HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Reiling, B. A. Articles by Umphrey, J. E. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Reiling, B. A. Articles by Umphrey, J. E.

Experiential learning in the animal sciences: Development of a multispecies large-animal management and production practicum¹

Department of Animal Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville 32611-0910

	Abstract

Top Abstract Introduction Survey Administration and... Course Evaluation and Discussion Implications Literature Cited

 
Students enrolled in an introductory animal science course (ASG 3003) at the University of Florida were surveyed (n = 788) over a 3-yr period to ascertain their current experience and career goals in animal agriculture. Sixty-one percent of the students indicated that they were from an urban background. Only 4% were raised on a farm or ranch where the majority of family income was attributed to production agriculture. Eighty-six percent of the students had minimal or no experience working with large domestic farm animals, but nearly 64% of the students wanted to pursue a career in veterinary medicine. Disciplinary and species interests of the students were highly associated with previous background experiences. Students from nonagricultural backgrounds, who were most likely to indicate a career interest involving veterinary medicine, were most interested (P < 0.05) in animal behavior, whereas the students of rural background were more interested (P < 0.05) in animal management. Thirty-three percent of students were primarily interested in small companion animals; 22% in horses; 20% in domestic farm animals, including beef, dairy, swine, or sheep; and 24% in undomesticated zoo animals or wildlife. The career goals indicated by most students necessitate practical application of animal husbandry skills that are often assumed as general knowledge. Thus, a multispecies large animal management and production practicum (ANS 3206) was developed to provide students with hands-on experience. It was an elective course, and students were encouraged to enroll for two consecutive semesters. Teams of students rotated responsibilities among four livestock species (beef, dairy, equine, and swine). Daily responsibilities at each of the units included feeding and monitoring growth of feedlot cattle and finishing swine, farrowing assistance and baby pig processing, and equine training and foaling assistance. Students were also involved with all facets of a working dairy. Additionally, students completed written assignments specific to their individual species responsibilities that included daily journals, worksheets, or calculation of performance measures. Weekly class meetings allowed for instruction and were used to manage the varied course activities. Using a 5-point scale (1 = poor, 5 = excellent), students indicated that the course further stimulated their interest (4.73) and facilitated their learning (4.63) of animal science concepts. Overall course evaluations ranged from 4.54 ± 0.55 to 4.85 ± 0.38 over a 4-yr period. As more students enter animal science programs with nonagricultural backgrounds, it will become necessary to reemphasize basic animal-handling skills and practical applications through experiential learning activities.

Key Words: Animals • Education • Learning • Teaching

	Introduction

Top Abstract Introduction Survey Administration and... Course Evaluation and Discussion Implications Literature Cited

 
Many departments of animal science have experienced dramatic changes in the demographics of their student population over the past 20 yr (Mollett and Leslie, 1986; Marshall et al., 1998). No longer is it the norm for students of animal science to possess an agricultural background, and this provides both an opportunity and hardship for many animal science programs. Positively, it may represent a recruitment opportunity because animal science can provide a tangible connection between animals and biology desired by many students. Negatively, there may be development of a dichotomous student population within the department. Nontraditional animal science students often have limited experience with farm animals, and traditional discussions of managerial practices used in livestock production may be met with greater resistance and confusion. In addition, traditional students of animal science with extensive backgrounds in production agriculture may become calloused to the concerns of their peers of urban background and resent the slower pace needed to adequately teach all students of an introductory course. Thus, courses that provide hands-on experience and teach basic animal husbandry skills are needed to meet the needs of a changing demographic distribution of students in the animal sciences (Marshall et al., 1998). Too often, husbandry skills are peripherally addressed or are assumed by instructors of animal science so that the science can be emphasized (Honeyman and Christian, 1999).

This paper will describe the background and career interests of students enrolled in an introductory animal science course at the University of Florida and outline the development of a multispecies large animal management and production practicum. The latter was designed to teach animal husbandry skills to nontraditional animal science students through experiential learning. The course engages students in the learning process, and students are forced to think about the implications of their actions and decisions (Bonwell and Eison, 1991).

