IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIII I IIIIII 310756 9604 U I. , .sm t. I}: Michigan State University This is to certify that the dissertation entitled An Assessment of Selected Attitudinal Changes Among Undergraduates in the Kellogg Rural Education Pilot Program presented by Barry J. Colley has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph. D degreein Agricultural Education . .1 Major professor Date Y//;3 /5ISI / / MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 n MSU RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to LIBRARJES remove this checkout from , your record. ‘FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. mi; 4? 2; “0&5 W7 1:00 008 7 “I." ~' 5‘ id’s ‘ 6 3 m IAN ASSESSMENT OF SELECTED ATTITUDINAL CHANGES AMONG UNDERGRADUATES IN THE KELLOGG RURAL RESOURCES EDUCATION PILOT PROGRAM BY Barry Jerome Colley A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Agricultural and Extension Education Michigan State University 1985 39alwo2 I (31986 BARRY JEROME COLLEY All Rights Reserved ABSTRACT AN ASSESSMENT OF SELECTED ATTITUDINAL CHANGES AMONG UNDERGRADUATES IN THE KELLOGG RURAL RESOURCES EDUCATION PILOT PROGRAM BY Barry Jerome Colley The problem based on the review of related literature and rersearch indicated the following: (1) Land Grant Universities were seeking to adopt more broadly based curricula; (2) instructional strategies were needed which provided greater awareness of career opportunities in the agriculture and natural resources industry; and (3) more integration was needed between classroom theory and field laboratory experience for undergraduate agricultural majors. The problem objectives included the following: (1) to provide field-based educational experiences to complement abstract theoretical study; (2) to provide an introduction into the interrelationships between managed agriculture systems and natual systems; and (3) to provide field study and field work to meet the backgrounds and career goals of nonfarm students. The purpose of the study was to assess attitudinal changes among sixteen undergraduates enrolled in the pilot program. The demographic variables included: minority status, gender, place of residence and agriculture major. Barry Jerome Colley The attitudes assessed were interdisciplinary thinking, experiential education and career opportunity. The resulting baseline information would be used for future research about the demographic patterns of undergraduate participants. The methodology included a one group pretest/posttest design. A stratified sample of the sixteen undergraduates was used. Data for the study were collected through an attitudinal questionnaire and a structured open-ended interview schedule. Anecdotal reports and participant observation were used to collect data on the instructional process in relation to undergraduate attitudinal change. An analyses of pretest and posttest mean scores were computed from the questionnaire data. The pre and post open-ended interview responses were categorized through content analysis. Percentage analyses were conducted on these response patterns. Verbal interactive processes relating to the attitudes of the study were described and interpreted. In conclusion, the greatest attitudinal change ocurred in interdisciplinary thinking. Minority, large city, female and agricultural production undergraduates changed the most. While nonfarm students asked more critical question, not all nonfarm students developed positive attitudes about production agriculture. Recommendations included: (1) replication of the study with program saff conducting evaluation measures; (2) Barry Jerome Colley develop inservice workshops to improve attitudinal evaluation; (3) provide more individual skill training; (4) provide strategies to deploy undergraduate resource persons; and (5) development of follow-up studies. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to acknowledge my appreciation to Dr. Eddie A. Moore for his continuous support as Chairperson to my committee and as a friend and colleague. I also wish to express my gratitude to my dissertation, Chairman Dr. Harrison Gardner for giving me the opportunity and support to conduct the study. Many thanks are forwarded to other members of my committee: Dr. Colleen Cooper for her assistance in the ethnographic procedures of the study and Dr. Ted Ward for his assistance in designing the study. Many friends and colleagues were supportive throughout my program and during the various stages of conducting this study. I wish to thank Larry Powers, Babatunde Kolade, Consuelo Quiroz, Roger Steele and Carmen Gonzales. In addition, I would personally like to thank the Kellogg Rural Resources Education Staff for their support and interest during the stage of conducting the field work. Much thanks to my wife Dianne who gave me moral support and encouragement. My appreciation extends to my children, Jeana, Kenya, Akua and Zahra, who missed their dad and warmly greeted him when he returned from the field. Others in my family, both living and deceased, are thanked for their life long guidance and love. This work is thus dedicated to the continuous bond and strength of my family. I am greatful to Bill Becker for the word processing, Marsha Walker for the proofreading and Brenda Montroy for ii the editing. Their assistance was invaluable. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .vii LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix Chapter I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Description of the Kellogg Biological Station Undergraduate Rural Resources Education Pilot Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Kellogg Biological Station Undergraduate Rural Resources Pilot Program Objectives . . 7 Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Need for the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND RESEARCH . . . . 18 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 The Nature of Attitudes and Implications for Higher Education in Agriculture . . . . . . . 20 Experiential Education: Theory, Concepts and Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 The Challenge of Experiential Education in Agriculture and Natural Resources . . . . . . 25 Experiential Education in Agriculture: Attitudes of Instructional Administrators . . 30 Attitudes About Career O-portunity . . . . . . 32 Attitudes About Interdisciplinary Thinking . . 37 A Systems Perspectives in Modern Agriculture . 39 Production Agriculture and Farmer Attitudes . . 41 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 iv Chapter III. IV. DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Development of the Instrument . . . . . . . . Instrument Validity . . . . . . . . . . . . Qualitative Data Collection Procedures . . . . Observational Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . Participant Observation . . . . . . . . . . . Observational Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION OF DATA . . . . . . Stage One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Questionnaire Data--Mean Score Results by Demographic Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . Mean Analysis by Group Demographic Variables . Questionnaire Data--Mean Score Results by Attitudinal Items . . . . . . . . . Mean Analysis by Interdisciplinary Thinking Attitudinal Items . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mean Analysis by Experiential Education Attitudinal Items . . . . . . . . . Mean Analysis by Career Opportunity Attitudinal Items . . . . . . . . . Summary of Mean Analysis by Attitudinal Items. Extrapolated Open-Ended Interview Data . . . . Analysis of Participant Response about the Concept System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of Participant Response about Observed Agricultural Systems . . . . . . . Analysis of Participant Response about the Concept Experiential Education . . . . . . . Analysis of Participant Response about Experiential Education in Relation to Career Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stage Three 0 O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O 0 Comparative Questionnaire Data-Mean Score Results by Demographic Groups . . . . . . . Comparative Mean Analysis by Group Demographic Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Questionnaire Data--Mean Score Results by Attitudinal Items . . . . . . . . . . . . . KBS Participants' Comparative Mean Analysis on Interdisciplinary Thinking . . . . . . . KBS Participants' Comparative Mean Analysis on Experiential Education . . . . . . . . . KBS Participants' Comparative Mean Analysis on Career Opporutnity . . . . . . . . . . Summary of KBS Participants' Comparative Mean Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 45 45 46 47 48 49 53 54 55 56 58 58 58 59 61 62 65 67 69 70 72 76 81 86 91 91 94 97 98 102 . 104 107 Chapter Page IV. Extrapolated Open-Ended Interview Data . . . . 107 Analysis of Participant Response About the Concept System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 Analysis of Participant Response About Observed Agriculture Systems . . . . . . . . 113 Analysis of Participant Response About the Concept Experiential Education . . . . . . . 119 Analysis of Participant Response About Experiential Education and Career Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 V. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . 131 Quantitative Findings in the Study: Questionnaire and Demographic Variables . . l3l 'Quantitative Findings in the Study: Questionnaire and Attitudinal Items . . . . 133 Qualitative Findings in the Study: Open-Ended Interviews and Demographic Variables . . . . 135 Qualitative Findings in the Study: Observational Reports . . . . . . . . . . 141 Conclusions Based on Questionnaire Data . . . 144 Conclusions Based on Interview Data . . . . 146 General Discussion of the Study . . . . . . . 148 Recommendations for Further Study . . . . . 152 Recommendations for KBS Program Planning . . . 