Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T22:40:35.087Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Farming systems education: Case study of Swedish test pilots

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 December 2008

Lennart Salomonsson*
Affiliation:
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Urban and Rural Development, Division of Rural Development and Agroecology, Box 7012, SE-750 07, Uppsala, Sweden.
Anna Nilsson
Affiliation:
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Urban and Rural Development, Division of Rural Development and Agroecology, Box 7012, SE-750 07, Uppsala, Sweden.
Sofia Palmer
Affiliation:
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Urban and Rural Development, Division of Rural Development and Agroecology, Box 7012, SE-750 07, Uppsala, Sweden.
Adam Roigart
Affiliation:
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Urban and Rural Development, Division of Rural Development and Agroecology, Box 7012, SE-750 07, Uppsala, Sweden.
Charles Francis
Affiliation:
Institute of Plant Sciences, PO Box 5003, UMB, NO-1432 Ås, Norway and Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE, 68583-0915, USA.
*
*Corresponding author: [email protected]

Abstract

We describe and analyze a pedagogical experiment that introduced a broad and holistic perspective on complete farming systems, systemic learning tools, and a participatory learning strategy at an early stage in agronomy education. The paper describes the adventure of three students, who came from a conventional agronomy program at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), who were frustrated with the lack of integrated approaches to the study of agricultural systems and a strong focus on molecular-level processes in their first year of education. They encountered a narrow focus in most courses and the overall curricula of agricultural education that is a function of specialization and university organization in unique departments that concentrate on small pieces of the large puzzle, that is the production milieu. In the current educational environment, it is difficult for students to make connections, integrate information and theories, and to create relevance to the challenges they observe in the practical world of farming and food systems. The three students agreed to put on pilots' costumes and climb into an experimental vehicle called experiential learning, one that provides just-in-time education and a very high degree of self-responsibility for the learning process. The paper describes, analyzes, and evaluates the comprehensive and exhausting pedagogical process they followed in one semester in Sweden and Viet Nam, with positive and negative aspects of the program. We provide reflective recommendations from students and advisors for future agronomic education programs with the focus on developing renewable agriculture, selecting students and evaluating performance, and designing practical programs that will motivate highly committed and action-oriented students.

Type
Research Papers
Copyright
Copyright © 2009 Cambridge University Press

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

1Odum, H.T. 1996. Scales of ecological engineering. Ecological Engineering 6:719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2National Research Council. 2003. Frontiers in Agricultural Research: Food, Health, Environment, and Communities. National Academy of Science, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
3Altieri, M.A. 1987. Agroecology: The Scientific Basis of Alternative Agriculture. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.Google Scholar
4Gliessman, S.R. 1998. Agroecology: Ecological Processes in Sustainable Agriculture. Ann Arbor Press, Chelsea, MI.Google Scholar
5Francis, C., Lieblein, G., Gliessman, S., Breland, T.A., Creamer, N., Harwood, R.R., Salomonsson, L., Helenius, J., Rickerl, D., Salvador, R., Wiedenhoeft, M., Simmons, S., Allen, P., Altieri, M., Flora, C., and Poincelot, R. 2002. Agroecology: the ecology of food systems. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 22(3):99118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6Daily, G.R. 1997. Nature's Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
7Lieblein, G., Østergaard, E., and Francis, C. 2004. Becoming an agroecologist through action education. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 2(3):147153.Google Scholar
8Salomonsson, L., Francis, C., Lieblein, G., and Furugren, B. 2005. Just-in-time education. NACTA Journal 49(4):513.Google Scholar
9Dewey, J. 1942. Democracy and Education. Macmillan Publishers, New York.Google Scholar
10Quinn, D. 1992. Ishmael. Bantam/Turner, New York.Google Scholar
11Mezirow, J. (ed.)2000. Learning as Transformation: Critical Perspectives On a Theory in Progress. Jossey-Bass Publications, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
12McGill, I. and Beaty, L. 2001. Action Learning. Kogan Page Publications, London.Google Scholar
13Reason, P. and Bradbury, H. (eds)2001. Handbook of Action Research. Sage Publications, London.Google Scholar
14Revans, R. 1998. ABC of Action Learning. Lemos and Crane Publishers, London.Google Scholar
15Bawden, R.J., Packham, R., Macadam, R., and McKenzie, B. 2000. Back to the future: reflections from Hawkesbury. In Cerf, M., Gibbon, D., Hubert, B., Ison, R., Jiggins, J., Paine, M., Proost, J., and Röling, N. (eds). Cow Up a Tree: Knowing and Learning for Change in Agriculture. – Case Studies from Industrialized Countries. INRA, Paris. p. 397410.Google Scholar
16Wiedenhoeft, M., Simmons, S., Salvador, R., McAndrews, G., Francis, C., King, J., and Hole, D. 2003. Agroecosystems analysis from the grass roots: a multidimensional experiential learning course. Journal of Natural Resources and Life Science Education 32:7379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17Jordan, N., Andow, D., and Mercer, K. 2005. Ecology of agricultural systems: a service-learning course in agroecology. Journal of Natural Resources and Life Science Education 34:8389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18Sriskandarajah, N., Francis, C., Salomonsson, L., Kahiluoto, H., Lieblein, G., Breland, T.A., Geber, U., and Helenius, J. 2006. Education and training in ecological agriculture: Nordic Region and U.S.A. In Kristiansen, P. and Taji, A. (eds). Organic Agriculture – A Global Perspective. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Victoria, Australia.Google Scholar
19Østergaard, E., Lieblein, G., and Francis, C. 2008. Student conversion to autonomous learners: a case study from agroecology. NACTA Journal (in review).Google Scholar
20Lieblein, G., Francis, C.A., Salomonsson, L., and Sriskandarajah, N. 1999. Ecological agriculture research: increasing competence through PhD courses. Journal of Agricultural Education Extension 6(1):3146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21Lieblein, G., Moulton, M., Sriskandarajah, N., Christensen, D., Waalen, W., Breland, T.A., Francis, C., Salomonsson, L., and Langer, V. 2005. A Nordic net-based course in agroecology – integrating student learning and teacher collaboration. European Journal of Open and Distance Learning, 1. Available at web site http://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2005/Lieblein.htmGoogle Scholar
22Källander, I. 2005. Ekologiskt lantbruk, odling och djurhållning [Organic farming, crop and animal husbandry] (in Swedish). Natur och Kultur, Järfälla, Sweden.Google Scholar
24Nilsson, A., Palmer, S., and Roigert, A. 2008. Experiential learning in agroecology – report from a PRA study in Vietnam. Report Series from Department of Urban and Rural Development, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden (in review).Google Scholar
25Lieblein, G., Breland, T.A., Ostergaard, E., Salomonsson, L., and Francis, C. 2007. Educational perspectives in agroecology: steps on a dual learning ladder toward responsible action. NACTA Journal 51(1):3744.Google Scholar