Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-c654p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-27T21:22:33.876Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Challenges in designing ecological agriculture education: A Nordic perspective on change

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

Charles A. Francis ,
Geir Lieblein ,
Juha Helenius ,
Lennart Salomonsson ,
Hanne Olsen  and
John Porter
Charles A. Francis*
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Agronomy, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, NE 68583-0910;
Geir Lieblein
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Ecological Agriculture Programme, Department of Horticulture and Crop Sciences, P.O. Box 5022, Agricultural University of Norway, N-1432 Ås, Norway;
Juha Helenius
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Plant Production, P.O. Box 27, University of Helsinki, F-00014 Helsinki, Finland;
Lennart Salomonsson
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Centre for Sustainable Agriculture, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), P.O. Box 7047, S-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden;
Hanne Olsen
Affiliation:
Coordinator, Centre for Ecology and Environment (CENVIR), Department of Agricultural Science, Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University (KVL), Agrovej 10, DK-2630 Taastrup, Denmark.
John Porter
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Agricultural Science, Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University (KVL), Agrovej 10, DK-2630 Taastrup, Denmark.
*
Corresponding author is C.A. Francis (cfrancis2@unl.edu).
Get access

Abstract

Educators in ecological agriculture are developing learning environments that differ in three fundamental ways from conventional teaching in agricultural universities and colleges. First, increased emphasis on food and production systems will expand and complement the current focus on specific disciplines and technologies. Second, introduction of research methods and learning objectives from social sciences will broaden the potentials for students to understand the complexities of food systems and the people who make them work. Third, action research and education will move learning activities into the agroecosystems environment and the human landscape, where students will learn from a broad array of people and experiences. This design of a new learning environment will enhance the education of students to serve agricultural and food systems well into a future that is changing at an accelerating rate.

Keywords

action learningagroecologyexperiential educationfarming systemshigher educationorganic farming
Type
Commentary
Information
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture , Volume 16 , Issue 2 , June 2001 , pp. 89 - 95
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Bawden, R.J. 1991. Systems thinking and practices in agriculture. J. Dairy Sci. 74:2362–2373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Berkes, F., Folke, C., and Colding, J. (eds.). 1998. Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience. Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar
3.Borsari, B. 1998. Sustainable agriculture: Concepts and educational applications. In Borsari, B. and Vidrine, M.F. (eds.). Sustainable Agriculture Seminar Proceedings. Vol. 1. Low Input Agriculture: Feasible Alternatives to Conventional Agricultural Practices. Louisiana State University at Eunice Press, Eunice, LA. p. 14–19.Google Scholar
4.Brandt, J., Tress, B., and Tress, G. (eds.). 2000. Multifunctional Landscapes: Interdisciplinary Approaches to Landscape Research and Management. Conference material for international conference, October 20–21, 2000. Centre for Landscape Research, Roskilde, Denmark. Web site http://www.geo.ruc.dk/vlb/ML-con tents.pdf.Google Scholar
5.Bruner, J. 1997. The Culture of Education. 2nd ed.Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Checkland, P. 1989. Soft systems methodology. In Rosenhead, J. (ed.). Rational Analysis for a Problematic World: Problem Structuring Methods for Complexity, Uncertainty, and Conflict. John Wiley, London, p. 71–100.Google Scholar
7.Dewey, J. 1997. Experience and Education. Macmillan, New York. Reprinted from Dewey, J. 1938. Experience and Education. Collier Books, New York.Google Scholar
8.Glesne, C., and Peshkin, A.. 1999. Becoming Qualitative Researchers: An Introduction. 2nd ed.Addison Wesley, Glenview, IL.Google Scholar
9.Gross, R. 1991. Peak Learning. Tardier/Putnam, New York.Google Scholar
10.Jacobsen, D.Y. 1999. Problembasertlaering og kulturer for laering (Problem-based learning and cultures for learning). UNIPED 1:6–18 (in Norwegian).Google Scholar
11.Knowles, M.S. 1988. The Modern Practice of Adult Education: From Pedagogy to Andragogy. Rev. ed. Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar
12.Knowles, M.S., Holton, E.F., and Swanson, R.A.. 1998. The Adult Learner: The Definitive Classic in Adult Education and Human Resource Development. 5th ed.Gulf Professional Publ. Co., Houston, TX.Google Scholar
13.Kunkle, H.O., Maw, I.L., and Skaggs, C.L. (eds.). 1996. Revolutionizing Higher Education in Agriculture: Framework for Change. Iowa State University Press, Ames.Google Scholar
14.Lacy, W.B. 1997. Educating lifelong learners for the American food system. In Lockeretz, W. (ed.). Visions of American Agriculture. Iowa State University Press, Ames. p. 219–230.Google Scholar
15.Lieblein, G., Francis, C., and King, J.. 2000. Conceptual framework for structuring future agricultural colleges and universities in industrial countries. J. Agric. Educ. Ext. 6(4):213–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.Lieblein, G., Francis, C.A., Salomonsson, L., and Sriskandarajah, N.. 1999. Ecological agriculture research: Increasing competence through PhD courses. J. Agric. Educ. Ext. 6(1):31–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Lockeretz, W. (ed.). 1997. Visions of American Agriculture. Iowa State University Press, Ames.Google Scholar
18.Neill, W.H., Vietor, D.M., and Thompson, P.B.. 1996. Learning systems: One scenario for systemic change. In Kunkle, H.O., Maw, I.L., and Skaggs, C.L. (eds.). Revolutionizing Higher Education in Agriculture: Framework for Change. Iowa State University Press, Ames. p. 95–101.Google Scholar
19.Patton, M.Q. 1990. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Sage Publishing, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google Scholar
20.Pickett, C.H., and Bugg, R.L. (eds.). 1998. Enhancing Biological Control: Habitat Management to Promote Natural Enemies of Agricultural Pests. University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
21.Popham, W.J. 1992. Educational Evaluation. 3rd ed.Allyn and Bacon, Needham Heights, MA.Google Scholar
22.Röling, N.G., and Wagemakers, M.A.E.. 1998. Facilitating Sustainable Agriculture: Participatory Learning and Adaptive Management in Times of Environmental Uncertainty. Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar
23.Salvador, R.J., Countryman, D.W., and Miller, B.E.. 1995. Incorporating problembased experiential teaching in the agriculture curriculum. J. Nat. Resour. Life Sci. Educ. 24(1):58–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24.Savory, A. 1988. Holistic Resource Management. Island Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
25.Schubert, W.H. 1995. Students as action researchers: Historical precedent and contradiction. Curric. Teach. 10(2):3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26.Young, R. 1992. Critical Theory and Classroom Talk. Clevedon Press, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar