Standardization of doctoral study in agricultural and extension education: is the field of study mature enough for achievement of the optimum degree of order?

Agricultural and extension education--or some derivative name--is a field of study leading to the doctoral degree in universities around the world. Is there are body of knowledge or a taxonomy of the knowledge--e.g., a knowledge domain--that one should possess with a doctorate in agricultural and extension education? The purpose of this paper was to synthesize the work of researchers who attempted to define the field of study, with a taxonomy comprising the knowledge domains (standards) and knowledge objects--structured interrelated sets of data, knowledge, and wisdom--of the field of study. Doctoral study in agricultural and extension education needs a document that provides for rules and guidelines--rules and guidelines that in turn provide for common and repeated use--all leading to achievement of an optimum degree of order in the context of academic, scholarly, and professional practice in agricultural and extension education. Thus, one would know in broad categories the knowledge, skills, and abilities possessed by one who holds a doctoral degree in agricultural and extension education. That is, there would exist a standard for doctoral degrees in agricultural and extension education. A content analysis of three previous attempts to categorize knowledge in agricultural and extension education served as the primary technique to create a new taxonomy--or to confirm an existing taxonomy--for doctoral study in agricultural and extension education. The following coalesced as nine essential knowledge domains for a doctorate in agricultural and extension education: (1) history, philosophy, ethics, and policy; (2) agricultural/rural development; (3) organizational development and change management; (4) planning, needs assessment, and evaluation; (5) learning theory; (6) curriculum development and instructional design; (7) teaching methods and delivery strategies; (8) research methods and tools; and, (9) scholarship and communications.

Transfer student and gender issues within the Department of Animal Science at Texas A&M University.

Graduates with a B.S. or graduate degree from the Department of Animal Science (1986 to 1996) of Texas A&M University were surveyed by mail to gather opinions on the curriculum and satisfaction with their degrees. The survey contained five Likert questions (1 = excellent, 4 = poor) regarding satisfaction with major, educational results, personal growth, professional development, and skills important for employment. Multiple-choice questions (n = 9) addressed education, background, job status, and gender. Surveys (n = 2,192) were sent to students, and 470 responded. The undergraduate respondents (n = 396) comprised 71.2% (n = 282) nontransfer students and 28.8% (n = 114) transfer students. Transfer students reported a mean grade point ratio (GPR) of 3.05 +/- 0.43 at Texas A&M University in comparison to a nontransfer student mean GPR of 3.03 +/- 0.45 for hours completed at Texas A&M University (P = 0.83). The results for time from graduation to full-time employment for transfer students were similar to those of nontransfer students (P = 0.95). Differences in current annual salary between transfer students and nontransfer students were apparent (P < 0.0001). Transfer students and nontransfer students reported similarly that courses within the department were valuable (P = 0.95) and not redundant (P = 0.08). The two groups similarly rated contributions to critical thinking (P = 0.59) and speaking (P = 0.38). Undergraduate respondents (n = 392) were 48.9% (n = 192) male and 51.1% (n = 200) female. Males and females reported a mean GPR of 3.02 +/- 0.46 and 3.07 +/- 0.43, respectively (P = 0.35). Differences in job search time (P < 0.0001), starting salary (P = 0.0004), and current salary (P < 0.0001) were apparent between genders; females were paid less and searched longer before finding their first job. Males and females responded similarly that courses were valuable (P = 0.16) and were taught effectively (P = 0.37) and that teaching assistants made positive contributions (P = 0.43). Females felt a lesser contribution to critical thinking ability, leadership ability, and technical expertise. Results suggest the continuance of current educational practices, but changes to specific issues should be initiated.