The Effects of Teaching Methods in Leadership Knowledge Retention

Abstract

Finding an effective teaching methodology for leadership educators is daunting. In this experimental study undergraduate leadership students' retention of knowledge was tested after receiving leadership instruction via lecture, experiential learning, and public pedagogy. Results show lecture is an inferior method of teaching leadership while public pedagogy had effective and consistent results.

Full text

Journal of Leadership Education Volume 9, Issue 2 – Summer 2010
86
The Effects of Teaching Methods in Leadership
Knowledge Retention: An Experimental Design of
Lecture, Experiential, and Public Pedagogy
Jennifer Williams, Ph.D.
Texas A&M University
dr.jen@tamu.edu
Megan McClure, MAL
University of Georgia
mcclurem@tamu.edu
Abstract
Finding an effective teaching methodology for leadership educators is daunting.
In this experimental study undergraduate leadership students’ retention of
knowledge was tested after receiving leadership instruction via lecture,
experiential learning, and public pedagogy. Results show lecture is an inferior
method of teaching leadership while public pedagogy had effective and consistent
results.
Introduction
Teachers of leadership face the difficult task of explaining abstract concepts and
ideas to students. The lecture method has long since failed these educators as an
effective way to present their information (Halpern, 2000
)
. Therefore, exploring
the efficacy of a variety of teaching methods for leadership educators is important
due to the potential to determine best practices for classroom delivery.
Popular culture surrounds us in the form of mass media and social interaction.
This constant exposure to cultural expression has the ability to teach its
consumers, whether they are aware of it or not, through non-formal learning.
When non-formal learning from popular culture can, and does, occur daily within
the lives of adults, it might be a natural progression to move the site of learning
into a formal environment (Callahan & Rosser, 2007). Adult educators have
recognized the potential for popular culture to impact education and are
subsequently utilizing it as a teaching method. More specifically, leadership
educators have established the use of popular media in the classroom in an effort
to assist students’ in learning complex concepts such as leadership theory. This
utilization of popular media in the classroom relies on the ability of popular
culture to act as an educational tool, which is considered public pedagogy
(Giroux, 2000).

Journal of Leadership Education Volume 9, Issue 2 – Summer 2010
87
Educators wishing to maintain the full attention of students, particularly those
educators teaching subjects that have nebulous concepts such as leadership, may
be interested in new instruction methods. Due to the lack of historical precedence
regarding the best method for teaching leadership, further exploration of new
teaching methods is required. Public pedagogy is one such new teaching method
and has not been researched to determine its effectiveness when applied to
leadership. For this study a static-group comparison design was utilized to test the
knowledge retention of three sections of ALDR 3900 Leadership and Service
students on the Kouzes and Posner (2007) leadership practice of Challenge the
Process. The content was delivered to the students via lecture, experiential
learning, or public pedagogy design.
Review of Literature
Educators and researchers have repeatedly acknowledged the drawbacks of
teaching with a strict lecture format. This format has been referred to as “a
method resulting in long periods of uninterrupted teacher-centered, expository
discourse which relegates students to the role of passive ‘spectators’ in the college
classroom” (Cooper, Prescott, Cook, Smith, Mueck, & Cuseo, 1990, p. 1).
Having students serve as passive spectators in the classroom may encourage a
drop in attention and decreases their retention of knowledge. Young, Robinson,
and Alberts (2009) found that the drop in attention “is avoided when presentation
is varied, though this is not necessarily associated with interactive participation
techniques” (p. 41). The incorporation of popular culture into presentations
provides for a variety in lecture and does not require interactive participation, thus
serving as a viable way to avoid a drop in attention.
Popular Culture
“Recognizing the influence of popular culture in our own lives is the first step to
harnessing its educational potential” (Thompson, 2007, p. 83). What exactly is
popular culture? A variety of meanings exist, but Lull’s (as cited in Rogers, 2002)
definition is the most applicable to this research: “commercially successful,
mainstream, mass mediated cultural artifacts and personalities” (p. 190). These
cultural artifacts include newspapers, books, the Internet, music and movies, all
which serve to entertain and educate us. The effects of such entertaining and
educating gives rise to two views on popular culture and its use for society.
One view of popular culture insists that it is “a space where learners are taught
hegemonic ways of being in the world” (Wright & Sandlin, 2009, p. 126). This
view, based on Antonio Gramsci’s (1971) idea of hegemony, casts popular culture
in a negative light due to its influence on consumers. While it is acknowledged
that popular culture can have a negative impact on consumers and critical media
literacy is suggested, this view is beyond the focus of the proposed research.