	Survey Administration and Results

Top Abstract Introduction Survey Administration and... Course Evaluation and Discussion Implications Literature Cited

 
Students of an introductory animal science course (ASG 3003) taught each semester (spring, summer, and fall) at the University of Florida were surveyed over a 3-yr period (nine semesters) to gather information regarding their experience and background, species and disciplinary interests, and career goals in animal agriculture. Such information should influence the selection of course content and enrich the presentation by allowing instructors to make material more relevant to students (Burton and Kurdieh, 1997). This introductory course is required of all students majoring in animal science or applying to the College of Veterinary Medicine at the University of Florida. It is also a service course for other majors within the College of Agricultural and Life Sciences. Surveys were completed by 788 students. Nearly 54% of the students majored in animal science.

The GLM procedure of SAS (SAS Inst., Inc., Cary, NC) was used to analyze survey data. Information regarding student disciplinary or species interests was categorized based on background, experience, and career interests of students. Least squares means are reported for information sorted by these categorical classifications; means were separated using the PDIFF option of SAS, with a predetermined P-value for significance (P < 0.05).

Demographic information compiled from student surveys indicated that 61% of students grew up with an urban background, defined as an area with a population of greater than 10,000. Seventeen percent of students grew up in small towns (less than 10,000 population) and 10% were raised on acreages (less than 8.1 ha). Only 4% of students indicated an extensive rural farm or ranch background, in which the majority of family income was associated with production agriculture. Overall, 86% of students indicated minimal or no experience working with domestic farm animals (Table 1).

Thirty-three percent of all students in the introductory class indicated a primary interest in small companion animals, 22% were interested in horses, 20% showed a primary interest in domestic farm animals (beef cattle, dairy cattle, sheep, or swine), and 24% were interested in either zoo animals or wildlife (Table 2). If students follow through with their primary career and species interests, the ability to handle a variety of large animals could be potentially crucial for the majority of students.

Because few students currently enrolled in animal science at the University of Florida possess a rural farm/ranch background, it became increasingly difficult for many students to visualize the purpose of various domestic farm animal-handling and managerial procedures. However, nearly 64% of students enrolled in the introductory animal science course wanted to pursue a professional career engaged in veterinary medicine (Table 3). Their primary disciplinary interest, however, was not focused on immunology (8%), microbiology (7%), or nutrition (5%) but rather on animal behavior (45%) and reproduction (22%). Although many of the veterinary-focused students were interested in companion animals (47%), another 47% were interested in large animals (wildlife, horses, or zoo animals), with which most had minimal experience. Large domestic farm animals can provide a model for students to gain experience and to study behavioral principles of animals in a controlled environment. Only 6% of veterinary-focused students wanted to be involved with agricultural production-oriented practices. Most of these students typically had former farm/ranch experience working with large animals.

This lack of experience was initially recognized in 1983, when an experiential beef cattle course was developed at the University of Florida to provide inexperienced students the opportunity to gain some daily hands-on beef cattle experience. Sixty-one percent of alumni who had enrolled in the original experiential beef cattle course indicated that they enrolled for the primary purpose of gaining more beef cattle experience and secondarily to enhance their application to the college of veterinary medicine (Marshall et al., 1998). However, the experience gained in this course was limited to beef cattle, and students often complained that hands-on activities became routine. Student feedback associated with this predecessor course in combination with information gleaned from surveys of students enrolled in the introductory animal science course (ASG 3003) provided the impetus for redesigning the practicum (ANS 3206) to better serve the needs of students by providing daily hands-on experience with beef cattle, dairy cattle, horses, and swine.

Course Structure
The Large Animal Management and Production Practicum (ANS 3206) is a two-semester elective course, and students are expected to enroll for both the fall and spring semesters. They are told about this stipulation on the first day of class and sign a commitment letter stating their intentions to reenroll for the spring semester. This is a critical component of the course because some activities conducted during the two semesters differ and other activities carry over from fall to spring. Students receive up to two college credits per semester for the course.

During the first 3 yr of course offering, critical components necessary to manage the course were identified as follows: 1) providing continuity between student groups as they changed species responsibilities and 2) providing adequate time (4-wk minimum) for students to work with a given species. The latter was especially true for the equine rotation, in which students learned and practiced various training techniques. However, periods longer than 4 wk resulted in more complaints and boredom. It was also discovered that primary responsibilities should be limited to one species. When students were required to work with a larger group, having long-term simultaneous responsibility for two species, more problems with communication and time commitments were encountered.

