- Email: [email protected]
Framing a modern context of soil science learning and teaching
Geoderma 289 (2017) 117–123
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Geoderma journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/geoderma
Framing a modern context of soil science learning and teaching Damien J. Field ⁎, Derek Yates, Anthony J. Koppi, Alex B. McBratney, Lorna Jarrett Faculty of Agriculture and Environment, The University of Sydney, New South Wales 2016, Australia
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 12 May 2016 Received in revised form 13 September 2016 Accepted 26 November 2016 Available online xxxx Keywords: Experiential learning Cross-disciplinary Trans-disciplinary Environmental Consultancy Core body of knowledge
a b s t r a c t The teaching-research-industry-learning (TRIL) nexus has been used to develop a framework for the learning and teaching of soil science applicable to a range of recipients, particularly campus-based students and practicing farm advisors. To develop such a framework, a starting point was to establish a core body of knowledge (CBoK) for soil science that would meet industry needs, in this case the grains production industry. To develop the CBoK relevant to the grains industry, academics and industry professionals were consulted by online means (a Delphi study) and face-to-face forums to refine the outcomes of the Delphi process. The CBoK was found to be heavily content-rich with little multidisciplinary components yet solving industry problems often requires a multidisciplinary approach. Application of the TRIL model allows the development of a learning framework more suited to real word needs. The development of a learning framework able to meet industry needs includes authentic complex scenarios that will also benefit student learning. © 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Soil is identified as being central to many of the challenges facing society including; food, water & energy security, supporting biodiversity, and being a potential reservoir for future pharmaceutical, all of which contribute to human health and wellbeing (Bouma, 2014; Brevik, 2013; Field et al., 2013; Koch et al., 2013; McBratney et al., 2014). This, in part, has resulted in the teaching of soil science to no longer being confined to its traditional founding in agriculture and agronomy, and is now included in disciplines or majors including; botany, forestry, ecology, geography, geology, and hydrology (Brevik, 2009; Hartemink et al., 2014). This recognition means that there is now an expectation that soil science teaching will provide people with good soil science knowledge and skills, and also, be able to work across disciplines to address increasingly complex environmental problems (Field et al., 2013). To address this shifting need in soil science teaching Hartemink et al. (2014) reported the development of a set of teaching principles proposed by Field et al. (2011) that are unique to this discipline. These teaching principles in-turn contribute to a set of five learning outcomes that clearly identify the need for a depth of disciplinary knowledge and skills, providing graduates with the ability to develop contextual solutions to problems, and for them to develop effective communication skills to include those outside of the soil science community. Also noted by Hartemink et al. (2014), a further complication is clearly articulated by Philip (1991) who states “….the content of soil science is uneasily placed between natural science on the one hand, and the world of professional practice on the other.” When communicating findings ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail address: damien.fi[email protected] (D.J. Field).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2016.11.034 0016-7061/© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Bouma (2001) reports that solving the problem will also require commenting on the relativistic answers which consider decisions as ‘better’ or ‘worse’ rather than as just ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. While these learning outcomes can guide the trajectory of a soil-focused curriculum and the teaching principles elucidate the in-class teaching practices to address these issues, there is still a need for to explore a framework within which the soil science curriculum is developed and mapped. In addition to using feedback from stakeholders (Kelly et al., 2006) and the experience of the learners and teachers in a curriculum (Jarvis et al., 2012) being able to frame how the learning and teaching practices engage all relevant stakeholders is also beneficial. The integration of research interests and activities is becoming common practice and much has been written about the advantages of the enhancing learning and teaching with research (Neumann, 1994; Jenkins et al., 2003; Healey, 2005; Robertson, 2007; Taylor, 2007). These learning environments may involve teachers sharing their own research or that of their colleagues, augmenting the curriculum to include research projects, or a complete curriculum redesign to include research throughout (McGill et al., 2012). Evidence that soil scientists apply the principles guiding the adoption of research enhanced learning and teaching, is given by presentations at recent professional meetings (Heitman et al., 2014; Brevik et al., 2015), publications reporting such activities (Mikhailova et al., 2015), and the publication of undergraduate research projects (Cavadini, 2010; Tibor and Brevik, 2013). While Healey and Jenkins (2009) emphasised that the adoption of research enhanced learning and teaching practices more than likely focuses on discipline-specific research and there is little opportunity for multi- or trans-disciplinary experiences, these presentations and publications indicate that soil science practices are more advanced. Without the opportunity for students and researchers to engage across the disciplines their development in
118
D.J. Field et al. / Geoderma 289 (2017) 117–123
soil science expertise will be limited (Bouma, 2015). There is an opportunity to explore what it means to integrate research beyond these conventional approaches that may have limited applicability outside of the discipline (Griffiths, 2004). In the last two to three decades the focus on work-integrated learning (WIL) is complimenting the research enhanced learning and teaching. This integration of the community external to academia into teaching is described by Orrell (2011) as: “…the intentional integration of theory and practice knowledge, and a WIL program provides the means to enable this integration and may, or may not, include a placement in a workplace, or a community or civic arena”. The enhancement of learning and teaching through community engagement is often characterised by cross-disciplinary interactions, taking students out of classroom learning through partnerships with business, industry, and community organisations (CELT: http://www.itl.usyd.edu.au/projects/ cee/celt/). Documentation of industry relationships with student learning usually focuses only on joint student projects (Thompson, 2010) and little attention is paid to recording any other activities. Increasingly, the importance of the relationship between universities and industry is gaining more recognition (Meek et al., 2009) and this is also true for soil science. This opportunity to compliment soil science students' experiences of discipline-specific research with community enhanced learning and teaching will enhance their problem solving skills and recognition of the interdisciplinarity of modern soil science (Bouma and McBratney, 2013). To answer the broadening need for those with relevant soil science knowledge there is a call to expand the soil science curriculum (Havlin et al., 2010; Bouma and McBratney, 2013), and in doing so, is predicated on the recent technological advances and changes in our understanding of effective teaching (Daud et al., 2012; Hartemink et al., 2014). The adoption of teaching practices aligned with learning outcomes that can be integrated with both discipline specific research and community enhanced learning experiences is timely. This paper investigates the development of the revised Teaching-Learning-IndustryLearning (TRIL) framework by Field et al. (2010) and reported by McGill et al. (2012) as an approach to frame the development of a modern soil science curriculum. In doing so, this paper also examines some challenges facing academia and industry in the development and implementation of soil science learning and teaching methods necessary to meet the real demands of industry. In contrast to the usual academicled learning and teaching, these industry demands represent an industry-led learning and teaching development. 2. The teaching-research-industry-learning concept Both academia and industry have a focus on research and enquiry. Generally, academic research may focus mainly on advancing disciplinary knowledge and this is often expanded to include multi-disciplinary considerations when universities engage in ‘industry problems’. Focusing on producing ‘work-ready’ graduates Field et al. (2013) argued that students will benefit from the interplay of teaching-research-industry learning, which was identified by Koppi and Naghdy (2009) as the Teaching-Research-Industry-Learning (TRIL) nexus. A review of this concept for ICT has been published by McGill et al. (2012) where they considered TRIL as a tetrahedron of these four dimensions. For the discipline of soil science and its need to produce work-ready graduates, Field et al. (2010) proposed an alternate illustration of the TRIL concept, as shown in Fig. 1. Here the representation of TRIL distinguishes the academic from community (industry) research and how these engage with the teaching and learning practices. The area in the front of the cube in Fig. 1 illustrates the general approaches of academic learning in many disciplines, including soil science. In the early stages of university teaching, traditionally lecturers will often control the work to be completed and learning carried out by students. This participation by students may be considered ‘passive’ learning in the sense that they are rarely given the opportunity to take
Fig. 1. The teaching-research-industry-learning model based on Field et al. (2010).
