OPINIONS OF INSTRUCTORS, PRACTITIONERS, & ALUMNI CONCERNING

CURRICULAR REQUIREMENTS OF AGRICULTURAL COMMUNI CATION

STUDENTS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
Kimberly J. Sprecker, Graduate Associate
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Rick D. Rudd, Assistant Professor
University of Florida
Abstract
Since the debut of the University of Floridas agricultural communication program in 1990, no study
had been conducted to determine whether the curriculum adequately prepared graduates for the
agricultural industry. The purpose of this study was to determine skills and knowledge needed by
graduates of the University of Florida 's agricultural communication program for successful professional
service in fields related to agricultural communication. Personal interviews were conducted with six
instructors of the programs required journalism and communication courses, four instructors of the
required agricultural communication courses, I4 agricultural communication practitioners in Florida,
and six alumni of the agricultural communication program. All groups said instruction about Florida
agriculture on a broad level (including commodities, trade/economi cs and policy/law) was important.
However, all said that communication skills were more important than agricultural knowledge. All
groups said students must have versatile communication skills and learn to network with others.
Instructors and alumni emphasized in-depth communication courses. Practitioners and alumni stressed
desktop publishing. I nstructors and practitioners underscored internships and training in issues
management. Only instructors emphasized electronic media/inter-net. Incorporation of these findings into
the curriculum will help ensure that students graduate equipped to excel in their careers.
Never has the need been greater for connecting
the work of the academy to the social and
environmental challenges beyond the campus
(Boyer, 1990). Unless colleges nationwide keep
abreast of the changing needs of society when
preparing curricula, graduates will not be prepared
to assume the essential roles for which they were
educated and are needed (Erpelding & Mugler,
1987). Because the food, agriculture, and natural
resources field is dynamic, curriculum needs to be
reviewed often to meet the demands of evolving
technical information, technology, changing
demographics, dwindling resources, and the
occupational requirements of the discipline
(McAlpine 1994; Wrye & Terry, 1993).
Competencies needed by an agricultural
communicator have changed with technology and
job requirements, indicating a need to examine the
curriculum to make it applicable to students and
their future employers. Given the changing face of
agriculture, an inspection of the University of
Floridas undergraduate agricultural communication
curriculum (established in 1990) will help ensure
that students graduate with knowledge and skills
that Floridas agricultural industries require.
Several curriculum review studies have been
conducted for agricultural communication (e.g.
Bailey-Evans, 1994; Miller, 1973; Terry & Bailey-
Evans, 1995; Terry, Lockaby, & Bailey-Evans,
1995; Terry et al., 1994). It is, however, important
to know which combination of qualifications is
J ournal of Agricultural Education 6 Vol. 38, No. I , I 997
unique to Florida, since answers to curricular
questions must be institution specific (Erven, 1987).
Examination of the competencies needed by
professional agricultural communicators will help
planners design curricula that enable graduates to
be more competitive in the marketplace. Students
should be qualified to enter the workplace upon
graduation and to excel in their careers. Curriculum
planning should involve all who are affected by the
program (Diamond, 1989; Sledge et al., 1987).
Thus, teachers, students, administrators, employers,
and employees should participate in planning and
evaluation. All five have essential roles for input,
development, acceptance, and outcome of curricular
revitalization efforts (The Carnegie Foundation for
the Advancement of Teaching, 1978).
Duley, Jensen, and OBrien (1984) wrote that
the recognition of agricultural communication as an
area of study at the university level began when
colleges of agriculture developed an extension
function early in the twentieth century. As of 199 1,
more than 30 agricultural communication programs
existed in the United States (Doerfert & Cepica,
199 1). Agricultural communication graduates learn
to disseminate agricultural information to both rural
and urban audiences through multiple media. The
curriculum is intended to help graduates qualify for
a wide range of job opportunities in the career field
by providing them with varied course work. In
1990(b), Reisner noted that curricular designs were
similar to those described in 1982 by Evans and
Bolick.
