sustainable agriculture and the undergraduate

0 downloads 0 Views 993KB Size Report
Annie Fontenot for helping with the translations of the test and interview .... analysis of the frequencies for every test question (M=0.51; S.D.=0.21; Range=0.00- ...... L'implantation et la fonction d'un organisme interne à un milieu specifique,.
1

SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE AND THE UNDERGRADUATE CURRICULUM: AN INTERNATIONAL PROGRAM EVALUATION AMONG A SELECTION OF AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITIES

A Dissertation

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the University of New Orleans in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy in The Department of Curriculum and Instruction

by Bruno Borsari Laurea in Scienze Agrarie Universita` degli Studi di Bologna, Italy, 1986 May 2001

2

Copyright 2001, Bruno Borsari ii

3

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work could have not been completed without the persistent guidance of my major Professor Dr. Charles Gifford. His advises have always helped me to maintain focus and to persevere throughout this intellectual journey. I am grateful also to the other Professors of my graduate committee: Drs. Richard Speaker, Carl Drichta and Marvin Thames and to Drs. Robert Bugg, Preston Sullivan, Richard Pirog, Eldred (Griff) Blakewood, Davide Neri, Yvan Gautronneau and Bernard Fabre for helping with the design of the evaluation instrument (test). Many thanks to Dr. Joan Hernandez and Ms. Annie Fontenot for helping with the translations of the test and interview questions into French. The support I was given by many colleague agriculturists is also appreciated. In particular, I wish to thank Drs. Bruno Mezzetti, Luca Corelli Grappadelli, Jacques Wery and Professor Ulrich Köpke. I want to express my sincere gratitude to Shahin Shabanian, Dr. Scott McClendon and William Dean with whom I have spent long weekends to write term papers, discuss ideas and to study. I feel particularly indebted to my colleagues and friends, Drs. Ray Robicheaux, Malcolm Vidrine and James Cordes for their unlimited support and inexhaustible powers to critique my work promptly and to always give me their most meditated insights on my posed questions. To Dr. Vidrine a special thank for serving in my graduate committee and for enlightening my thoughts on sustainable agriculture from the ecological perspective. His input has also had a pivotal role in promoting the evolution of my own philosophy that has culminated in this dissertation. Thank you to Dr. Steven Doherty for helping with the final edits of this manuscript. iii

4

FOREWORD

I want to dedicate this work to my mothers.

To Gaia (Mother Earth) to whom we are all inextricably linked. To my biological mother, Mirella Maraldi who has always been a continuous source of support and inspiration for my physical and intellectual growth, since my earliest childhood. To Mary Jean Lanclos, mother of my wife, who has always encouraged me and respected my thinking and helped me to adapt to the North American culture.

Finally, and most importantly, to Julie Ann Chiasson, my best friend and mother of our children Giovanni and Michele.

iv

5

TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………………………viii LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………………………….. ..x

I.

CHAPTER I Introduction………………………………………………….. 1 Statement of the Problem……………………………………. 5 Purpose of the Study………………………………………… 7 Theoretical Framework of the Study………………………… 8 Educational Significance of the Study….…………………… 14 Research Questions………………………………………….. 15 Research Hypotheses………………………………………. . 16 Method of Investigation…………………………………….. 17 Need for the Study………………………………………….. 17 Significance of the Study…………………………………… 18 Definitions of Terms………………………………………… 18 Limitations of the Study……………………………………. 20 Summary and Overview of the Study………………………. 21

II.

CHAPTER II Introduction………………………………………………… 23

v

6

The Sustainable Agriculture Paradigm………..……………. 25 Sustainable Agriculture in the Undergraduate Curriculum… 27 Research and Educational Initiatives in Support of Sustainable Agriculture…………………………………….. 37 Summary of the Literature…………………………………. 41

III.

CHAPTER III Introduction………………………………………………… 43 Subjects and Setting………………………………………… 45 Design of the Study………………………………………… 46 Constructing the Test………………………………………. 47 Reliability and Validity……………………………………... 53 Cogito………………………………………………………. 55 Interview Protocol…………………………………………. 56 Instruments as Information Sources for the Answer to the Research Questions………………………………………… 58 Data Collection…………………………………………….. 59 Data Analysis Procedure…………………………………… 60 Summary……………………………………………………. 60

IV.

CHAPTER IV Introduction…………………………………………………. 61 Demographic Characteristics of the Participants…………… 61 Data Collection…………………………………………….. 62 vi

7

Instrument..………………………………………………… 62 Test Results………………………………………………… 63 Interview Sample and procedure…….………………….….. 68 Interviews Questions… …………………………………… 71 Discussion of Research Questions..………………………… 77 Summary of the Data Analysis…………………………….. 81

V.

CHAPTER V Introduction…………………………………………………. 82* Importance of the Study…………………………………….. 91 Purpose of the Study…………………………………………92 Design and Methodology….………………………………... 92 Data Analysis………………………………………………... 93 Summary of the Findings…………………………………… 93 Conclusions…………………………………………………. 94 Recommendations for Further Research……………………. 96 Sustainable Agriculture as a Curriculum Emphasis………… 98

LITERATURE CITED………………………………………………………………107 APPENDICES A, B, C, D, E, F……………………………………………………. 116 VITA……………………….………………………………………………………. 150

vii

8

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Summary of program objectives in the agricultural sciences curricula of various world countries……………………………………………… 28 Table 2. List of key words that were used for the construction of the test……….50 Table 3. Matrix of an examination showing the percentages of questions in Content and Level Categories. Modified after Aubrecht (1990/1991).52 Table 4. Matrix illustrating the relationship between the research questions and the appropriate instrument that served to provide the answer to each question………………………………………………………………… 59 Table 5. Summary of test Results. Colored in gray are the frequencies below one standard deviation from the mean and in bold are the frequencies one standard deviation above the mean………………………………….64 Table 6. Excerpts from the interview questions by the respondents of the American institutions…………………………………………………….69 Table 7. Excerpts from the interviews with the respondents of European Institutions………………………………………………………………..70 Table 8. Summary of program objectives in the agricultural sciences curricula of various world countries and proposed model for a sustainable curriculum in agriculture (Model III)………………………………………………………107 Table 9. Test scores and statistics of the university I, from Louisiana……………137 Table 10. Test key concepts interpretation by the university I, from Louisiana…...137 Table 11. Test scores and statistics of the university II, from Louisiana…………...138 Table 12. Test key concepts interpretation by the university II, from Louisiana….138 Table 13. Test scores and statistics from the university I, from Texas……………139 Table 14. Test key concepts interpretation by the university I, from Texas………139 Table 15. Test scores and statistics from the university II, from Texas…………...140 viii

9

Table 16. Test key concepts interpretation by the university II, from Texas……...140 Table 17. Test scores and statistics from the university I, from France…………..141 Table 18. Test key concepts interpretation by the university I, from France……..141 Table 19. Test scores and statistics from the university II, from France………….142 Table 20. Test key concepts interpretation by the university II, from France…….142 Table 21. Test scores and statistics from the university I, from Italy……………..143 Table 22. Test key concepts interpretation from the university I, from Italy……..143 Table 23. Test scores and statistics from the university II, from Italy……………144 Table 24. Test key concepts interpretation from the university II, from Italy… …144

ix

10

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Standardized model of instruction in Land-grant Universities………… 11 Figure 2. Contrasting concepts of conventional versus alternative farming models…………………. ……………………………………………….. 13 Figure 3. Key concepts and interactions for the proposed curriculum model in Sustainable Agriculture………………………………………………….108

x

11

ABSTRACT

This work focused on the evaluation of undergraduate curricula in agriculture for a selected group of institutions from Louisiana, Texas, France and Italy. Quantitative data were collected through the administration of an appropriately designed test to eight samples (n=20) of senior students from each university participating in the study. The analysis of the frequencies for every test question (M=0.51; S.D.=0.21; Range=0.000.80) indicated the strengths but also the weaknesses that still exist in the agricultural curriculum when students’ academic achievement was measured. Qualitative data were collected through interviews with sixteen respondents (one faculty member and one administrator of each university). Finally, a document analysis review provided more qualitative data on the foundations of agricultural curricula at these institutions and of many other schools around the world and, thus, allowed for the triangulation of the results. Every institution acknowledged the emerging sustainable agriculture paradigm, despite the curricular diversity existing across national borders and the different levels of sensibility toward the issue. However, more work needs to be accomplished in order to establish the incorporation of sustainable agriculture principles in the agricultural curriculum, and various recommendations were suggested. The proposed curriculum model that concludes this work contributes to the promotion of this new emerging philosophy.

xi

12

CHAPTER I Introduction Although curricula in agriculture rest upon similar foundations, a variety of subtle differences may occur when these study programs are compared among various institutions around the world. The vocation of a certain geographic area to typical crops or a well-established market niche for particular commodities may be considered as some of the reasons for the diversity among curricula in agriculture. Colleges and universities have always offered a wide array of academic majors to lead students toward a field of specialization in addition to the mandatory core of courses in the biological and physical sciences that are prerequisites for junior and senior level courses. Emphasis on specialty fields has been criticized by an increasing number of agriculturists and other concerned scholars as a reductionist approach of imparting knowledge in the agricultural sciences (Berry, 1996; Borsari, 1998a; Jackson, 1985). This faction also has become critical of farming practices that are predicated on a linear mode of teaching agriculture. Concerns focus on threats to the viability of farming systems that must remain productive in the long-term (Gliessman, 1998; Orr, 1992, Rodale, 1972; Soule & Piper, 1992) and on alternatives that are more ecologically fit and socially just are proposed. The chronic malaise affecting modern agriculture is a symptom of crises affecting field operators over the last five decades. This is not evident, however, because within the last half of the 20th century modern agriculture has been capable of achieving goals that could have not been conceived even by the most illuminated minds less than a generation ago. Therefore, under the impetus of a rapidly changing agriculture, curricula have been designed to fulfill the immediate needs of modern farming systems and to prepare specialists, who are ready to enter the labor work force in a very dynamic agricultural industry.

13

A specific curriculum in sustainable agriculture does not exist, although ideas of incorporating elements of sustainable agriculture in conventional study programs are available (Marshal & Herring, 1991; Williams, 1997). At the secondary level, general science courses and their applications in agriculture have generated much interest among students, and the modification of the curriculum in this direction has determined growth for these programs in the United States (Osborne & Moss, 1991). However, at the college level the development of a curriculum in sustainable agriculture is proceeding at a much slower pace (Nelson, 1996).

A curriculum per se is nonexistent (D. L. Williams,

personal communication, March 20, 1999), although an increasing interest in this area indicates the feasibility for curriculum researchers to continue working in this direction.

Land-grant universities experience major difficulties in operating the transition to a sustainable agriculture approach in part because of well-established associations with agrochemical companies and food corporations that predominantly fund their research and academic programs (Berry, 1996; Orr, 1992; Stauber, 1994; Rodale, 1972). As the acquisition of new knowledge from field experiments demonstrates connections among agricultural crops and ecosystems (Soule & Piper, 1992; Gliessman, 1998; Jackson, 1985; El Titi & Landes, 1990), sustainable agriculture principles supercede conventional agricultural models. The expansion of this knowledge also directs changes in the theories that have been considered the underpinnings of this ancient human practice for millennia. Diamond (1987) contends that every human activity is firmly connected to a theory. Several theories may exist and interact synergistically, but if they are incompatible, an antagonistic effect may become inevitable. The theorist’s task is to harmonize and

14

integrate theories into a philosophy. A philosophical approach for agricultural instruction is an equilibrated mixture of operative (practical, manipulative, and typically anthropocentric) theory and cooperative theory, in which more attention is given to the observation and study of natural phenomena prior to practical action. This approach can be quite debatable however, as it can be a starting point capable of generating new ideas and even new theories about sustainable agriculture.