responsibility for their own learning as described by Grabinger and Dunlap (1995). As students become more experienced with the academic processes, their learning may become more active in that they themselves decide on the topics and methods they pursue while the teachers facilitate or guide these methods rather than prescribing them (Fig. 1). In soil science this often involves the inclusion of fieldwork and laboratories and as reported by Field et al. (2013), was identified by current students, graduates and employers as an effective learning environment; contributing to the development of independent thinking and practices to meet the academic goals required for workready graduates. The shift from gaining knowledge towards knowledge creation is labelled in Fig. 1 as research. This represents the discipline relevant research that takes place between the student and their teacher/supervisor (Healey, 2005) and encapsulates learning expressed through the teaching–research nexus (e.g., Hattie and Marsh, 1996). The third dimension of Fig. 1 depicts the case where the needs of industry or community are integrated into learning, teaching and research. Innovation and problem solving skills are required for both academic and industry inspired research. Undergraduate students working in industry or on industry-inspired projects is part of the broad concept of Work Integrated Learning (WIL) (Patrick et al., 2008), and the benefits to university students engaging in WIL or work based learning have been widely acknowledged (Boud and Symes, 2000; Universities Australia, 2008; Cooper et al., 2010; Billett, 2011; Australian Government Chief Scientist, 2014). WIL is defined by Patrick et al. (2008) as: “An umbrella term for a range of approaches and strategies that integrate theory with the practice of work within a purposefully designed curriculum.” WIL is a component of several disciplines (such as education, nursing, engineering, information and communications technology) and helps students apply knowledge in a professional environment, experience workplace culture, and understand the relevance of academic learning. The ‘Applied research’ label of Fig. 1 represents the TRIL nexus where new knowledge and independent thinking are applied to meet industry needs. This is also where academia and industry encapsulate many of the features of WIL for the benefit of student learning as well as enabling academia to keep in touch with developments in industry. The opposite corner, labelled technical application, represents experiences where technical expertise is required to analyse or monitor problems where advice is given based on current soil science knowledge. For example, consultancy undertaken to determine if a contaminated site meets regulatory guidelines. As shown by the direction of the arrow in Fig. 1, Field et al. (2010) argue that the major focus of soil science education is to develop an active, independent thinking soil science graduate who would be able to
D.J. Field et al. / Geoderma 289 (2017) 117–123
meet industry needs as well as those of research. The rear top right area of the cube (Fig. 1) is where problem identification and solving skills can be applied to authentic industry and research challenges where there are often unknowns. This is consistent with Bouma (2001) who has argued that modern solutions to key issues of agriculture require holistic approaches involving the community, government, producers and consumers – essentially a ‘systems’ approach. This is no less true today where large issues, such as those concerned with food security (McBratney et al., 2014) require multidisciplinary and political approaches. Therefore, in addition to a good grounding in soil science knowledge, undergraduates will also benefit from involvement with soil science practice with those outside of academia concerned with complex authentic problems. Many of the soil science teaching principles given by Field et al. (2011), such as active learning, systems thinking and authentic problem solving, can also be addressed within a curriculum that engages in research and advantageously includes WIL practices that provide benefits identified in a range of disciplines (noted above). In a survey reported by Field et al. (2013) employers, graduates and current students identified that the benefits of WIL were what they needed but did not necessarily get from a soil science curriculum. Systems thinking has long been advocated as the only realistic way forward for sustainable agriculture and environmental practices (Bawden, 1991; Ikerd, 1993; Jackson, 2002; Kremen and Iles, 2012) and this requires a holistic approach between many areas such as land ecology (with its multiple components), economic, cultural and political factors that are often complex and demand considerable knowledge, broad experience and sound judgement. Students cannot be expected to develop systems thinking without some experience of authentic issues as afforded by research and WIL. Therefore it is proposed that the TRIL concept be considered when framing a curriculum with the objective of producing workready graduates with relevant soil science knowledge and skills. To develop a national soil science curriculum that would produce work-ready graduates with the interdisciplinary knowledge, skills and capabilities relevant to the needs of Australia, Field et al. (2012) drew upon stakeholders including: graduates in the workplace, academics, students, employers in industry, and the Australian Society of Soil Science Inc. (now Soil Science Australia), the professional body that accredits a Certified Practicing Soil Scientist (CPSS). As reported in Field et al. (2012) the TRIL model (Fig. 1) was a popular framework amongst the representatives from the participating institutions because it; 1) included stakeholder perspectives, and 2) framed the teaching opportunities from lectures through to practicals, fieldwork, and work integrated learning. This, along with the teaching principles reported in Field et al. (2011) indicated that opportunities for field work and working with external stakeholders are highly desirable by both employers, graduates and current students (Field et al., 2013). One of the missing areas suggested was the identification of the core body of knowledge (CBoK) that all students of soil science from any Australian institution should have and this was derived by community. 3. Methods The paper draws on consultations with academics, students and industry practitioners from a current (2016) Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC) project and an earlier project (Field et al., 2012) both of which are concerned with developing curricula consistent with a TRIL framework that incorporates industry or community needs for soil science. 3.1. Identifying a core body of knowledge As a result of the work reported in Field et al. (2012, 2013), it became clear that the soil science teaching community at 22 Australian universities did not have an agreed core body of knowledge (CBoK) for the soil science discipline relevant for the institutions. Before investigating
119
novel teaching approaches that align with the TRIL concept and investigating what soil science knowledge may be of interest to the broader community it was agreed that identifying a CBoK would be a priority (Field et al., 2012). To formulate a CBoK a Delphi study (Dyer and Breja, 2003) approach was adopted and implemented. This approach has been used since the 1960′s to generate consensus amongst the community, and in this case the Delphi study's objective was to elucidate the core knowledge expected by a community engaged in soil science. Jarvis et al. (2012) also used a Delphi method in curriculum development for soil, crop and turfgrass sciences. Fig. 2 illustrates the three rounds of the Delphi consultation process. The first two rounds of surveying were carried out anonymously online, where the first round resulted in a response from 16 university teachers of soil science to an open-ended question prioritising what soil science knowledge graduates should know at each of a beginning, intermediate and advanced level. Their responses were qualitatively analysed and refined by categorising into areas of knowledge: soil chemistry; soil biology; soil physics; pedology; environmental science. Other, removing duplication and aggregating similarities to produce a list of 47 statements. These statements formed the basis of round two (online) in which 26 academic participants prioritised the 47 statements in terms of importance, using a five-point Likert scale. This allowed quantitative analysis, producing medians and interquartile ranges (IQR) as a measure of consensus, and mean ratings of importance. The results from both these online rounds were further discussed and refined at a face-to-face forum of 17 stakeholders including academic, professional society and industry practitioners. 3.2. Refining the core body of knowledge for the grains industry As a result of the National Soil Research Development and Extension Strategy (2014), the GRDC sought to develop a method for improving the soil science knowledge within the industry. Towards this goal, the methodology to address this strategy has been to consult with stakeholders including farm advisors (consultants), academics and professional associations. Following a widespread national search through word-of-mouth, email requests and website searches, ten farm advisors from across Australia were interviewed either in person or via telephone. Open-ended questions were used to ascertain the most important soil science knowledge required by people in their profession, and how these in-service practitioners might engage with further study. Two stakeholder forums were also held to design a contextually feasible educational strategy. Representatives of the academic, farmer, professional soil scientist and industry advisor communities attended the first forum. The initial focus was to examine the relevance of the previously derived CBoK to the GRDC industry, refine that CBoK and consider teaching options for students and in-service practitioners who have different requirements. The second forum was concerned with further development of the teaching methods and framework relevant to the different context of the learners (students and practitioners). 4. Results and discussion Reviewing the list of items in Table 1 it is apparent that these are content focused, and illustrate the basic discipline knowledge considered relevant by soil science discipline experts and related stakeholders. Fig. 3 suggests an approach to shift the focus from content to teaching activities that address student learning outcomes. Many of the items listed in Table 1 can be classified as discipline-centred, ranging from the theoretical to the applied. Only a few of the CBoK items could be classified with a multidisciplinary focus (Fig. 3), which does not align with opportunities expressed in the TRIL framework nor a multi-disciplinary approach. Hartemink et al. (2014) show global similarities in
120
D.J. Field et al. / Geoderma 289 (2017) 117–123
Fig. 2. The three rounds of the Delphi study process to derive a soil science core body of knowledge.
teaching soil science with a few examples of a multidisciplinary approach and student activities that involve the general community or industry. The adoption of a problem based learning approach can facilitate the involvement of the general community or industry and provide an experience where students can engage in multi-disciplinary thinking. The success of such an approach relies on engaging students in authentic real-world problems with the involvement of industry or community, Table 1 Core body of knowledge (CBoK) topics following broad stakeholder consultations. 1. Understand the basic soil chemical components (e.g. macro and micro elements/nutrients), properties (e.g. Cation Exchange Capacity, pH) and process (e.g. surface exchange) and relate these to chemistry concepts and the periodic table 2. Understand soil physical properties and characteristics (e.g. texture, porosity, temperature, structure, stability, strength) 3. Understand how soil water is measured, (lab and field instrumentation), how data is expressed (e.g. units) and used in soil water concepts (i.e. Available Water Capacity, hydraulic conductivity, etc) 4. Explain how soil physical properties affect different soil behaviors and create different soil environments in terms of structure and its effect on processes 5. Understand how soil water affects soil properties and how to design sampling strategies and its assessment, including water holding capacity, hydraulic conductivity, etc. 6. Understanding soil variability and how this affects soil sampling and mapping 7. Understand soil chemistry cycles (e.g. carbon and nitrogen cycles, etc) 8. Explain how soil chemistry contributes to soil problems, such as alkalinity, acidity, and problem soils e.g. Acid sulfate soils 9. Be able to explain in writing and/or verbally the meaning and importance of various soil measurements to a range of different audiences 10. Be able to design and conduct an experiment to evaluate the importance of different factors in plant production (e.g. earthworms, organic matter, salt, water status, etc) 11. Understand the soil ecology, including the soil-root interface 12. Understand the types and consequences of different soil degradation and how these relate to different soil types and soil processes 13. Understand how soil water affects soil problems, such as salinity, and how these problems are assessed and can be managed 14. Understand how soil chemistry is managed 15. Statistics 16. Soil Landscapes and soil forming processes 17. Describe and classify soil profiles in different landscapes and environments 18. Measure and evaluate soil physical properties both in the lab and field 19. Relate soils to geomorphology 20. Importance of soils: appreciate wide range of functions and significance of soils in the natural and constructed world 21. Identify inorganic and organic soil constituents 22. Measure soil biology using various lab and field techniques 23. Relate soil type and landscapes to different land-uses
i.e. as clients. While there are many examples of this approach (Boud and Feletti, 1991), Hartemink et al. (2014) has summarised a learning and teaching approach in soil science at the University of Sydney. In this case, students enrol in a senior year unit of study investigating problems sourced from rural, urban and research scenarios. In addition to clearly articulating a problem that is relevant for the client and applying their knowledge of soil to address the issue, the students also consider transdisciplinary problems. To further illustrate the engagement of students with the real world soil issues of land use enterprise, Table 2 (modified from Field et al., 2013), presents a hierarchy of problems identified by students relating to soil carbon in the wine growing region of the Hunter Valley in close proximity to Sydney. When analysed using the characteristics of knowledge as defined by Nowotny et al. (2002), questions 1 and 2 have a discipline focus with a traditional biophysical query about the benefits of soil carbon, whereas questions 4 and 5 are clearly multi-disciplinary, where soil science knowledge is now being considered from a policy and/or economic perspective. According to feedback from students, this problem-based learning approach enables them to make connections between theory and application of soil knowledge, as well as enabling them to make conceptual links to other parts of their soil science courses (Hartemink et al., 2014). While employers acknowledge that the development of soil knowledge and capabilities develops with on-going experience in the workplace, they believe enabling the
Fig. 3. The core body of knowledge items from Table 1 with a curriculum focus.