Journal of Leadership Education Volume 9, Issue 2 – Summer 2010
88
A second, and more applicable, view of popular culture is as “a tool to promote
learning in the classroom because it is deemed a way to connect with adult
learners” (Wright & Sandlin, 2009, p. 125). Considering the previously mentioned
cultural artifacts and their application to learning has generated the idea of public
pedagogy (Giroux, 2000), or education that occurs informally and incidentally
(Wright & Sandlin, 2009). Giroux (1992) has found popular culture can help
create meaning and aid in the construction of knowledge, whether the consumer is
aware of the act of learning or not.
Non-formal Learning
Learning happens daily, whether through formal or non-formal applications.
Non-formal learning, also called incidental learning, can happen through activities
that are unplanned and informal (Foley, 2001). This non-formal learning can
happen daily and through a variety of activities. Kamis, Muhamad, Junoh,
Asmuni, and Idris (2005) found that 94% of adults in Malaysia participated in
non-formal learning by watching television, video, and film. Such a high rate of
non-formal learning supports Fieldhouse’s (1995) assertion that “it is arguable
that broadcasting has been the major adult education agency of the twentieth
century” (p. 81).
Certainly the popularity of television has increased the occurrence of non-formal
education, particularly through the demand for, and support of, television
channels that serve to educate while they entertain. In a study of women who
watched the British television show The Avengers, Wright (2006) found multiple
instances of non-formal learning. Additionally, Coles and Armstrong (2007) note
that historical films and television are shows popular in the United Kingdom
where not one, but two history channels are offered to television watchers.
Similarly, a quick look through the types of channels offered in the United States
such as Food Network, Discovery Channel, National Geographic Channel, and
Science Channel also would support the idea that non-formal education is
occurring while audiences are being entertained.
Non-formal learning also takes place via other popular culture media as found by
Jarvis (2000). In a case study conducted throughout a cultural studies course
examining popular romance books, Jarvis found “[v]ery few women chose
‘escapism’ as their reason for reading and were much more likely to say that they
read ‘in order to learn more about people and the world’” (2000, p. 198). This
non-formal learning via popular media also occurs through film as “cinema
assumes a pedagogical role in the lives of many people” (Hooks as cited in
Rogers, 2002, p. 2).
Adult Education
Knowles, Holton, and Swanson (1998) assert that adults’ learning is increasingly
self-directed as they mature. This self-directed education occurs via popular

Journal of Leadership Education Volume 9, Issue 2 – Summer 2010
89
media (Kamis, Muhamad, Junoh, Asmuni, & Idris, 2005; Jarvis, 2000). Wright
and Sandlin (2009) posit that educators “must recognize and use the power pop
culture wields in the lives of adult learners if they are to fulfill a meaningful role
in the education of adults” (p. 126). Teaching with popular media may help
students determine meaning of the material because “concentration on words
alone is not enough…no single code can be successfully studied or fully
understood in isolation” (Hodge & Kress, 1988, p. vii). Wright (2007) builds upon
Knowles, Holton, and Swanson (1998) finding educators should connect to the
learning that occurs outside of the classroom to help learners make sense of their
experiences. Educators who do not reflect on their personal engagement with
popular culture “may find themselves ineffective in facilitating learning because
they are too far removed from the lived experiences of the adults they seek to
instruct” (Wright & Sandlin, 2009, p. 124).
Educators who utilized public pedagogy found that students were able to critically
analyze topics seen within the popular media (Marshall, 2001), and became more
critically conscious (Jarvis, 2000). Wright’s (2007) findings that a popular British
television show from the 1960s informally educated viewers lead her to determine
that “[e]ducators in all disciplines can benefit from incorporating popular culture
into their teaching” (p. 70).
Theoretical Frame
The concept of public pedagogy is a variation of the Kolb (1984) experiential
learning model and the notion of constructivism in education. The theoretical
framework of this study is a combination of Kolb’s experiential learning model
and Dewey’s (1938) theory of authenticity in constructivist education. Basing his
work on Piaget and Dewey, Kolb describes four steps in the experimental learning
cycle. Figure 1.1 denotes Kolb’s model.
Figure 1.1 Kolb’s Model of Experiential Learning.
Concrete
Experience
Testing implications of
concepts in new
situations
Formation of
abstract concepts
and generalization
Observations
and Reflections