Students were divided into groups of six students each. Each group was subdivided into three pairs of students, and each pair was assigned responsibility for a different species. Students spent 3 wk working with their initially assigned species and then rotated. A transition week was inserted between each of the 4-wk species periods. During the transition week, all students within a group assembled at the beef unit on d 1, the horse unit on d 2, and the swine unit on d 3. During this time, students with primary responsibility for that species informed other members of their group concerning responsibilities and problems encountered. Faculty or trained staff members were present to monitor the information exchange and initiate educational discussions related to their projects. The transition week also functioned in a critical role by allowing students an opportunity to further observe the progress of their animals after completion of a species rotation.

This rotational pattern worked well when three different species were used and if species activities could be oriented to fit any time frame during the semester. After the first year, requests were made to include a dairy cattle experience. The dairy, however, was located approximately 48 km from campus. Incorporation of a fourth rotation greatly sacrificed the experiences learned with other species rotations because time spent with each species was reduced. Therefore, students were asked to individually make one trip to the dairy every 2 wk throughout the semester. Transportation was provided and students could make the trip on any one of four days during the 2-wk period. The dairy trip lasted approximately 3 h, and a specific activity was conducted each week. Throughout the semester, students were involved in seven planned activities at the dairy. Because students had to make this trip only once every 2 wk, dairy responsibilities were undertaken in addition to other species responsibilities.

During the spring semester, student responsibilities for the equine portion of the class involved a foal watch and imprint training of the newborn foal. Because there was a limited number of mares available and the foaling schedule did not coincide with the rotational schedule, equine responsibilities overlapped the other species (beef, swine, and dairy) responsibilities.

All activities and procedures either conducted by students or demonstrated by faculty were approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee.

Beef Rotation Responsibilities
To initiate the beef experience, students were involved with the initial processing of cattle fed during the course. Newly received cattle were weighed, vaccinated, dewormed, and implanted. Cattle were identified with a freeze brand, an ear tag, and an ear tattoo. Students were evenly dispersed among various stations where data were collected or cattle processed. Beef cattle faculty and staff members provided each group with safety guidelines, procedural information, and a demonstration of the procedure. Students were given the opportunity to assist and perform the various activities on their own. At all times, experienced instructors were present to provide instructions and to ensure the safety of both cattle and students. Students not performing specific processing techniques gained experience in proper animal handling as they moved cattle to and from the processing facility. Students were rotated through the processing stations, exposing them to all aspects of processing cattle.

After initial processing of the weaned steers, student responsibilities for those on the beef rotation included the daily feeding and monitoring of cattle throughout the semester. Students, working in pairs, learned to "read bunks" and adjust the daily feed allocation in response to feed refusal, sluggish appetites, and stool appearance. Students were also asked to visually inspect cattle daily for potential health problems. Whenever health problems arose, a university veterinarian was called to address the problem and discuss its potential solution with students responsible for the cattle.

During each week of the beef rotation, students were required to participate in a regularly scheduled "beef activity" in addition to their daily responsibilities at the unit. During this time, students were provided with specific practice and instruction in proper animal handling techniques. These activities involved working cattle through a variety of handling facilities and situations. Students gained experience operating the sweep tub, sorting gates, and manual and hydraulic squeeze chutes. Other activities were designed to reinforce various animal-handling and behavioral concepts as students attempted to sort specific individuals from a group or sort calves from cows. Each week, the venue was changed so students would have to adapt their knowledge and experiences to new challenges. Although proper animal handling was the major theme, students also gained knowledge and experience in proper beef quality assurance practices.

During each of the transition weeks between rotations, cattle were brought through the processing facility and weighed, and students calculated performance measures, including average daily gain, average daily feed consumption, feed efficiency, and cost per pound of gain by the pen. These values were calculated for the most recent 28-d feeding period in addition to the entire feeding period. As cattle reached market weight, they were harvested and students collected carcass data. A final report detailing the performance, carcass, and economic data was submitted by each of the student groups.