D.J. Field et al. / Geoderma 289 (2017) 117–123 Table 2 Aligning the types of questions with the characteristics of types of knowing, modified from Field et al. (2013). A range of consulting questions
Knowledge Types of engagement
1) What quantity of soil organic carbon (SOC) is required to benefit crop production? 2) What management practices will maintain or increase SOC? 3) How has the change in management practices in the Private Irrigation District (PID) affected SOC quantities? 4) How do we use SOC as a soil quality indicator that will be seen as beneficial by the PID? 5) How can the SOC be used as carbon offsets by the PID in a carbon-trading scheme?
‘Mode 1’
‘Mode 2’
Context: academic Who: discipline experts Character: mainly monodisciplinary Ouput: publication Context: real-world Who: discipline experts stakeholders policy Character: transdisciplinary Ouput: novel procedures societal effectiveness
student experience using this approach is warranted, and this is demonstrated by their continued willingness to give their time to this teaching (Field et al., 2013). Brevik (2009) recognises that soil science is relevant to many areas beyond its own discipline and therefore understanding what elements of the CBoK are relevant through the lens of a cognate discipline is useful, in this case representatives from the grains industry. Consultations with practicing grains agricultural advisors revealed that any efforts at improving their soil science knowledge had to be relevant to their needs in their ‘local context’. Any local context would necessarily include the local system, i.e. its physical, environmental, cultural and economic, and all the pertinent factors including the soil and its management. Of equal importance were their reservations about spending time reading more about soil or attending classes that were of a generic nature and not immediately relevant. These attitudes are entirely consistent with adult learning theories where engagement is predicated on personal relevance, experience and context (e.g., Knowles, 1980; Kolb, 1984; Lave and Wenger, 1991). This will impact on the learning and teaching environments, guided by TRIL, which could be developed within institutions. There is no doubt that personal relevance, experience and context differs between different groups of learners, such as campus-based university students and practicing farm advisors, as well as between the individuals of each group. Common opportunities for engaging these two diverse groups are given by the challenge of solving real world problems as indicated by the TRIL approach. The approach to solving problems will differ markedly between these two groups (and individuals), yet both would need relevant knowledge resources to apply to any specific problem. Such knowledge resources should cater for different levels of knowledge and experience. In an attempt to provide such a common resource that can be usefully accessed by individuals with different knowledge and experience, a hyperlinked Soil for Grains eBook has been developed at The University of Sydney. This eBook incorporates the industry-defined CBoK and allows different entry points for users with different needs and experience, such as a ‘self help’ area where users are guided to their personal, contextually relevant knowledge area, as well as entry via Scenarios that describe realistic complex issues and challenges (problems) in a particular context. Based on context and personal experience, users are able to browse the Scenarios, find the knowledge areas most relevant to their problem-solving situation, and use them to structure their learning. The development of realistic problem solving scenarios that would appeal to students and professional practitioners is a considerable academic challenge. This is not to imply that every application of soil science requires a separate eBook, rather that authentic problem solving scenarios illustrate the importance of
121
context (such as grain production in a particular environment) as well as the necessity of identifying all the important aspects (physical, chemical, biological, cultural, economic) relevant to any particular problem and location. As identified earlier, solving realistic problems requires a systems or multi-disciplinary approach (Field et al., 2011). Fig. 4 incorporates the concept of curriculum approach and components into the TRIL concept. As gleaned from the Delphi study to derive the soil science CBoK, soil science teaching is largely discipline based, extending from theoretical to theoretical and applied (Fig. 4). If industry issues are considered in this disciplinary teaching involving external stakeholders or the community, they are represented by the ‘Discipline-centred problem solving’ (Fig. 4). Although students may initially consider a hierarchy of problems exemplified in Table 2, the learning and teaching practice and reporting will more than likely restrict it to the discipline-focused questions. In developing the Soil for Grains eBook, the focus on a multidisciplinary approach highlights the need for developing authentic industry scenarios within which relevant soil science knowledge and skills can be integrated (Fig. 4). This approach to experiential problem solving is immersed in a systems thinking approach and will require learners to make connections and consider multiple perspectives (Field et al., 2011). Bouma and McBratney (2013) suggest that adopting these teaching practices will serve graduates and in-service training well, where soil science knowledge has to be integrated with socio-economic considerations. The future development of local scenarios linked to the eBook will occupy the rear top right area of Fig. 4, and will be based on authentic experiences of practitioners. 5. Conclusion The development of future soil science curriculums that are relevant in the modern world requires extensive consultation with stakeholders, including those practicing in industry. This approach ensures a sound basis for a teaching-research-industry-learning curriculum model that extends beyond traditional discipline-based teaching. By incorporating industry needs into the soil science curriculum, perhaps through work integrated learning (including industry or community based projects), students will appreciate the importance of a multi-disciplinary and systems approach to authentic issues and challenges. For students and more than likely, industry stakeholders who require in-service training, the focus on a multi-disciplinary approach is essential. Further work is needed to understand how soil science academics integrate this approach to teaching in their discipline research. The normal conceptual workplace of practicing industry professionals is already at or approaching the experiential problem solving
Fig. 4. A curriculum model with a multidisciplinary or systems approach.
122
D.J. Field et al. / Geoderma 289 (2017) 117–123
part of Fig. 4. Consultations with such industry practitioners have revealed that to increase their soil science knowledge, learning must take place in their physical and conceptual context. To engage such practitioners in further learning requires access to authentic contextual scenarios to which they can relate, and which discuss possible realistic solutions to their local challenges. The development of such rich scenarios is a challenge for academia because it requires considerable industry input. However, the benefits would be far reaching in that they would also enable students to engage with authentic learning issues and help their development towards solving realistic industry problems. The more exposure that students have to real-world issues in soil science, the better they will be equipped to meet ever-increasing global challenges. The value of industry-related soil science problem solving has been noted by Hartemink et al. (2014), and contextually applied in various industries, such as viticulture (White, 2003) and landscaping (Leake and Haege, 2015). As a future development, academia and industry could usefully further collaborate to produce a wide range of industrybased problem solving scenarios where soil science is a relevant and necessary component. If students were to engage with several of these scenarios during their studies they would gain WIL experiences and problem solving activities in a range of multidisciplinary contexts.
Acknowledgement We wish to thank the Grains Research and Development Corporation in Australia for providing the funding through Project Number US00069. References Australian Government Chief Scientist, 2014. Science, technology, engineering and mathematics: Australia's future. http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/ STEM_AustraliasFuture_Sept2014_Web.pdf. Bawden, R.J., 1991. Systems thinking and practice in agriculture. J. Dairy Sci. 74:2362–2373 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022030291784105). Billett, S., 2011. Curriculum and pedagogic bases for effectively integrating practice-based experiences. ALTC Project Final Report (http://www.olt.gov.au/system/files/ resources/Billett%2C%20S%20Griffith%20NTF%20Final%20report%202011_0.pdf). Boud, D., Feletti, G., 1991. The Challenge of Problem Based Learning. Kogan Page, London. Boud, D., Symes, C., 2000. Learning for real: work-based education in universities. In: Symes, C., McIntyre, J. (Eds.), Working Knowledge: the New Vocationalism and Higher Education. Open University Press, pp. 14–29. Bouma, J., 2001. The new role of soil science in a network society. Soil Sci. 166, 874–879. Bouma, J., 2014. Soil science contributions towards sustainable development goals and their implementation: linking soil functions with ecosystem services. J. Soil Fertil. Soil Sci. 177, 111–120. Bouma, J., 2015. Reaching out from the soil box in pursuit of soil security. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 1–10. Bouma, J., McBratney, A., 2013. Framing soils as an actor when dealing with wicked environmental problems. Geoderma 200–201, 130–139. Brevik, E.C., 2009. The teaching of soil science in geology, geography, environmental science, and agriculture programs. Soil Surv. Horiz. 50, 120–123. Brevik, E.C., 2013. Soils and human health: an overview. In: Brevik, E.C., Burgess, L.C. (Eds.), Soils and Human Health. CRC Press. Taylor and Francis Group, Boca Raton, FL, USA, pp. 29–50. Brevik, E.C., Senturklu, S., Landblom, D., 2015. Field research in the teaching of undergraduate soil science. Geophys. Res. Abstr. 17:EGU2015–EGU2115 (http:// meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2015/EGU2015-115.pdf). Cavadini, J., 2010. Affect of row spacing of no-till soybeans on soil erosion. Soil Surv. Horiz. 51, 41–44. Cooper, L., Orrell, J., Bowden, M., 2010. Work Integrated Learning, a Guide to Effective Practice. Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, London and New York. Daud, A.M., Omar, J., Turiman, P., Osman, K., 2012. Creativity in science education. Procedia. Soc. Behav. Sci. 59, 467–474. Dyer, J.E., Breja, L.M., 2003. Problems in recruiting students into agricultural education programs. A Delphi study of agriculture teacher perceptions. J. Agric. Educ. 44, 75–85. Field, D., Koppi, T., McBratney, A., 2010. Producing the thinking soil scientist. 19th World Congress of Soil Science, Soil Solutions for a Changing World 1–6 August 2010 (Brisbane, Australia. Published on CDROM). Field, D.J., Koppi, A.J., Jarrett, L.E., Abbott, L.K., Cattle, S.R., Grant, C.D., McBratney, A.B., Menzies, N.W., Weatherly, A.J., 2011. Soil science teaching principles. Geoderma 167–168, 9–14.
