An Experiential Learning iViodeiof Facuity Deveiopment

to improve TeacliingChristopher M. Estepp^ T. Grady Roberta

and Hannah S. Carter^University of Fiorida

Gainesviiie, FL

NACTAnorth imbrican collígHind teachprtof ̂ agriculture

connect | develop | achieve

This article introduces a model for facultyprofessional development. The National ResearchCouncil (2009) indicated that graduates of collegesof agriculture must be prepared to work in a complexworld using skills such as critical thinking, problemsolving, teamwork, and leadership. However, criticsof higher education have insisted that many collegegraduates do not possess these desired skills and areincreasingly underprepared to enter the workforce. Tohelp better prepare students, instructors should focuson effective teaching strategies that engage studentsand promote learning. However, most faculty membersare hired for their expertise in research and have littlepreparation in pedagogical techniques. Therefore,faculty development programs that teach instructorseffective instructional methods are necessary. Thisarticle proposes an experiential learning model offaculty development, which consists of three stages,including planning, delivery, and evaluation. Themodel utilizes ñeld experiences, reflection, and peerobservation to help college instructors learn how toimplement and use various instructional methods. Theexperiential learning model presented in this papercould help college of agriculture instructors becomemore effective in their teaching, thus meeting the callto improve undergraduate learning.

IntroductionThe world around us is rapidly changing.

Increasing globalization of businesses, constantlychanging technologies, and a continually growingworld population are a few of the issues we face(National Research Council, NRC, 2009). Moreover,in the midst of these concerns, we face the uniquechallenges of climate change, creating renewableenergies, and feeding the increasing population (NRC,2009). To combat these and other issues, we will need

highly educated leaders, scientists, and a workforcecapable of thinking critically and solving the complexproblems faced by society.

The burden of preparing this next generation ofleaders, scientists, and workers for the challenges thatlie ahead rests on the shoulders of America's collegesand universities (NRC, 2009). The key to solvingsociety's problems will be the human capital thatcolleges and universities produce, that is, graduatesentering the workforce (NRC, 2009). The KelloggCommission (2000) dubbed this "the promise ofAmerican public higher education" (p. 9). Namely,higher education has an obligation to serve as thebridge between the public and the knowledge neededto solve complex issues (Kellogg Commission, 1999).Therefore, the question that must be asked is, arecollege graduates being adequately equipped for thechallenge?

Many believe college graduates are notprepared forthe future and have insisted on changes in undergraduateeducation (Barr and Tagg, 1995; Bok, 2006; Boyer,1990; National Commission on the Future of HigherEducation, 2006; NRC, 2009). The NRC (2009) calledfor changes in the way undergraduates are taught, citingspeciflcally global integration, new science, consumerinfluence, environmental concerns, and demographicand political shifts as factors contributing to this need.In 2006, The National Commission on the Future ofHigher Education suggested that American collegestudents are receiving a substandard education, whileBok (2006) opined that universities cannot continueto rely on methods that have worked in the past, butneed to place greater importance on innovation andeducational quality. Both the National Commissionon the Future of Higher Education (2006) and theAssociation of American Colleges and Universities(2002) proposed that graduates are underprepared forthe workforce, lacking skills such as writing, critical

'Graduate Teaching/Research Assistant-Associate Professor'Assistant Professor

NACTA Journal • March 2012 79

An Experiential

thinking, and problem solving. These claims arecompelling and highlight the need to change the wayundergraduates are educated.

The most appropriate place to start looking at howto transform undergraduate education is to examineteachers. McLaughlin et al. (2005) argued that teachersare the link between the student and the content tobe learned. What is more, the teacher's primary roleis to engage students with the information they arelearning (Smith et al., 2005). Effective postsecondaryinstructors have been found to utilize techniquesto help students engage with the material andreach higher levels of achievement (Pascarella andTerenzini, 1991). Research has shown that student-centered teaching strategies, such as use of active andexperiential learning activities, are critical to studentlearning in the classroom (Barr and Tagg, 1995;Chickering and Gamson, 1987; McKeachie, 2002).Therefore, it is important to focus on the quality andtype of teaching strategies to help improve the learningof undergraduates.