Swine Rotation Responsibilities
Throughout the two semesters, each student was involved with the farrowing, breeding, nursery, and finishing phases of swine production. Farrowing responsibilities included preparing sows for entrance into the sanitized farrowing facility. When sows started to farrow, students were contacted and they assisted regardless of time. Students assisted the sow if necessary, dried off the baby piglets, collected basic data, and recorded their observations associated with farrowing. After being provided proper instructions by either swine management faculty or trained staff, students were responsible for all baby pig processing procedures. These included tying off navel cords, clipping needle teeth, docking tails, providing iron injections, neutering the male pigs, and ear notching for identification. Litter weights were collected weekly and students were required to calculate and report basic performance information associated with their sows and litters. After approximately 24 d, pigs were weaned and placed in the nursery. Postweaning, students continued to monitor their sows for behavioral signs of estrus. Once estrus was detected, students were given the opportunity to artificially inseminate their sows. All sows were inseminated three times over a 2-d period before going out of estrus. Thus, ample opportunity was provided for students to gain experience with artificial insemination in swine.

Student responsibilities during the nursery and finishing phases of swine production were similar to their responsibilities at the beef unit. Daily, they ensured that adequate feed was available in the feeder, that waterers worked properly, and that pigs were healthy. Pigs were weighed every 14 d, and performance measures including average daily gain, feed consumption, and feed efficiency were calculated. All pigs were processed through the university meats laboratory, and students collected carcass data. As was similar with the beef rotation, an overall group report that summarized their findings and observations was completed before conclusion of the course.

Equine Rotation Responsibilities
During the fall semester, students learned to train a weanling horse, approximately 4 to 6 mo of age. Before assignment of weanlings, the manager of the horse teaching unit discussed basic procedural and safety information. Each pair of students was assigned one weanling. Once students could catch their weanling in the pasture, they gradually exposed the horse and themselves to more complex situations. They trained the weanling to stand tied and to lift all four legs freely, without hesitation or confrontation, on command so the bottoms of their hooves could be cleaned, trimmed, and given proper care. Weanlings were trained to lead by halter at both the walk and trot on command. Students learned how to expose weanlings to new situations such as water being placed on the weanling’s back. Students also trained their horse to properly load and unload from a trailer. Near the end of the semester, horses were being lounged and learning proper voice commands for the walk, trot, and canter gaits. From a safety standpoint, students always worked in pairs and staff members were always available on the grounds.

During the spring semester, the equine portion of the course involved students in a foal watch and imprint training of newborn foals. These responsibilities were relatively short-term (1 to 2 wk) so they overlapped the students’ other species responsibilities. Students were placed in groups of approximately six to eight students and assigned responsibility for one mare. Extra mares were available in case the foaling was missed due to no fault of the students. Mares were moved to stalls in the foaling barn approximately 1 wk before their estimated foaling date. During this time, students from the group observed the mare daily for behavioral signs of impending parturition, and they conducted milk tests to provide evidence that she could foal within the next 24-h period. Once it was determined that foaling was imminent based on behavioral signs and the milk test, students were called to the unit. They remained on watch throughout the night from that time forward, and nearly all mares foaled between 2200 and 0600. After foaling was observed, students, with supervision, began imprint-training the newborn foal. The technique of imprinting involves continually massaging the colt over all areas of the body before allowing him to stand. The continuous massage of otherwise sensitive areas of the foal’s body helps to desensitize those areas so they will allow people to handle those areas in the future with less resistance. The imprinting process takes approximately 45 min, and during this time students continued to rotate and work on the foal. Other students observed and controlled the mare. Students continued to work with the foal for short periods of time (15 to 20 min) on a daily basis for 2 wk after foaling.

Dairy Rotation Responsibilities
During the fall semester, students visited the dairy once every 2 wk accompanied by a teaching assistant with training in dairy cattle management. The university dairy is a working commercial dairy where approximately 500 cows are milked three times daily. On each visit, students were exposed to a different component of the dairy. Students gained knowledge and experience involving the proper movement of cows, feeding of lactating dairy cows vs. developing heifers, the milking parlor, and proper injection techniques. Students also cared for newborn calves and were often present to witness cows during parturition.

During the spring semester, heifer calves, 4 to 6 mo of age, were brought to campus. Each student was assigned one calf and was responsible for breaking that calf to tie and lead. Near the completion of the dairy rotation, a showmanship contest was held in which all students competed. Interestingly, many students did not initially realize they were being judged in the contest rather than the calves.