153 APPENDICES Appendix A--CURRICULUM/ACTIVITY SCHEDULE KBS INSTRUCTIONAL PILOT GROUP FALL, 1984 . . . . . . . . . 154 Appendix B-~FIELD OBSERVATIONAL REPORTS STAGE TWO . . 166 Appendix C--UNDERGRADUATE AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES ATTITUDE QUESTIONNAIRE . . . . 220 Appendix D--KBS PRE-TERM QUESTIONNAIRE . . . . . . . 225 Appendix E--KBS POST-PROGRAM INTERVIEW . . . . . . . 228 Appendix F--KBS FARM AND RESOURCE LEARNING CENTER AND SITE PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243 Appendix G--NONFARM AND FARM RESPONSE To THE KBS PROGRAM 0 O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O 244 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248 vi LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Resident Study Curriculum and Instructional Activities for the Period September, l984-Dec., 1984 O 0 O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O 5 2. Student Hours Per Week . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. Variation in Evaluation Research Interview Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 4. Stage One KBS Participant Mean Scores on Attitudinal Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . 60 5. Stage One Mean Scores of KBS Participants on Interdisciplinary Thinking Attitudinal Items . 63 6. Stage One Mean Scores of KBS Participants on Experiential Education Attitudinal Items . . . 66 7. Stage One Mean Scores of KBS Participants on Career Opportunity Attitudinal Items . . . . . 68 8. Stage One Participant Response to the Concept System in Extrapolated Categories . . . . . . 75 9. Stage One Participant Response About Observed Agricultural Systems in Extrapolated Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 10. Stage One Participant Response to the Concept Experiential Education in Extrapolated Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 11. Stage One Participant Response to Experiential Education and Career Development in Extrapolated Categories . . . . . . . . . . . 88 12. Stage One and Stage Three KBS Participant Mean Scores on Attitudinal Questionnaire . . . . . 95 13. Stage One and Stage Three Mean Scores of KBS Participants on Interdisciplinary Attitudinal Items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 14. Stage One and Stage Three Mean Scores of KBS Participants on Experiential Education Attitudinal Items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 vii Table Page 15. Stage One and Stage Three Mean Scores of KBS Participants on Career Opprotunity Attitudinal Items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 16. Stage One and Stage Three Participant Responses to the Concept System in Extrapolated Categories . . 112 17. Stage One and Stage Three Participant Responses About Observed Agricultural Systems in Extrapolated Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 18. Stage One and Stage Three Participant Responses to the Cocnept Experiential Education in Extrapolated Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 19. Stage One and Stage Three Participant Responses to Experiential Education and Career Development in Extrapolated Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 Measurement, Design, and Analysis . . . . . . 57 ix CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The Kellogg Biological Station Undergraduate Rural Resources Education Pilot Program provided the basis for exploring the attitudinal changes of undergraduates involved in a program of interdisciplinary courses; applied skill training; and career and leadership development activities. Increasing the knowledge base on changes in attitudes about interdisciplinary thinking, experiential education, and career opportunity will be helpful in answering the larger more general question regarding the effectiveness of integrated higher education programs in agriculture and natural resources. It would be particularly important in respect to students with nonfarm backgrounds and those students limited to speciality farm backgrounds. Moreover, it is important to assess the attitudinal changes among these categories of students who would assume primary leadership roles in moving towards the development of a sustainable agriculture as we reach the let Century. Several Land Grant Universities have conducted expanded experiential education programs for undergraduates in the colleges of agriculture and natural resources. Yet, very few have utilized a pre—post study design to assess attitudinal changes among undergraduate participants. A major purpose of this study was to assess the program prOCess and the instructional strategies which impacted on the attitudinal changes of undergraduate participants. This information would serve as a nucleus for which further research could be conducted and as a basis for improving agriculture and natural resources education programs. This information can provide a basis for improving agriculture and natural resources education programs. Description