Tucker and Paulson (1988) found that
agricultural communication students were most
interested in public relations, followed by
radio/television production, although students
expressed greater interest in agricultural classes
than communication classes. Bowen and Coopers
1989 study found that students perceived courses in
journalism and communication to be more
important than were agriculture or general
education courses. Kroupa and Evans (1976)
showed that professional requirements of a
particular communication job are more important
than the major area of study in college in
determining necessary skills and knowledge.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to determine
skills and knowledge needed by graduates of the
University of Floridas agricultural communication
program for successful professional service in
agricultural communication. Guiding questions for
this study were as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
What knowledge and skills related to
agricultural communication do University
of Florida faculty in the Department of
Agricultural Education and Communication
and the College of Journalism and
Communications teach in the courses
required of agricultural communication
majors?
What knowledge and skills do practitioners
believe are vital to effective work in
agricultural communication?
What knowledge and skills do University of
Florida agricultural communication alumni
believe to be essential to their work in the
field?
How can the University of Floridas
agricultural communication program be
modified to better equip students for
agricultural communication careers?
Procedures
The research project was a qualitative study.
The researcher selected participants for study based
on what they could contribute to the understanding
of the topic (Merriam, 1988; Moon, Dillon, &
Sprenkle, 1990). Through purposive sampling, the
researcher selected sample elements judged to be
typical or representative of the population (Ary,
J ournal of Agricuhral Education 7 Vol. 38, No. 1, 1997
Jacobs, & Razavieh, 1990). Coffey (1987) said that
curriculum designers must strike a compromise
between the vision of the faculty at a particular
institution, the wishes of the student, and the needs
of the employer. Consequently, the population in
this study consisted of instructors, practitioners, and
alumni of agricultural communication in Florida to
achieve triangulation. Triangulation increases the
validity or trustworthiness of findings (Lincoln &
Guba, 1985; Merriam, 1988). Consistency in
overall patterns of data from different sources
contributes significantly to the credibility of the
findings (Patton, 1980, p. 33 1).
Four instructors in the Department of
Agricultural Education and Communication taught
required agricultural communication courses. Six
instructors from the College of Journalism and
Communications taught required communication
courses. All were interviewed in person. Six of the
18 alumni of the University of Floridas agricultural
communication program were working in the field.
The researcher was interested in the opinions of
only these alumni because they alone could identify
the strengths and weaknesses of the curriculum in
the field. All six participated in the study; half
were interviewed in person, half by telephone.
About 20 practitioners presided on the board of
directors of the Agriculture Institute of Florida; a
sample of 14 was selected to represent the broad
spectrum of Florida agriculture. (This group
embodies the major agricultural organizations,
corporations and agricultural support organizations
in Florida.) All selected practitioners participated
in the study. Because of distance and scheduling
constraints, eight in-person and six telephone
interviews occurred. When responses of the two
groups were compared, no difference in interview
quality, depth, or length emerged. Prior to
interviews, a questionnaire and letter of intent were
sent to all participants.
The standardized, open-ended, long interview
schedule consisted of a set of questions pertaining
to agricultural communication professional
competencies; questions were based on existing
literature in the field. Methodical sampling using
structured questions assured that data adequately
represented the population being investigated
(LeCompte & Goetz, 1982).
To establish content validity and face validity,
a panel of eight faculty in the Department of
Agricultural Education and Communication at the
University of Florida reviewed the instrument.
Pilot tests occurred with two agricultural
communication instructors, journalism instructors,
practitioners, and alumni. Confidentiality and
anonymity were assured. The researcher used
qualitative research methodology as described by
LeCompte and Goetz (1982), Lincoln and Guba
(1985),
and Merriam (1988) to achieve
dependability (i.e., reliability), credibility (i.e.
internal validity), and external validity.
The researcher transcribed tape-recorded
interviews, grouping them by category--instructors,
practitioners, or alumni. Next, the researcher made
a matrix of questions and participant names
(Bogdan & Biklen, 1992). Within each cell, the
researcher jotted notes and key words from each
response to each question. When the matrices were
complete, similar words and words expressing
similar themes were circled and connected with
lines. Overarching themes that represented the
substance of the interviews became clear. Then, the
researcher
for words
themes.
studied the transcripts again, this time
that captured the essence of emergent
Findings
After triangulating the responses of instructors,
practitioners, and alumni, four themes emerged
across all groups:
1. A broad overview of Florida food,
agriculture, and natural resources including
commodities, trade/economics, and
policy/law is essential.