Despite new findings and a renewed dialogue, modern agriculture remains in a profound socioeconomic and environmental crisis.

Colleges of agriculture are not

immune to this malady in that it impacts students’ recruitment and retention (Russel, 1993). One possible reason that explains the crisis of agricultural education originates from the strong careerism that colleges of agriculture promote to students and further upon an emphasis to specialize and an “agribusiness” mentality that is inculcated in the learner’s mind from the very beginning of academic training (Berry, 1996).

A review of the literature (Litzenberg & Schneider, 1987; Fairnie, Stanton & Dobbin, 1989) indicates that despite specialist training, traditional approaches in agricultural education have not satisfactorily prepared graduates for managerial roles in a commercial environment. Major weaknesses of course content include graduates’ lack of insight into the agrifood sector’s world role, inadequate business management training (even for agribusiness majors), and an inability to effectively communicate verbally or in writing (Collins & Dunne, 1996). The need to facilitate changes in agricultural education is becoming widely recognized (Faustman, Riesen, Suter & Vietor, 1996; Townsend &

15

Kunkel, 1996). Despite the strong emphasis on student specialization and the lucrative aspects of farming in conventional agriculture curricula, employers realistically conclude that even the best-prepared graduates will need some form of training as soon as they enter the workforce. French and Erven (1985) add that young graduates’ training almost becomes mandatory because of their inability to successfully fulfill their employers’ expectations, and this trend has even spawned interests in postgraduate programs.

In order to counteract fallacies of present curricula and to satisfy an increased public awareness concerning the environmental impact of modern farming, some colleges of agriculture have become receptive to sustainable agriculture issues and to a philosophy of sustainability. Some institutions are redesigning their curricula to be more compatible to social change and to a global agricultural context (Silletto, Von Bargen & Schinstock, 1993).

It is not yet determined whether these institutional changes include an emerging

sustainable philosophy that educates students to manage more responsibly natural resources for the long-term prosperity of farms and their neighboring human communities.

Stewardship becomes a vital concept in a curriculum of sustainable

agriculture, and its incorporation remains essential in training a new generation of agriculturists.

With this concept in mind, an evaluation of agricultural curricula for a selected group of institutions is designed to reveal needs and obstacles as well as capabilities and the readiness of colleges to incorporate principles of the sustainable model. This dissertation demonstrates the potential impact that trained education professionals can

16

exert on a field of education that considers itself so specialized as to be separate from “general education philosophy”.

As such, this study contributes to the change of

instruction in agriculture.

Statement of the Problem Modern agriculture has a rich and productive history, especially regarding farm output and worldwide trade of agricultural commodities. However, the vulnerability of conventional farming systems alarms today’s scientists and concerned citizens, who realize that changes must occur if the long-term prosperity of modern farms is to be maintained.

Many producers go out of business every year despite the availability of high technology and various other resources provided by universities and industry (Rodale, 1972; Callicot, 1990). The environmental crisis that is affecting agriculture is leading more and more toward a path spiraling out of control (Leopold, 1949; Carson, 1962). During the last fifty years, agriculture has been transformed into an industrial activity in Western countries. This model has quickly become dominant and its hegemonic power has often contributed to a demise of millenarian agropastoral cultures. Where these ancient systems have been able to withstand the impact of the “green revolution”, agriculture remains a primary human activity at the level of subsistence. This enormous diversity among farming systems requires operators with appropriate skills suited to particular rural environments. However, with an increasing demand for food and fiber to

17

satisfy the needs of a growing human population, scientists have been witnessing the detrimental impact of modern agriculture on both natural and human settled habitats.

Environmental costs of cultivated crops remain enormous (Jackson, 1985; Rodale, 1976a; Ablemann, 1993). In less than a generation we have passively observed and, in many cases, encouraged the disappearance of rural communities and the rise, on a global scale, of massive urbanization. Land-grant universities have reacted to this complex situation by “blindly believing” that increasing production efficiency would have helped to heal the agricultural crisis. Unfortunately, this reductionist modus operandi, embraced by a majority of educational institutions, has been “helping” to ensure the economic collapse of small family farms, and this loss of farmers consequently has reduced their political influence (Beus & Dunlap, 1990). As we loose touch with our agrarian roots, voting citizens become less informed on major issues that affect agriculture. Therefore, it is speculated that policy makers will be several generations removed from the land and increasingly agriculturally illiterate (Berry, 1996). As a result, Linder (1993) foresees that rural legislators and agricultural associations will have to work harder and spend more money to inform urban leaders and citizens about their views on agricultural issues. While people may have good intentions, they may unknowingly support policies detrimental to agriculture, if they are not informed. Only thirty-five years ago, eighteen percent of Americans participated directly in farm production whereas in the eighties, only two percent of the population produced our food (Schumann, 1987), and at present we are probably below that percentage.

However, concerns are limited because a

primary objective is the short-term profitability of modern farming systems. With this

18

logic in mind, professionals working in the field usually make decisions driven by markets, while detrimental consequences to agroecosystems are inimical to the environment and compromise sustainability.

From this perspective, the provision of livelihoods for a growing society should not be considered the sole objective of a modern agriculture. A new paradigm for agriculture is needed, and education plays a vital role for the development of a new model. In particular, land-grant universities are vulnerable if an educational philosophy fails to embrace a “sustainable” model. Institutions continue to loose students and their role at the university may be diminished if educational and research efforts target only production and profit (Stauber, 1994).

It may be prudent for faculty of modern

agricultural universities to disembrace industry and instead support rural communities, ecological sustainability, and the long-term productivity of farming systems (Rodale, 1972). Practitioners may not readily accept this change, as they must be taught in order to understand and to accept change.

Purpose of the Study The purpose of this investigation is to evaluate a sample of study programs in the agricultural sciences on an international scale in order to determine the support for sustainable agriculture in the curriculum.

This research endeavor will provide

recommendations to agricultural educators on how to improve the quality of undergraduate curricula in agriculture and to make them more suitable to the challenges of the 21st century.

19

Theoretical Framework of the Study It is practically impossible to define the term “theory” due to the diversity of human ontological contexts. For this reason a precise conceptualization of this construct goes beyond the comprehension capabilities of the intellect. The unraveling of ancient epistemologies has made us aware of the challenging efforts our ancestors must have endured in order to describe and explain phenomena.

An intricate and fascinating

discussion on theories from the scientific perspective is contended in Kuhn’s ”Structure of Scientific Revolutions” (1996). Here the basic theme evolves from the idea of a continuous dynamic status that pervades the realm of human thoughts and ideas; and this continuum inevitably fosters periodic paradigmatic changes. A universal definition for the word “theory” cannot be extrapolated from this debate although the search for knowledge constantly revolves around this important concept.

A theorist becomes an intellectual revolutionary who is compelled with the acquisition of more in-depth knowledge in order to explain phenomena and promote the evolutionary tendency of already established paradigms. Contrary to the thoughts of the multitudes, the efforts of the theorist are not a pure intellectual exercise, nor an effort to subvert dominant social orders, but rather they constitute a commitment to seek the truth. The latter is not an absolute concept but instead a significant piece of knowledge relative to the context studied or the sample that was utilized for a specific experimental procedure (Capra, 1996). Out of this conceptual framework truth may become a dogma, an anti-theoretical concept purposely contrived by mankind to tame knowledge and to restrain human epistemologies. Dogmas impede the evolution of theories when they

20

become hegemonic in totalitarian political contexts.

Antagonistically, they tend to

suppress theorists’ speculations, and ultimately, they obliterate paradigmatic shifts.

From ancient civilizations and in particular from the Greek culture, mankind has inherited an insatiable desire for seeking knowledge. Educators owe without doubt to Plato the organization of this primordial knowledge into the first curriculum. As Zais writes: “According to Plato there are three processes by which the mind’s latent knowledge can be brought to consciousness. First, it can be recalled by chance sensory stimulation. This is obviously not a very dependable or promising possibility. Second, it can be recalled by a skillful teacher, asking probing questions. This technique is what constitutes the famous Socratic method of questioning that is so highly regarded as a pedagogical technique by many teachers even today. Even this method has its limitations, however, since knowledge to be recalled is restricted to that already in the possession of the teacher. While the Socratic method may represent a useful pedagogical device, it obviously falls short as a generator of new knowledge. But Plato suggested a third method, contemplation, by which the mind can reach into its own subconscious and recall knowledge of the good” (Zais, 1976, p.132). This venerable idea of knowledge acquisition through contemplation is discussed in more recent years by Driscoll (1972), who articulated the positive outcomes of introducing transcendental meditation in the curriculum at Eastchester High School in New York State. From a higher education perspective, Donald (1986) argued that a conceptual framework does not exist for understanding what and how knowledge is acquired in different university disciplines.

The influence of pragmatism on western civilization during the early twentieth century had a significant impact on American education. Although it is impossible to quantify the influence of this leading philosophical current, educators have clearly

21

identified meanings, functions and practice of curriculum theories (Ornstein & Hunkins, 1989). There is a variable, however, which educators and curriculum specialists cannot control, and this is our society.

Changes in modern society are occurring at an

accelerating rate, and information sources that surround students are so plentiful and influential that schools may run the risk of soon becoming obsolete institutions in their effort of imparting knowledge (Hopman & Kunzli, 1997).

This dynamic condition

impacts curriculum research on a global scale despite the energy that even the most innovative institutions may invest in keeping pace with societal changes.

Carlgren and Kallos (1997) criticized the present curriculum research scenario. Their argument targets the existing fragmentation among researchers, the National Board of Education and the Ministry of Education that has occurred in Sweden across the ‘70s and ‘80s. They argued the need to develop a renovated research agenda for curriculum studies and the identification of appropriate issues as well as audiences interested in this kind of discussion. The authors, state concerns about the applicability of their current curriculum for use in their future careers.

Hawley (1990) discussed the impacts

alternative certification programs are having in the United States. In order to counteract this liberal tendency Riley and Slater Stern (1998) advocated the need of evaluating, with appropriate rigor, students’ acquisition of knowledge and practical experience in the field of education. In their paper they described a unique teaching experience to reiterate the importance of formal training which is substantiated in the evaluative phase by qualitative methodology and authentic assessment.

22

These contributions become valuable in agricultural education as curriculum specialists begin to realize that agriculture seldom has been conformed through an approach that has included issues of sustainable agriculture. Historically, the Morrill Act, approved by the U.S. Congress in 1862, had a dominant role in envisioning the curricular theory for agricultural programs in America.

In providing better educational

opportunities for farmers’ children, Senator Morrill wanted to develop agriculture into a thriving segment of American economy (Berry, 1996; Danbom, 1997). This pragmatic approach has played a hegemonic role in the genesis of the college of agriculture and its curricula in this country.