Field, D.J., Koppi, A.J., Jarrett, L.E., McBratney, A.B., Abbott, L.K., Grant, K.P., Menzies, C.D., Weatherly, N.W., 2012. A National Soil Science Curriculum in Response to the Needs of Students, Academic Staff, Industry, and the Wider Community. (http:// www.olt.gov.au/system/files/resources/PP9_1341_McBratney_Report_2012.pdf). Field, D.J., Koppi, A.J., Jarrett, L., McBratney, A., 2013. Engaging employers, graduates and students to inform the future curriculum needs of soil science. Proceedings of the Australian Conference on Science and Mathematics Education, Australian National University, Sept 19–21, pp. 130–135. Grabinger, S.R., Dunlap, J.C., 1995. Rich environments for active learning: a definition. Assoc. Learn. Technol. J. 3 (2), 5–34. Griffiths, R., 2004. Knowledge production and the research-teaching nexus: the case of the built environment disciplines. Stud. High. Educ. 29, 709–726. Hartemink, A.E., Balks, M.B., Chen, Z.-S., Drohan, P., Field, D.J., Krasilnikov, P., Lowe, D.J., Rabenhorst, M., van Rees, K., Schad, P., Schipper, L.A., Sonneveld, M., Walter, C., 2014. The joy of teaching soil science. Geoderma 217–18, 1–9. Hattie, J., Marsh, H.W., 1996. The relationship between research and teaching: a metaanalysis. Rev. Educ. Res. 66 (4), 507–542. Havlin, J., Balster, N., Chapman, S., Ferris, D., Thompson, T., Smith, T., 2010. Trends in soil science education and employment. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 74, 1429–1432. Healey, M., 2005. Linking teaching and research: exploring disciplinary spaces and the role of inquiry-based learning. In: Barnett, R. (Ed.), Reshaping the University: New Relationships Between Research, Scholarship and Teaching. McGraw Hill/Open University Press, pp. 67–78. Healey, M., Jenkins, A., 2009. Developing Undergraduate Research and Inquiry. The Higher Education Academy (http://alanjenkins.info/publications/DevelopingUndergraduate_ Final.pdf). Heitman, J.L., Duckworth, O., Graves, A., Polizzotto, M., Vepraskas, M.J., 2014. A new REU Site: Basic and Environmental Soil Science Training (BESST). Soil Science Society of America Annual Meeting Abstracts (https://scisoc.confex.com/scisoc/2014am/ webprogram/Paper89287.html). Ikerd, J.E., 1993. The need for a systems approach to sustainable agriculture. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 46:147–160 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ 016788099390020P). Jackson, W., 2002. Natural systems agriculture: a truly radical alternative. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 88:111–117 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/S016788090100247X). Jarvis, H.D., Collet, R., Wingenbach, G., Heilman, J.L., Fowler, D., 2012. Developing a foundation for constructing new curricula in soil, crop and turfgrass sciences. J. Nat. Res. Life Sci. 41, 7–14. Jenkins, A., Breen, R., Lindsay, R., Brew, A., 2003. Designing the curriculum to link teaching and research. Reshaping Teaching in Higher Education: Linking Teaching and Research. London & Sterling, VA, pp. 49–70. Kelly, T., Reid, J., Valentine, I., 2006. Enhancing the utility of science; exploring the linkages between a science provider and their end-users in New Zealnad. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 46, 1425–1432. Knowles, M., 1980. The Modern Practice of Adult Education: Andragogy Versus Pedagogy. (Rev. and updated ed.). Cambridge Adult Education, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Koch, A., McBratney, A.B., Adams, M., Field, D.J., Hill, R., Lal, R., Abbott, L., Angers, D., Baldock, J., Barbier, E., Binkley, D., Bird, M., Bouma, J., Chenu, C., Crawford, J., Flora, C.B., Goulding, K., Grunwald, S., Hempel, J., Jastrow, J., Lehmann, J., Lorenz, K., Minasny, B., Morgan, C., O'Donnell, A., Parton, W., Rice, C.W., Wall, D.H., Whitehead, D., Young, I., Zimmermann, M., 2013. Soil security: solving the global soil crisis. Glob. Policy J. 4, 434–441. Kolb, D.A., 1984. Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Koppi, T., Naghdy, F., 2009. Managing Educational Change in the ICT Discipline at the Tertiary Level. (http://www.acdict.edu.au/documents/KoppiNaghdyICTeducation2009.pdf). Kremen, C., Iles, A., Bacon, C.M., 2012. Diversified farming systems: an agroecological, systems-based alternative to modern industrial agriculture. Ecol. Soc. 17 (4):44 (http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/bitstream/handle/10535/8664/ES-2012-5103. pdf?sequence=1). Lave, J., Wenger, E., 1991. Situated Learning. Legitimate Peripheral ParticipationUniversity of Cambridge Press, Cambridge. Leake, S., Haege, E., 2015. Soils for Landscape Development: Selection, Specification and Validation. CSIRO Publishing, Australia. McBratney, A., Field, D.J., Koch, A., 2014. The dimensions of soil security. Geoderma 213, 203–213. McGill, T., Armarego, J., Koppi, T., 2012. The teaching–research–industry–learning nexus in information and communications technology. ACM Trans. Comput. Educ. 12, 1–20. Meek, J., Davies, D., Meek, V.L., Teichler, U., Kearney, M.L., 2009. Policy dynamics in higher education and research: concepts and observations. Higher Education, Research and Innovation: Changing dynamics. Kassler: ICHER. Mikhailova, E.A., Post, C.J., Sharp, J.L., Speziale, B.J., 2015. Creative inquiry in soil science: soil inventory of private lands. Nat. Sci. Educ. 44:122–129. http://dx.doi.org/10. 4195/nse2015.05.0006. National Soil Research Development and Extension Strategy, 2014,. Securing Australia's soil for profitable industries and healthy landscapes. CC BY 3.0 (http://www. agriculture.gov.au/Style%20Library/Images/DAFF/__data/assets/pdffile/0012/ 2379585/soil.pdf). Neumann, R., 1994. The teaching-research nexus: applying a framework to university Students' learning experiences. Eur. J. Educ. 29 (3), 323–338. Nowotny, H., Scott, P., Gibbons, M., 2002. Re-thinking Science. Knowledge and the Public in an Age of UncertaintyPolity Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 1–21. Orrell, J., 2011. Good Practice Report: Work-Integrated Learning. Australian Learning and Teaching Council (http://www.olt.gov.au/system/files/resources/GPR_Work_ Integrated_Learning_Orrell_2011.pdf).
D.J. Field et al. / Geoderma 289 (2017) 117–123 Patrick, C.-j., Peach, D., Pocknee, C., Webb, F., Fletcher, M., Pettro, G., 2008. The WIL [Work Integrated Learning] report: a national scoping study. Australian Learning and Teaching Council Final Report (http://www.olt.gov.au/system/files/grants_project_wil_ finalreport_jan09.pdf). Philip, P., 1991. Soils, natural science, and models. Soil Sci. 151, 91–98. Robertson, J., 2007. Beyond the ‘research/teaching nexus’: exploring the complexity of academic experiences. Stud. High. Educ. 32, 541–556. Taylor, J., 2007. The teaching: research nexus: a model for institutional management. High. Educ. 54, 867–884.