Class Meetings
The practicum is a nontraditional course in which students engage themselves in the experiential learning process as their schedules allow, but their responsibilities are unaltered. Thus, communications and teamwork are of paramount importance to their success. To help maintain continuity and communications between students and faculty, a weekly 2-h class meeting was held. During this meeting, students brought forth questions that stemmed from their experiences gained working with the livestock. Various problems and concerns encountered by students were discussed, and potential solutions synthesized through faculty and peer input. Class meetings provided an opportunity to expand the knowledge base of students regarding principles associated with their hands-on activities. Topics of instruction included discussions and demonstrations on proper animal handling and restraint; recognizing and treating the sick animal; proper quality assurance practices; environmental issues associated with livestock production; calculations of performance measures; and carcass fabrication, sensory evaluation, and carcass valuation. Additional class meetings provided an opportunity for instructors to educate students about their perceived career interests and goals. For example, a practicing large animal veterinarian came to reveal his real-life experiences as a practicing veterinarian, and a panel of current students enrolled in the School of Veterinary Medicine discussed the topic "What is Vet School Really Like?" Other guest speakers discussed the various livestock industries and available career options, other than veterinary medicine.

During transition weeks, class meetings were cancelled. As a result, the class met as a total group approximately 10 to 12 times per semester. Between class meetings, communication was effectively facilitated by an E-mail list server.

Although this course provided students with hands-on experience, it is nearly impossible to simulate large-scale commercial livestock production operations in an academic setting. Thus, each semester, the class took a Saturday field trip to visit a commercial cow-calf operation, a commercial dairy operation, a commercial swine facility, and a commercial equine operation. For many, this provided their first opportunity to witness and discuss commercial livestock production with actual producers of that commodity. This provided support of course activities and served to stimulate discussion of livestock production practices. Field trips were required.

Grading
Because this course (ANS 3206) was designed to provide hands-on experience, student participation was vital to the educational process and to ultimate success in the course. Each species component accounted for one-quarter of the total points. Within each species component, two-thirds of the available points were dependent on individual student participation and one-third was determined from an assignment specific to that component of the course. To improve objectivity of participation scores, students completed peer evaluations of one another, but final participation and assignment scores were assigned by the instructor in charge of that species.

The beef and swine written assignments included a one- to two-page individual report submitted immediately after students rotated off either the beef or swine rotations. These reports included a review of activities completed and calculations of various period and cumulative performance measures. On conclusion of the beef and swine projects, student groups were required to compile information collected throughout the year and summarize performance and economic measures associated with their livestock. All information was either graphed or tabled, and students were expected to explain the basis for changes in performance and economic values throughout the feeding periods in addition to differences that existed between pens of livestock. Searches of the literature were not required of students except as they deemed necessary to develop plausible explanations to be incorporated into their reports.

During the equine rotation, students maintained a daily journal of their activities. The journal provided a record of training successes and failures. With the journal, problems could be traced to determine the cause of such problems and alternative possibilities for training success. Likewise, students maintained a journal during the dairy component when they trained young heifers to show (spring semester). When students conducted biweekly visits to the university dairy operation, they completed a one-page worksheet regarding the learning activity conducted. Although the emphasis of the class was to provide hands-on experience, written assignments provided structure and an opportunity for students to reflect on and evaluate the impact of their activities (Bonwell and Eison, 1991) on the animals and themselves.

Class meeting attendance was mandatory and, if students had more than one unexcused absence, their grade was lowered 3, 6, 9, or 12 percentage points depending on the number of unexcused absences. However, most students were highly motivated and rarely missed class. Letter grades were assigned upon conclusion of the course.

	Course Evaluation and Discussion

Top Abstract Introduction Survey Administration and... Course Evaluation and Discussion Implications Literature Cited

 
Mean student evaluations of the large animal management and production practicum (ANS 3206) taken over the first 4 yr the course was offered are shown in Table 4. Evaluations were completed by students upon conclusion of both the fall and spring semesters, with exception of the 1997-1998 school year, for which evaluations were completed only after the fall semester. The standard University of Florida course and faculty evaluation form was used and statistically analyzed by the College of Agricultural and Life Sciences.

In the second year, a dairy component was added, and four 3-wk rotations were used with a 1-wk transition period between rotations. It was soon learned, however, that 3-wk rotations were too short, especially for the equine rotation, in which students were attempting to train weanlings. There simply was insuffucient time for students to become comfortable with the horses, and vice versa, for students to determine the objectives and methods of their equine training program and for students to build confidence in their abilities. This fact was reflected in the evaluations as students were concerned that adequate background information was not provided (3.94/5.00) for them to be successful in various laboratory activities. Short rotations also did not provide adequate time for students to be involved with a complete farrowing cycle.