Journal of Leadership Education Volume 9, Issue 2 – Summer 2010
90
Kolb defines concrete experience as a “here-and-now” incident in which the
learner has full involvement. The observation and reflection stage is where the
learner reflects on the experiences from multiple perspectives. In the formation of
abstract concepts and generalization stage, students integrate theoretical concepts
into their actions. The final stage of Kolb’s model, testing implications of new
concepts in new situations, encourages students to utilize new theories to make
decisions and problem solve (Knowles, Holton, & Swanson, 1998). Svinicki and
Dixon (1987) note Kolb’s model integrated into the collegiate classroom has been
shown to increase students’ retention of material.
Constructivism “stresses all knowledge is context bound, and individuals make
personal meaning of their learning experiences” (Knowles, Holton, & Swanson
1998, p. 142). Dewey (1938) stresses the importance of not only contextualizing
material, but assuring the contextual frame is familiar to the student. Public
pedagogy is a pedogological tool which not only contextualizes theories and
concepts for the student, but also allows the student to be guided through the Kolb
cycle.
Methods
Hypothesis
H
0
: There is no difference in the rate of knowledge retention between students
taught the leadership behavior of Challenge the Process using lecture, experiential
learning, or pubic pedagogy.
Population and Sample
The population of this study consists of all students at The University of Georgia
enrolled in ALDR 3900, Leadership and Service (n=70). Students were enrolled
in three sections of ALDR 3900 on the Athens campus. They represented the
sophomore, junior, and senior classes. Subject selection was made by randomly
assigning each section of ALDR 3900 taught during the Fall of 2009. One of three
teaching methods was used in each section including lecture, experiential
learning, or pubic pedagogy. Section A had an enrollment of 18, section B had an
enrollment of 20, and section C had an enrolment of 32.
Instrumentation
Researchers developed the instrument utilizing Challenge the Process (Kouzes &
Posner, 2007) material as a basis. Eight questions consisting of six multiple
choice and two fill-in-the blank were developed using the sub-constructs
highlighted by Kouzes and Posner as essential learning in both the Leadership
Challenge (4th ed.) and the Student Leadership Challenge (2008). The instrument
was sent to a panel of experts to test face validity.

Journal of Leadership Education Volume 9, Issue 2 – Summer 2010
91
Design
A static-group comparison design was utilized for this study with the groups
consisting of the three sections of ALDR 3900 (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2008).
Traditional lecture was treated as the control group while experiential learning
and public pedagogy methods were treated as the experimental groups. To lessen
experimental bias, the researchers were not the instructor of record for any class
sections in the experiment.
Section A was randomly selected to receive the contextual information of
Challenge the Process via pubic pedagogy. Popular media clips including the
music video for Here it Goes Again by Ok Go, a College Sports TV story on a
deaf NCAA football player, and a Nike commercial featuring Michael Jordan
were infused into the base power point to illustrate conceptual points. Discussions
on iPods vs. Zunes, different symbols of change, and examples of Challenge the
Process seen on campus were discussed to aid in their assimilation of content to
popular culture.
Section B was randomly selected to receive the contextual information of
Challenge the Process via traditional lecture. A base power point was created to
teach the two main conceptual points of Kouzes and Posner’s Commitment 5 – (a)
search for opportunities and (b) experiment and take risks. In addintion, the five
sub points of (a) seize the initiative, (b) exercise outsight, (c) treat every job as an
adventure, (d) question the status quo, and (e) send everyone shopping for ideas
were used in the study (Kouzes & Posner, 2007).
Section C was randomly selected to receive the contextual information of
Challenge the Process via experiential learning. The base power point lecture was
used and two experiential activities were added. The Kolb (1984) model of
experiential learning was used to process the activities. Students were asked to
tell, pair and share an example of change they have been a part of, and role-played
the children’s book The Little Engine that Could.
The instrument was given to students post instruction as a closed note, closed text
quiz by the researcher. Two weeks after the initial experiment, the regular
instructor gave the students the instrument again. Four weeks after the initial
experiment, the instrument was given a third time to the students by the instructor.
Table 1 shows the number of students participating in the treatments and
subsequent quizzes.