Indirectly, this model has influenced the development of

agricultural curricula worldwide, due to the impressive economic efficiency and success that industrial agriculture has portrayed.

Bezdicek and DePhelps (1994) criticized conventional farming systems because of their typical, linear way of thinking and decision-making (Figure 1). Figure 1. Standardized model of instruction in land-grant universities.

(Teaching&Research) => Extension => Farming ______________________________________________________________________________________

They considered this approach of modern agriculture as a distortion of the more holistic forma mentis, which advocated as a fundamental component of the sustainable agriculture model. This new approach entailed the development of an integrated, holistic system of crops, livestock, and management practices. Many views still exist regarding the nature of a sustainable agriculture, as well as how it can be achieved (Altieri &

23

Francis, 1992; Gliessman, 1998; Jackson, 1985; Soule & Piper, 1992), but they all focus toward the same holistic goal.

In support of a theoretical framework for the improvement of undergraduate curricula in agriculture, the work of George Beauchamp is a valuable asset for the agricultural educator to operate the curricular changes herein discussed. The necessary obligation of building a theory is to highlight precisely the field of inquiry including the identification, definition and usage of technical language with specific terms, subjects and processes essential to the set of events under discussion (Beauchamp, 1972). A sustainable agriculture approach requires a unanimous understanding of the terminology used by operators working in the field and thus, there is a significant level of compatibility between these two theoretical frameworks.

However, the conceptual

underpinning of Beauchamp’s theory is not solely linked to appropriate key terms or constructs.

Beauchamp’s curriculum engineering is a comprehensive process which

includes curriculum development, curriculum improvement and evaluation (Beauchamp, 1978). As the definition of curriculum centers on what should be taught, and as this concept develops into the modality of imparting knowledge, a major distinction is noted between curriculum and instruction. This situation has direct implication on the practical and theoretical development of curriculum (Beauchamp, 1978) conceived as a whole field of study.

Beus and Dunlap (1990) argued that clarity in the use of the terminology is important to characterize contrasting elements of competing agricultural paradigms

24

(Figure 2). In addition, objectives and content become basic dimensions of curriculum design necessary for a successful curriculum implementation. Figure 2. Contrasting concepts of conventional versus alternative farming models. Modified after Beus & Dunlap (1990).

Conventional Systems

Alternative Systems

Centralization

Decentralization

Dependence

Independence

Competition

Cooperation

Dominance over nature

Harmony with nature

Specialization

Diversity

Exploitation

Stewardship

Quantity

Quality

Profitable production

Ethical production

Reductionism

Holism

Development of a curriculum in sustainable agriculture requires student exposure to farming practices and technologies used in different environments (Nelson, 1996; Diamond, 1987; Newsome, 1991). This learning opportunity strengthens their views on diversity (cultural, biological, economic and technological) that projected on the global scale expands their field of study, promotes personal reflections and generates prolific group discussions. Agriculture graduates need to become better stewards of available resources for farming in order to better manage modern agroecosystems, as agriculture is inextricably linked to a proper utilization of natural resources (Gliessman, 1992; Altieri & Rosset, 1995).

The provision of appropriate recommendations to the stakeholders of agricultural universities for the improvement of their curricula is a directive of this study. Although

25

skepticism exists among curriculum developers who do perceive a transferability of study programs from one university to another (Ernst, 1989), this investigation is intended to establish a renovated and general epistemology for curricula in the agricultural sciences that could become globally understood.

Educational Significance of the Study From a generalized epistemology toward sustainable agriculture, institutions may be able to make appropriate changes suited to their curricula and beneficial to their students. Funding opportunities and support by universities and other resources may become available for this undertaking, despite the presence of some barriers. “The obstacles to broad-base change are pervasive, especially in curriculum development, where they induce departments to compete, rather than to cooperate, and to protect turf, rather than to facilitate change” (Elliot, Hirsch & Puro, 1993, p. 39).

To become sustainable, farming systems need to be designed and operated in cooperation with natural ecosystems (Gliessman, 1998; Soule & Piper, 1992). They also need to be tailored to the characteristics and resources specific to each farm. In order to pursue these objectives, a transition period of up to several years may be necessary to restore the biological integrity lost to monocultures that were sustained by heavy chemical applications. The innovative curriculum in sustainable agriculture must include these perspectives. Awareness of broad socioeconomic and political issues is also important for agricultural professionals and, therefore, it should be included into a new, innovative curriculum.

Yet a strong ecological and technical background is still

26

fundamental in agriculture, since improved production practices and rural development involve physical interventions upon the environment and management of resources. A new curriculum may foster students’ interest in holistic management of whole farming systems. This intellectual effort may also stimulate the community of agricultural educators by challenging their efforts and thoughts regarding a sustainable philosophy.

Research Questions This study was designed to answer the following research questions: 1. What are the perceptions of sustainable agriculture as described by faculty and administrators from selected institutions? 2. What curricular structures exist that direct instruction toward the sustainable agriculture model? 3. How have instructional resources been used to promote sustainable agriculture in the curriculum? 4. What are the reasons for having or not having incorporated principles of sustainable agriculture in the curriculum? 5. What are the faculty and administrators’ perceptions/feelings/attitudes of the students concerning sustainable agriculture? 6. What is the level of student knowledge of issues and concepts related to sustainable agriculture as represented by their scores on an objective-based evaluation instrument?

27

Research Hypotheses The needs and impacts of a growing human population associated with current development that compromise the homeostasis of natural habitats mandate a new paradigm for agriculture and underscore the urgency of improving agricultural curricula. Agriculture is an activity that must adapt to particular regional, climatic and ecological conditions (Gliessman, 1998). It is necessary to acknowledge the existence of cultural and biological diversity around the world and the prevalence of these factors when agricultural practices are performed. It is no longer conceivable to presume that the same agronomic techniques are applicable worldwide and instruction in agriculture should reflect this dynamic condition. In addition to this, it may not be possible to achieve any expected outcome from an instructional effort without considering the cultural knowledge of local communities and their methods of cultivation (Borsari, 1999b).

The purpose of this endeavor is neither to give accolades to those institutions that have already embraced the sustainable agriculture philosophy nor to point a finger at those colleges and universities that are still anchored to conventional didactic methodologies. Instead, this study is directed toward creating an understanding of concepts in agriculture that are of universal applicability. A relationship is expected between quantitative and qualitative data that will be collected from each institution, as the learning outcome of students will reflect directly upon the curriculum. If discrepancies should arise, then at the conclusion of the evaluation process, viable explanations are explored to substantiate the findings.

28

Method of Investigation This investigation incorporated quantitative and qualitative techniques for collecting data.

The quantitative component included the administration of an

evaluation instrument (test) designed to measure knowledge acquisition in sustainable agriculture by students who are at the end of their undergraduate study program (see Appendix A). Qualitative data were collected through document analysis (college catalogs, web-sites and advertising-brochures) and interviews. Catalogs from the institutions participating in the study served as an immediate referral point to verify what is taught and what curricula are in place at each institution. Interviews with faculty and administrators were designed to reveal the status of these institutions when compared with the investigator’s proposed curriculum model for sustainable agriculture.

Need for the Study An outcome of this study was a set of proposed alternatives for the improvement of undergraduate curricula in agriculture, through the review and evaluation of programs of study in different universities and in different countries. The literature has indicated a need to verify the readiness of colleges of agriculture to embrace the emerging sustainable agriculture model, in order to prepare themselves, and their students, to the challenges of agriculture in the next century (Nelson, 1996). This evaluation attempted to promote networking among colleges of agriculture and generate more interest in sustainable agriculture.

29

Significance of the Study Agriculture affects everybody’s existence. This millenarian human activity has promoted the settlement of mankind (Fromm, 1981) and the rise of potent civilizations (Pilione, 1998). The need for ameliorating agricultural curricula is evident as the long-term productivity of farms is increasingly threatened by market policies uncontrollable by single producers and by the manipulation of resources that frequently accelerates environmental degradation.

Therefore, enhancing the

professional capabilities of operators working in the field has become a tangible necessity. The fulfillment of this educational objective will have direct, repercussions for the betterment of human communities and their environment. The use of the multiple-choice test in this study may further promote the discussion among agricultural educators regarding sustainability and shake the conventional certainties of an obsolete knowledge for the improvement of the agriculture curriculum. The pursuit of this goal will make the effort of conducting this preliminary evaluation at the international level a tangible contribution in agricultural education reform.

Definition of Terms To reduce any form of semantic confusion, operational definitions are provided for several terms used in this evaluation study. A glossary of agricultural terms has been added (Appendix F) for reader comprehension of the data and answers to research questions.

30

Many terms may not be entirely adopted yet in agricultural sciences because a general agreement on their interpretation or utilization has not been reached unanimously (Walter & Reisner, 1994) within the agricultural community.

An

existing diatribe still keeps some of these professionals apart because the agricultural sciences are void of a unifying theory for a sustainable agriculture at present. However, the investigator planned to incorporate these concepts in the discussion because this lexicon has become quite popular and more commonly used. Below are some terms and their descriptions as used in this study.

Conventional agriculture. Agriculture aiming at the maximization of production and profit through the utilization of various human-made inputs. Ecology.

Study of the relationships established by living organisms in their

environment. Evaluation. Systematic investigation of the worth or merit of an object (e.g., a program). Global agriculture. The study of farming practices in various geographic areas of the world. Holism/Holistic Management. Decision making framework based on holism through which sustainability may be achieved. Industrial activity. Large scale operation that aims at the maximization of yields and profit. Instrument. Assessment device adopted, adapted or constructed for the purpose of the evaluation.

31

Integrated farming system. Agricultural system that incorporates simultaneously the growth and cultivation of various animal and plant crops. Stakeholder.

Individuals or groups who may affect or be affected by program

implementation and evaluation. Stewardship. An individual’s responsibility to manage his/her life and property with proper regards to the rights of others. Sustainable agriculture. Alternative approach to food and fiber production concerned with ecological and human health that is economically feasible and socially just.

Limitations of the Study The selection of a limited number of institutions to be included in this evaluation study was a recognized constraint. Even within in the United States, such a limitation would have been inevitable because of the enormous number of colleges and programs in agriculture. The involvement of each institution was based upon their willingness to participate in the study. The decision to include foreign institutions offered an international perspective to the study.

Initially, the establishment of

contacts with some faculty members and administrators of the universities was a vital preliminary step to verify their desire and interest for taking part in the investigation. The establishment of initial contacts with foreign institutions became difficult at times due to language barriers and long distances.

It was essential that the

investigator communicate effectively with cooperating faculty members. Therefore, Italy was selected because the investigator is a native of that country and familiar

32

with its educational system. France was considered because of the investigator’s fluency in the language.

A limitation of this study that was recognized was the lack of generalizability of its results due to the pure evaluative nature of this investigation. Despite limitations, however, this work has an intrinsic originality. This type of research has never been conducted.