123
Thompson, J.B., 2010. Why better industrial/academic links are needed if there is to be an effective software engineering workforce. Proc. of the 2010 23rd IEEE Conf. on Soft. Eng. Edu. & Train. (CSEE&T), pp. 105–112. Tibor, M.A., Brevik, E.C., 2013. Anthropogenic impacts on campsite soils at strawberry Lake, North Dakota. Soil Horiz. 54. http://dx.doi.org/10.2136/sh13-06-0016. Universities Australia, 2008. A National Internship Scheme: enhancing skills and workreadinesss of Australian university graduates. Position Paper No. 3/08. Universities Australia, Canberra. White, R.E., 2003. Soils for Fine Wines. Oxford University Press.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Geoderma journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/geoderma
Framing a modern context of soil science learning and teaching Damien J. Field ⁎, Derek Yates, Anthony J. Koppi, Alex B. McBratney, Lorna Jarrett Faculty of Agriculture and Environment, The University of Sydney, New South Wales 2016, Australia
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 12 May 2016 Received in revised form 13 September 2016 Accepted 26 November 2016 Available online xxxx Keywords: Experiential learning Cross-disciplinary Trans-disciplinary Environmental Consultancy Core body of knowledge
a b s t r a c t The teaching-research-industry-learning (TRIL) nexus has been used to develop a framework for the learning and teaching of soil science applicable to a range of recipients, particularly campus-based students and practicing farm advisors. To develop such a framework, a starting point was to establish a core body of knowledge (CBoK) for soil science that would meet industry needs, in this case the grains production industry. To develop the CBoK relevant to the grains industry, academics and industry professionals were consulted by online means (a Delphi study) and face-to-face forums to refine the outcomes of the Delphi process. The CBoK was found to be heavily content-rich with little multidisciplinary components yet solving industry problems often requires a multidisciplinary approach. Application of the TRIL model allows the development of a learning framework more suited to real word needs. The development of a learning framework able to meet industry needs includes authentic complex scenarios that will also benefit student learning. © 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Soil is identified as being central to many of the challenges facing society including; food, water & energy security, supporting biodiversity, and being a potential reservoir for future pharmaceutical, all of which contribute to human health and wellbeing (Bouma, 2014; Brevik, 2013; Field et al., 2013; Koch et al., 2013; McBratney et al., 2014). This, in part, has resulted in the teaching of soil science to no longer being confined to its traditional founding in agriculture and agronomy, and is now included in disciplines or majors including; botany, forestry, ecology, geography, geology, and hydrology (Brevik, 2009; Hartemink et al., 2014). This recognition means that there is now an expectation that soil science teaching will provide people with good soil science knowledge and skills, and also, be able to work across disciplines to address increasingly complex environmental problems (Field et al., 2013). To address this shifting need in soil science teaching Hartemink et al. (2014) reported the development of a set of teaching principles proposed by Field et al. (2011) that are unique to this discipline. These teaching principles in-turn contribute to a set of five learning outcomes that clearly identify the need for a depth of disciplinary knowledge and skills, providing graduates with the ability to develop contextual solutions to problems, and for them to develop effective communication skills to include those outside of the soil science community. Also noted by Hartemink et al. (2014), a further complication is clearly articulated by Philip (1991) who states “….the content of soil science is uneasily placed between natural science on the one hand, and the world of professional practice on the other.” When communicating findings ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail address: damien.fi[email protected] (D.J. Field).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2016.11.034 0016-7061/© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Bouma (2001) reports that solving the problem will also require commenting on the relativistic answers which consider decisions as ‘better’ or ‘worse’ rather than as just ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. While these learning outcomes can guide the trajectory of a soil-focused curriculum and the teaching principles elucidate the in-class teaching practices to address these issues, there is still a need for to explore a framework within which the soil science curriculum is developed and mapped. In addition to using feedback from stakeholders (Kelly et al., 2006) and the experience of the learners and teachers in a curriculum (Jarvis et al., 2012) being able to frame how the learning and teaching practices engage all relevant stakeholders is also beneficial. The integration of research interests and activities is becoming common practice and much has been written about the advantages of the enhancing learning and teaching with research (Neumann, 1994; Jenkins et al., 2003; Healey, 2005; Robertson, 2007; Taylor, 2007). These learning environments may involve teachers sharing their own research or that of their colleagues, augmenting the curriculum to include research projects, or a complete curriculum redesign to include research throughout (McGill et al., 2012). Evidence that soil scientists apply the principles guiding the adoption of research enhanced learning and teaching, is given by presentations at recent professional meetings (Heitman et al., 2014; Brevik et al., 2015), publications reporting such activities (Mikhailova et al., 2015), and the publication of undergraduate research projects (Cavadini, 2010; Tibor and Brevik, 2013). While Healey and Jenkins (2009) emphasised that the adoption of research enhanced learning and teaching practices more than likely focuses on discipline-specific research and there is little opportunity for multi- or trans-disciplinary experiences, these presentations and publications indicate that soil science practices are more advanced. Without the opportunity for students and researchers to engage across the disciplines their development in
118
D.J. Field et al. / Geoderma 289 (2017) 117–123
soil science expertise will be limited (Bouma, 2015). There is an opportunity to explore what it means to integrate research beyond these conventional approaches that may have limited applicability outside of the discipline (Griffiths, 2004). In the last two to three decades the focus on work-integrated learning (WIL) is complimenting the research enhanced learning and teaching. This integration of the community external to academia into teaching is described by Orrell (2011) as: “…the intentional integration of theory and practice knowledge, and a WIL program provides the means to enable this integration and may, or may not, include a placement in a workplace, or a community or civic arena”. The enhancement of learning and teaching through community engagement is often characterised by cross-disciplinary interactions, taking students out of classroom learning through partnerships with business, industry, and community organisations (CELT: http://www.itl.usyd.edu.au/projects/ cee/celt/). Documentation of industry relationships with student learning usually focuses only on joint student projects (Thompson, 2010) and little attention is paid to recording any other activities. Increasingly, the importance of the relationship between universities and industry is gaining more recognition (Meek et al., 2009) and this is also true for soil science. This opportunity to compliment soil science students' experiences of discipline-specific research with community enhanced learning and teaching will enhance their problem solving skills and recognition of the interdisciplinarity of modern soil science (Bouma and McBratney, 2013). To answer the broadening need for those with relevant soil science knowledge there is a call to expand the soil science curriculum (Havlin et al., 2010; Bouma and McBratney, 2013), and in doing so, is predicated on the recent technological advances and changes in our understanding of effective teaching (Daud et al., 2012; Hartemink et al., 2014). The adoption of teaching practices aligned with learning outcomes that can be integrated with both discipline specific research and community enhanced learning experiences is timely. This paper investigates the development of the revised Teaching-Learning-IndustryLearning (TRIL) framework by Field et al. (2010) and reported by McGill et al. (2012) as an approach to frame the development of a modern soil science curriculum. In doing so, this paper also examines some challenges facing academia and industry in the development and implementation of soil science learning and teaching methods necessary to meet the real demands of industry. In contrast to the usual academicled learning and teaching, these industry demands represent an industry-led learning and teaching development. 2. The teaching-research-industry-learning concept Both academia and industry have a focus on research and enquiry. Generally, academic research may focus mainly on advancing disciplinary knowledge and this is often expanded to include multi-disciplinary considerations when universities engage in ‘industry problems’. Focusing on producing ‘work-ready’ graduates Field et al. (2013) argued that students will benefit from the interplay of teaching-research-industry learning, which was identified by Koppi and Naghdy (2009) as the Teaching-Research-Industry-Learning (TRIL) nexus. A review of this concept for ICT has been published by McGill et al. (2012) where they considered TRIL as a tetrahedron of these four dimensions. For the discipline of soil science and its need to produce work-ready graduates, Field et al. (2010) proposed an alternate illustration of the TRIL concept, as shown in Fig. 1. Here the representation of TRIL distinguishes the academic from community (industry) research and how these engage with the teaching and learning practices. The area in the front of the cube in Fig. 1 illustrates the general approaches of academic learning in many disciplines, including soil science. In the early stages of university teaching, traditionally lecturers will often control the work to be completed and learning carried out by students. This participation by students may be considered ‘passive’ learning in the sense that they are rarely given the opportunity to take
Fig. 1. The teaching-research-industry-learning model based on Field et al. (2010).