In 1998 to 1999, only two rotations per semester were used, but students had simultaneous responsibility for two different species of animals. However, to help alleviate the time commitment of students, larger groups were used. Communication among students within a group, however, became a major obstacle to their success in the course. As a result, adequate sharing of responsibilities among students did not take place, and time constraints (4.08/5.00) became a major concern of those who tried to be actively involved in all facets of the course. Obviously, three 4-wk rotations with a 1-wk transition period between rotations worked best, but this did not allow incorporation of the dairy component, which was highly regarded by students involved with the course.

Once again, in the fourth year, three rotations were used, and the dairy component became an individual overlapping activity as previously described. Overall, student evaluation scores positively reflected this change (4.85/5.00).

Despite administrative changes that were implemented over the first 4 yr over which the course was offered, overall course evaluations were always strongly positive, exhibiting a range of 4.54 (yr 3) to 4.85 (yr 4). The high scores are partially explained by the fact that when students engage themselves in the learning process, the learning experience is more interesting (Murry and Downs, 1998), and increased student involvement in a course has been positively correlated with student evaluation scores (Ramsay et al., 1988).

Although most students were involved with this elective practicum (ANS 3206) because of their interest in animals and because they believed the experience would enhance their application to the College of Veterinary Medicine, it still further stimulated their interest (4.73/5.00) and facilitated their learning (4.63/5.00) of animal science concepts. Instructors of this course have personally witnessed that students majoring in disciplines other than animal science were motivated to take additional courses in animal science. Likewise, Kesler (1997) reported that when nonmajors were introduced to the world of animal science, their impressions of the profession, science, and industry were improved. Agricultural majors who were previously involved with 4-H and/or FFA are more likely to complete an agricultural degree because they feel more connected to a department within a college of agriculture (Cole and Fanno, 1999), but those opportunities are often limited for students from nonfarm backgrounds. Courses that actively involve all students with ample hands-on opportunities may serve to fill a portion of this void, provide for greater connectivity to the department, and potentially improve the retention rates for students of urban backgrounds. As scientists, numerical information and comparisons are desired, but, as teachers, the written comments of students can be even more valuable. A few comments written by students upon conclusion of the course, quoted verbatim in the following list, demonstrate the impact that such a course can have on their educational program. Twelve percent of the students enrolled in the course were freshmen or sophomores; the remainder comprised juniors and seniors.

• I have learned more in this course than any other single class. The hands-on experience was invaluable.
  
• This course gave an excellent overview of options other than veterinary medicine, which is something I think is desperately needed by many of the students in the class.
  
• I have learned more about animal biology, behavior, and nutrition in this class than all others put together. I believe that this class will greatly contribute to my career as a veterinarian.
  
• This is the most valuable course I have taken at UF. I gained large animal experience I would have otherwise not had the chance to get.
  
• I think this course is an excellent experience and exposure for students who have not been exposed to this kind of environment.
  
• I have learned so much these past few months. I almost believe that this class should be a requirement for vet school; never had a class be so rewarding.
  
• I really feel like I learned so much that I could never learn in the classroom.
  
• The university should teach more hands-on courses. This class was very educational and very enjoyable.
  
• By far the most interesting, fun, and practical class I’ve had at UF.
  
• This is an excellent course! I’ve been recommending it to all I know who are pursuing an animal-related degree! I’ve learned more in this class than in any other class at UF.
  
• Everyone was very patient with all my questions. I’m not in the College of Agriculture, but I’m changing majors because I’ve been so impressed with the profs and this class.
  
• I have learned so much through this class—academically, experience-wise, techniques, and people coordinating skills. This is what learning is all about.
  
• This has been the best learning experience I have had with large animals. It was a lot of fun and I would have done it even if I wasn’t getting graded.
  

Negative comments primarily reflected the time commitment of students: "Working around and between class could be somewhat difficult, but it’s definitely given me a lot of invaluable experience." These comments were especially prevalent during the third year when students had simultaneous responsibility for two species.

Students learned to manage animals in production settings, but more importantly, students learned to work in teams and to communicate. Trede and Andreason (2000) reported that the greatest benefit gained by students involved in experiential learning activities was they learned to "work as a team to solve problems" (4.81/5.00 ± 0.39 evaluation score). Additionally, many students for the first time realized the great responsibility involved with livestock enterprises. As one student wrote, "[The class] opened my mind to the real work and management required for different [types of] animal production." The animals simply served as a tool by which other intrinsic managerial components were experienced.

