No abstract

To adapt to major social, cultural, technological, and globalization forces, scholars frequently discuss the purpose, structure, and content of higher education in agriculture. Most agree that change in the curriculum is imperative. The questions are who will champion the change, who will implement it, and whether faculty are willing to be an essential part of the process. So, the purpose of this study was to analyze what the faculty of the colleges of agriculture (COA) of the University of Georgia and Texas A&M University perceived to be priorities for the curriculum and the degree of relevance associated with internationalizing it. Accordingly, the respondents' perceptions were considered to be proxies for their future behaviors. A census of undergraduate teaching faculty in the two COA responded to an online questionnaire. Interviews of selected faculty were also conducted. Faculty gave preference to improving student development of analytical and communication skills over enhancing technical content. Increasing international awareness ranked last in priority; however, internationalization of the curriculum was viewed as very relevant. The tendency to compare issues often dilutes the emphasis given to internationalization, especially if viewed as a mutually exclusive alternative. That tendency to compare is herein referred to as the "comparison dilemma." Selected findings and conclusions are discussed accordingly.

No abstract

Faculty development programs for internationalization of the curriculum in higher education are often evaluated for short- and medium-term outcomes, but more long-term assessments are needed to determine impact. This study examined the long-term (6 years) impacts on faculty from colleges of agriculture after participating in a one-year professional development program for internationalization, which included a two-week experience in Costa Rica with immersion in both pedagogical and global topics. The objectives of this study were to identify (1) the long-term impacts of the program and (2) the factors (program, personal, and environmental) that contribute to, or hinder, the success of internationalization efforts. Guided by social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1978), the researchers conducted semi-structured interviews with program participants (N = 8). Findings showed that perceived impacts varied considerably among participants and were highly dependent on their personal characteristics and their current environment, as predicted using social cognitive theory. Strengthened peer relationships was the most common and significant theme among participants, with sub-themes that included cross-departmental collaborations, a support group on campus, friendships/informal interactions, and validation of own scholarship. The other two themes included internationalization and new/broader perspectives.

Today’s college graduates in agricultural and life sciences must be prepared to work in a global society. Increasing the integration of international content into on–campus courses requires globally competent faculty members. This study reports faculty’s initial attitudes and beliefs about Latin American culture prior to participating in a 12–day professional development experience in Costa Rica and what they expected to gain from the international experience. A basic qualitative design was used for this study. Ten agricultural and life sciences faculty at the University of Georgia were included in the population. A survey instrument with four open–ended questions was used for data collection. Content analysis was used to analyze the data and trustworthiness was maintained by including an audit trail, triangulation, acknowledgement of researcher bias, and member checks. Three major themes (and several subthemes) emerged from the responses to the question on attitudes and beliefs about Latin American culture: U.S comparisons, beliefs about the country/region, and Latin American values. The preflection process and results should be integrated into international faculty experiences and used to help participants and trip organizers maximize faculty learning, and, ultimately, student learning.