In light of this, one may suggest that the solutionto the problem is to hire professors who are highlyqualified in their teaching. However, this provesproblematic as the majority of faculty members atcolleges and universities are hired on the basis oftheir proficiency in research as opposed to teaching(Adams, 2002; Harder et al., 2009). Boyer (1990)proposed that teaching is typically viewed by most inuniversities as a simple routine task that can be easilymastered. As a result, most faculty members are hiredinto positions where the tenure and promotion policyhinges on research performance while placing littleconsideration to the teaching aspect of the profession(Harder et al., 2009). The irony is that institutions ofhigher education are meant to be places of learning,but there has been a lack of emphasis on teaching(Harder et al., 2009).

Consequently, faculty professional developmentprograms in the area of teaching are a necessity incolleges and universities (Myers and Roberts, 2004).Brent et al. ( 1999) agreed that professional developmentprograms are a sufficient way to help newer facultytransition into the professorial role. Supovitz andTurner (2000) summarized the need for facultyprofessional development in teaching, stating "Theimplicit logic of focusing on professional developmentas a means of improving student achievement is thathigh quality professional development will producesuperior teaching in classrooms, which will, in turn,translate into higher levels of student achievement"(p. 965). To bring about these types of changes,faculty development programs must be effectively

implemented. In line with this, the Association ofPublic and Land-grant Universities (2009) suggestedthat programs need to be based on research in teachingand learning to improve the effectiveness. The KelloggCommission ( 1999) additionally suggested that facultydevelopment programs need to be implemented usingactive learning strategies. Finally, Schlager and Fusco(2003) stated that faculty professional developmentmust be context-specific, learner-focused, and havepractical applications for teachers.

Purpose ^ ^ _ _ _ _ , ^ ^The purpose of this philosophical article was to

propose a solution to the aforementioned problemsby creating a faculty professional development modelbased on the experiential learning process that couldbe implemented by faculty professional developmentorganizers. This model specifically focuses on amethod to promote the development of effectiveteaching among university faculty members.

Theoretical FrameworkThe overarching theoretical framework for this

study was constructivism. Constructivist theory positsthat people learn through a process of constructingmeaning utilizing their prior knowledge combinedwith their experiences (Merriam et al., 2007). Differingviews of constructivism exist; however, there are threeanalogous tenets among the various views (Doolittleand Camp, 1999). The first of the three tenets is thatactive cognitive processing is required by the learner.McLaughlin et al. (2005) posited that learners must beactively, mentally engaged in the learning process formeaningful learning to occur. Secondly, all knowledgeconstruction requires an interpretation of reality(Doolittle and Camp, 1999), whether knowledgeconstruction is adherence to existing realities, creationof realities by the learner, or socially constructedrealities. Lastly, experiences are a key element ofconstructivism. Roberts (2006) indicated that studentengagement in experiences plays a vital role instudents' knowledge construction. The combinationof the three aforementioned tenets of constructivismprovides a good base for experiential learning, whichwill be discussed in the next section.

Conceptual FrameworkMany theorists have suggested that all learning

begins with an experience (Dewey, 1938; Jarvis, 1987;Kolb, 1984). This process of learning from experiencesis typically referred to as experiential learning and isepistemologically linked to constructivism becauseexperiences provide the foundation for knowledge

80 NACTA Journal • March 2012

An Experiential

construction (Roberts, 2006). Beard and Wilson (2006,p. 2) defined experiential learning as "the sense makingprocess of active engagement between the inner worldof the person and the outer world of the environment,"while Kolb similarly called experiential learning"the process whereby knowledge is created throughthe transformation of experience" (1984, p. 41).Additionally, Dewey argued people learn best whenexperiences are meaningful and directed. Experientiallearning theorists agree that experiences are central tothe learning process.

As a result, Roberts (2006) examined severalexisting experiential learning theories to create theModel of the Experiential Learning Process (Figure 1).In his model, Roberts posited the experiential learningprocess is cyclical and starts with an initial focusleading to an initial experience. After learners havetheir initial experience, the second phase is reflection,where through active cognitive processes learnersreflect on their initial experience. Generalization is thethird step in the experiential learning process, wherebylearners must make an interpretation of the newlylearned material and decide how this information fitswith previously learned information. The cycle thencomes ftall circle back to experience, where learnerscan experiment with the newly learned material.

