52 Wiseman et al.: Collegiate Arboriculture Course Content in the United States pact on the curricular content of collegiate arboriculture education in the future. Thus, even though educators have a tendency to agree on the fundamental aspects of arboriculture education (see discus- sion of Elmendorf et al. 2005), arboriculture course content is cer- tainly not standardized, and may be more a function of an instruc- tor’s education and training, personal experiences, and preferences. Over the last few decades, the literature on arboriculture educa- tion has focused more on describing programmatic structure and educational perceptions than on evaluating the content of curricula and courses. During the 1970s, the literature documented the ex- pansion of collegiate urban forestry and arboriculture programs (Andresen and Williams 1975; Andresen 1977; King 1977). By 1975, at least 52 North American universities were offering arbori- culture-oriented courses (Andresen 1977). Deneke (1978) provided curriculum content recommendations for collegiate urban forestry programs, and Ryan (1979) described four arboriculture courses of- fered by the State University of New York at Farmingdale. Surveys conducted during 1979–1980 identified 19 arboriculture courses and 12 arboriculture curricula being offered at 27 North American universities (Andresen 1981). In the mid-1980s, a survey of arbo- riculture employers revealed that private sector employers ranked tree surgery, tree pruning/removal techniques, cabling/bracing, equipment operation, and fertilization techniques as the most im- portant skills of graduates from arboriculture programs (McPher- son 1984). In contrast, public sector employers ranked equipment operation and cabling/bracing lower and instead emphasized the need for knowledge on planting techniques and insect/disease control. Occasional reviews of collegiate urban forestry programs were published in the 1990s (Hildebrandt et al. 1991; Hildebrandt et al. 1993; Rodbell 1993; Miller 1994; Sydnor 1997). Although these reviews provided some insights, primarily on urban forestry education, they did not explicitly analyze curricula or courses. In 2003, ISA funded a survey of 136 collegiate arboriculture and urban forestry educators in the U.S. (Elmendorf et al. 2005). One of the survey’s goals was to ascertain educators’ attitudes about ed- ucational topics. According to the survey, the five most important educational topics were tree planting, tree pruning, tree selection, tree soil and water relations, and tree structure and decay identifi- cation (> 90% of respondents considered each topic to be “very im- portant”). When asked to rate the adequacy of instruction on these top-five topics, 77%–90% of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that topical instruction was adequate. In comparing their findings to the survey work of McPherson (1984) 19 years earlier, the researchers surmised that “there is fairly consistent agreement about important arboricultural topics and their provision” (Elmen- dorf et al. 2005). While this work provided much needed insight on the perceptions of arboriculture educators, it did not include an assessment of arboriculture course content. To help fill this gap, the authors of the current research undertook a study to ascertain how well the content of collegiate arboriculture courses in the U.S. aligns with the expectations of employers and perceptions of edu- cators as documented by McPherson (1984), Penn-Del Chapter (2001), and Elmendorf et al. (2005). To answer this question, an exhaustive search of online course descriptions was first conduct- ed, followed by more detailed analysis of course syllabi provided by instructors. The objectives were to identify topics being taught in undergraduate arboriculture courses, rank their frequency of oc- currence, and identify trends in arboriculture course content. This assessment provides a foundation for future discussions of arbori- culture education at colleges and universities in the United States. ©2011 International Society of Arboriculture MATERIALS AND METHODS Course Description Assessment In early 2008, a preliminary review of online course catalogs from 279 U.S. colleges offering degrees in forestry, horticulture, and related disciplines was conducted to identify undergraduate arboriculture courses. The pool of colleges was synthesized from listings provided by ISA (ISA 2008), Tree Care Industry Associa- tion (TCIA 2008), and Davey Tree Expert Company (M. Noark, pers. comm.). The review identified 94 institutions (both two-year and four-year programs) offering a course with arboriculture in its title. Because some colleges offered more than one arboricul- ture course, a total 109 courses were inventoried. Next, the online catalog description of each course was reviewed to identify and enumerate topics being taught in the course. To do this, keywords found in each course description were classified into major topi- cal categories, and the frequency of occurrence of these topics was then tabulated. Topic frequency was calculated as the per- centage of course descriptions containing the topical keywords. Course Syllabus Assessment Course descriptions in online catalogs may not be updated reg- ularly, but course syllabi are invariably updated yearly to more accurately reflect course content. As a result, a syllabus-level assessment of the arboriculture courses identified during the preliminary research was conducted. The syllabus is a docu- ment prepared by an instructor that itemizes course objectives, content, policies, activities, and assessments (Parkes and Har- ris 2002). This document is distributed to students at the begin- ning of a course and serves as both a contract and learning tool. In January 2009, the colleges offering the 109 previously identified arboriculture courses were contacted to identify course instructors and request course syllabi. During this process, two additional collegiate programs surfaced, bringing the total count of colleges offering a course with arboriculture in the title to 96. Fourteen of these colleges did not respond to requests for in- structor contact information and nine institutions had cancelled their arboriculture programs and/or courses. Thus, 73 arboricul- ture instructors were contacted to request copies of their course syllabi (Appendix). Syllabi for 68 courses (41 from two-year programs and 27 from four-year programs) taught by 59 instruc- tors were obtained by the March 2009 submission deadline. As in the course description assessment, each syllabus was reviewed to identify and enumerate topics being taught in the courses. Instructional topics were itemized based on topical key- words found in the syllabi and then classified as either major, supportive, or miscellaneous topics depending on their specific- ity and frequency of occurrence. A major topic associated with a supportive topic (e.g., major topic disorders, and supportive topic diseases) was tallied whenever its supportive topic was tallied, whether or not the major topic keyword was explicitly stated in the syllabus. Topic frequency was calculated as the percentage of syllabi containing the topical keywords. In addi- tion, instructional topics were classified as either two- or four- year college level based on the degree program within which the course was offered. Abundance and frequency of major in- structional topics in two-year and four-year course syllabi were compared statistically using Welch’s t-test and χ2 homogeneity of proportions test, respectively, at the a = 0.05 significance level.
March 2011
| Title Name |
Pages |
Delete |
Url |
| Empty |
Search Text Block
Page #page_num
#doc_title
Hi $receivername|$receiveremail,
$sendername|$senderemail wrote these comments for you:
$message
$sendername|$senderemail would like for you to view the following digital edition.
Please click on the page below to be directed to the digital edition:
$thumbnail$pagenum
$link$pagenum
Your form submission was a success. You will be contacted by Washington Gas with follow-up information regarding your request.
This process might take longer please wait