responsibility for their own learning as described by Grabinger and Dunlap (1995). As students become more experienced with the academic processes, their learning may become more active in that they themselves decide on the topics and methods they pursue while the teachers facilitate or guide these methods rather than prescribing them (Fig. 1). In soil science this often involves the inclusion of fieldwork and laboratories and as reported by Field et al. (2013), was identified by current students, graduates and employers as an effective learning environment; contributing to the development of independent thinking and practices to meet the academic goals required for workready graduates. The shift from gaining knowledge towards knowledge creation is labelled in Fig. 1 as research. This represents the discipline relevant research that takes place between the student and their teacher/supervisor (Healey, 2005) and encapsulates learning expressed through the teaching–research nexus (e.g., Hattie and Marsh, 1996). The third dimension of Fig. 1 depicts the case where the needs of industry or community are integrated into learning, teaching and research. Innovation and problem solving skills are required for both academic and industry inspired research. Undergraduate students working in industry or on industry-inspired projects is part of the broad concept of Work Integrated Learning (WIL) (Patrick et al., 2008), and the benefits to university students engaging in WIL or work based learning have been widely acknowledged (Boud and Symes, 2000; Universities Australia, 2008; Cooper et al., 2010; Billett, 2011; Australian Government Chief Scientist, 2014). WIL is defined by Patrick et al. (2008) as: “An umbrella term for a range of approaches and strategies that integrate theory with the practice of work within a purposefully designed curriculum.” WIL is a component of several disciplines (such as education, nursing, engineering, information and communications technology) and helps students apply knowledge in a professional environment, experience workplace culture, and understand the relevance of academic learning. The ‘Applied research’ label of Fig. 1 represents the TRIL nexus where new knowledge and independent thinking are applied to meet industry needs. This is also where academia and industry encapsulate many of the features of WIL for the benefit of student learning as well as enabling academia to keep in touch with developments in industry. The opposite corner, labelled technical application, represents experiences where technical expertise is required to analyse or monitor problems where advice is given based on current soil science knowledge. For example, consultancy undertaken to determine if a contaminated site meets regulatory guidelines. As shown by the direction of the arrow in Fig. 1, Field et al. (2010) argue that the major focus of soil science education is to develop an active, independent thinking soil science graduate who would be able to
D.J. Field et al. / Geoderma 289 (2017) 117–123
meet industry needs as well as those of research. The rear top right area of the cube (Fig. 1) is where problem identification and solving skills can be applied to authentic industry and research challenges where there are often unknowns. This is consistent with Bouma (2001) who has argued that modern solutions to key issues of agriculture require holistic approaches involving the community, government, producers and consumers – essentially a ‘systems’ approach. This is no less true today where large issues, such as those concerned with food security (McBratney et al., 2014) require multidisciplinary and political approaches. Therefore, in addition to a good grounding in soil science knowledge, undergraduates will also benefit from involvement with soil science practice with those outside of academia concerned with complex authentic problems. Many of the soil science teaching principles given by Field et al. (2011), such as active learning, systems thinking and authentic problem solving, can also be addressed within a curriculum that engages in research and advantageously includes WIL practices that provide benefits identified in a range of disciplines (noted above). In a survey reported by Field et al. (2013) employers, graduates and current students identified that the benefits of WIL were what they needed but did not necessarily get from a soil science curriculum. Systems thinking has long been advocated as the only realistic way forward for sustainable agriculture and environmental practices (Bawden, 1991; Ikerd, 1993; Jackson, 2002; Kremen and Iles, 2012) and this requires a holistic approach between many areas such as land ecology (with its multiple components), economic, cultural and political factors that are often complex and demand considerable knowledge, broad experience and sound judgement. Students cannot be expected to develop systems thinking without some experience of authentic issues as afforded by research and WIL. Therefore it is proposed that the TRIL concept be considered when framing a curriculum with the objective of producing workready graduates with relevant soil science knowledge and skills. To develop a national soil science curriculum that would produce work-ready graduates with the interdisciplinary knowledge, skills and capabilities relevant to the needs of Australia, Field et al. (2012) drew upon stakeholders including: graduates in the workplace, academics, students, employers in industry, and the Australian Society of Soil Science Inc. (now Soil Science Australia), the professional body that accredits a Certified Practicing Soil Scientist (CPSS). As reported in Field et al. (2012) the TRIL model (Fig. 1) was a popular framework amongst the representatives from the participating institutions because it; 1) included stakeholder perspectives, and 2) framed the teaching opportunities from lectures through to practicals, fieldwork, and work integrated learning. This, along with the teaching principles reported in Field et al. (2011) indicated that opportunities for field work and working with external stakeholders are highly desirable by both employers, graduates and current students (Field et al., 2013). One of the missing areas suggested was the identification of the core body of knowledge (CBoK) that all students of soil science from any Australian institution should have and this was derived by community. 3. Methods The paper draws on consultations with academics, students and industry practitioners from a current (2016) Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC) project and an earlier project (Field et al., 2012) both of which are concerned with developing curricula consistent with a TRIL framework that incorporates industry or community needs for soil science. 3.1. Identifying a core body of knowledge As a result of the work reported in Field et al. (2012, 2013), it became clear that the soil science teaching community at 22 Australian universities did not have an agreed core body of knowledge (CBoK) for the soil science discipline relevant for the institutions. Before investigating
119
novel teaching approaches that align with the TRIL concept and investigating what soil science knowledge may be of interest to the broader community it was agreed that identifying a CBoK would be a priority (Field et al., 2012). To formulate a CBoK a Delphi study (Dyer and Breja, 2003) approach was adopted and implemented. This approach has been used since the 1960′s to generate consensus amongst the community, and in this case the Delphi study's objective was to elucidate the core knowledge expected by a community engaged in soil science. Jarvis et al. (2012) also used a Delphi method in curriculum development for soil, crop and turfgrass sciences. Fig. 2 illustrates the three rounds of the Delphi consultation process. The first two rounds of surveying were carried out anonymously online, where the first round resulted in a response from 16 university teachers of soil science to an open-ended question prioritising what soil science knowledge graduates should know at each of a beginning, intermediate and advanced level. Their responses were qualitatively analysed and refined by categorising into areas of knowledge: soil chemistry; soil biology; soil physics; pedology; environmental science. Other, removing duplication and aggregating similarities to produce a list of 47 statements. These statements formed the basis of round two (online) in which 26 academic participants prioritised the 47 statements in terms of importance, using a five-point Likert scale. This allowed quantitative analysis, producing medians and interquartile ranges (IQR) as a measure of consensus, and mean ratings of importance. The results from both these online rounds were further discussed and refined at a face-to-face forum of 17 stakeholders including academic, professional society and industry practitioners. 3.2. Refining the core body of knowledge for the grains industry As a result of the National Soil Research Development and Extension Strategy (2014), the GRDC sought to develop a method for improving the soil science knowledge within the industry. Towards this goal, the methodology to address this strategy has been to consult with stakeholders including farm advisors (consultants), academics and professional associations. Following a widespread national search through word-of-mouth, email requests and website searches, ten farm advisors from across Australia were interviewed either in person or via telephone. Open-ended questions were used to ascertain the most important soil science knowledge required by people in their profession, and how these in-service practitioners might engage with further study. Two stakeholder forums were also held to design a contextually feasible educational strategy. Representatives of the academic, farmer, professional soil scientist and industry advisor communities attended the first forum. The initial focus was to examine the relevance of the previously derived CBoK to the GRDC industry, refine that CBoK and consider teaching options for students and in-service practitioners who have different requirements. The second forum was concerned with further development of the teaching methods and framework relevant to the different context of the learners (students and practitioners). 4. Results and discussion Reviewing the list of items in Table 1 it is apparent that these are content focused, and illustrate the basic discipline knowledge considered relevant by soil science discipline experts and related stakeholders. Fig. 3 suggests an approach to shift the focus from content to teaching activities that address student learning outcomes. Many of the items listed in Table 1 can be classified as discipline-centred, ranging from the theoretical to the applied. Only a few of the CBoK items could be classified with a multidisciplinary focus (Fig. 3), which does not align with opportunities expressed in the TRIL framework nor a multi-disciplinary approach. Hartemink et al. (2014) show global similarities in
120
D.J. Field et al. / Geoderma 289 (2017) 117–123
Fig. 2. The three rounds of the Delphi study process to derive a soil science core body of knowledge.
teaching soil science with a few examples of a multidisciplinary approach and student activities that involve the general community or industry. The adoption of a problem based learning approach can facilitate the involvement of the general community or industry and provide an experience where students can engage in multi-disciplinary thinking. The success of such an approach relies on engaging students in authentic real-world problems with the involvement of industry or community, Table 1 Core body of knowledge (CBoK) topics following broad stakeholder consultations. 1. Understand the basic soil chemical components (e.g. macro and micro elements/nutrients), properties (e.g. Cation Exchange Capacity, pH) and process (e.g. surface exchange) and relate these to chemistry concepts and the periodic table 2. Understand soil physical properties and characteristics (e.g. texture, porosity, temperature, structure, stability, strength) 3. Understand how soil water is measured, (lab and field instrumentation), how data is expressed (e.g. units) and used in soil water concepts (i.e. Available Water Capacity, hydraulic conductivity, etc) 4. Explain how soil physical properties affect different soil behaviors and create different soil environments in terms of structure and its effect on processes 5. Understand how soil water affects soil properties and how to design sampling strategies and its assessment, including water holding capacity, hydraulic conductivity, etc. 6. Understanding soil variability and how this affects soil sampling and mapping 7. Understand soil chemistry cycles (e.g. carbon and nitrogen cycles, etc) 8. Explain how soil chemistry contributes to soil problems, such as alkalinity, acidity, and problem soils e.g. Acid sulfate soils 9. Be able to explain in writing and/or verbally the meaning and importance of various soil measurements to a range of different audiences 10. Be able to design and conduct an experiment to evaluate the importance of different factors in plant production (e.g. earthworms, organic matter, salt, water status, etc) 11. Understand the soil ecology, including the soil-root interface 12. Understand the types and consequences of different soil degradation and how these relate to different soil types and soil processes 13. Understand how soil water affects soil problems, such as salinity, and how these problems are assessed and can be managed 14. Understand how soil chemistry is managed 15. Statistics 16. Soil Landscapes and soil forming processes 17. Describe and classify soil profiles in different landscapes and environments 18. Measure and evaluate soil physical properties both in the lab and field 19. Relate soils to geomorphology 20. Importance of soils: appreciate wide range of functions and significance of soils in the natural and constructed world 21. Identify inorganic and organic soil constituents 22. Measure soil biology using various lab and field techniques 23. Relate soil type and landscapes to different land-uses
i.e. as clients. While there are many examples of this approach (Boud and Feletti, 1991), Hartemink et al. (2014) has summarised a learning and teaching approach in soil science at the University of Sydney. In this case, students enrol in a senior year unit of study investigating problems sourced from rural, urban and research scenarios. In addition to clearly articulating a problem that is relevant for the client and applying their knowledge of soil to address the issue, the students also consider transdisciplinary problems. To further illustrate the engagement of students with the real world soil issues of land use enterprise, Table 2 (modified from Field et al., 2013), presents a hierarchy of problems identified by students relating to soil carbon in the wine growing region of the Hunter Valley in close proximity to Sydney. When analysed using the characteristics of knowledge as defined by Nowotny et al. (2002), questions 1 and 2 have a discipline focus with a traditional biophysical query about the benefits of soil carbon, whereas questions 4 and 5 are clearly multi-disciplinary, where soil science knowledge is now being considered from a policy and/or economic perspective. According to feedback from students, this problem-based learning approach enables them to make connections between theory and application of soil knowledge, as well as enabling them to make conceptual links to other parts of their soil science courses (Hartemink et al., 2014). While employers acknowledge that the development of soil knowledge and capabilities develops with on-going experience in the workplace, they believe enabling the
Fig. 3. The core body of knowledge items from Table 1 with a curriculum focus.