Summary and Overview of the Study The difficulty that agricultural colleges and universities are experiencing in attracting and retaining students derives from changes in society and from the profound environmental and economic crises of modern farming systems. Agricultural instruction is not emancipated from the typical linear way of thinking that has been the hegemonic theory of teaching and learning in place since the transformation of agriculture into an industrial activity. Restructuring agricultural curricula is warranted with the inclusion of principles of sustainable agriculture into modern study programs. The issue is extremely timely especially with the advent of distance learning technology for the enhancement of the sustainable agriculture model (Salvador, Schmidt & Miller, 1993; Borsari, 1998b). However, major difficulties for the complete evolution of this more holistic approach in agricultural education are still affecting land-grant universities. These institutions maintain solid associations with food and agrochemical corporations that too often dictate their research agendas, and consequently, their teachings become heavily influenced by this modus operandi,

33

which is still firmly attached to the lucrative aspects of farming. A transition to curricula in sustainable agriculture is universally acknowledged (Stauber, 1994; Altieri & Francis, 1992; Borsari, 1998a), and despite barriers and difficulties, slight changes are already taking place in some institutions. Agriculture, as an applied life science, cannot neglect biological foundations that aid students in the understanding of relationships among biotic and abiotic system components. Profit and production in farming are important but are not the sole objectives of agriculture priority instruction.

A new decision-making framework is necessary with a sustainable

agriculture philosophy, to resolve different points of view that still remain among experts working in the field. The rigorous approach proposed by George Beauchamp (1972) in developing a theoretical framework for an effective curricular theory is used here as foundation to theory.

Chapter one has introduced the reader to the theoretical framework of this work and to the need for such a study. In Chapter two, literature regarding sustainable agriculture and efforts to incorporate these principles into modern university curricula, is reviewed, as well as constraints that colleges and universities are experiencing in their efforts to enact curricular changes. An explanation on how this research was designed is given in Chapter three. Chapter four provides the reader with an interpretation and analysis of the data as well as answers to research questions.

In Chapter five, the limitations of the study are identified, and

recommendations for further research are addressed.

34

CHAPTER II Introduction For a couple of decades, sustainable agriculture has been the leading philosophy, aimed at partially restoring the equilibrium within natural systems that had been lost when our ancestors began to farm. However, rather than standing for a specific set of farming practices, sustainable agriculture represents the end-goal of developing a food production system.

As Gliessman (1992) pointed out, the management of an

agroecosystem should comply with certain criteria, and these should include the following: •

low dependence on external, purchased inputs (machinery, fuels, fertilizers, hybrid seed, irrigation devices and pesticides);



function primarily on the use of locally available and renewable resources. (The cultivation of native, perennial crops within a polycultural system inclusive of livestock production, rather than bioengineered crops in huge monocultures);



have beneficial or minimal negative impacts on both the on-and-off farm environments;



be adapted to or tolerant of local conditions, rather than dependent on the massive alteration or control of the environment;



focus on long term productive capacity;



conserve biological and cultural diversity;



be built on knowledge and culture of local inhabitants;



provide adequate domestic and exportable goods.

35

The emerging sustainable agriculture paradigm recognizes the needs of generating a profit from farming activities but the pursuit of this goal requires a better management of non-renewable resources (soil, water and energy).

From the educational perspective an important component needs to be mentioned to understand the evolution of the agricultural curriculum in the western world, and this is due to the partnership that agricultural colleges have been establishing with the chemical and food corporations.

Berry (1996) discusses how this association has alienated

colleges of agriculture from the university and that agriculture is taught in a vacuum, without connections to the remaining sciences and liberal arts. The supporters of the sustainable agriculture movement share this idea. These proponents have rediscovered the value of old ways of farming and they have been demonstrating that a conversion to more sustainable farming systems is a necessary maneuver, for agriculture to continue fulfilling vital, human needs. Consequently, attempts at curricular modifications have been occurring in some innovative institutions (Altieri & Francis, 1992; Batie & Swinton, 1994; Bezdicek & DePhelps, 1994) with the aim of better preparing agriculturists in the way decisions are made (Pilione, 1998) and in managing more adequately natural resources. The present challenge involves motivating institutions to understand their environment and to learn more about the needs of human communities. Therefore, a need assessment may become a fundamental step to trigger an educational shift toward sustainability.

36

The Sustainable Agriculture Paradigm In his famous essay, Erich Fromm (1981) attempted to unravel the reasons of human destructiveness perpetrated upon other human beings and the environment. He also discussed how the primitive, Neolithic communities became empowered, settled and free from following animal herds, from which their hunter and gatherer ancestors had been linked since the dawn of their evolution. Through the development of agriculture and the domestication of the first animal species, “man understood to be able to use his will and intentions for determining the happening of certain events, instead of remaining passively at the mercy of his fate” (Fromm, 1981, p.197). Therefore, it would not be exaggerated to affirm according to this hypothesis, that the discovery of agriculture was the base of scientific thought and technological development. Thus, if we look at the history of agriculture beyond chronology, we “could produce a decisive transformation in the image of science” (Kuhn, 1996, p. 1). Civilizations rose to the maximum of their splendor through the development of agriculture and the same phenomenon took place with the arrival of the first European settlers in the North American continent during more modern ages. However, to substantiate the importance of agriculture for the prosperity of modern society, Thomas Jefferson ought to be read.

In his mind, farming, education, and

democratic liberty were indissolubly linked (Berry, 1996; Danbom, 1997). This romantic and idealistic philosophy was however, quickly overcome in the 1860’s when the first land-grant college act became a law: the Morrill Act.

Morrill’s views regarding

education were more practical, and this more modern educational philosophy had a more forceful impact in the development of the colleges of agriculture in America. This more pragmatic position of teaching agriculture was also influenced by the Acts that later

37

followed (Hatch, 1887; and Smith-Lever, 1914). The alienation that has derived from the evolution of this educational approach to the study of agriculture has had a tremendous impact upon the design and management of farms. It has focused, for example on the specialization of young agriculturists and the centralization of food production systems. More recently, it has produced genetic research without too much attention to the nutritional value of crops and neither to the preservation and use of local gene resources. For these reasons the educational experience of the students of agriculture may remain compartmentalized and ineffective to prepare leaders and citizens that according to the Jeffersonian philosophy contribute to the long-term prosperity of their communities. “The typical American success story moves from a modest rural beginning to urban affluence and from manual labor to office work. We must then ask what must be the educational effect, the influence of a farmer’s son, who believes, with the authorization of his society, that he has mightily improved himself by becoming a professor of agriculture. Has he [really] improved himself by an “upward” motivation, which by its nature avoids the issue of quality, which assumes simply that an agriculture specialist is better than a farmer? And does not he exemplify to his students the proposition that “the way up” is away from home? How could he, who has succeeded by earning a doctorate and a nice place in town, advise his best students to go home and farm, or even assume that they might find good reasons for doing so?” (Berry, 1996, p.160).

However, if one of the primary purposes of education is also the transmission of values, then it may become necessary to reduce the careerism-oriented education from the colleges of agriculture.

Millennia have passed to determine the rise of a sustainable agriculture paradigm: from the primeval, Baconian creed in which scientific knowledge meant technological power over nature (Kuhn, 1996; Capra, 1996), to a more cognizant attitude through which mankind has realized that resources are not limitless. Even though the history of

38

ecological change and human impact upon the environment is only partially known, it is legitimate to acknowledge that unintentional changes in human ways often affect nonhuman nature (White, 1967). Therefore, in accordance with Enshayan (1992), it is crucial to learn from our agricultural past and key ideas on this topic should be presented to students also through the study of the liberal arts, such as history, cultural anthropology and rural sociology.

To become sustainable, farming systems should be designed and operated in cooperation with natural ecosystems (Soule & Piper, 1992; Altieri &Rosset, 1995; El Titi & Landes, 1990; Gliessman, 1992). They may need to be tailored to the characteristics and resources specific to each farm (Gliessman, 1998).

In order to pursue these

objectives, a transition period of up to several years may be necessary to restore the biological equilibrium that was lost to monocultures and sustained by heavy applications of chemical products.

A curriculum in sustainable agriculture should include these

perspectives.

Sustainable Agriculture in the Undergraduate Curriculum Agriculture is a very complex science, which demands that the content and context for undergraduate education reflect the diversity of needs of the graduates (Kunkel, Skaggs, & Maw, 1996) and society. It is important to explore a wide range of information resources and innovative ways to include them into the classroom and laboratory programs (Vietor, Thompson, & Kunkel, 1996). Therefore, the pursuit of international

39

recognition in the design of such a curriculum may consider also an understanding of the characteristics and objectives of agricultural curricula in different world countries.

Preliminary reviews of selected study programs resulted in the emergence of several similarities but also many differences. The investigator summarized these findings and gave an interpretation of objectives of various curricula in agriculture, in place in many institutions around the world (Table 1). Table 1. Summary of program objectives in the agricultural sciences curricula of various world countries.

Model I (classical) U.S., European

Objectives

Similar objectives (Foundation)

Adaptation (due to different technology)

Totally diverse objectives

-prepare graduates to work in ag. Industry

-curricula may be broad although they lead students to a field of specialization

-best technology available to prepare graduates and fulfil needs of agroindustry firms

-graduates are generally specialized in one, or few technical sectors

-solid background in physical and biological sciences

-high mechanization

-majority of students major in agribusiness curricula

-graduate studies -communic. Skills -well-being of society

-(*) appropriate technology

-develop managerial skills

Model II (Italian)

-technical assistance to coops and farms -develop managerial skills

-very broad curriculum -solid background in physical and biological sciences

-high levels of technology and mechanization

-agribusiness degree offers better opportunities -lack of specialization but comprehensive, broad, technical preparation in every aspect of modern agriculture

-continue for higher studies -rural appraising and surveying

LEGEND. (*) In this category of objectives Model I can be very diverse because the curricula of former European colonies around the world have been strongly influenced by western countries.

40

This analysis derived from the qualitative data that were collected through a review of college catalogs, web sites and brochures of several colleges of agriculture. In the proposed table the program objectives were classified in four distinct categories. Primary emphasis was given to the study of the Italian and French models of instruction and their objectives because institutions from these two European countries offered themselves to participate in this evaluation study.

Model I illustrates the typical undergraduate

curriculum in the agricultural sciences that has more likely, influenced the modalities of imparting knowledge in agriculture in many countries. The Italian model (Model II) has many similar characteristics to the previous educational paradigm, although it stresses more upon the general principles of agriculture.

Curricula with such objectives remain the programs of study in place in these countries and their consolidated establishment has strongly influenced other models of agricultural instruction, especially in the developing world (Borsari, 1999b; Fox, 1987; Johnson & Okigbo, 1989, Lele, 1992). The classical model (Model I) curricula appear to be rigidly linked to the idea of providing a solid background in the biological and physical sciences to students interested in pursuing these study programs. However, the knowledge acquired from these disciplines may become ineffective in training young agriculturists because it may be detached from any practical, agricultural reality (Newsome, 1991). Such a compartmentalization may not enhance proper learning in agriculture and an understanding about the management of farming systems from a holistic viewpoint may become more difficult to grasp.

41

The Italian model reflects a similar situation, although the study of the agricultural sciences may begin prior to college education, in technical schools called Istituto Tecnico Agrario Statale. These institutions provide students with a broad-spectrum background in agriculture and although the curriculum has strong emphasis in preparing the graduate to enter the labor work force, students are given the option to pursue higher education in agriculture, at the university level. This five-year program of studies leads the learner to the pursuit of a technical diploma in agriculture. The curriculum is fixed and established, at the national level, by the Italian Ministry of Education. It is considered a secondary superior program of studies, and the one in agriculture is among the several available to Italian students, before they qualify for entrance at the university. Therefore, the various Italian universities that offer programs in the agricultural sciences enroll students with diverse cultural and academic backgrounds.