J ournal of Agricultural Education 8 Vol. 38, No. 1, 1997
2.
3.
4.
Communications skills are more important expertise in a whole array of areas, key among
to the job of an agricultural communicator them the ability to handle language well and to
than is agricultural knowledge. write well.
Students need to be versatile, able to do
many communications tasks thoroughly.
Networking is an integral component of
agricultural communication.
Similarly, Reisner (1990a) found that writing
was the most essential core course for agricultural
communication majors. Practitioners described the
model graduate as one who had excellent
communication skills, but unfortunately, those who
had worked with interns said their writing skills
were lacking. This observation agrees with
Diamond (1989) in that employers typically find
that college graduates cannot write effectively.
Alumni wanted to be prepared for writing similar to
what they would find on the job.
Common themes also emerged from the
responses of two of the three groups. First,
instructors and practitioners said that internships
were critical for agricultural communication
students. Second, they said that students need to
learn how to manage issues, especially in the area
of activism and environmental regulation. Third,
they envisioned a majority of future agricultural
communication students working in public
relations.
Practitioners and alumni strongly emphasized
the need for desktop publishing skills and other
computer applications (but not electronic
media/internet). Instructors and alumni said that in-
depth communications courses beyond the
introductory level were a must for graduates to be
prepared for the workplace. Instructors alone
emphasi zed t he i mport ance of el ect roni c
media/internet to the future of agricultural
communication.
Discussion
Instructors, practitioners, and alumni agreed that
writing skills are the most valuable communications
skills. These form the foundation for success in
other areas of communications. An agricultural
communication instructor said:
Fi r st and f or emost , st udent s ar e not
agriculturalists primarily but communicators.
They really need to have rigorous training in
communication, taking courses beyond surface,
introductory so that they will truly have
Alumni felt qualified only to be agricultural
writers, not versatile communicators who can
thoroughly shoot and edit videotape, write and
produce a newsletter or magazine, and carry out an
advertising or public relations campaign. Alumni
and instructors recognized the need for students to
be as competitive for positions in communications
as graduates from the College of Journalism and
Communications. They wanted students to take in-
depth communication courses, where projects run
from inception to completion. Alumni said
communications ability will get them a job, not
agricultural knowledge. Similarly, Bowen and
Cooper (1989) found that students considered
journalism and communication courses to be more
important than agriculture courses.
Still, agricultural communication instructors,
practitioners, and alumni made it clear that
knowledge of food, agriculture, and natural
resources was greatly needed because of the
diversity of Florida agriculture. Agricultural
communication instructors thought the technical
agriculture requirements were fine, yet agricultural
issues, economics, and politics would be good to
add. Practitioners greatly emphasized international
trade, issues management, economics, and politics
beyond what is covered in one course on U. S. food
and agricultural policy. They also strongly
J ournal of Agricultural Education 9 Vol. 38, No. 1, 1997
suggested a broad overview course on Florida
agriculture. Alumni believed that the current food,
agriculture, and natural resources offerings should
be modified to better prepare them for their careers.
They also desired a sweeping look at Florida
agriculture in every aspect. They wanted to know
the economics, politics, production, and issues
surrounding commodities that are essential to the
state. As one alumnus said, One gaping hole is
that there isnt one class an inch deep and a mile
wide about agriculture, not just in Florida but
across the country and throughout the world so you
have a bigger idea of the scope.
Through their internships, students should be
solidifying and expanding on knowledge and skills
learned in course work. When alumni were asked
to identify education or experience that prepared
them for their careers, however, only one
mentioned the internship in addition to other
experiences. One would expect that most all
alumni would value their internship experiences
highly. After all, all practitioners and
communications instructors said internships were
important for a potential employee to have.
Evidently, alumni felt that their internships fell
short of the ideal experience as perceived by
instructors and practitioners.
Practitioners and instructors emphasized
training on issues management and influencing
public opinion since they deal with these areas
regularly. Kroupa and Evans (1976) also found that
practitioners strongly supported course work in
public relations. One person summarized the
sentiment of practitioners as follows: (Students)
need to study the environmental movement and its
activists-how they think, how they are funded, how
to deal with them. These represent the single
largest threat to the continuation of American
agriculture. Alumni believed the combination of
communications courses insufficiently equipped
them with the abilities needed to be successful,
diversely trained agricultural communicators.
