6 pages., Via online journal., Plant Madness was a classroom activity developed and implemented for the Landscape Plants II identification course at Kansas State University. The game was modeled after the National Collegiate Athletic Association college basketball March Madness tournament and Bracketology. One activity objective was to provide students an opportunity to learn new and recent cultivars and plant species not specifically covered in the class curriculum. The activity also provided students opportunities to practice public speaking skills, an avenue to be creative, and simply have fun in class. In Plant Madness, each student randomly drew a plant from a hat and then students were randomly assigned tournament seed rankings (preliminary rankings). On specified game days, one student played against another student, each having 2 minutes of play. Student play varied, and consisted of defining different plant attributes, landscape appeal, and interesting facts, for example; or identifying the opposing student’s plant’s faults through riddles, poems, games, songs, or simply recitation. Referees (e.g., guest faculty, graduate students) reviewed student play and awarded points, and the student with the highest score advanced to the next round through the single-elimination tournament. A postactivity survey was administered [Spring 2016 and 2017 (n = 44)] to obtain student feedback. When asked if the students liked the activity, it was nearly unanimous, 98% liked Plant Madness. Similarly, most students (93%) self-reported the activity increased their awareness of new or recent plant cultivars. When asked to rate the activity compared with other class approaches for learning different plants based on a scale of 1 (excellent) to 5 (poor), the average rating was 1.8. Students’ average rating for their ability to be creative for Plant Madness was 1.8 (1 = to a large extent, 5 = not at all). Ninety-five percent of the students recommended repeating the activity.
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Document Number: C29796
Notes:
Pages 271-275 in Ian Scoones and John Thompson (eds.), Farmer First revisited: innovation for agricultural research and development. Practical Action Publishing, Warwickshire, U.K. 357 pages.
Johnson, Eldon L., chair (author), Evans, James (author), Fliegel, Frederick (author), Lancaster, Wilfrid (author), Malone, Violet (author), Santas, John (author), and Swanson, Burton (author)
Format:
Proposal
Publication Date:
1980
Published:
International: International Program for Agricultural Knowledge Systems (INTERPAKS), University of Illinois, Urbana, and Office of International Programs, Colorado State University, Fort Collins.
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 123 Document Number: D11185
Notes:
From the "INTERPAKS Academics" file, transferred from the International Programs records of the Agricultural Communications Program, University of Illinois., 16-page proposal, plus related meeting minutes and correspondence among authors regarding the proposal., Proposal from the Academic Sub-Committee of INTERPAKS to the Graduate School of Library Science and College of Agriculture, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
Pelican, Suzanne (author), van den Heede, Fred A. (author), and van den Heede: Center for Academic Development, College of Santa Fe, Santa Fe, NM; Pelican: Nutrition and Dietetics Training Program, Indian Health Service, Santa Fe, NM
Format:
Conference paper
Publication Date:
1994
Published:
USA
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 97 Document Number: C07905
Notes:
James F. Evans Collection, Ham, Mimeographed, 1994. 1 p. Presented at the Society for Nutrition Education, Portland, OR, July 16-20, 1994., Although marketing offers nutrition educators a number of useful tools and techniques (e.g., market segmentation and focus groups) for reaching audiences more effectively, we shouldn't limit our goals to those of marketing. The ultimate goal of education is different than that of marketing. Education seeks to build a context or a framework into which learners can "fit" new information. In contrast, marketing seeks to sell something to consumers. Even social marketing -- which promotes healthy behaviors -- seeks to "sell" those behaviors, not to educate learners to become independent decision-makers. Of course, most nutrition educators want to influence people's behavior, but don't we also want to challenge learners to think autonomously? Admittedly, education at this level may seem difficult or impossible in some settings. However, if nutrition education is to play an important role in achieving health objectives in the year 2000 and beyond, we mst ask whether our ultimate goal should be to "sell" behaviors to consumers or to teach citizens how to evaluate information so they can behave according to their own judgments.
Sligo, F.X. (author), Massey, Claire (author), and Department of Communication and Journalism, Massey University
Massey University, New Zealand Centre for SME Research
Format:
Journal article
Publication Date:
2007-04
Published:
Elsevier
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 16 Document Number: D10440
13 pages., Via online journal., This study reports on New Zealand dairy farmers’ access to and use of information as mediated through conditions of risk and trust within the context of their interpersonal social networks. We located participants’ reports of their information use within their perceived environments of trust and risk, following Giddens's [1990. The consequences of modernity. Polity Press, Stanford, CA] typology of trust and risk in pre-modernity and modernity. The research participants were constant users of interpersonal and print information from numerous sources, and monitored their incoming data in the light of strategic needs, reflecting their roles as both farming practitioners and business owners. Socio-spatial knowledge networks (SSKNs) combine individuals’ explanatory cognitive models of information acquisition and use with a micro-geographical analysis of their interpersonal networks. The participants showed characteristics of pre-modern, modern and even post-modern society in respect of their use of complex interactional forms, as well as a blending of individualistic and communitarian practices and concerns in their professional and personal lives.