A recent approval by the Italian Ministry of Universities and Research that is seeking the international recognition for its graduates in agriculture has contemplated the preparation of students in a three-year program that leads to the pursuit of the degree known as laurea (comparable to the B.Sc. degree in agriculture). Eventually, the “laurea di specializzazione” is a post-laurea degree program leading to the pursuit of a specialty field (comparable to a M.Sc. degree), that can be pursued at the completion of two additional years of study (D. Neri, personal communication, March 18, 2000). It appears therefore, that the undergraduate curriculum in agriculture in this European country is not oriented as much to the specialization of students. More emphasis instead is provided to develop marketing, appraising and economic skills, in order to fulfill the needs of the

42

national agricultural industry.

A two-year apprenticeship however, is always

contemplated as soon as the graduate enters the labor work force despite degrees and years of education. Additionally, the Italian government has imposed the age limit (thirty years of age) for graduates to undergo this on-the-job training as they become employed. However, this trend has allowed the exploitation of young professionals by Italian firms and companies that provide employment opportunities for college graduates, but they compensate these employees with minimum wage salaries. At the end of the two years these employees are generally laid off and replaced with younger graduates, so that companies avoid paying government taxes and regular benefits to these agriculturists (A. Zampagna, personal communication, May 12, 1998).

In France the situation is quite different because the graduates from an agricultural technical institution are not allowed to continue studying at the university level. Additionally, French agricultural schools have developed long lasting relationships with the national agricultural industry. The undergraduate curriculum remains broad and prepares graduates in various technical disciplines. Agricultural programs at this level are activated by the French Ministry of Education which is also responsible for curriculum revision, implementation and evaluation. The association with the industry gives students better opportunities to become trained in different professions. In addition to this, toward the end of their study programs, students must undergo successful apprenticeships and internships, in order to graduate. The final evaluation given by the manager supervisor plays an important role in fulfilling the students’ graduation requirements. New French agriculturists have better chances to become marketable and

43

readily employable due to the opportunities educational institutions offer their students, through direct experiences with the world job market. Agricultural educators, however, complain that in a rapidly and expanding economy young French agriculturists must communicate efficiently in various foreign languages, and especially, in the English language. For these reasons, major efforts are presently being carried out, at every level of instruction, in order to fulfill this curricular discrepancy (Appendix B).

The incorporation of principles or courses in sustainable agriculture, environmental science, policy and holistic management are provided when students enroll in graduate programs. Thus, it appears that only at the post-graduate level, future agriculturists can be better educated and then able to comprehend issues concerned with modern agriculture and its challenges from a more sustainable perspective. This limitation is unacceptable, however, as undergraduate students could achieve similar comprehension if provided with appropriate educational opportunities.

In countries with limited resources instead, adaptations to the curriculum have occurred primarily because of a lower level of available technology. As Borsari pointed out (1999b), where the western agricultural model was forcefully introduced in Africa, the final outcome of various development projects was unsuccessful in most of the situations. This is especially evident if the involvement of local communities in these endeavors was marginal or non-existent. Therefore, it appears that to become truly effective the curriculum may have to be tailored to fulfill more pragmatic and societal needs. In addition to this, the enhancement of students’ participation and motivation

44

become necessary ingredients to implement appropriate curricular changes. Pudasaini (1983), in analyzing how education affects Nepalese agriculture, concluded that appropriate instruction contributes much more to farm production by improving farmers’ decision-making and by enhancing their technical efficiency in both changing and traditional agriculture. Freire (1999) proposed a revolutionary educational paradigm by stating that educational encounters can be subversive forces aiming at the liberation of mankind. When instruction remains linked solely to the transfer of information, it cannot lead learners to freedom but instead to an ideological indoctrination that maintains “oppression” as a chronic and irreversible condition. Education and societal changes are peculiar elements in curriculum development and they should be counted for promoting such a discussion. Vietor, Thompson and Kunkel (1996) argued that curricular shifts take place continuously at agricultural institutions. However, it is still evident that education in most colleges and universities is fragmented and that students experience the curriculum as a collection of courses rather than an integrated plan of studies (Borsari, 1998a).

At the undergraduate level, the majority of the technical courses in agriculture are still taught as a sequence of procedures that are learned mechanically (Berry, 1996; Nelson, 1996). Students may translate this information as universally applicable, when in reality many constraints exist to putting into practice what is learned without considering contexts and resources. The subject matter itself is often disconnected from the other disciplines; therefore, the knowledge that is passed on to students is compartmentalized and poorly effective to enhance learning and understanding of complex agricultural

45

issues.

As a result young graduates cannot embrace a holistic decision-making

framework, when they commence their careers, because they may have not been prepared to look at agroecosystems from the system level.

As Walter and Reisner (1994) described, agricultural scientists consider environmental management and development of new farming technologies as essential to a definition of sustainable agriculture, but the curriculum is still anchored to the classical modalities of imparting knowledge in this discipline. Their view of sustainability did not include yet social considerations, which on the other hand seem of vital importance to a holistic approach for future agriculture. This discrepancy is even aggravated by the still existing controversies that keep agriculturists apart when considering issues of sustainability. Keeney (1989) elaborated on this aspect by adding that more precise definitions of terms dealing with sustainable agriculture are elusive because the concept of sustainability itself is so different depending on the particular facet in which it is viewed. Thus, a compromise aiming at settling the terminological debate may originate from on-farm research practices and educational program changes that are now under way in the United States and abroad. In the meantime, however, Orr (1992) pointed out that modern students are ecologically illiterate and this gap in their educational career makes them feel insensitive to the impact that our species maintains upon the balance of the whole biosphere.

Projects of agricultural extension may be affected by similar educational discrepancies as the outcome of these endeavors has often failed to meet the expectations

46

of the diverse counterparts involved, due to cultural barriers among the project participants (Johnson & Okigbo, 1989; Lele, 1991; Ebun-Cole, 1992; Borsari, 1997; Borsari, 1999b). This situation has been described primarily in developing nations, where agriculture has always been performed at the subsistence level, and nothing has basically changed from this perspective, through millennia (Chiasson, 1987; Ablemann, 1993). Agriculture in these vast tropical regions has always remained inscribed in a small-scale type of activity. The lack of mechanization, the very diverse environmental conditions and the more limited resources have never allowed options to local farmers to enlarge the scale of their operations.

A unique peculiarity of tropical agriculture, especially in Africa, is the important role, played by women and children in the maintenance of local farms. According to Due and Gladwin (1991), African women’s labor force participation rates are forty six per cent of men’s on average. The knowledge of growing crops and raising livestock is passed on to new generations just through the repetition of practices and procedures without any formal type of instruction. Therefore, rather than forcing the introduction of transgenic cultivars, which are highly demanding on local resources to fully express their potential, and other ecologically expensive inputs, agriculturists should learn more about native ecotypes and, thus, protect these genomes from the risk of extirpation. They should take time to learn about local resources and culture. They should inquire about the feasibility of certain crops for certain environments, and how these crops are cultivated, in order to minimize the disruption of ancient farming systems from their own equilibrium.

47

Ecological homeostasis was most probably lost when the first natural habitat became cultivated, and since then, major changes have been occurring in the biosphere due to the development of large-scale farming systems.

Besides, the nature of an agricultural

project may be extremely diverse when it is part of a development endeavor. Additionally, a real educational encounter between teacher and learner poses problems and aims at solutions that should be sought, under the guidance of resourceful teacher as they may empower the learner, at the end. However, according to Freire (1999) such an education is detrimental to hegemonic powers (the oppressors), who cannot accept the idea of the oppressed to think for themselves and make decisions, or putting into discussions their dogmas.

In an educational program, the recipients of instruction are the students who primarily fulfill their degree requirements and sharpen their professional skills before entering the labor workforce. Fox (1987) was adamant in proposing a thorough assessment of the educational needs and a better understanding of the local environmental conditions for an efficient encounter between trainer and learners. Therefore, the design of an “ad hoc” curriculum may require a holistic approach, which could include several components such as teaching, learning, curriculum materials and curriculum design (Hill, 1988). A curriculum may be perfectly feasible and thus easy to implement, but not necessarily sustainable. In this context sustainability could refer to a maximum level of benefits for students and their communities, while maintaining the environmental costs of producing these benefits as low as possible.

48

Research and Educational Initiatives in Support of Sustainable Agriculture Certainly, working toward a more sustainable agriculture is a much more intricate process than adopting individual food production techniques. Few colleges of agriculture have given the requisite attention to this philosophy and few curricula have yet solidly incorporated these principles in their academic programs (Francis & King, 1994; Batie & Swinton, 1994; Bedzicek & DePhelps, 1994). Curricular changes are highly demanded (Nelson, 1996; Newsome, 1991), but many difficulties still impede the pursuit of this ambitious goal (Singha, Skaggs, & Nelson, 1996). Despite the difficulties, however, some successful examples of sustainable farming systems already exist in numerous countries and from these practical experiences, curriculum experts may look for some valuable insights in order to improve further their academic programs.

The Lautenbach project in Germany is a tangible example, which was conceived to reach specified goals in reducing inputs while maintaining income and improving ecological stability (El-Titi & Landes, 1990). In southwestern Louisiana, Borsari and Shirley (1993) measured the topsoil thickness in remnant prairie strips, a restored prairie (Eunice Cajun Prairie Restoration Project) and cultivated farmland. The results of this study indicates that the preservation of biodiversity, as a means of sustaining agroecosystems, is such an emerging concept that may direct agriculture toward more environmentally friendly field operations. The association of native prairie species with beneficial insects has also become a powerful tool to exert biological control upon noxious pests of cultivated crops (Vidrine & Borsari, 1999; Pickett & Bugg, 1998; Gliessman, 1998), and thus it promotes sustainable agriculture a step further.

49

The Land Institute has been investigating perennial polycultures for a few decades in the attempt to develop a feasible model for a more sustainable crop production. The study of the remaining Midwest prairie led Wes Jackson and his collaborators to a deeper understanding of the different plant species interactions in this unique habitat (Jackson, 1985). Therefore, the principles of habitat preservation and restoration, soil types and strategies for maintaining fertility, soil microbiology, crop interactions with weeds, nematodes, predatory insects, and pathogens may offer promising ideas to revolutionize the knowledge base in agriculture.

The aim of this intellectual revolution is to connect together every discipline within the curriculum, while unraveling the biological complexity of cultivated fields, in order to achieve a better understanding of modern agroecosystems. Pilione (1998) added to these considerations an urgent need to give emphasis to the study of human activities and the decision-making process.

In her opinion, agricultural systems must be studied in

conjunction with the “whole” theory, and thus holistic management should find a definite niche in the improved curriculum in agriculture. In this context, further concepts that deserve very much attention are also the relationships among land, energy, human population, policy scenarios and changes in food production, demand, and distribution. The social and economic aspects of agriculture with emphasis on the status of the family farm are also worthy of consideration. The role and potential dominance of agribusiness, implications of biological and information technologies in agriculture, alternative farming systems and their economic impacts, traditional farming systems in developing countries,

50

challenges and requirements for a sustainable agriculture, future of agriculture and the global environmental changes constitute very important issues.