Networking with other professionals, a skill
recognized by instructors, practitioners, and alumni
to be important for agricultural communicators,
gives students extracurricular experience in relating
to various publics.
All 10 instructors who teach the required
agricultural communication and journalism and
communications courses emphasi zed t he
importance of electronic media/internet to the
future of communications and society in general.
Indeed, a 1982 study by Evans and Bolick indicated
that agricultural communication curricula
nationwide were moving toward an emphasis on
computer technology. In spite of the instructors
interest in emerging technologies, only 2 of 14
practitioners and one of six alumni working as
agricultural communicators spoke of the need for
training in this area. Apparently the need is not yet
great enough to cause agricultural communicators
to value it above other tools. Most practitioners and
alumni would agree that desktop publishing skills
are much more important to their work than
electronic media/internet skills. As one practitioner
said, The technology is still available to a relative
few. You cant focus on that to the exclusion of
those strategies that will reach a far greater number
of people. It is understandable that instructors
would perceive the need differently, because
university faculty typically have been at the
forefront of innovations that permeate society.
Summary and Recommendations
In general, agricultural communication students
at the University of Florida are prepared only to be
agricultural writers, not communicators.
Instructors, practitioners, and alumni agreed that
students need in-depth training in all aspects of
communication beyond introductory classes.
To broaden the agricultural component of the
degree, rather than semester-long introductory
courses in specific commodities, students should
take classes that teach the essentials of Florida
agriculture and natural resources. Those classes
J ournal of Agricultural Education 10 Vol. 38, No. 1, 1997
would encompass the basics of every commodity of
significance to the state, as well as those with
national and international significance. They would
cover environmental issues facing the state,
agricultural law, and basic economics surrounding
each commodity. Reisner (1990b) found that
agricultural communication students nationwide
were not required to take courses designed to teach
cross-cultural global perspectives or public policy,
similar to the situation at the University of Florida.
Evans and Bolicks 1982 study and Reisners
(1990b) st udy showed t hat i n agri cul t ural
communication programs across the country,
flexibility was a key characteristic. Students had
freedom to pursue areas of interest within
agricultural communication. On the other hand, the
curriculum at the University of Florida has limited
flexibility to accommodate individual interests in
specialized areas such as journalism, public
relations, advertising, or telecommunications.
Creating condensed, overview courses to replace
some of the cursory, introductory, knowledge-based
courses in communications would allow room for
students to pursue interest areas.
The curriculum should include ways for
students to become acquainted with people in the
industry. An advisory council of practitioners
would provide networking contacts. Students
should participate in clubs on campus designed for
students with career aspirations in this area.
For further research, it would be beneficial to
know if and how agricultural communication
training varies depending on the segment of the
industry where graduates are employed. A study
should be conducted to examine why only 33
percent of University of Florida agricultural
communication alumni are employed in the field.
Employment needs of agricultural communication
graduates should be compared with those of mass
communication graduates to develop a greater
understanding of the educational needs of both.
Finally, studies similar to this one should be
conducted on agricultural communication curricula
in other states to determine whether these findings
suggest local, regional, or national phenomena.
References
Ary D., Jacobs, L. C., & Razavieh, A. (1990).
Introduction to research in education (4th ed.). Fort
Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Bailey-Evans, F. (1994). Enhancing the
agricultural communications curriculum: A national
Delphi study. Unpublished masters thesis, Texas
Tech University, Lubbock.
Bogdan R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1992).
Qualitative research for education (2nd ed.).
Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Bowen B. E., & Cooper, B. E. (1989). A
profile of agricultural communications graduates of
the Ohio State Universitv: Summarv of research
(Report No. OSU-SR-52). Columbus, OH:
Department of Agricultural Education. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 302 291)
Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarshiu reconsidered:
Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, N. J.: The
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of
Teaching.
The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement
of Teaching. (1978). Missions of the collepe
curriculum: A contemnorarv review with
suggestions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Coffey, J. D. (1987). Undergraduate agricultural
economics curricula: Discussion. American Journal
of Agricultural Economics. 69,1043-1044.
