Moderated by Daniel Foster

Presentation 1 - HEARING in Practice: An Extension of the HEARING Project    
Jason McKibben    
Auburn University    

While safety in agriculture is a main concern in School-Based Agriculture Education (SBAE), there have been multiple shortcomings identified regarding attitudes and perceptions of specific safety areas. The implementation of eye protection has been successful in agriculture and across many industries. The same cannot be said for the use of hearing protection (HP). The deficiency relating to the perceptions and attitudes of noise levels in agricultural laboratory settings has been well documented. While there have been indications that in SBAE these internal deficiencies can be positively affected, questions have arisen regarding subsequent external outcomes. This research extends previous hearing safety research in agricultural laboratories by focusing on participants' perceptions of noise levels, their mindset regarding HP thresholds, and their indication of the use of HP. Students taking an introductory agricultural mechanics course are asked, through pre-/post-course evaluations to identify their decibel threshold for the use of HP as well they were asked about their prior and future intended use of HP for a list of tools. In addition to the pre-/post evaluation, weekly course reflections asked what personal protective equipment they used during the week's lab exercises. Using Mere Exposure Theory to interpret, pre-/post-course data indicated positive growth relating to student perception of decibel outputs and their identified threshold for the use of HP. However, when reviewing the weekly reflection data, a mere 7.67 % (f = 27) of all reportable weekly reflections indicated the use of HP. While 14 participants (31.11%) did wear HP in some capacity during the semester, only one (2.22%) student wore HP more than 50% of the time. While the direct and indirect exposure to noise levels aided the internal growth of student perception and attitude, the lack of external response to wearing HP seen throughout the course still needs to be addressed.
 

Presentation 2 - Communicating Science Beyond Scientists    
Laura Hasselquist    
South Dakota State University    

Students completing graduate programs in animal sciences often lack the well-honed interpersonal communication skills necessary for success in allied industry careers. Communication has long been identified as a key 21st century skill for post-secondary graduates. The importance of communication within the agriculture industry, and more importantly with the non-agriculture community (e.g., consumers, policy makers, media) has long been acknowledged. While undergraduate programs increasingly incorporate 21st century skills development, graduate programs often focus on scientific skills. To address these problems, four upper-Midwestern land-grant universities developed a communication training program to increase the number of animal science master's students who are well prepared to meet current and future workplace communication needs. The project centered on development of a series of communication and leadership activities. Students completed a self-awareness assessment and attended topic-specific seminars that provide the foundation for communicating science to non-scientists. Monthly seminars focused on a variety of verbal and written communication forums (e.g., Extension, sales, internet-based) and target audiences (e.g., livestock producers, media, governing bodies, consumers). At the end of the year, students participated in a 2-day Communication Conference. On the first day of the conference, students attended industry-led discussions on the state of U.S. livestock industries followed by participation in a series of topic-specific case studies led by industry experts. On conference day 2, students delivered topical presentations in animal science to assigned target audiences (farmers, consumers, industry executives, government officials) who provided feedback on clarity of message, overall quality of communication, and suggestions for improvement. On post-assessments, students indicated a growth in knowledge and confidence after participating in both the monthly seminars and communication conference. Industry experts voiced support of the program's value. This program has been beneficial to the students involved and will continue to help close the communication gap between the scientific community and non-scientific audiences.
 

Presentation 3 - Relative Value of 360 Immersive Experiences in Residential Landscape Design Courses    
Margaret Hoffman    
Penn State University    

Immersive technologies are transforming education and traditional delivery methods with simulations and interactive tools to engage learners in virtual environments. This study determines the effectiveness of 360 immersive experiences to support student engagement in residential landscape design courses at the Pennsylvania State University. In 2020, the instructor was accepted as a Penn State Teaching and Learning with Technology Faculty Fellow and worked with an instructional design team to develop 360 videos, tours, lesson plans, assessments, and rubrics for six major US public gardens. Collectively, using Oculus 2 headgear, students enrolled in third and fourth year design courses spent a class period viewing 360 videos and tours to identify how the principles and elements (P&E) of design were utilized in the context of landscape design. To help learners develop a deeper understanding of design concepts, students created their own 360 tours of predetermined campus locations to identify how the elements and principles of designs were utilized within these design contexts. Additionally, students created 360 tours for clients highlighting design solutions to landscape issues. After completing the assignments, all students were surveyed to measure immersive technologies' effectiveness as a teaching tool and their perceived benefits for a residential design course. Qualtric surveys were administered to collect data during the fall and spring semesters of 2021 and 2022, respectively. The survey revealed 90% of students perceived the immersive experience as highly beneficial for understanding P&E and 85% of students indicated that future design classes should include a 360 component. Preliminary findings indicate 360 tours are effective teaching tools, increasing student understanding of the P&E in design exercises and that students are very interested in exploring further uses of 360 technology in other landscape design related courses.
 

Presentation 4 - Co-Curricular Programming to Enhance Undergraduate Research: Lessons Learned    
Maria Navarro    
University of Georgia    

The potential for positive impact on student personal, academic, and professional development from participation in Undergraduate Research (UR) is well documented. However, "doing UR" is not enough: active participation and quality and comprehensive programming are indispensable for achieving significant student gains.

The presenter will detail the experience and lessons learned at the University of Georgia regarding co-curricular programming to support, normalize, and enhance UR experiences, and will provide recommendations to heighten student learning outcomes of undergraduate research.

UGA defines for-credit UR experiences as those that require at least 1) individualized, independent, faculty-mentored research; 2) 45 hours of research per credit hour earned; 3) a significant written assignment and public presentation of results; and 4) substantial feedback from the faculty mentor on the student's research progress.

UGA has a central office that provides institution-wide UR programming, works with students and faculty, and promotes and collaborates with a wide-range of UR initiatives. During the Fiscal Year 2020, the central office worked with 895 unique students who participated in at least one for-credit experience in UR.

The co-curricular programming supported students before, during, and after the UR experience. Contributions included large and small symposia to present student work; workshops; seminars; opportunities for peer interactions and mentoring; writing retreats; group discussions; and funding. Workshops addressed student needs such as finding a mentor; practicing for conference presentations; preparing posters; exploring innovative ways to present data; reflecting on student academic, personal, and professional growth; articulating broader impacts of research; addressing conflict and working with teams; communicating and building relationships with mentors; preparing for the workplace, etc.

Through student surveys and informal discussions with students and faculty, the UR central office explored the successes, failures, and gaps of the existing co-curricular offerings and prepared recommendations, provided in this presentation, to help guide programming efforts to enhance UR student experience and learning outcomes.