Waldorf schools of biodynamic farming have notable educational programs. These institutions, inspired by the anthroposophical theory of Rudolph Steiner should also be looked at attentively as possible models to incorporate sustainability concepts and ideas in modern agricultural curricula. To “teach the whole [student] – head, heart and hands is the basis of Waldorf education.

The garden gives the student a better sense of

themselves, their place in the natural world, and where their food comes from” (Ablemann, 1993, p. 116). Therefore, biology, physical sciences, chemistry and even math take on a real meaning for students learning about plants, animals, soils, nutrient cycles and their interactions within the agroecosystem.

Francis and King (1994) commended the excellent initiative of the North Central Institute for “Sustainable Systems”. This is an informal group of various professionals in the agricultural scenario, who compelled to improve the preparation of young graduates work together, to enhance learning by combining classroom work with real world experience on integrated agricultural systems. Faculty and farmers share their expertise in order to stimulate learning and better understanding of local agroecosystems by undergraduate students.

Another remarkable attempt for the improvement of agricultural curricula has been proposed by the Hawkesbury school, a university of western Sidney in Australia, where

51

the faculty struggled to assimilate the complexity of a deteriorating collegiate situation in agriculture. The diversity of viewpoints among participants dissipated any tendency toward reductionism; instead, careful analysis of issues and synthesis of ideals led toward holism (Bawden, 1991). After a decade, the Hawkesbury experience has evolved into an experiential and participatory learning system that has become known as the Hawkesbury model. Senior students joined the faculty at this institution to develop a learning system and complimentary applications of soft system methodology (Macadam & Packham, 1989). Together, this team modeled the Hawkesbury school, as a human activity system comprised of four major subsystems: -

one to formulate school policy;

-

one to develop an appropriate curriculum;

-

one to manage implementation of strategies;

-

one to monitor, evaluate, and adapt strategies. Although this organization model appears simple, it is noteworthy that it emerged

from an experiential learning process and it was the forerunner of change in the curriculum of senior baccalaureate students working with faculty and clients to address real world problems in a rigorous, systematic fashion. This learning system encouraged a complementarity among undergraduate education, research and development, while providing a feasible approach for revitalizing the agricultural curriculum.

The Hawkesbury experience deserves attention for the achievements obtained in curriculum improvement, as it appears to foster the beneficial effects of cooperative learning that was reiterated in the work of Miller and Polito (1999) at Iowa State

52

University. Also Borsari (1999a) supported the idea of guiding students in improving their level of responsibility toward learning, while Conti and Welborn (1986) added that such a collaborative mode of instruction in which students’ direct participation is invited, students’ achievement is enhanced, and this keeps sight also of curriculum demands. Therefore, it appears that when students’ needs are incorporated in the efforts targeting curriculum improvement, then the efficacy of such a strategic plan can be maximized.

Summary of the Literature Tangible changes are occurring in the agricultural field, and an increased effort is attempting the pursuit of more amicable farming techniques. Field experiments are slowly demonstrating the social, economic and environmental benefits of a cleaner agriculture despite the difficulties of changing conventional farming systems to more sustainable ones. A renovated knowledge is evolving from these positive experiences and it is being considered for improving the agricultural curriculum. Some remarkable changes that have occurred in modern study programs were discussed in this Chapter.

Although the majority of the colleges of agriculture are still anchored to the implementation of curricula that have been showing signs of obsolescence for several years, it is understandable and legitimate to conceive the difficulty to activate a systemic and effective curricular change on a broader scale. However, the increasing pressure exerted primarily by society and by a more diverse student body is demanding some sort of action to improve agricultural instruction and to better prepare the new generation of college graduates.

53

Some successful examples of curricular change have been provided by a limited group of institutions. Their efforts reflect clearly the evolution of knowledge occurring in the field of agriculture and the existence of substantial needs for the improvement of curricula on a broader scale. Their initial achievements demonstrate the possibility for a brighter future for curriculum development in agriculture, and along these new philosophical trends, this tendency may soon become extensible also to other institutions around the world.

54

CHAPTER III Introduction This Chapter illustrates the methodological approach that has been used in this evaluation study.

A description of the subjects and the setting is provided with a

discussion of the research design. In addition to this, a thorough explanation regarding the construction of the objective test and the interview protocol is included. A discussion of these evaluation instruments has been added as information sources to answer the research questions. The investigator’s autobiographical sketch has been incorporated to set forth the possible biases that the research possess so that, they can be considered during the analysis of the qualitative data. A brief description on the data collection, and data analysis procedure concludes this Chapter.

Despite several attempts to incorporate sustainable agriculture in modern study programs (Altieri & Francis, 1992; Baker et al., 1990; Batie & Swinton, 1994) in order to gear the undergraduate curriculum toward the emerging sustainable agriculture paradigm, there is a conspicuous amount of work that still needs to be accomplished. Many institutions have yet to include principles of sustainability in their curricula with numerous reasons for their reluctance in embracing the emerging model. It is beyond the scope of this Chapter to analyze and discuss the obstacles to the pursuit of a curriculum in sustainable agriculture, although it is important to note that societal as well as economic and political changes have always had a significant impact on agriculture throughout the millennia. Agricultural education may not remain immune to the shifts occurring in modern society, and thus a unique task is presently challenging the curriculum specialists.

55

Growing awareness of food and environmental issues lead to the development of a sustainable agriculture and encourage the conversion process of conventional farming systems. This impacts agricultural education as well. As people become better educated about food production and eager to know more about what they consume, the pressure to change conventional farming systems to more sustainable farms is exerted on governments and legislatures. At the same time, the profit of the agricultural enterprise is a driving factor, as farm commodities compete in the market on a global scale. However, profitability should not be considered the sole objective for efficient farming systems. Such a simplistic approach is unrealistically reductionist in today’s world, and it slows and discourages the efforts for the establishment of a sustainable farming model.

Developing a clean agriculture is an unachievable goal, unless the economic viability of the farm enterprise is solidly maintained (Zucconi, 1996). The pursuit of this objective alone can be antagonistic to the environment, but after several decades of an agriculture highly dependent on man-made inputs, conventional farming systems have reached a high level of vulnerability despite their apparent success in maintaining high crop yields. Reaching a better integration of the laws that regulate nature is a compelling goal for modern agriculture, and the sustainable philosophy may become the only available paradigm helping mankind to face the challenges that threaten agricultural longterm homeostasis. It is time to present students of agriculture with feasible solutions to current problems and to engage them in discussions concerning the pursuit of a sustainable agriculture. By incorporating concepts of sustainability in the curriculum, the

56

students’ educational experience may be broadened and they should become better managers of natural resources and good stewards of the land.

The need for designing an evaluation instrument originates from the investigator’s desire to use this test as a reliable component for an evaluative investigation of undergraduate agricultural curricula. It must be clarified, however, that the purpose of developing a measuring tool to evaluate curricula in agriculture is not to ignite harsh competition among institutions as valid measurement methods provide information that forms a foundation for developing new curricula.

The goal is to improve the

undergraduate agricultural curriculum and to give students the opportunity to learn about the functioning of integrated farming systems in different geographic areas of the world. The most innovative agricultural educators also want to foster students’ interests toward holistic management, an innovative way of thinking which can improve technical decision-making (Pilione, 1998). The data generated by this instrument may stimulate the community of agricultural educators and agriculturists by challenging their efforts and thoughts regarding the sustainable philosophy.

As a result of changes in the

curricula, a new generation of agriculturists should become better educated to meet the challenges of agriculture in the next millennium.

Subjects and Setting Senior students majoring in agriculture were considered in this study. They were of either sex, and they voluntarily accepted to participate in this evaluation project. A convenient sample considered twenty students each for every university involved.

57

Concurrently, qualitative data were collected through interviews and to accomplish this component of the evaluation study faculty members and administrators were considered as the respondents. The protection of human subjects was considered in this study. Approval was granted, according to the procedures of UNO’s Committee on the use of human subjects (Appendix C).

Design of the Study This research investigation incorporated a combination of quantitative and qualitative methodologies for acquiring research data. The test here proposed (Appendix A) was validated through a jury panel system during the spring and summer semesters, 1999. This instrument served to measure the knowledge of senior undergraduate students and to verify their exposure to at least some of the basic concepts in sustainable agriculture during their studies.

Initial contacts were established in 1999 with various universities in the southern region of the U.S. and also overseas to verify their desire to participate in this evaluation project. Two schools from Louisiana and two from Texas constituted the sample of American institutions.

Foreign institutions that were chosen abroad included two

universities from Italy, because there is where the investigator was educated, and therefore, he is knowledgeable with its curricula in agriculture. In addition to this, the translation into Italian of the evaluation instrument did not create difficulties because Italian is the investigator’s native language. In France, two universities were chosen as they responded with enthusiasm to the investigator’s request of participation.

The

58

investigator’s knowledge in the French language was another important reason for considering French institutions in this evaluation study.

The qualitative component of this investigation was initiated in 1998 with a preliminary document analysis research, on the foundations of agricultural curricula in place at these and other institutions around the world. Information was retrieved from the Internet, from college catalogs and from the respective consular offices of these foreign countries, here in the U.S. (Appendix B). The investigator established contacts with the Deans of the Colleges of Agriculture through one or more faculty members at the institutions involved. The trustworthiness of the study was assured in this research project due to the diverse data collection modalities (test, interviews and document analysis) and an updated reflective journal, which enhanced the reliability of the investigation.

Constructing the Test Tests are fundamental components of most college courses, and, properly prepared, they may substantiate student grasp of course materials and measure the achievement of instructional objectives (Cheser Jacobs & Chase, 1992). However, exam preparation is not an easy task for the instructor, especially since few universities have appropriate tools and training. When the time comes to assess students’ preparation and understanding of the subject matter, the majority of faculty feels uncomfortable, inadequate and without sufficient time at their disposal to prepare for the examinations. They may struggle to write some form of a test that may reflect the work done with their

59

classes up to a certain time, and they believe that a reliable instrument has been created. However, it appears doubtful whether many of these professors, convinced of having written a valid tool to serve their purpose, are truly satisfied with their evaluation instrument. A plethora of test formats is available to instructors (true-false, multiplechoice, matching, and essay), and more creative people use combinations of these formats to assess students’ knowledge. Despite the variety of examinations, the problem of choosing the most appropriate format for an acceptable student assessment and the viability of scoring systems remain major challenges in education (Baxter et al., 1992).

Discussions have been taking place for years among educators about the most accurate and valid kinds of examination to be used. Some have engaged themselves and student representatives to discuss and to critique their test questions (Holmgren, 1992). Others have adamantly opposed true-false exams in favor of multiple-choice. In a study conducted with high school students, Frisbie (1974) was able to compare the reliabilities of true-false versus multiple-choice tests. He demonstrated that true-false tests were less reliable, although many more questions could be answered with this type of examination, when compared to multiple choice questions within a fixed time frame. Bennet, Rock, and Wang (1991) argued that multiple-choice tests are depicted as evaluating higher order thinking. Such potential differences among tests are of serious concern. There is likely a mismatch between highly valued thinking skills and the methods used to determine if those goals are being achieved. On the other hand, Ebel (1975) provided a rationale for the validity and reliability of test scores that can be obtained from true-false

60

tests. Shepherd (1929) pointed out that students’ penmanship also has a significant impact on the test score when professors evaluate their students’ written work.