Journal of Leadership Education Volume 9, Issue 2 – Summer 2010
92
Analysis
Due to absences of the students over the period of experimentation, 38 students
were present in class to take all three quizzes (54% retention rate). Data was
entered into the Statistical Package for Social Sciences 18.0 and means were
calculated and compared to delineate differences between and among the
treatments. Mean differentiation and summation was chosen as the proper
statistical methodology due to the low n for this study.
Findings
The null hypothesis of this study postulated there is no difference in the rate of
knowledge retention between students taught the leadership behavior of
Challenge the Process using lecture, experiential learning, or pubic pedagogy. A
comparison of the quizzes using descriptive analysis showed a difference between
mean scores between treatments. An analysis of summated means showed
differences in the mean scores. By both measures, the null hypothesis is rejected.
Retention of Material
Quiz 1
After each class period, students were given the first of three quizzes
(instruments). Table 2 shows the descriptive results. Section A, public pedagogy,
had the highest mean (76.39), Section C, experiential, had the second highest
mean (73.33), and Section B, lecture, had the lowest mean (62.50). It is
interesting to note the range between public pedagogy and traditional lecture.
Table 1. Participation in quizzes
Method Quiz 1 Quiz 2 Quiz 3
Group A 15 12 13
Group B 13 16 12
Group C 25 19 24

Journal of Leadership Education Volume 9, Issue 2 – Summer 2010
93
Quiz 2
Two weeks after the experiential treatment, the quiz (instrument) was given to the
students by the instructor of record. Table 3 shows the descriptive results. Again,
section A, public pedagogy, had the highest mean (73.61), Section C, experiential,
had the second highest mean (67.50), and Section B, lecture, had the lowest mean
(47.22). There was more than a 30 point range between public pedagogy and
traditional lecture.
Quiz 3
Four weeks after the experiential treatment, the quiz (instrument) was given to the
students by the instructor of record. Table 4 shows the descriptive results. Section
C, experiential learning, had the highest mean (76.67) followed closely by Section
A, public pedagogy, (73.61) and 30 points lower was Section B, lecture, (48.61).
It should be noted Section C had completed a test two days prior to the third quiz
which may account for the increase in mean between the second and third quiz.
Teaching Methods
Table 2. Quiz 1 Scores
M SD Min Max Mdn
Quiz 1
Section A (n=9) 76.39 11.60 62.50 87.50 75.00
Section B (n=9) 62.50 17.68 37.50 87.50 62.50
Section C (n=15) 73.33 19.97 37.50 100.00 75.00
Table 3. Quiz 2 Scores
M SD Min Max Mdn
Quiz 2
Section A (n=9) 73.61 15.87 50.00 87.50 75.00
Section B (n=9) 47.22 24.83 12.50 87.50 50.00
Section C (n=15) 67.50 22.56 12.50 100.00 62.50
Table 4. Quiz 3 Scores
M SD Min Max Mdn
Quiz 3
Section A (n=9) 73.61 15.87 37.50 87.50 75.00
Section B (n=9) 48.61 23.75 12.50 87.50 50.00
Section C (n=15) 76.67 19.40 25.00 100.00 75.00

