Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 37(2): March 2011 Although this comparison of educator attitudes and course content suggests there are some inconsistencies in arboricul- ture education, several aspects of this comparison may inflate the observed disparities. First, online course descriptions are not highly reliable instruments for assessing the breadth of in- structional topics. By definition, a course description is a con- cise statement of course content that only mentions major instructional topics. In fact, many colleges have explicit limita- tions on the length of course descriptions provided by instruc- tors. Moreover, course descriptions are likely to be outdated because they are often crafted when a course is first offered and may not be revised as frequently as a course syllabus, par- ticularly if the official course description is subject to a strin- gent university approval system. While both of these factors may be at play, the authors of this study cannot attribute differ- ences in topic frequency between course descriptions and syl- labi to either the brevity or the timeliness of course descriptions. While course descriptions alone cannot fully gauge arboricul- ture course content, when combined with the more detailed and frequently updated course syllabi, these findings provide a clear- er picture of what is being taught in arboriculture classes today. Moreover, these findings suggest that arboriculture instructors should ensure that their course catalog descriptions are an accurate reflection of their course content. At a time when many collegiate arboriculture programs are challenged to maintain enrollment, in- structors must capitalize on every means (particularly online) to market their courses and attract new students. An accurate, well- written course description is an important part of this marketing. A second limitation of this comparative assessment is the origin of the data. The scope of the Elmendorf survey was much broader, encompassing both arboriculture and urban forestry educators. Their survey sample comprised 136 educators (out of 192 requests) in contrast to the 59 educators (out of 73 requests) sampled in the current study. Because urban forestry is a broader discipline than arboriculture, respondents to the educator survey likely rated a broader suite of educational topics as important. Moreover, the educators were asked to rate the importance of top- ics to a comprehensive education, not to a single course. Undoubt- edly, many of the arboriculture courses assessed here are part of a curriculum that also includes courses on important topics—such as plant identification—that are foundational to the course but not included in the course per se. Finally, there is an implicit assump- tion that the course syllabus is an accurate reflection of course content. As with course descriptions, syllabi undoubtedly show considerable variation in their itemization of course content— some are a single page summation of course activities and grad- ing, while others are a multi-page document describing course content on a daily basis. Thus, syllabi can also underestimate the breadth of instructional topics taught in arboriculture courses. Two-year Versus Four-year Programs Major instructional content of arboriculture courses was very similar between two- and four-year colleges (Table 2). Two ex- ceptions were the presence of tree identification as well as ISA or state certification in the two-year program courses—neither of which appeared in course syllabi of four-year programs. This finding may reflect differences in the educational mis- sions of two- and four-year institutions. In addition to offering associate degrees in arboriculture, many technical and commu- 55 nity colleges offer arboriculture certificates targeted to work- ing professionals and other non-traditional students. Thus, tree identification may be incorporated into an arboriculture course for students in these accelerated programs, whereas students in an associate or baccalaureate degree program may take a sep- arate dendrology or plant identification course. Further, ISA or state certification may be prominent themes of some voca- tional arboriculture programs that emphasize employment eli- gibility as an explicit course objective or institutional mission. Trends in Course Content The breadth of instructional topics gleaned from arboriculture course syllabi encompasses “cradle-to-grave” tree manage- ment, with greater emphasis placed on their preservation (e.g., disorder management and construction protection) than on their demise (e.g., rigging and felling). Frequent mention of tree physiology/biology, disorder diagnosis, soils/nutrition, and water relations suggests that these courses are well-founded in the basic scientific principles underpinning sound arboricul- tural practices. There is also evidence that arboriculture instruc- tion is progressive and responsive to scientific discoveries and advancements in technology. For example, chemical applica- tion was mentioned in only 10% of syllabi, whereas integrated pest management and plant health care were found in 15% and 31% of syllabi, respectively. Cavity treatment – once con- sidered an essential skill for arborists – was referred to in less than 10% of syllabi (and none of those referred to cavity filling). What remains unclear is whether these instructional topics are delivered in a theoretical or applied context. One may specu- late that theory prevails. For example, while pruning appeared in 85% of the syllabi, the term equipment (i.e., tools for perform- ing pruning) appeared in only 53%. Taking a closer look at the specific equipment for which instruction is provided, chainsaw was the most common implement mentioned, yet it appeared in only 26% of syllabi. Moreover, while one might safely assume that nearly all arboriculture operations have at least one brush chipper that is utilized on a daily basis, barely 10% of syllabi mentioned training in their use. However, infrequent mention of training on such equipment may not equate to intentional exclusion in course design. The costs of purchasing, maintain- ing, and insuring equipment – not to mention liability issues that are difficult for academic institutions to address – may be the limiting factors. In addition, many institutions may place em- phasis on science and management in their arboriculture courses and opt to develop practical skills through internships and ex- tracurricular activities rather than through formal coursework. Although safety should always be a paramount consid- eration in the arboriculture profession, the term safety oc- curred in just over half of the syllabi; likewise, ANSI Z-133.1 (the American National Standard for Arboricultural Opera- tions – Safety Requirements) was referenced in fewer than 10%. Though many courses may not deal directly with the more hazardous elements of arboriculture, consideration must be given to the production arboriculture positions many stu- dents will enter upon graduation or during summer internships. It is never too early to emphasize safety, and that emphasis should be an integral component of every arboriculture course. Collegiate arboriculture courses appear to be preparing stu- dents for diverse occupations that go beyond production arbori- ©2011 International Society of Arboriculture
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