InitialFocus

NextIteration of

Cycle

Experience:Initial or

Experimentation

Figure 1. Model of the Experiential Learning Process (Roberts, 2006, p.22).

Development of the Experiential Learning Modelof Faculty Development in Teaching

For the purpose of this article, which was tocreate a model for faculty professional developmentbased on the experiential learning process, Roberts'(2006) Model of the Experiential Learning Processwas merged with the Adult Learning Model forFaculty Development developed by Lawler and King(2000). The resulting faculty development model wasnamed the Experiential Learning Model of FacultyDevelopment in Teaching.

Because student engagement and achievementdepend upon effective teaching strategies (McKeachie,2002), the purpose of the Experiential Learning Modelof Faculty Development in Teaching is to introduceinstructional methods to faculty members who areinexperienced and/or desire to improve their classroominstruction. Understanding instructional strategies andmethods is an important part of improving classroominstructional performance. In fact, Wilkerson andIrby (1998) argued that instructional skills should beintroduced before instructional theories. The purposeof this is so faculty members can hone their skills, thusgiving them a practical base on which they can connectthe theory. More importantly, Myers and Roberts(2004) argued that faculty professional developmentshould model the teaching methods being taught,because, as Richardson (1990) suggested, teacherstend to model their teaching behaviors after the waythey were taught. It is for this reason that experientiallearning was chosen as the conceptual framework forthis model. Experiential learning provides facultymembers with opportunities to experience andexperiment with different teaching methods, whichaccording to Richardson, should lead to greater skilldevelopment in teaching.

Along with Roberts' (2006) model, the Lawler andKing (2000) model was chosenas a component of the Experien-tial Learning Model of FacultyDevelopment in Teaching, asit provides a good comple-ment to experiential learning.Lawler and King believed thatindividuals responsible forfaculty development seldomview faculty members as adultlearners. Therefore, Lawlerand King (2000) framed theirAdult Learning Model forFaculty Development aroundthe following six principles of

adult learning: "create a climate of respect; encourageactive participation; build on experience; employ col-laborative inquiry; learn for action; and empower theparticipants" (p. 21-22). These principles in Lawlerand King's model align well with the precepts of con-structivism and experiential learning, thus makingtheir model a logical choice.

In addition to being constructed around adultlearning principles, the Lawler and King (2000) modelalso contains four stages, consisting of preplanning,planning, delivery, and follow-up. Lawler and Kingcreated a list of pertinent questions for the professional

NACTA Journal • March 2012 81

An Experiential

development organizer to ask at each stage of programdevelopment. The questions are designed to help guidethe creators of the professional development programthrough the planning process.

The first stage of Lawler and King's (2000) modelis the preplanning stage. Here, the goals, needs, andclimate of the organization are accounted for and thedirection of the faculfy development is determined.The pertinent questions posed by Lawler and King forthe preplanning stages are:

• What overall purpose does faculfy developmentserve?

• What purpose does this specific faculfydevelopment program serve?

• In what ways does the institution's mission alignwith this faculfy development?

• Are there existing resources to support faculfydevelopment?

These four questions should help guide theorganizers of faculfy development in shapingthe purposes and direction of their professionaldevelopment program.

Lawler and King's (2000) second stage is theplanning stage, which deals with the logistics of faculfydevelopment. The pertinent questions associated withthe planning stage are:

• What steps will this faculfy development projectrequire?

• What personnel will be needed?• How will the support, delivery, scheduling, and

marketing for the faculfy development be organized?These questions should help planners with the

organizational and logistic aspects of planning faculfyprofessional development.

The third stage of the Lawler and King (2000)model is the delivery stage. This stage is concernedwith the actual implementation of the professional

development program. There are four questions Lawlerand King posed pertaining to this stage:

• Does the delivery stage build upon thepreparation?

• What means of promoting the program are mostuseflil?

• Does our faculfy development align with adultlearning principles?

• What method of monitoring the faculfydevelopment will be used?

Finally, the last stage of the model is the follow-up stage. This stage is where concerns are addressed,considerations for future faculty development aremade, and reflection on the entire process is conducted.Pertinent questions for planning this stage include:

• What is the plan for evaluating the faculfydevelopment program?

• How will ongoing support be provided to sustainthe learning?

