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.field@sydney.edu.au (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.