51 research outputs found
Good Practice Guide: threshold learning outcomes for agriculture
No full textTina Botwright, Amanda J. Abl
Learning and Teaching Academic Standards Statement for Agriculture
No full textTina Botwright Acuña, Amanda Able, Jo-Anne Kelder, Phoebe Bobbi, Yann Guisard, Bill Bellotti, Glenn McDonald, Richard Doyle, Paul Wormell and Holger Meink
Good practice guide: Threshold learning outcomes for agriculture
No full textBackground
The Good Practice Guide: Threshold Learning Outcomes for Agriculture (the Good Practice Guide) builds on the national Learning and Teaching Academic Standards Statement for Agriculture (AgLTAS), which was developed through an extensive consultation process among academics, students and industry personnel across Australia.
The AgLTAS facilitates the implementation of academic standards by the agriculture discipline community and informs curriculum design. It describes the nature and extent of agriculture and provides five key Threshold Learning Outcomes (TLOs) that describe what a pass-level graduate will know, understand and be able to do upon graduation from a bachelor-level degree in agriculture or a related discipline. The TLOs are: Understanding agriculture; Knowledge of agriculture; Inquiry and problem-solving; Communication; and Personal and professional responsibility (Botwright Acuña et al. 2014).
Aims
Having set the learning outcomes for agriculture, the next step was to demonstrate that students achieve the TLOs through assessment. The Good Practice Guide provides academics with strategies for teaching and case studies of aligned assessment for each TLO.
The Good Practice Guide is intended for use by academics who teach into undergraduate degrees (or related areas), including but not limited to: agribusiness, animal science, agricultural economics, horticulture, agriculture and agricultural science, viticulture and oenology, agricultural business management, agrifood systems and wine science.
Methodology
The authors of each chapter have modelled components of the Good Practice Guide on those used for each of the individual Good Practice Guides for Science and Law. However, all TLOs were combined into a single 143 pp guide as an acknowledgement of how the TLOs are often addressed in an integrated way.
Each TLO chapter contains the following:
1. a literature review related to the interpretation of the TLO hyperlinked with case studies of assessment practice
2. an annotated list of resources that may be useful in teaching specifically addressing that TLO
3. a summary of the key issues, outcomes synthesised from the literature review and future opportunities identified
4. case studies of assessment practice aligned to the TLO.
References are collated at the end of the Good Practice Guide. An electronic copy of the Guide is available at www.agltas.edu.au
Conclusions
A key distinguishing feature of agriculture is its multidisciplinary nature and the contribution of disciplines other than science, such as economics and the social sciences. The integration of these disciplines in the context of agriculture is important for student achievement of the TLOs.
Two common themes appear throughout the Good Practice Guide: 1) the interdisciplinary
nature of agriculture; and; 2) the emphasis on transferable and applied skills that will allow
graduates to contribute to the successful practice of agriculture in a wide range of roles. The
authors have also provided discussion to guide the interpretation of each overarching TLO.
Botwright Acuna, T. L., Able, A. J., Kelder, J., Bobbi, P., Guisard, Y., Bellotti, W., McDonald, G., Doyle, R., Wormell, P., & Meinke, H. (2014). Learning and Teaching Academic Standards Statement for Agriculture. Sydney, Australia: Office for Learning and Teaching.
Botwright Acuña, T. L., & Able, A. J. (Eds.) (2016). Good Practice Guide: Threshold Learning Outcomes for Agriculture. Sydney, Australia: Office for Learning and Teaching
Author-suggested reviewers are more likely to give favorable scores.