Journal of Leadership Education Volume 9, Issue 2 – Summer 2010
94
Analysis of the summated means of the three treatments and the three quizzes
compared to the grand mean resulted in a discrepancy between public pedagogy
and experiential learning and lecture. Public pedagogy’s summated mean of 74.54
and experiential learning’s summated mean of 72.50 was above the grand mean of
67.68, while the summated mean of traditional lecture fell below the grand mean
with a value of 51.04. Table 5 shows the differences between the summated
means and grand mean.
Table 5.
Section Grand M SD
A 74.54 14.10
B 51.04 22.60
C 72.50 20.60
All 67.68 21.50
Conclusions/Implications
A main component of leadership development is education (Brungardt, 1996). As
more colleges and universities continue to add collegiate leadership theory and
application courses, it becomes more imperative for pedagogy of teaching
leadership to be studied (Williams, Townsend & Lindner, 2005). In this study
three teaching methods including lecture, experiential learning, and public
pedagogy were tested to determine the difference in student learning and content
retention.
Faculty has a direct impact on the learning of their students. Dewey (2006) states
that if the “habits of the teacher are so narrow and fixed, his imagination and
sympathies so limited, his own intellectual horizon so bounded, he brings [ideas]
to bear in a wrong way” (p. 549). Faculty must be open to modifying their
teaching methods. For the millennial student “it is not easy for experienced
instructors to recognize that the way they were taught and the way they have
taught is not effective” (Taylor, 2006, p. 251).
The findings of the study showed knowledge retention was highest and most
consistent over time for the students who received their information via public
pedagogy. This supports the findings of Jarvis (2000), Marshall (2001), and
Wright (2007) who found students engaged more in the curriculum when public

Journal of Leadership Education Volume 9, Issue 2 – Summer 2010
95
pedagogy methods were used. Kamis et al. (2005) noted that for adult learners
engagement equals knowledge retention.
It can also be concluded that traditional lecture utilizing only slides with key
information on them is ineffective in the knowledge gain and retention of the
leadership practice, Challenge the Process. The dramatic decrease in mean scores
for Section B between the first quiz and the subsequent quizzes show a severe
lack of retention of the material. This finding supports the work of Young, et al.
(2009) who found lack of engagement brought on by students being passive
spectators in the classroom led to decreased retention in material. The summated
mean scores of Section B being lower than the grand mean also shows it is an
inferior way of teaching Challenge the Process.
It can be concluded public pedagogy and experiential learning are more effective
ways of teaching Challenge the Process, with public pedagogy slightly more
consistent and effective. This supports the work of Champoux (2005) who
concluded that supplementing lectures with verbal and visual material enhances
the learning of the student.
If this study is generalized, the implications for leadership educators are simple:
lecture is ineffective. Understanding the teaching methodologies of public
pedagogy and experiential learning are paramount in students’ learning of
leadership. To test this implication, more research should be conducted.
Repeating this study on a larger scale, repeating with different leadership content,
and looking at the use of public pedagogy with other adult learners will strengthen
and add to the results of this study. As leadership education moves forward,
connecting leadership theory to student’s everyday world is imperative in the role
of leadership educators.

Journal of Leadership Education Volume 9, Issue 2 – Summer 2010
96
References
Brungardt, C. (1996). The making of leaders: A review of the research in
leadership development and education. The Journal of Leadership Studies,
3(3), 81-95.
Callahan, J. L., & Rosser, M. H. (2007). Pop goes the program: Using popular
culture artifacts to educate leaders. Advances in Developing Human
Resources, 9(2), 269-287.
Callahan, J. L., Whitener, J. K., & Sandlin, J. A. (2007). The art of creating
leaders: Popular culture artifacts as pathways for development. Advances
in Developing Human Resources, 9(2), 146-165.
Champoux, J. E. (2005). Comparative analyses of live-action and animated film
remake scenes: Finding alternative film-based teaching resources.
Educational Media International, 42(1), 49-69.
Coles, J., & Armstrong, P. (2007). Dumbing down history through popular
culture: Communities of interest or learning as consumption. Proceedings
of the 37th Annual Standing Conference on University Teaching and
Research in the Education of Adults, Queen’s University, Belfast,
Northern Ireland.
Cooper, J., Prescott, S., Cook, L., Smith, L., Mueck, R., & Cuseo, J. (1990).
Cooperative learning and college instruction: Effective use of student
learning teams. Long Beach, CA: California State University Foundation.
Dewey, J. (2006). Individuality and experience (1926). In Forgotten Heroes of
American Education, p. 589-594.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan.
Fieldhouse, R. (1995). Historical perspectives on future developments and
diversity in British adult education. Proceedings of the 25
th
Annual
Standing Conference on University Teaching and Research in the
Education of Adults, University of Southampton, Winchester, England.
Foley, G. (2001). Radical adult education and learning. International Journal of
Lifelong Education, 20(1/2), 71-88.