of the Kellogg Biological Station Undergraduate Rural Resources Education Pilot Program The pilot program for undergraduates in agriculture and allied fields was established by Michigan State University. The program was financed by a five year grant from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation and was known as the Kellogg Biological Station (KBS) Undergraduate Rural Resources Education Program. The program started with 16 students in residence at the KBS site, about 70 miles from the main campus, during the fall term 1984. It was expected that approximately 48 students would participate in each subsequent spring and fall terms. Each term was 18 weeks in duration. The program was designed to develop future leaders through an introduction to agriculture and natural resources systems. The goal was to provide a broad, intergrated and meaningful framework at an early stage of training upon which more disciplinary focused courses could be superimposed throughout the student's Bachelor degree program. Another goal was to assist the student in clarifying and identifying career interests. A course of study was designed by a faculty group to provide a philosophical framework that transcended traditional views and approaches of instruction in agriculture and natural resources. It was felt that hands-on activities would make educational experiences more effective and interactive. The curriculum had been developed to meet the needs of a broad student body having divergent career orientations. Such a curriculum provided an opportunity to bridge differences in closely allied fields. The instructional strategies included lecture, small group discussion, laboratory practicums and field trips. The course content included basic coverage of crop and soil sciences, animal science, farm management, agricultural mechanics, forestry, natural resources, resource management, computer applications and programming, and leadership development. A KBS Student Club was established and organized around a series of committees including a leadership committee, a promotional committee, a savings and earnings committee, and a social committee. The club meetings were conducted democratically, and they were based on the parliamentary procedures patterned after the Future Farmers of America student organization. Thus, the more specialized aspects of agriculture were integrated along with the introductory concepts of social interactions. The resources and facilities at KBS provided an opportunity to integrate coursework in a manner that was limited at the campus setting. The program staff which provided the planning, implementation, coordination and specified areas of instruction included a program coordinator, lead instructor, curriculum assistant, an agricultural engineering laboratory instructor and animal science laboratory instructor. Most of the resource persons were Michigan State University faculty members, but several outside resource people such as farmers and Agricultural Extension workers made presentations to the participants. There also were presentations in the form of a lecture or discussion or practicums prov1ded by various resource people at the KBS site. They were directors, supervisors or technicians who were employed at KBS and provided learning activites at the recently completed Dairy Center, the Farm learning Center, the Forest and the Bird Sanctuary. The basic curriculum and time allocation of the KBS Undergraduate Rural Resources Education Pilot Program are presented in Tables One and Two. In addition, Table Two describes how these hours were structured. For a more complete account of the curriculum and instructional activity schedule of the pilot program see Appendix A. The data in Table Two show that each student was TABLE 1 Resident Study Curriculum and Instructional Activities for the Period September, 1984 - December, 1984 Classroom Laboratory TOTAL Topics lect./sm. groups pract.(chores field trips HOURS Forestry 12 hours 9 hours 3 hours 24 Animal Science 18 hours 15 hours 10 hours 43 Horticulture 6 hours 4 hours 1.5 hours 11.5 Crops and Soil Science 9.5 hours 11.5 hours 3 hours 24 Agricultural Engineering 15.5 hours 33.25 hours ------- 48.75 Parks and Recreation 6 hours 3 hours 3 hours 12 Resource Development 8 hours 3 hours 9 hours 20 Agricultural Economics 6 hours 1.5 hours ------- 7.5 Entomology 1.5 hours 1.5 hours ------- 3 Agricultural Education 3 hours ---------------- 3 Waste Treatment --------------------- 5 hours 5 Leadership Development 26 hours 5.5 hours ------- 31.5 Computer Science 18.75 hours 13.75 hours ------ 32.5 TOTALS 142.25 hours 116.5 hours 34.5 hours 293.25 TABLE 2 Student Hours per Week Lecture Practicum Courses and and Field TOTAL Small groups Chores Trips HOURS * ANR 200, 201 nine credits 9.8 hours 9.7 hours 3.5 hours 23 ** Leadership Dev. three credits 2.7 hours 0.5 hours ------- 3.2 *** Computer Science three credits 1.9 hours 1.4 hours ------- 3.3 Totals 14.4 hours 11.6 hours 3.5 hours 29.5 * ANR 200 and 291 included all the agricultural and natural resources topics found in table one, not including Leadership Development or Computer Science. ** Leadership Development included personal, professional, and career development. kit Computer Science included basic programming skills, and applications to farm enterprise and resource development planning. enrolled in ANR 200 and 201, leadership development and computer science for a total of fifteen credits; practicums and chores included maintenance and construction activities. Each participant was scheduled for a minimum number of hours of chores and maintenance activities. Chores would include such activites as milking cows, feeding animals, constructing lambing pens and constructing cement slabs for farrowing pens. All students were assigned to learning teams to facilitate cooperative work effort among them. Kellogg Biological Station Undergraduate Rural Resources Pilot Program Objectives The researcher reviewed the original W.K. Kellogg Foundation proposal ("Rural Resources",l98@) to identify the objectives of the program. The following objectives were identified: 1. To provide field-based educational experiences in a realistic framework to complement otherwise abstract theoretical study. 2. To provide an introduction to agriculture and natural resource systems and functional interrelationships of managed and natural systems. 3. To provide courses and workshops to meet the particular backgrounds and career goals of nonfarm students. Purpose of the Study The main purpose of the study was to assess attitudinal changes among undergraduates enrolled in the KBS Rural Resources Education Pilot Program. The major thrust of this assessment was centered on the undergraduates' changes in attitudes about interdisciplinary thinking, experiential education, and career opportunities as they participated in the instructional activities at the KBS site. It is the researcher's feeling that this information would be utilized as a baseline study for future interpretation about patterns that may develop among different groups of undergraduates participating in the subsequent terms of the KBS program. Need for the Study There was a need for the clarification of curricula among administrators and faculty at Land Grant Universities today. Policy choices range from supporting specialized or differentiated curricula to supporting holistic or interdisciplinary curricula, or even to integrate both conepts in the curricula. However, at what mixture will specialized and holistic curricula optimize the learning outcomes of Agriculture majors. Despite substantial adaptions in the philosophy and mission of Land Grant Universities, the curricula has not substantially changed. Russell K. Mawby (1976, p.2) President of the W.K. Kellogg Foundation had observed: The colleges of agriculture have narrowed their scope of concerns to an almost exclusive preoccupation now with agricultural production ... with lesser concern for problems of the family of health care delivery, of social institutions and services of education. Future agriculture and natural resources leaders will need analytic abilities to intergrate knowledge, both empirical and theoretical, that extend insights into man/environment systems (Morrison, 1974). The requirements for a career in agriculture and natural resources continues to shift. As reported in Agriculture 2990, A Look at the Future (Production Credit Association, 1983) greater demands will be placed on graduates to become not only skilled technical managers, but they must become leaders highly skilled in the management of human relations. For example, plant breeders working for seed companies must have good interpersonal skills so that they can talk one-on-one with farmers about their problems (Production Credit Association, 1983). Knowledge about the attitudes of undergraduates in colleges of agriculture and natural resources could assist program planners to identify and direct curricula toward human relation skills. 10 The demographic backgrounds of today's agriculture and natural resources undergraduates are distinct from those of the past decade. Over half are now now female. Several years ago less than 50% of the undergraduates majoring in dairy science at Michigan State University had any substantial dairy farm background. Twenty-five percent of the undergraduates at the time of the study had no farm background. Traditional formal classroom learning is inadequate to provide farm experiences necessary to perform effectively in agriculture related employment ("Rural Resources", 1988). There was a need, then, for a study which analyzed changes in attitudes among nonfarm undergraduates through a program of directed form production experiences. Finally, there was a need for an evaluation study using both quantitative and qualitative evaluation methods to assess the attitudinal changes among different categories of undergraduates in the KBS