Despite student-oriented benefits, the development of a multispecies large animal management and production practicum can present several challenges. First, it requires substantial time and input from either faculty or staff members. Five faculty members, who had expertise in either beef cattle, dairy cattle, horses, or swine, were directly involved as instructors in this course. Additionally, teaching assistants and trained staff provided supplemental instruction and supervision of students. This is necessary because when students who have no experience are asked to work with animals, it can be dangerous if not handled properly. Secondly, potential institutional liability, in the event of an accident, should be considered in accordance with each institution’s risk management program. Thirdly, there must be adequate numbers of animals located close to campus in order to reduce student transit time to and from the animals because the course already demands significant student time. It can be a challenge not to overburden students. Finally, it is a challenge to maintain communication with and between students and to maintain continuity between different species responsibilities.

	Implications

Top Abstract Introduction Survey Administration and... Course Evaluation and Discussion Implications Literature Cited

 
Basic animal husbandry skills are often assumed by animal science instructors to be general knowledge. However, as the demographic profile of students enrolled in animal science shifts from rural to urban, fewer students possess the skills and basic background to be successful in their chosen career. A multispecies large animal management and production practicum that primarily involves experiential learning activities to teach basic applications of animal science principles and animal husbandry skills has proven successful. Activities that involve direct contact of students with animals stimulated interest and facilitated learning of basic animal-handling skills.

	Footnotes

 
¹ University of Florida IFAS Academic Program Journal Series No. 28.

² Correspondence: C204 Animal Sciences, P.O. Box 830908, Lincoln, NE 68583-0908 (phone: 402-472-8960; fax: 402-472-6362; E-mail: breiling2{at}unl.edu).

Received for publication April 24, 2003. Accepted for publication July 31, 2003.

	Literature Cited

Top Abstract Introduction Survey Administration and... Course Evaluation and Discussion Implications Literature Cited

 


Bonwell, C. C., and J. A. Eison. 1991. Page 2 in Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. ASHE-ERIC/Higher Eduction Research Report, No. 4.

Burton, R. O., Jr., and Z. I. Kurdieh. 1997. Teaching farm and ranch management in response to students’ backgrounds and career goals. NACTA J. 41:33–36.

Cole, L., and W. Fanno. 1999. Survey of early leavers: Implications for recruitment and retention. NACTA J. 43:53–56.

Honeyman, M. S., and A. E. Christian. 1999. Learning and teaching swine stockmanship to undergraduates: A laboratory approach. NACTA J. 43:35–39.

Kesler, D. J. 1997. Introducing undergraduate students to animal science: A discovery course for non-majors. J. Anim. Sci. 75:273–276.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Marsh, H. W. 1984. Student’s evaluation of university teaching: Dimensionality, reliability, validity, potential biases, and utility. J. Educ. Psychol. 76:707–754.

Marshall, T. T., T. S. Hoover, B. A. Reiling, and K. M. Downs. 1998. Experiential learning in the animal sciences: Effect of 13 years of a beef cattle management practicum. J. Anim. Sci. 76:2947–2952.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Mollett, T. A., and E. K. Leslie. 1986. Demographic profile of students majoring in animal science. NACTA J. 30:26–29.

Murry, A. C., Jr., and M. O. Downs. 1998. An introductory-level companion animal care course: Student perception and subsequent performance. J. Anim. Sci. 76:1976–1982.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Ramsay, P. G., G. M. Gillmore, and D. M. Irby. 1988. Evaluating clinical teaching in the medicine clerkship: Relationship of instructor experience and training setting to ratings of teaching effectiveness. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 3:351–355.[Medline]

Trede, L. D., and R. J. Andreasen. 2000. An analysis of experiential learning and instructional techniques in AgEdS450 at Iowa State University. NACTA J. 44:35–40.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				P. White and S. Chapman Two Students' Reflections on Their Training in Animal Handling at the University of Sydney J Vet Med Educ, January 1, 2007; 34(5): 598 - 599. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. S. Kensinger and L. D. Muller Major advances in teaching dairy production. J Dairy Sci, April 1, 2006; 89(4): 1155 - 1162. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Reiling, B. A. Articles by Umphrey, J. E. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Reiling, B. A. Articles by Umphrey, J. E.