D.J. Field et al. / Geoderma 289 (2017) 117–123 Table 2 Aligning the types of questions with the characteristics of types of knowing, modified from Field et al. (2013). A range of consulting questions
Knowledge Types of engagement
1) What quantity of soil organic carbon (SOC) is required to benefit crop production? 2) What management practices will maintain or increase SOC? 3) How has the change in management practices in the Private Irrigation District (PID) affected SOC quantities? 4) How do we use SOC as a soil quality indicator that will be seen as beneficial by the PID? 5) How can the SOC be used as carbon offsets by the PID in a carbon-trading scheme?
‘Mode 1’
‘Mode 2’
Context: academic Who: discipline experts Character: mainly monodisciplinary Ouput: publication Context: real-world Who: discipline experts stakeholders policy Character: transdisciplinary Ouput: novel procedures societal effectiveness
student experience using this approach is warranted, and this is demonstrated by their continued willingness to give their time to this teaching (Field et al., 2013). Brevik (2009) recognises that soil science is relevant to many areas beyond its own discipline and therefore understanding what elements of the CBoK are relevant through the lens of a cognate discipline is useful, in this case representatives from the grains industry. Consultations with practicing grains agricultural advisors revealed that any efforts at improving their soil science knowledge had to be relevant to their needs in their ‘local context’. Any local context would necessarily include the local system, i.e. its physical, environmental, cultural and economic, and all the pertinent factors including the soil and its management. Of equal importance were their reservations about spending time reading more about soil or attending classes that were of a generic nature and not immediately relevant. These attitudes are entirely consistent with adult learning theories where engagement is predicated on personal relevance, experience and context (e.g., Knowles, 1980; Kolb, 1984; Lave and Wenger, 1991). This will impact on the learning and teaching environments, guided by TRIL, which could be developed within institutions. There is no doubt that personal relevance, experience and context differs between different groups of learners, such as campus-based university students and practicing farm advisors, as well as between the individuals of each group. Common opportunities for engaging these two diverse groups are given by the challenge of solving real world problems as indicated by the TRIL approach. The approach to solving problems will differ markedly between these two groups (and individuals), yet both would need relevant knowledge resources to apply to any specific problem. Such knowledge resources should cater for different levels of knowledge and experience. In an attempt to provide such a common resource that can be usefully accessed by individuals with different knowledge and experience, a hyperlinked Soil for Grains eBook has been developed at The University of Sydney. This eBook incorporates the industry-defined CBoK and allows different entry points for users with different needs and experience, such as a ‘self help’ area where users are guided to their personal, contextually relevant knowledge area, as well as entry via Scenarios that describe realistic complex issues and challenges (problems) in a particular context. Based on context and personal experience, users are able to browse the Scenarios, find the knowledge areas most relevant to their problem-solving situation, and use them to structure their learning. The development of realistic problem solving scenarios that would appeal to students and professional practitioners is a considerable academic challenge. This is not to imply that every application of soil science requires a separate eBook, rather that authentic problem solving scenarios illustrate the importance of
121
context (such as grain production in a particular environment) as well as the necessity of identifying all the important aspects (physical, chemical, biological, cultural, economic) relevant to any particular problem and location. As identified earlier, solving realistic problems requires a systems or multi-disciplinary approach (Field et al., 2011). Fig. 4 incorporates the concept of curriculum approach and components into the TRIL concept. As gleaned from the Delphi study to derive the soil science CBoK, soil science teaching is largely discipline based, extending from theoretical to theoretical and applied (Fig. 4). If industry issues are considered in this disciplinary teaching involving external stakeholders or the community, they are represented by the ‘Discipline-centred problem solving’ (Fig. 4). Although students may initially consider a hierarchy of problems exemplified in Table 2, the learning and teaching practice and reporting will more than likely restrict it to the discipline-focused questions. In developing the Soil for Grains eBook, the focus on a multidisciplinary approach highlights the need for developing authentic industry scenarios within which relevant soil science knowledge and skills can be integrated (Fig. 4). This approach to experiential problem solving is immersed in a systems thinking approach and will require learners to make connections and consider multiple perspectives (Field et al., 2011). Bouma and McBratney (2013) suggest that adopting these teaching practices will serve graduates and in-service training well, where soil science knowledge has to be integrated with socio-economic considerations. The future development of local scenarios linked to the eBook will occupy the rear top right area of Fig. 4, and will be based on authentic experiences of practitioners. 5. Conclusion The development of future soil science curriculums that are relevant in the modern world requires extensive consultation with stakeholders, including those practicing in industry. This approach ensures a sound basis for a teaching-research-industry-learning curriculum model that extends beyond traditional discipline-based teaching. By incorporating industry needs into the soil science curriculum, perhaps through work integrated learning (including industry or community based projects), students will appreciate the importance of a multi-disciplinary and systems approach to authentic issues and challenges. For students and more than likely, industry stakeholders who require in-service training, the focus on a multi-disciplinary approach is essential. Further work is needed to understand how soil science academics integrate this approach to teaching in their discipline research. The normal conceptual workplace of practicing industry professionals is already at or approaching the experiential problem solving
Fig. 4. A curriculum model with a multidisciplinary or systems approach.
122
D.J. Field et al. / Geoderma 289 (2017) 117–123
part of Fig. 4. Consultations with such industry practitioners have revealed that to increase their soil science knowledge, learning must take place in their physical and conceptual context. To engage such practitioners in further learning requires access to authentic contextual scenarios to which they can relate, and which discuss possible realistic solutions to their local challenges. The development of such rich scenarios is a challenge for academia because it requires considerable industry input. However, the benefits would be far reaching in that they would also enable students to engage with authentic learning issues and help their development towards solving realistic industry problems. The more exposure that students have to real-world issues in soil science, the better they will be equipped to meet ever-increasing global challenges. The value of industry-related soil science problem solving has been noted by Hartemink et al. (2014), and contextually applied in various industries, such as viticulture (White, 2003) and landscaping (Leake and Haege, 2015). As a future development, academia and industry could usefully further collaborate to produce a wide range of industrybased problem solving scenarios where soil science is a relevant and necessary component. If students were to engage with several of these scenarios during their studies they would gain WIL experiences and problem solving activities in a range of multidisciplinary contexts.
Acknowledgement We wish to thank the Grains Research and Development Corporation in Australia for providing the funding through Project Number US00069. References Australian Government Chief Scientist, 2014. Science, technology, engineering and mathematics: Australia's future. http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/ STEM_AustraliasFuture_Sept2014_Web.pdf. Bawden, R.J., 1991. Systems thinking and practice in agriculture. J. Dairy Sci. 74:2362–2373 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022030291784105). Billett, S., 2011. Curriculum and pedagogic bases for effectively integrating practice-based experiences. ALTC Project Final Report (http://www.olt.gov.au/system/files/ resources/Billett%2C%20S%20Griffith%20NTF%20Final%20report%202011_0.pdf). Boud, D., Feletti, G., 1991. The Challenge of Problem Based Learning. Kogan Page, London. Boud, D., Symes, C., 2000. Learning for real: work-based education in universities. In: Symes, C., McIntyre, J. (Eds.), Working Knowledge: the New Vocationalism and Higher Education. Open University Press, pp. 14–29. Bouma, J., 2001. The new role of soil science in a network society. Soil Sci. 166, 874–879. Bouma, J., 2014. Soil science contributions towards sustainable development goals and their implementation: linking soil functions with ecosystem services. J. Soil Fertil. Soil Sci. 177, 111–120. Bouma, J., 2015. Reaching out from the soil box in pursuit of soil security. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 1–10. Bouma, J., McBratney, A., 2013. Framing soils as an actor when dealing with wicked environmental problems. Geoderma 200–201, 130–139. Brevik, E.C., 2009. The teaching of soil science in geology, geography, environmental science, and agriculture programs. Soil Surv. Horiz. 50, 120–123. Brevik, E.C., 2013. Soils and human health: an overview. In: Brevik, E.C., Burgess, L.C. (Eds.), Soils and Human Health. CRC Press. Taylor and Francis Group, Boca Raton, FL, USA, pp. 29–50. Brevik, E.C., Senturklu, S., Landblom, D., 2015. Field research in the teaching of undergraduate soil science. Geophys. Res. Abstr. 17:EGU2015–EGU2115 (http:// meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2015/EGU2015-115.pdf). Cavadini, J., 2010. Affect of row spacing of no-till soybeans on soil erosion. Soil Surv. Horiz. 51, 41–44. Cooper, L., Orrell, J., Bowden, M., 2010. Work Integrated Learning, a Guide to Effective Practice. Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, London and New York. Daud, A.M., Omar, J., Turiman, P., Osman, K., 2012. Creativity in science education. Procedia. Soc. Behav. Sci. 59, 467–474. Dyer, J.E., Breja, L.M., 2003. Problems in recruiting students into agricultural education programs. A Delphi study of agriculture teacher perceptions. J. Agric. Educ. 44, 75–85. Field, D., Koppi, T., McBratney, A., 2010. Producing the thinking soil scientist. 19th World Congress of Soil Science, Soil Solutions for a Changing World 1–6 August 2010 (Brisbane, Australia. Published on CDROM). Field, D.J., Koppi, A.J., Jarrett, L.E., Abbott, L.K., Cattle, S.R., Grant, C.D., McBratney, A.B., Menzies, N.W., Weatherly, A.J., 2011. Soil science teaching principles. Geoderma 167–168, 9–14.