• What can be gained from reflecting on our rolein the faculfy development?

The Experiential Learning Model of FaculfyDevelopment in Teaching (Figure 2) utilizes Lawlerand King's (2000) model to frame the programmingaspects of the faculfy development, while Roberts'(2006) experiential learning model is implementedduring the delivery portion. The remainder of thisarticle will discuss in detail the Experiential LearningModel of Faculfy Development in Teaching.

Planning StageThe first phase of the Experiential Learning Model

of Faculfy Development in Teaching is the planningstage. For this portion of the model, the preplanningand planning stages of the Lawler and King (2000)model have been condensed. The reason for this isthat the context of the experiential learning model

Planning

Faculty Professional Development Deiivery1

Introduction to Teaching Method Field Experiences

Follow-Up

Peer Observation

Figure 2. Experiential Learning Model of Faculty Development in Teaching (adapted from Lawler & King, 2000, and Roberts, 2006).

82 NACTA Journal • March 2012

An Experiential

(e.g. teaching and learning) answers the first twopreplanning questions, thus eliminating the need forthe preplanning stage. What is more, the concept ofteaching improvement in a university should addressthe third question concerning the mission of theorganization. The last preplanning question in relationto resources is important and should be consideredvery early in the process, because resource availabilitywill guide many later decisions. Likewise, the threeadditional planning stage questions of what willhappen, who will be involved, and how to organizeare important to the planning process. However, theanswers to these questions will be institution specific,depending on the direction of the faculty professionaldevelopment.

Delivery StageThe second stage of the Experiential Learning

Model of Faculty Development in Teaching is thedelivery portion. This is where Roberts' (2006) Modelof the Experiential Learning Process is implemented.The delivery phase is designed with the intent of theexperiential learning component taking place overseveral sessions as opposed to one long session. Thisprovides the faculty development participant multipleexperiences and experimentation with specificteaching methods, congruent with the cyclical natureof Roberts' (2006) model. Moreover, research hasshown that professional development is more effectiveif it takes place over a longer duration (Birman et al ,2000; Garet et al , 2001; Supovitz and Turner, 2000).

During the delivery stage, the specific instructionalmethods taught will be determined by the facultydevelopment planners, and the instruction should beplanned to fit the desired learning outcomes. Loucks-Horsley et al (1996) argued that experiential, learner-centered methods of instruction allow participatingfaculty members to actively discover and implementthe information being taught leading to a deeperunderstanding. For this reason, learner-centeredexperiential instructional approaches to professionaldevelopment are more effective than the traditionalteacher-centered approaches (Myers and Roberts,2004). Keeping this in mind, three strategies whichcan help deepen the learning by faculty participants arefield experiences using different teaching strategies,reflection on field experiences, and peer observation. Adescription of each of these strategies will be providedin the following sections.

Field experiences are effective ways to enhancea faculty teaching development program. Richardson

(1990) posited that field experiences are an importantpart of the "leaming-to-teach process" (p. 12), andKaufman (1996) ftarther opined that field experiencesimprove teacher learning through hands-on, minds-onexperiences. Additionally, Knowles' (1984) andragogytheory stated that experiences play an important rolein teaching adults and, Roberts' (2006) Model of theExperiential Learning Process, which served as theframework for the delivery portion of this model,exerted that experiences are key to the learningprocess. The use of field experiences in the model athand provides an outlet for experimentation by facultylearners.

Therefore, a typical faculty field experienceshould mirror Roberts' (2006) experiential learningcycle. First, participants in the faculty developmentshould be taught certain instructional techniques suchas inquiry-based instruction, cooperative learning,or other various active learning strategies as theinitial experience portion of the process. Instructionin these methods should utilize modeling of theparticular method being taught (Myers and Roberts,2004). Depending on the timing of the program,many faculty members will be teaching courses whileparticipating in faculty development, so the nextstep would require participants to use each methodin their own classroom, which would constitute thefield experience. Accommodations such as teachingto peers or guest lecturing could be made for facultymembers who do not teach a class during the courseof the faculty development program, or perhapsprofessional development organizers might wish tolimit participation to faculty members with teachingappointments.