Journal of Leadership Education Volume 9, Issue 2 – Summer 2010
97
Franenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2008). How to design and evaluate research in
education (7
th
ed). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Giroux, H. (1992). Border crossings: Cultural workers and the politics of
education. New York: Routledge.
Giroux, H. (2000). Public pedagogy as cultural politics: Stuart Hall and the crisis
of culture. Cultural Studies, 14(2), 341-360.
Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks. New York:
International Publishers.
Halpern, D. F. (2000, March). Creating Cooperative Learning Environments. APS
Observer, p. 14-15, 29-31.
Hodge, R, & Kress, G. (1988). Social semiotics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Press.
Jarvis, C. (2000). Researching adult learners’ reading histories and practices.
Proceedings of the 41
st
Annual Adult Education Research Conference (p.
196-200), University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Kamis, M., Muhamad, M., Junoh, A. M., Asmuni, A., & Idris, K. (2005).
Informal learning in Malaysia. Proceedings of the 46th Annual Adult
Education Research Conference, University of Georgia, Athens.
Knowles, M. S., Holton III, E. F., & Swanson, R. A. (1998). The adult learner (5
th
ed). Houston: Gulf.
Kolb, D. A., (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning
and development. Englewood-Cliffs, CA: Prentice-Hall.
Kouzes, J., & Posner, B. (2007). The leadership challenge, (4
th
ed.). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kouzes, J., & Posner, B. (2008). The student leadership challenge: Five practices
for exemplary leaders. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lull, J. (1995). Media, communication, culture: A global approach. New York:
Columbia University Press.

Journal of Leadership Education Volume 9, Issue 2 – Summer 2010
98
Marshall, D. M. (2001). Thinking outside the box: Using popular culture to
stimulate a critical thinking process. Unpublished master of education
thesis. University of Alaska, Anchorage.
Rogers, E. E. (2002). Waiting to exhale: African American women and adult
learning through movies. Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Adult Education
Research Conference (p. 327-332), North Carolina State University,
Raleigh.
Svinicki, M. D., & Dixon, N. M. (1987). The Kolb model modified for classroom
activities. College Teaching, 35(4) 141-146.
Taylor, M. L. (2006). Generation next comes to college: 2006 updates and
emerging issues. Self-study and Institutional Improvement, 2(2), 248-255.
Thompson, P. M. (2007). The influence of popular culture and entertainment
media on adult education. In E. J. Tisdell & P. M. Thompson (Eds.), New
directions for adult and continuing education: No. 115. Popular culture
and entertainment media in adult education (p. 83-90). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Williams, J. R., Townsend, C. D., & Lindner, J. (2005). Teaching leadership: Do
students remember and utilize the concepts we teach? Journal of
Leadership Education, 4(1), 66-78.
Wright, R. R. (2006). Popular culture, cult TV, and gender resistance: Informal
learning from primetime feminism. Proceedings of the 36th Annual
Standing Conference on University Teaching and Research in the
Education of Adults (p. 449-464), All Saints College, Leeds, United
Kingdom.
Wright, R. R. (2007). The Avengers, public pedagogy, and the development of
British women's consciousness. In E. J. Tisdell & P. M. Thompson (Eds.),
New directions in adult and continuing education: No. 115. Popular
culture and adult education (p. 63-73). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Wright, R. R., & Sandlin, J. A. (2009). Cult TV, hip hop, shape-shifters, and
vampire slayers: A review of the literature at the intersection of adult
education and popular culture. Adult Education Quarterly, 59(2), 118-141.
Young, M., Robinson, S., & Albert, P. (2009). Students pay attention! Combating

Journal of Leadership Education Volume 9, Issue 2 – Summer 2010
99
the vigilance decrement to improve learning during lectures. Active Learning in
Higher Education, 10(1), 41-55.

Journal of Leadership Education Volume 9, Issue 2 – Summer 2010
100
Author Biographies
Jennifer Williams is an Assistant Professor in Agricultural Leadership, Education,
and Communications at Texas A&M. She teaches undergraduate and graduate
courses in leadership theory and application.
Megan McClure is a graduate student at The University of Georgia in the
Department of Agricultural Leadership, Education, and Communication where
she is pursuing her Master of Agricultural Leadership degree.