Diamond, R. M. (1989). Designing and
improving courses and curri cul a i n higher
education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
J ournal of Agricultural Education 11 Vol . 38, No. 1, 1997
Doerfert, D., & Cepica, M. (1991). The current
status of aericuhural communications/ iournalism
programs in the United States. Unpublished
manuscript, Texas Tech University, Lubbock.
Duley, C., Jensen, R., & OBrien, J. (1984). A
review of agricultural ioumalism programs in the
United States universities. Unpublished masters
thesis, University of Wisconsin-River Falls, River
Falls.
Erpelding, L. H., & Mugler, D. J. (1987).
Characteristics needed of agricultural college
graduates in 2005. In E. Porath (Ed.), Curricular
innovation for 2005: Planning for the future of our
food and agicultural sciences (pp. 38-41).
Madison, WI: U. S. Department of Agriculture,
North Central Region Curricular Committee.
Erven B. L. (1987). Reforming curricula:
Challenge and change for agricultural economists.
American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 69,
1037-1042.
Evans, J., & Bolick, J. (1982). Todays
curri cul a i n agricultural journalism and
communications. ACE Ouarterlv. 65 (l), 29-38.
Kroupa, E., & Evans, J. (1976). Characteristics
and course recommendations of agricultural
communicators: An update. ACE Quarterly. 59(l),
23-31.
LeCompte, M. D., & Goetz, J. P. (1982).
Problems of reliability and validity in ethnographic
research. Review of Educational Research. 52(l),
3 l-60.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985).
Naturalistic inauiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
McAlpine, V. (1994, November/December).
Driving change: The future of ag comm. Signals. 5,
l-4.
Merriam, S. (1988). Case studv research in
education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Miller, M. E. (1973). Job market situation
survev for agricultural communication graduates
(Report No. ANREI-Pub-26). East Lansing, MI:
College of Agriculture and Natural Resources
Education Institute. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 072 3 19)
Moon, S. M., Dillon, D. R., & Sprenkle, D. H.
(1990). Family therapy and qualitative research.
Journal of Marital and Family Therapv. 16 (4), 3 57-
373.
Patton, M. Q. (1980). Qualitative evaluation
methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Reisner, A. (199Oa). Course work offered in
agricultural communication programs. Journal of
Applied Communications. 74 (l), 18-25.
Reisner, A. (1990b). An overview of
agricultural communications programs and
curricula. Journal of Applied Communications,
B(l), 8-17.
Sledge, G. W., Darrow E. E., Ellington, E. F.,
Erpelding, L. H., Hartung, T. E., & Riesch K. W.
(1987). Futuristic curricular models/designs for the
food and agricultural sciences. In E. Porath (Ed.),
Curricular innovation for 2005: Planning for the
future of our food and agricultural sciences (pp.
115-130). Madison, WI: U. S. Department of
Agriculture, North Central Region Curricular
Committee.
Terry, R., Jr., & Bailey-Evans, F. J. (1995).
Competencies needed for graduates of agricultural
communications programs. Proceedings of the 44th
Annual Southern Agricultural Education Research
Meeting. Wilmington. NC. 44, 26-37.
Terry, R., Jr., Lockaby, J., & Bailey-Evans, F.
J. (1995). A model for undergraduate academic
J ournal of Agricultural Education 12 Vol. 38, No. 1, 1997
programs in agricultural communications. Tucker, M. , & Paulson, C. (1988). A
Proceedings of the 44th Annual Southern descriptive study of characteristics, interests, and
Agri cul t ural Educat i on Research Meeting, career objectives of agricultural communications
Wilminaton. NC. 44,14-25. students. ACE Ouarterly. 7 l(3), lo- 16.
Terry, R., Jr., Vaughn, P. R., Vernon, J. S.,
Lockaby, J., Bailey-Evans, F. J., & Rehrman, M.
(1994). Enhancing the agricultural communications
curriculum: A vision for the future. Unpublished
manuscript, Texas Tech University, Lubbock.
Wrye, C. L., & Terry, R., Jr. (1993).
Occupational status and educational needs of
college of agricultural sciences graduates.
Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Southern
Agricultural Education Research Meeting 42.2 15
223.
J ournal of Agricultural Education 13 Vol. 38, No. 1, 1997