Despite educators’ goals for an accurate assessment of students’ knowledge, the literature does not report an instrument that could be used appropriately for an evaluation of agricultural courses and study programs. For this reason, the investigator proposed here a specific instrument that may become a user-friendly test to be used by evaluators interested in assessing the impact on students of agricultural curricula on the international scale. The results from this test provide an evaluation of how study programs address sustainable agriculture.

As a preliminary step in the design of this evaluation instrument, a list of fifty words was proposed to a jury panel composed of seven experts in sustainable agriculture: four in the U.S. and three from abroad. These specialists were asked to review the list and to choose the twenty-five key words that in their opinion would be most needed for the construction of the test. They could also add their own terms to the proposed list. These words were grouped in three different categories according both to the choices and to the priorities given by each of the seven panelists. The category of most significant terms was represented by those words that were chosen by at least six of the seven specialists. A second category of significant terms included words that were chosen by five panelists. Finally, a third category of new terms was also considered, but in this one only a single new key word was suggested (Table 2).

61 Table 2. List of key words that were used for the construction of the test. Most Significant

Significant

agroecosystem biodiversity biological control compost ecology Integrated Pest Management monocolture ecological niche polyculture reductionism sustainable agriculture

biomass local food system alternative agriculture green manure holistic management humus integrated farming system rotational grazing succession synergism systemism/holism Carbon/Nitrogen Ratio eutrophication rhizosphere

_______

New Key Words

Some difficulties still persist about the most appropriate definitions for these technical terms; however, it would be inconceivable to deny the importance of this vocabulary as currently used by agriculturists interested in sustainable agriculture (Zucconi, 1996; Gliessman, 1998; Miller & Gardiner, 1998).

At the conclusion of the key term selection process, the validated list was utilized to write twenty-five questions for the proposed multiple-choice test (Appendix A). This was later submitted to the same panel of experts for review and approval. Further communications occurred several times between the author and the panelists during test construction. Corrections and rewording of some questions were suggested in order to reach a final consensus on the utility of this instrument.

Although many controversial opinions exist among educators about the efficacy of a multiple-choice test (Bennet et al., 1991; Frisbie, 1974; Aubrecht, 1990/1991), this

62

format was the one the investigator decided to adopt to prepare this instrument. He thought it to be the most feasible to be utilized by a variety of institutions with minimal difficulties in order to promptly collect raw quantitative data.

Tests are very important educational tools that contribute to both the teaching and the learning process (Cheser Jacobs & Chase, 1992). However, test construction and design are not easy skills to acquire, and it should be clear, that the quality of an examination depends to a large extent on the care and effort spent by the instructor during the test planning stage. A test plan requires professors to specify the content topics and cognitive skills they want to measure with the test (Aubrecht, 1990/1991).

The evaluation tool here proposed is designed to evaluate the acquisition of knowledge in sustainable agriculture by undergraduate agriculture majors.

Bloom’s

taxonomy (1956), which includes the cognitive skills of knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation, provides a useful way to classify faculty objectives, and it is also applicable in the college of agriculture classroom. However, a creative alternative to Bloom’s model was suggested by Aubrecht (1990/1991), in which only three broad categories of logical processes were utilized: recall, interpretation and application. The content dimension (framework for the material covered in the course; normally the course syllabus or textbook table of contents) and the level dimension (higher level of teaching that promotes the ability to extrapolate processes from known to unknown problems) become two essential components of the alternative model. These

63

should be considered within the broad categories that have already been mentioned, and together they allow instructors to work out a matrix for the design of their tests (Table 3). Table 3. Matrix of an examination showing the percentages of questions in Content and Level Categories. Modified after Aubrecht (1990/1991).

Major Topic A (25%)

Recall

Interpret

Apply

(10%)

(60%)

(30%)

15%

7.5%

0.10X0.25=2.5%

Major Topic B (40%)

4%

24%

12%

Major Topic C (35%)

3.5%

21%

10.5%

Due to the unique nature of the proposed instrument, the model suggested by Aubrecht could not be embraced. On the other hand, Bloom’s taxonomy of objectives appeared more feasible to this measurement instrument, particularly since the investigator knew neither at what level principles of sustainable agriculture had been incorporated in college curricula nor if these concepts are taught at all in certain institutions. An addition of essay or short answer questions could be appropriate to further substantiate the knowledge of the students (D. Neri, personal communication, May 24, 1999), but at the same time it would considerably complicate the test scoring process.

Grant and Caplan (1975) support the essay examination, although their major objection to this test format is the low scorer reliability. For an examination that is intended to assess course mastery associated with advanced placement or college-level credit, they point out that an essay test may better serve the purpose. Bennet and collaborators (1991) provided evidence that there is little support for the multiple-choice

64

and free response format tests.

According to the critiques of opponents, these

examinations measure rather lower level, trivial, factual recognition rather than higher order processes (Bennet et al., 1991). In developing this instrument, the investigator realized the difficulties in the preparation of a multiple-choice test. Clarity of expression and straightforward writing of the sentences were primary difficulties that were encountered during the writing phase.

Three wrong options plus one correct option were chosen for each question, in accordance with Cheser Jacobs and Chase (1992). Some educators think that guessing can be common for examinees, who are taking a multiple-choice test (Ferris, 1960), thus leading to the idea that multiple-choice tests are in reality a “multiple guess” test. This possibility cannot be denied, although with proper wording, lack of trivia, and considering Bloom’s categories of objectives, this complication should be minimal.

Reliability and Validity The reliability (or consistency) and the validity (or accuracy) of the instrument are important parameters that directly impact the effectiveness and utility of the test. Reliability can be estimated in several ways, but it is often calculated by using the K-R20 or Kuder-Richardson formula (Kuder & Richardson, 1937). Reliability indicates the extent to which two parallel measures agree as to the rank of students in the group. This relationship can be expressed between two measurements as a correlation coefficient ranging from zero (indicating no relationship between the two measurements) to one (full relationship). Aiken (1966) argued three decades ago that the literature was devoid of

65

information on differential weighting of test items. The correlation between weighted and unweighted test scores was in most cases as high as the reliability of a test. However, several factors influence test reliability: adequate test length to sample the course content well, sufficient time for all the examinees to finish, a moderate level of difficulty, and clear directions during the test administration phase (Swaminathan, Hambleton & Algina, 1974). It is also well known that a test may not identify precisely the student’s “true” ability, therefore psychometricians have applied the standard error (McMorris, DeMers & Schwartz, 1987). This statistical parameter becomes useful to develop the score range within which the true score is expected to fall, thus enhancing the reliability of the instrument.

Validity (or accuracy) is the statistic that allows researchers to measure what they truly wish to measure. Although there are several types of validity data, educational researchers are most interested in content-related validity. To achieve validity, the test designer lays out the instructional content in a systematic way using a table to build the test (Huck & Cormier, 1996). Criterion-reference tests should be built around course content in the same fashion as norm-referenced tests. The difference is that in criterionreferenced tests, faculty have a given level of performance at which they are aiming the items, above which they declare the performance is adequate, below which it is inadequate (Popham, 1993). The structuring of a test around a table of specifications is appropriate in all cases to ensure validity (Aubrecht, 1990/1991; Bloom, 1956). There are several factors that affect test validity. Most notable among these are adequate and appropriate content sampling in the test and avoidance of non-focal skills, clear

66

directions, well-written test items, and less complex and subjective scoring (Cheser Jacobs & Chase, 1992). Without reliability and validity, a test will provide erroneous information on which to base inferences about student learning; therefore, these two statistics should be pursued at all costs when designing a test.

Cogito As a professionally trained agriculturist the investigator is strongly in favor of the emerging sustainable agriculture paradigm as he began to develop a sensitive attitude toward a sustainability after several years of technical experience that was acquired primarily in tropical countries. His personal viewpoint conceives more amicable farming techniques aiming at the reduction of energy expenditure and at the elimination of synthetic chemicals in order to produce food and fiber crops.

In his opinion, the pursuit of objectives that promote a sustainable agriculture may eventually evolve into agricultural systems that like natural habitats sustain themselves, with minimal human impact upon the environment. These future agroecosystems are envisioned as perennial polycultures of native ecotypes of plant and animal species, maintained primarily by solar radiation as the prime source of energy. These farms may be smaller in size but very diversified in their production activities. They sustain local food economies efficiently, by promoting quality of food and living conditions, rather than yields at the expense of environmental degradation.

The challenge of future

agriculture should be devoted to maintain the legacy between land and human

67

communities for the millennia ahead, while improving the environment and enhancing the quality of life.

Interview Protocol A list of four questions was proposed as a mean to collect qualitative data for the evaluation of undergraduate curricula in agriculture. The interview method can become an appropriate research tool when the investigator is working with human subjects (Patton, 1990; Glesne, 1999; Rossman & Rallis, 1998), although attention to several potential biases should be considered by the researcher to avoid threats to the trustworthiness of the study. Therefore, in order to disguise any possible bias, the investigator’s role consisted of trying to understand the interviewees’ epistemologies, without attempting to prove anything or advocating a personal agenda.

In order to collect data successfully through an interview, there is a relationship (rapport) that must be established between the researcher and the respondent (Glesne, 1999).

Also, Maguire (1987) and Andersen (1993) warned investigators about the

influence they may have by conducting qualitative research, through the interview mode. The point is to become aware of such a condition and to adapt accordingly so that valid qualitative data can be collected. Therefore, the role of the interviewer is extremely important if a direct exposure to the research subjects is demanded by the study and, thus, certain aspects such as appearance and behavior may affect the veracity of the data (Patton, 1990).

68

A preliminary contact was established with the respondents through an invitation to be interviewed that was sent via E-mail to some faculty members and to one administrator (Dean of the College of Agriculture) at each of the eight institutions that participated in the study. This initial procedure allowed time for the investigator to introduce himself to the potential respondents and to discuss briefly with each interviewee the needs and purposes of the research.

The investigator identified four areas of concern for the interview portion of the study. These concerns, stated in question format with additional probes for clarification or amplification of the interviewees’ thoughts were as follows:

1) What is your personal definition of sustainable agriculture? How does this relate to the views of agriculture in your teaching and research at your institution? What are some examples of sustainable agriculture in your teaching practices? 2) When did sustainable agriculture principles become part of the curriculum? How these curricular changes have been taking place and why? 3) What are the perceptions/feelings/attitudes of the faculty and administrators concerning the sustainable agriculture issue? 4) What are the faculty and administrators’ perceptions/feelings/attitudes of the students concerning the sustainable agriculture issue?

69

The first three interview questions with the related probes served to provide information relevant to the first four research questions. The final question provided relevant information for the fifth research question.

The interviews were conducted by telephone. The investigator made every attempt to maintain a neutral stance in asking the questions and responding to any interviewee concerns or questions. The absence of any possible interpretation of nonverbal cues that might have been apparent in personal interviews further reduced any aspect of investigator bias.

Instruments as Information Sources for the Answer to the Research Questions This evaluation study answered the research questions through the utilization of three different evaluation instruments: students’ test, interview questions and document analysis review. These are important information sources to the reader as they clarify the comprehension of which research question is answered by which instrument. Therefore, a matrix has been purposefully constructed to fulfill this gap and to provide an appropriate link with the final Chapters of this dissertation (Table 4).