Field, D.J., Koppi, A.J., Jarrett, L.E., McBratney, A.B., Abbott, L.K., Grant, K.P., Menzies, C.D., Weatherly, N.W., 2012. A National Soil Science Curriculum in Response to the Needs of Students, Academic Staff, Industry, and the Wider Community. (http:// www.olt.gov.au/system/files/resources/PP9_1341_McBratney_Report_2012.pdf). Field, D.J., Koppi, A.J., Jarrett, L., McBratney, A., 2013. Engaging employers, graduates and students to inform the future curriculum needs of soil science. Proceedings of the Australian Conference on Science and Mathematics Education, Australian National University, Sept 19–21, pp. 130–135. Grabinger, S.R., Dunlap, J.C., 1995. Rich environments for active learning: a definition. Assoc. Learn. Technol. J. 3 (2), 5–34. Griffiths, R., 2004. Knowledge production and the research-teaching nexus: the case of the built environment disciplines. Stud. High. Educ. 29, 709–726. Hartemink, A.E., Balks, M.B., Chen, Z.-S., Drohan, P., Field, D.J., Krasilnikov, P., Lowe, D.J., Rabenhorst, M., van Rees, K., Schad, P., Schipper, L.A., Sonneveld, M., Walter, C., 2014. The joy of teaching soil science. Geoderma 217–18, 1–9. Hattie, J., Marsh, H.W., 1996. The relationship between research and teaching: a metaanalysis. Rev. Educ. Res. 66 (4), 507–542. Havlin, J., Balster, N., Chapman, S., Ferris, D., Thompson, T., Smith, T., 2010. Trends in soil science education and employment. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 74, 1429–1432. Healey, M., 2005. Linking teaching and research: exploring disciplinary spaces and the role of inquiry-based learning. In: Barnett, R. (Ed.), Reshaping the University: New Relationships Between Research, Scholarship and Teaching. McGraw Hill/Open University Press, pp. 67–78. Healey, M., Jenkins, A., 2009. Developing Undergraduate Research and Inquiry. The Higher Education Academy (http://alanjenkins.info/publications/DevelopingUndergraduate_ Final.pdf). Heitman, J.L., Duckworth, O., Graves, A., Polizzotto, M., Vepraskas, M.J., 2014. A new REU Site: Basic and Environmental Soil Science Training (BESST). Soil Science Society of America Annual Meeting Abstracts (https://scisoc.confex.com/scisoc/2014am/ webprogram/Paper89287.html). Ikerd, J.E., 1993. The need for a systems approach to sustainable agriculture. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 46:147–160 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ 016788099390020P). Jackson, W., 2002. Natural systems agriculture: a truly radical alternative. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 88:111–117 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/S016788090100247X). Jarvis, H.D., Collet, R., Wingenbach, G., Heilman, J.L., Fowler, D., 2012. Developing a foundation for constructing new curricula in soil, crop and turfgrass sciences. J. Nat. Res. Life Sci. 41, 7–14. Jenkins, A., Breen, R., Lindsay, R., Brew, A., 2003. Designing the curriculum to link teaching and research. Reshaping Teaching in Higher Education: Linking Teaching and Research. London & Sterling, VA, pp. 49–70. Kelly, T., Reid, J., Valentine, I., 2006. Enhancing the utility of science; exploring the linkages between a science provider and their end-users in New Zealnad. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 46, 1425–1432. Knowles, M., 1980. The Modern Practice of Adult Education: Andragogy Versus Pedagogy. (Rev. and updated ed.). Cambridge Adult Education, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Koch, A., McBratney, A.B., Adams, M., Field, D.J., Hill, R., Lal, R., Abbott, L., Angers, D., Baldock, J., Barbier, E., Binkley, D., Bird, M., Bouma, J., Chenu, C., Crawford, J., Flora, C.B., Goulding, K., Grunwald, S., Hempel, J., Jastrow, J., Lehmann, J., Lorenz, K., Minasny, B., Morgan, C., O'Donnell, A., Parton, W., Rice, C.W., Wall, D.H., Whitehead, D., Young, I., Zimmermann, M., 2013. Soil security: solving the global soil crisis. Glob. Policy J. 4, 434–441. Kolb, D.A., 1984. Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Koppi, T., Naghdy, F., 2009. Managing Educational Change in the ICT Discipline at the Tertiary Level. (http://www.acdict.edu.au/documents/KoppiNaghdyICTeducation2009.pdf). Kremen, C., Iles, A., Bacon, C.M., 2012. Diversified farming systems: an agroecological, systems-based alternative to modern industrial agriculture. Ecol. Soc. 17 (4):44 (http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/bitstream/handle/10535/8664/ES-2012-5103. pdf?sequence=1). Lave, J., Wenger, E., 1991. Situated Learning. Legitimate Peripheral ParticipationUniversity of Cambridge Press, Cambridge. Leake, S., Haege, E., 2015. Soils for Landscape Development: Selection, Specification and Validation. CSIRO Publishing, Australia. McBratney, A., Field, D.J., Koch, A., 2014. The dimensions of soil security. Geoderma 213, 203–213. McGill, T., Armarego, J., Koppi, T., 2012. The teaching–research–industry–learning nexus in information and communications technology. ACM Trans. Comput. Educ. 12, 1–20. Meek, J., Davies, D., Meek, V.L., Teichler, U., Kearney, M.L., 2009. Policy dynamics in higher education and research: concepts and observations. Higher Education, Research and Innovation: Changing dynamics. Kassler: ICHER. Mikhailova, E.A., Post, C.J., Sharp, J.L., Speziale, B.J., 2015. Creative inquiry in soil science: soil inventory of private lands. Nat. Sci. Educ. 44:122–129. http://dx.doi.org/10. 4195/nse2015.05.0006. National Soil Research Development and Extension Strategy, 2014,. Securing Australia's soil for profitable industries and healthy landscapes. CC BY 3.0 (http://www. agriculture.gov.au/Style%20Library/Images/DAFF/__data/assets/pdffile/0012/ 2379585/soil.pdf). Neumann, R., 1994. The teaching-research nexus: applying a framework to university Students' learning experiences. Eur. J. Educ. 29 (3), 323–338. Nowotny, H., Scott, P., Gibbons, M., 2002. Re-thinking Science. Knowledge and the Public in an Age of UncertaintyPolity Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 1–21. Orrell, J., 2011. Good Practice Report: Work-Integrated Learning. Australian Learning and Teaching Council (http://www.olt.gov.au/system/files/resources/GPR_Work_ Integrated_Learning_Orrell_2011.pdf).
D.J. Field et al. / Geoderma 289 (2017) 117–123 Patrick, C.-j., Peach, D., Pocknee, C., Webb, F., Fletcher, M., Pettro, G., 2008. The WIL [Work Integrated Learning] report: a national scoping study. Australian Learning and Teaching Council Final Report (http://www.olt.gov.au/system/files/grants_project_wil_ finalreport_jan09.pdf). Philip, P., 1991. Soils, natural science, and models. Soil Sci. 151, 91–98. Robertson, J., 2007. Beyond the ‘research/teaching nexus’: exploring the complexity of academic experiences. Stud. High. Educ. 32, 541–556. Taylor, J., 2007. The teaching: research nexus: a model for institutional management. High. Educ. 54, 867–884.
123
Thompson, J.B., 2010. Why better industrial/academic links are needed if there is to be an effective software engineering workforce. Proc. of the 2010 23rd IEEE Conf. on Soft. Eng. Edu. & Train. (CSEE&T), pp. 105–112. Tibor, M.A., Brevik, E.C., 2013. Anthropogenic impacts on campsite soils at strawberry Lake, North Dakota. Soil Horiz. 54. http://dx.doi.org/10.2136/sh13-06-0016. Universities Australia, 2008. A National Internship Scheme: enhancing skills and workreadinesss of Australian university graduates. Position Paper No. 3/08. Universities Australia, Canberra. White, R.E., 2003. Soils for Fine Wines. Oxford University Press.