No full textThe point is the mean and the error bars are the standard errors of the mean (SEM). For comparison across means, the asterisk indicates the statistical significance of a two-sample t test where "***", "**", and "*" represent p p p < 0.1, respectively.</p
Academic, industry and student perspectives on the inclusion of “vocational knowledge” in a ‘learning and teaching academic standards statement’ for agriculture
No full textThis paper reports on the perspective of industry stakeholders in a national project to develop a Learning and Teaching Academic Standards (LTAS) Statement for the Agriculture discipline. The AgLTAS Statement will be aligned with the Science LTAS Statement published in 2011 and comprise a discourse on the nature and extent of the Agriculture discipline and a set of Threshold Learning Outcome (TLO) statements specific to Agriculture. Agricultural research and teaching relies on strong links with industry due to the applied nature of the discipline. Without these links, sustainable and profitable practice change in agricultural systems cannot be achieved. A pilot project, in 2011-2012, with academic staff from three Australian universities identified vocational knowledge as a potential focus for a TLO. The AgLTAS project provides the opportunity to validate or refute this TLO by seeking input from a wider group of stakeholders, including industry. National consensus is being sought by a process of iterative consultation with academics, students and industry stakeholders and tested across four Australian universities. We have collected qualitative and quantitative data from industry participants who attended a series of workshops across most Australian States and Territories and through an online survey. Surprisingly, and contrary to the findings of the pilot project, industry representatives considered vocational knowledge of lesser importance to the need for students to attain highly developed problem solving and communication skills that can generate new opportunities and innovation in agriculture. Industry-specific (vocational) knowledge was generally regarded as attainable during on-the-job training after graduation. This finding prompts the question whether the AgLTAS Statement should be linked to professional accreditation that may be attained after graduation.Tina Botwright Acuna, Jo-Anne Kelder, Amanda J. Able, Yann Guisard, William D. Bellotti, Glenn McDonald, Richard Doyle, Paul Wormell, Holger Meink
Genotype x environment interactions for root depth of wheat
No full textNumerous studies have reported on genotype x environment (G x E) interactions for yield and components of yield, but none to our knowledge have attempted to use this approach for root traits. G x E interactions for root depth were assessed for 24 wheat genotypes over six field environments with contrasting soil physical characteristics in the low rainfall zone (ca. 320 mm) of Western Australia. Genotype accounted for only 12% of total variance compared with 40% for G x E interaction. Three environment and six genotype groups were identified, which accounted for 72% of the G x E sums of squares. Of this, AX1, AX2 and AX3 accounted for 30, 24 and 18% of the G x E-SS. respectively. We consider axes AX1 and AX2 to be representative of soil physical characteristics of either a sudden or gradual increase in soil strength with depth, respectively, which constrained root growth. AX3 was linked with other soil parameters related to root growth, possibly boron sensitivity. The three environment groups were defined according to their soil physical characteristics broadly grouped into low (E2), medium (El)) or high (E3) soil strength. The majority of the genotype groups aligned along the diagonal from negative for AX1 and AX2 in the lower left to positive for AX1 and AX2 in the upper right. Genotype groups containing Halberd (G3) and Machete (G5) were better adapted to soil physical constraint and vice versa for Cranbrook (G2) and C18 (G6) groups. The Janz group (G4) was mapped most negative for both axes, indicating an adaptive preference for friable soils. The Spear group (G1) exhibited a preferential adaptation to soil conditions in which a hardpan was encountered, or in which physical constraint increased early or suddenly. These results indicate that different root traits combinations are required for different target soil environments, as G x E for root depth was significant
Author-suggested reviewers produce reviewers that are judged as lower quality by editors.
No full textThe point is the mean and the error bars are the standard errors of the mean (SEM). For comparison across means, the asterisk indicates the statistical significance of a two-sample t test where "***", "**", and "*" represent p p p < 0.1, respectively.</p
Root penetration ability of wheat through thin wax-layers under drought and well-watered conditions
No full textSand over clay duplex soils and those compacted by heavy farm machinery restrict water infiltration and root growth because roots cannot penetrate hard soil. Under drought, restriction of roots to soil above the hard layer results in the early onset of plant water-deficit, unless roots can penetrate the hard layer to reach soil water and nutrients at depth. There is little to no information on the ability of roots of bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) to penetrate hardpans. Here we report on 3 experiments undertaken in a controlled environment in pots that validate and explore the use of thin Paraffin wax-Vaseline (WV) layers of different strengths to simulate a hardpan under contrasting water regimes. Seeds produced an average of 5 seminal roots, which all penetrated the low-impedance wax-layer (0.03WV), in such a way that seminal root dry matter (DM) was evenly distributed throughout the soil pro. le. The number and depth of penetrating seminal root axes declined as wax-layer strength increased, and a significant proportion of total length and DM of main seminal root axes was instead restricted to the 0-0.12-m soil layer above the wax layer. No roots penetrated the 0.60WV, which was equivalent to similar to 1.50 MPa penetrometer resistance. The distribution of seminal roots was less affected by water regime than nodal roots, which were severely reduced in number when drought was imposed at 14 days after sowing (DAS), compared with well-watered conditions. Growth of the seminal roots into soil beneath the wax-layer determined the pattern of stomatal conductance and volumetric soil water content (theta(v)) over the period of drought stress, as few nodal roots reached and penetrated the wax layer. Stomatal conductance declined suddenly at 19 days after the last irrigation, and partially recovered as water extraction increased in the 0.40-0.60-m soil depth. Reasons for this are discussed. The wax-layer technique requires validation for wheat in the field, but the technique offers promise for screening breeding lines for the ability to penetrate a hardpan
Author-suggested reviewers are less likely to accept a review invitation than editor-suggested reviewers.
No full textThe point is the mean and the error bars are the standard errors of the mean (SEM). For comparison across means, the asterisk indicates the statistical significance of a two-sample t test where "***", "**", and "*" represent p p p < 0.1, respectively.</p
An all-author-suggested panel of reviewers produces a large increase in the acceptance rate of a manuscript.
No full textThe point is the mean and the error bars are the standard errors of the mean (SEM). For comparison across means, the asterisk indicates the statistical significance of a two-sample t test where "***", "**", and "*" represent p p p < 0.1, respectively.</p
- …
