Fostering Creativity and Academic Achievement Through Organisational Culture in Agricultural Education: A Critical Review of Approaches to Soil Management and Organic Farming
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper critically explores the role of organisational culture in fostering creativity and academic achievement within the context of agricultural education, with a specific focus on pedagogical approaches to soil management and organic farming. As the demand for sustainable agriculture intensifies, agricultural institutions must transcend traditional didactic models and cultivate cultures that promote innovation, experiential learning, and ecological consciousness. Organisational culture, defined as the shared values, beliefs, and practices within an educational setting (Schein, 2010), plays a pivotal role in shaping how students engage with complex agroecological challenges. Drawing on the frameworks of constructivist learning (Piaget, 1972) and creative problem-solving (Runco & Acar, 2012), this study reviews current educational methodologies that integrate practical, interdisciplinary, and student-centered strategies. Evidence suggests that institutions with collaborative, inclusive, and sustainability-oriented cultures are more successful in nurturing creative thinking and improving academic outcomes (Scott et al., 2004; Amabile, 1996). The paper further examines curriculum designs that embed organic farming and soil conservation practices, including composting, green manuring, and bio-fertilizer applications, as tools not only for skill development but also for critical reflection and eco-literacy. Case studies from agricultural universities in India and Europe are analysed to identify best practices and policy implications. The paper concludes that reforming organisational culture towards innovation and sustainability is essential for developing creative, knowledgeable graduates capable of addressing the challenges of food security and environmental degradation in the 21st century.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".