Reflection on Field Experiences ^,_After the experience, the next major component of

experiential learning is reflection (Kolb, 1984; Myersand Roberts, 2004; Roberts, 2006). Reflection on afield experience is more than determining whether ornot a particular teaching method was effective. Adler(1991) suggested that reflection requires teachersto study, evaluate, and respond to their individualteaching situations to enhance their skill development.In addition. Gore (1987) expressed reflection as animportant factor in the continued growth of teachers asa means of developing open-mindedness to looking atnew ways of teaching. Reflection should help facultymembers develop an understanding of why certainmethods work. Examples of reflection activities ina faculty development course could be reflectionjournals, self-reported evaluation based on video self-observation of teaching, and group discussions about

NACTA Journal • March 2012 83

An Experiential

the effectiveness of certain instructional methods.Additionally, organizers of faculty development mightuse guided questions as one way of helping facultymembers reflect upon their teaching. A few sampleguided questions could include: (a) what aspects ofyour teaching went well, (b) what aspects of yourteaching might you change (c) why do you think thisactivity went/did not go well, and (d) how did yourstudents react to this activity? These are only a fewexamples of guided questions; faculty professionaldevelopment organizers could create a list tailored totheir situation.

Learning occurs in social contexts (Vygotsky,1978); therefore, peer observation should proveuseful in helping faculty members develop a deeperknowledge about teaching strategies. Kaufman (1996)posited that peer collaboration should be used whentraining teachers because it helps them with theirlearning as well as contributing to the learning ofothers. Sparks (1986) found that peer observation ofteaching signiflcantly improved teaching performancein three ways. First, peer observation helped improvemorale and ushered in a sense of team spirit. Second,evaluation of others may have helped teachers see theirown faults, and third teachers were able to receive newideas from watching others in the classroom.

A faculty development course based on theExperiential Learning Model of Faculty Developmentin Teaching would require faculty participants toobserve and evaluate a colleague's classroom teachingfollowed by a debrieflng session between the evaluatorand their colleague about the experience. This wouldserve two purposes for the faculty developmentparticipant (evaluator). First, it would help themgeneralize the knowledge learned in the facultydevelopment course because they would see theteaching methods used in different contexts. This stepaligns with Roberts' (2006) model, as generalizationfollows reflection in the experiential learning processmodel. Additionally, it would help evaluators reflecton their own teaching practices.

follow-up/EvaluationThe last phase of the Experiential Learning

Model of Faculty Development in Teaching is thefollow-up/evaluation stage. Myers and Roberts(2004) argued evaluation is an essential component offaculty professional development. Kirkpatrick (1998)offered three reasons that substantiate the need forevaluation: (a) evaluation provides justiflcation forthe program and personnel involved; (b) evaluation

shows the needs for future faculty development; and(c) the effectiveness of the program can be measuredalong with suggestions for improvement. In addition,Kirkpatrick suggested that evaluation should occur atfour levels, the flrst of which is participant reaction.Participant reaction provides professional developersinformation concerning participants' thoughts aboutthe faculty development. The second level of evaluationsuggested by Kirkpatrick is actual learning, which tellsprofessional developers what skills and knowledgewere acquired as a result of the faculty development.The third level of evaluation examines behaviorchanges as a result of the faculty development, while thelast level of evaluation, results, seeks to determine theactual impact of the faculty development. Evaluationcan occur in a variety of ways; however, evaluationshould be included in faculty development programsas a means of assessing effectiveness.

ConclusionSocietal changes, including growth in technology,

population, and globalization, have prompted theneed for improvements in the way undergraduates areequipped for the workplace (NRC, 2009). Researchshows a need to improve classroom instruction,with faculty professional development as the meansto accomplishing this (Myers and Roberts, 2004).Adhering to adult learning, constructivist, andexperiential learning theories, faculty professionaldevelopment should engage the participants andprovide them learning experiences from whichto construct their knowledge. Effective facultyprofessional development programs focus onthe faculty learner, providing practical, context-specific experiences that can help teachers increasetheir repertoire of instructional methods (Myersand Roberts, 2004; Schlager and Fusco, 2003).Additionally, faculty development experiences shouldutilize the instructional methods being taught (Myersand Roberts, 2004) because as Richardson (1990)suggested, teachers' teaching behaviors tend to modelthe way they were taught.

