, 2002; Murray, 1987; Scarlett, 2004; Whaley & Wickler, 1992).
Some faculty do not see the need to improve their teaching, and the professional climate that is informed by rewards and promotion does not place teaching quality on the same level as research and publications (Scarlett, 2004). However, there is more emphasis on improving the undergraduate student experience as universities are responding to stakeholder pressures of accountability (Menges & Austin, 2001). As such, some faculty consider teaching an important activity of their careers (Altbach & Lewis, 1997), and reflect on their teaching as they Balschweid, Knobloch, and Hains Teaching Introductory Life Sciences Journal of Agricultural Education 164 Volume 55, Issue 4, 2014 engage in faculty development activities (Hubball, Collins & Pratt, 2005). The development of teaching capacity is highly personal, contextual, and experiential (Kreber, 2002). As such, a person’s beliefs, values, and motivations play an important role in developing teachers (Pryor, Sloan, & Amobi, 2007), and reflection plays an important role in that development (Scanlon, Care, & Udod, 2002; Schön, 1987). Teaching Within the Agrisciences Teaching plays an important role in academic institutions, yet research overshadows teaching in many universities. A limited number of studies have investigated teaching faculty’s perceptions in agricultural disciplines in higher education (Davis & Beyrouty, 1995; Dooley & Murphy, 2000; Wardlow & Johnson, 1999). Davis and Beyrouty (1995) found that agriculture faculty believed teaching was a major mission of the university, were not adequately prepared to teach, and agreed they needed to change their teaching techniques.
Wardlow and Johnson (1999, p. 53) found that agriculture faculty rated their abilities to teach using “more traditional activities such as lecture, demonstration, preparing teaching materials, and motivating students” as good to excellent, whereas they felt less capable in teaching using active learning strategies. Dooley and Murphy (2000) found that College of Agriculture faculty were more confident in their technical abilities than their methodological abilities to teach using educational technologies. Although a majority of the faculty did not understand how to use these technologies to teach, they valued the technologies and could see that they will be important to use in their teaching. In 2009, Harder, Roberts, Stedman, Thoron and Myers found that agriculture faculty were interested in faculty development programs to learn how to engage students in learning, teach critical thinking, lecture effectively, use effective questioning techniques, and use active learning strategies. In summary, the literature identifies introductory courses as vital to student success and interest in moving forward (Kuh, Cruce, Shoup & Kinzie, 2008).
HOW TO RECEIVE PROJECT MATERICAL(S)
After paying the appropriate amount (#5,000) into our bank Account below, send the following information to
08068231953 or 08168759420
(1) Your project topics
(2) Email Address
(3) Payment Name
(4) Teller Number
We will send your material(s) after we receive bank alert
BANK ACCOUNTS
Account Name: AMUTAH DANIEL CHUKWUDI
Account Number: 0046579864
Bank: GTBank.
OR
Account Name: AMUTAH DANIEL CHUKWUDI
Account Number: 3139283609
Bank: FIRST BANK
FOR MORE INFORMATION, CALL:
08068231953 or 08168759420
http://graduateprojects.com.ng/