Undergraduate Rural Resource Education Pilot program. Quantitative methods include the techniques of randomized experiments, quasi experiments, paper and pencil objective tests, multivariate statistical analysis and sample surveys. In contrast, qualitative methods include ethnography, case studies, in—depth interviews and participant observation (Reichardt and Cook, 1978). When used together the two methods can build upon each other to offer insight that neither method could alone provide (Reichardt and Charles, 1978). The utilization of qualitative methods permits the researcher to understand the 11 attitudes about Interdisciplinary Thinking during the one-term program interval, and if changes did occur, to determine if the changes were associated with participation in the KBS Undergraduate Rural Resources Education Pilot Program. To determine if undergraduate subjects changed attitudes about Experiential Education during the one-term program interval, and if changes did occur, to determine if the changes were associated with participation in the KBS Undergraduate Rural Resources Education Pilot Program. To determine if undergraduate subjects changed attitudes about Career Opportunity during the one-term program interval, and if changes did occur, to determine if the changes were associated with the participation in the KBS Undergraduate Rural Resources Education Pilot Program. To determine if changes in the attitudes of undergraduate subjects were on the basis of Minority Status during the one-term program interval. To determine if there were differences in the attitudes of undergraduate subjects at the beginning and the end of the one-term program interval on the ba31s of Minority Status. To determine if the changes in the attitudes of undergraduate subjects were on the basis of Place of Residence during the one—term program interval. 12 7. To determine if there were differences in the attitudes of undergraduate subjects at the beginning and the end of the one-term program interval on the basis of Place of Residence. 8. To determine if the changes in the attitudes of undergraduate subjects were on the basis of Gender during the one-term program interval. 9. To determine if there were differences in the attitudes of undergraduate subjects at the beginning and the end of the one-term program interval on the basis of Gender. 19. To determine if the changes in the attitudes of undergraduate subjects were on the basis of Agriculture Major in the one-term program interval. 11. To determine if there were differences in the attitudes of undergraduate subjects at the beginning and the end of the one—term program interval on the basis of Agriculture Major. Assumptions 1. It was assumed that differences among undergraduates occur often due to social demographics such as minority status, gender or sex, place of residence and academic major. 2. It was assumed that lectures, practicums, chores and 13 field trips as various instructional strategies impact student outcomes in terms of attitudes, knowledge and skills. It was assumed that if the researcher followed procedures prescribed by reputable researchers in the field of qualitative or ethnographic research methods that objective research data could be collected, analyzed and reported. Living with students on a continuous basis by the researchers was a requirement for collecting data on attitudinal changes. Linutations Since all the students were Michigan residents, generalizations of the findings about the population in the study were thus limited. The program evaluation design utilized in the study was formative. While such designs are well suited to small-scale pilot studies and experiments with newly deve10ped programs, it is difficult to measure the pace and the depth of student progress (Fitz—Gibbon and Morris, 1978). A before-and-after or pre-post design in the absence of a control group to compare outcomes have. been proven inadequate. Such a design, according to 14 (Fitz-Gibbon and Morris, 1978, P. 28) has difficulty in answering questions: "How good are the results, and is it the program which is causing them?" 4. The study, for the most part, focused less on program implementation and more on the differential impact of the program on undergraduates with different characteristics. That is, the study focused more on an analysis of various demographic groups. This addressed assessing the undergraduates for whom the program was working best or worst. 5. The study concentrated on changes in undergraduate attitudes rather than changes in their cognitive or psychomotor abilities concerning agriculture and natural resources competencies. Definition of terms Interdisciplinary: The interaction among two or more different disciplines. This interaction may range widely in areas such as: sharing ideas, intergration of organized concepts, methodology, procedures, epistemology, terminology, data and organization of research and education in a fairly large field (Conway, 1977, P.50).