Roberts ' (2006) Model of the Experiential LearningProcess was merged with Lawler and King's (2000)Adult Learning Model for Faculty Development tocreate the Experiential Learning Model of FacultyDevelopment in Teaching. This new model combinesthe programmatic aspects of Lawler and King's modelwith an experiential learning based delivery. The threestages included in the model are planning, delivery,and follow-up/evaluation. In the planning stage, thepurpose and logistics of the faculty development aredetermined, and during the delivery stage participants

84 NACTA Journal • March 2012

An Experiential

are instructed on how to use various teaching methods.Three specific strategies that correspond to Roberts'(2006) experiential learning process were introducedin the delivery stage to help reinforce the teaching ofinstructional methods. These three strategies were fieldexperiences, refiection on field experiences, and peerobservation. The final stage of the model, the follow-up/evaluation stage, is where the "success" of theprogram is determined. Participant reactions, actuallearning, behavioral changes, and impacts can bemeasured during the last stage to determine the overalleffectiveness of the faculty development program.

The Experiential Learning Model of FacultyDevelopment in Teaching should be beneficial inhelping organizers of faculty development arrangeand implement faculty professional developmentprograms. Recommendations for the model wouldinclude, introducing the model to faculty developmentorganizers, as well as testing the efficacy of the modelin designing and implementing faculty professionaldevelopment. Implications are that campus teachingcenters may benefit from the model. Campus teachingcenters typically provide support for teaching tofaculty members, and this model may offer one methodfor teaching centers to provide faculty professionaldevelopment.

Literature Cited ^Adams, K. A. 2002. What colleges and universities want

in new faculty. Washington, D.C: Association ofAmerican Colleges and Universities.

Adler, S. 1991. The reflective practitioner and thecurriculum of teacher education. Jour, of Educationfor Teaching 17(2): http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=2&hid=13&sid=82ca6749-c8af-4293-90f6- 6f46d662ee3c%40sessionmgrl0&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbG12ZQ%3d%3d#db=tfh &AN=9707085447

Association of American Colleges and Universities.2002. Greater expectations: A new vision forlearning as a nation goes to college. Washington,D.C: Association of American Colleges andUniversities.

Association of Public and Land-grant Universities.2009. Human capacity development: The roadto global competiveness and leadership in food,agriculture, natural resources, and related sciences(FANRRS). Washington, D.C: Association ofPublic and Land-grant Universities.

Barr, R.B. and J. Tagg. 1995. From teaching to learning:A new paradigm for undergraduate education.Change 27(6): 697-710.

Beard, C and J.P. Wilson. 2006. Experiential learning:

A best practice handbook for educators andtrainers. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Kogan Page.

Birman, B.F., L. Desimone, A.C. Porter, and M.S.Garet. 2000. Designing professional developmentthat works. Educational Leadership 57(8): 28-33.

Bok, D.C 2006. Our underachieving colleges: Acandid look at how much students learn and whythey should be learning more. Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press.

Boyer, E.L. 1990. Scholarship reconsidered: Prioritiesof the professoriate. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Brent, R., R.M. Felder, D. Hirt, D. Switzer, and S.Hölzer. 1999. A model program for promotingeffective teaching in colleges of engineering.In: Proc. Annu. Mtg. of the American Societyfor Engineering Education, Session 1313. http://soa.asee.org/paper/conference/paper-view.cfm?id= 14447.

Chickering, A.W. and Z.F. Gamson. 1987. Sevenprinciples for good practice in undergraduateeducation. American Association of HigherEducation Bui. 39: 3-7.

Dewey, J. 1938. Experience and education. New York,NY: Simon and Schuster.

Doolittle, P.E. and W.G. Camp. 1999. Constructivism:The career and technical education perspective.Jour, of Vocational and Technical Education 16(1).http ://scholar. lib. vt. edu/ej ournals/JVTE/v 16n 1 /doolittle.html

Garet, M.S., A.C. Porter, L. Desimone, B.F. Birman,and K.S. Yoon. 2001. What makes professionaldevelopment effective? Results from a nationalsample of teachers. American EducationalResearch Jour. 38(4): 915-945.

Gore, J.M. 1987. Reflecting on reflective teaching.Jour, of Teacher Education 38(2): 33- 39.

Harder, A., T.G. Roberts, N.L.R Stedman, A.CThoron, and B.E. Myers. 2009. An analysis ofthe teaching competencies of agricultural and lifesciences faculty. NACTA Jour. 53(4): 49-55.

Jarvis, P. 1987. Adult learning in the social context.London: Croom Helm.

Kaufman, D. 1996. Constructivist-based experientiallearning in teacher education. Action in TeacherEducation 18(2): 40-50.

Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land-Grant Universities. 1999. Returning to our roots:A learning Society (fourth report). Washington,D.C: National Association of State Universitiesand Land-Grant Colleges.

Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land-Grant Universities. 2000. Renewing the covenant:

NACTA Journal • March 2012 85

An Experiential

Learning, discovery and engagement in a new ageand different world (sixth report). Washington,D.C.: National Association of State Universitiesand Land-Grant Colleges.

Kirkpatrick, D.L. 1998. The four levels of evaluation.In: Brown, S.M. andC.J. Seidner (eds.). EvaluatingCorporate Training: Models and Issues. Boston,MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Kolb, D.A. 1984. Experiential learning: Experienceas the source of learning and development. UpperSaddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Knowles, M. 1984. Andragogy in action. SanFrancisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Lawler, RA. and K.R King. 2000. Planning foreffective faculty development: Using adult learningstrategies. Malabar, FL: Krieger PublishingCompany.

Loucks-Horsley, S., K. Stiles, and P. Hewson. 1996.Principles of effective professional developmentfor mathematics and science education: A synthesisof standards (NISE Brief, vol. 1). Madison,WI: National Institute for Science Education,University of Wisconsin-Madison.

McKeachie, W.J. 2002. McKeachie's teaching tips:Strategies, research, and theory for collegeand university teachers. 11th ed. Boston, MA:Houghton-Mifflin Company.

McLaughlin, M., D. McGrath, M. Burian-Fitzgerald,L. Lanahan, M. Scotcher, C. Enyart, and L.Salganik. 2005. Student content engagementas a construct for the measurement of effectiveclassroom instruction and teacher knowledge.Washington, D.C.: American EducationalResearch Association.

Merriam, S.B., R.S. Caffarella, and L.M. Baumgartner.2007. Learning in adulthood: A comprehensiveguide. 3rd ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Myers, B.E. and T.G. Roberts. 2004. Conducting andevaluating professional development workshopsusing experiential learning. NACTA Jour. 48(2):27-32.

National Commission on the Future of HigherEducation. 2006. A test of leadership: Chartingthe future of U.S. higher education. Washington,D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.

National Research Council. 2009. Transformingagricultural education for a changing world.Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.

Pascarella E.T. and P.T. Terenzini. 1991. How collegeaffects students: Finding and insights from twentyyears of research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Richardson, V. 1990. Significant and worthwhilechange in teaching practice. EducationalResearcher 19(7): 10-18.

Roberts, T.G. 2006. A philosophical examinationof experiential learning theory for agriculturaleducators. Jour, of Agricultural Education 47(1):17-29. Ç ;;n

Schlager, M.S. and J. Fusco. 2003. Teacher professionaldevelopment, technology, and communities ofpractice: Are we putting the cart before the horse?The Information Society 19(3): 203-220.

Smith, K.A., S.D. Sheppard, D.W. Johnson, andR.T. Johnson. 2005. Pedagogies of engagement:Classroom-based practices. Jour, of EngineeringEducation 94(1): 87-101.

Sparks, G.M. 1986. The effectiveness of alternativetraining activities in changing teaching practices.American Educational Research Jour. 23(2): 217-225.

Supovitz, J.A. and H. Turner. 2000. The effects ofprofessional development on science teachingpractices and classroom culture. Jour, of Researchin Science Teaching 37(9): 963-980.

Vygotsky, L.S. 1978. Mind in society. Cambridge,MA: MIT Press.

Wilkerson, L. and D.M. Irby. 1998. Strategies forimproving teaching practices: A comprehensiveapproach to faculty development. AcademicMedicine 73(4): 387-396.;- .

'• 1 . - . . ' J ' -

86 NACTA Journal • March 2012

Copyright of NACTA Journal is the property of North American Colleges & Teachers of Agriculture and its

content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's

express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.