70 Table 4. Matrix illustrating the relationship between the research questions and the appropriate instrument that served to provide the answer to each question.

Research Questions 1.

What are the perceptions of sustainable agriculture as described by faculty and administrators from selected institutions?

Sources of Information Interview Question 1

2.

What curricular structures exist, that direct instruction toward the sustainable agriculture model?

Document analysis Interview Question 2

3.

How have instructional resources been used to promote sustainable agriculture in the curriculum?

Document analysis Interview Questions 1 and 2

4.

What are the reasons for having or not having incorporated principles of sustainable agriculture in the curriculum?

Interview Questions 1 and 3

What are the faculty and administrators’ perceptions/feelings/attitudes of the students concerning sustainable agriculture?

Interview Question 4

5.

6.

What are the students’ knowledge of issues and concepts related to sustainable agriculture as represented by their scores on an objectivebased evaluation instrument?

Test

Data Collection The tests were administered to the eight student samples (n=20) by the students’ instructors, who voluntarily offered themselves to accomplish this research task. These professors informed the subjects about the research goals the fact that their anonymity would have been protected and also that they could have withdrawn from the test at any time. The document analysis, as stated previously in this Chapter, involved a number of data sources and was conducted solely by the investigator. The interviews, conducted by the investigator over the telephone, were recorded on audiotape with the interviewees’ permission and were then reviewed by the investigator in conjunction with notes taken during the interview to guide the interview process.

71

Data Analysis Procedure Test scores were analyzed and descriptive statistics were obtained from each student sample. The mean (M) of the frequencies for each test item were calculated together with the standard deviation (SD) and the Range of all the frequencies. The tabulation of test scores data from each student sample and their statistics (M, SD and Range) are also reported in this dissertation (Appendix D). Additionally, to secure the validity of the test, a goodness of fit test on the students’ test scores was performed in order to prove the normality of the distribution of the test scores.

Interview data were analyzed by considering one question at the time and by grouping the responses together, in the form of proportions or percentages. Literal transcriptions were added to the narrative if it was not possible to associate the answer to the question with any response. Tables with excerpts from the interview questions have been added in Chapter IV in order to facilitate the comprehension of the qualitative data. Summary If colleges of agriculture are truly interested in incorporating sustainable agriculture concepts in their curricula, they need valid tools to measure the efficacy of teaching and students’ achievement. It is important to remember that the test used in this study is just an initial step for the evaluation of agricultural study programs oriented toward sustainability. Qualitative data were collected through document analysis and interviews in order to verify, clarify, and amplify the significance of the quantitative data. Interview data were collected from one faculty member and one administrator at each institution participating in this evaluation study.

72

CHAPTER IV Introduction This Chapter illustrates and discusses the data that were collected during the study.

Quantitative data have been analyzed through descriptive statistics and

substantiated by qualitative data for each of the eight institutions involved in this investigation. A description of the characteristics of the evaluation subjects follows, with the design used to conduct this research and a brief discussion about the evaluation instruments. The research hypotheses reiterate the problem under discussion in this work, and the disclosure of its findings, provides an answer to the research questions. Several tables have been produced to provide a basis for review of the raw data and to support the investigator’s conclusions that are presented in the final Chapter of this dissertation. A summary of the data analysis concludes this Chapter.

Demographic Characteristics of the Participants The subjects for the quantitative component of this evaluation study were 160 undergraduate students majoring in agriculture who were approaching the conclusion of their program of study.

Students, faculty and administrators from four American

universities participated in this study: two institutions were from Louisiana and two from Texas. The remaining four student samples were obtained from foreign institutions in France and Italy. All participants volunteered for the study.

73

Data Collection A multiple-choice test was designed to generate the necessary quantitative data for this international curriculum evaluation (Borsari & Vidrine, 2000). The evaluation instrument was administered to a sample of twenty students in each of the eight different agricultural universities.

Qualitative data were collected through interviews with one faculty member and one administrator for every institution participating in the study. A document analysis review of course syllabi and college curricula, available in the catalogs of these universities and other advertising literature, served to investigate the nature of the curriculum models that had been previously illustrated (Table 1).

Instrument The students’ test was purposefully designed for this study. The content validity of the test was reviewed by a jury panel system composed of seven experts in sustainable agriculture. These agriculturists maintain a current research and educational agenda in sustainable agriculture at the institutions to which they are affiliated.

Despite the multitude of tests available, none exists to evaluate the readiness of agricultural curricula to incorporate principles of sustainable agriculture. Thus, the need to construct an “ad hoc test” became necessary for this particular evaluation study. A multiple-choice format best fulfilled the needs of translating the instrument in different

74

foreign languages and also the necessity for administering it to students samples of institutions located outside of the United States of America (Borsari & Vidrine, 2000).

Better definitions of terms used in sustainable agriculture are being developed, and a clarification of concepts is leading educators to an improved understanding of the sustainable agriculture model (Keeney, 1989). From this perspective emerges the value of the evaluation instrument proposed in this context. Although far from having become a standardized test, it can serve any agricultural university committed to fulfill at best its institutional mission and to expand the spectrum of its curricular objectives.

Test Results The multiple-choice test was administered in April 2000. A summary table reports the percentage of correct answers for each institution for each of the twenty-five concepts under investigation (Table 5).

75 Table 5. Summary of Test results. Colored in gray are the frequencies one standard deviation below the mean and in bold are the frequencies one standard deviation above the mean value. LA I LA II TX I TX II F. II I. I I. II Mean F. I Sustainable 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.64 0.64 0.52 0.52 0.40 0.59 agriculture Biological 0.52 0.16 0.48 0.52 0.60 0.44 0.68 0.72 0.51 control Ecological niche 0.44 0.64 0.68 0.64 0.60 0.32 0.48 0.36 0.52 Humus 0.64 0.72 0.76 0.60 0.76 0.80 0.72 0.76 0.72 Biomass 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.64 0.76 0.64 0.64 0.68 0.67 Agroecosystem 0.64 0.56 0.08 0.72 0.72 0.60 0.76 0.80 0.61 Biodiversity 0.72 0.68 0.60 0.64 0.56 0.76 0.64 0.68 0.66 Rotational 0.56 0.24 0.80 0.72 0.68 0.72 0.60 0.56 0.61 grazing Integrated 0.64 0.72 0.76 0.72 0.04 0.08 0.24 0.36 0.44 Farming System Ecology 0.60 0.72 0.76 0.60 0.68 0.76 0.64 0.60 0.67 Eutrophication 0.12 0.20 0.08 0.24 0.32 0.44 0.04 0.24 0.21 Integrated Pest 0.32 0.56 0.56 0.44 0.68 0.40 0.56 0.72 0.53 Management Compost 0.36 0.56 0.48 0.40 0.68 0.28 0.40 0.20 0.42 Monoculture 0.76 0.76 0.72 0.72 0.76 0.80 0.64 0.72 0.73 Reductionism 0.08 0.16 0.08 0.28 0.24 0.28 0.12 0.36 0.20 Polyculture 0.60 0.68 0.76 0.64 0.80 0.80 0.76 0.76 0.72 Alternative 0.32 0.40 0.52 0.44 0.28 0.24 0.20 0.00 0.30 agriculture Carbon/Nitrogen 0.60 0.72 0.68 0.48 0.76 0.68 0.68 0.80 0.67 Holistic 0.44 0.40 0.04 0.64 0.32 0.64 0.32 0.56 0.42 Management Synergism 0.44 0.36 0.52 0.52 0.72 0.76 0.64 0.80 0.59 Holism 0.24 0.36 0.20 0.40 0.28 0.44 0.16 0.28 0.33 Rhizosphere 0.68 0.44 0.68 0.68 0.80 0.72 0.76 0.80 0.69 Green manure 0.08 0.20 0.40 0.20 0.40 0.64 0.32 0.40 0.33 Succession 0.48 0.36 0.16 0.52 0.32 0.08 0.28 0.16 0.29 Local food 0.24 0.48 0.20 0.28 0.48 0.68 0.56 0.56 0.43 system

M=0.5152

S.D.=0.2160

Range=0.00-0.80

Descriptive statistics for each individual student sample are illustrated in tables 7 through 23, in Appendix D. The mean (M=0.5152), the standard deviation (S.D.=0.2160)

76

and the frequency range (Range=0.00-0.80) represent the descriptive statistics that were calculated from the percentage of correct responses for every question. The results highlighted in gray represent the frequencies one standard deviation below the mean, whereas in bold are those one standard deviation above the mean. The identification of these variances from the mean is used to indicate students’ academic strengths and weaknesses in varied areas of sustainable agriculture. Blank responses were considered as an indication of lack of knowledge and therefore were counted as errors (Appendix D). More precisely, general inferences on the test outcomes can presently be introduced, and evidence for the statements below can be provided.

For purposes of this initial discussion, each institution represents a unit for analysis. It appears that certain concepts such as “humus”, “biomass”, “biodiversity”, “ecology”, “monoculture”, “polyculture”, and “carbon/nitrogen ratio” seem to be concepts clearly comprehended by the students in that every frequency is above the mean. In particular, the term “polyculture” shows that 62.5% of the frequencies above the mean by one standard deviation, and for concepts such as “humus” and “monoculture”, half of the frequencies are also above the mean by one standard deviation.

For the concepts

“ecology” and “carbon/nitrogen ratio”, 25% of the frequencies are above the mean by one standard deviation, whereas, for “biomass” and “biodiversity”, 12.5% of the frequencies were one standard deviation above the mean.

Responses for the term “sustainable

agriculture” indicate students’ knowledge of the topic, except for the sample of one of the two Italian universities, which scored a frequency of 0.40. A similar condition was detected for the concepts “rotational grazing” and “rhizosphere” where the student

77

sample from one of the two universities from Louisiana scored the lowest frequencies of 0.24 and 0.44.

The concept “agroecosystem” was scored the lowest among all the institutions except for one of the two student samples from Texas (two standard deviations below the mean). On the other hand, the test results show frequencies below the mean for all the institutions, when students were asked questions about “eutrophication”. For this key concept, 25% of the frequency scores were two standard deviations below the mean, and half were one standard deviation below the mean. For the term “reductionism” one quarter of the frequency scores was also two standard deviations below the mean and another 62.5%, was one standard deviation below the mean. For the concept “holism”, 62.5% of the frequency scores were one standard deviation below the mean.

The

frequencies of correct answers were also below the mean, by one or two standard deviations, for the following concepts: •

Holistic Management (with minimum frequency score by one of the Texas samples that was more than two standard deviations below the mean).



Succession (with the exception of a Texas institution whose score was slightly above the mean).



Alternative Agriculture (with the exception of a Texas institution whose score was slightly above the mean). For this concept, all of the European universities were one or more standard deviations below the mean.



Compost (with the exception of the samples from a school from Louisiana, and a French school that scored slightly above the mean).

78



Green Manure (with the exception of one of the two French universities that scored slightly above the mean).

For this concept three out of four of the American

universities scored frequencies that were one and two standard deviations below the mean.

The remaining key terms of the students’ test had a larger variation of correct responses versus wrong responses.

The concept “biological control”, for example,

revealed frequency scores below the mean for more than one standard deviation for one of the universities from Louisiana. One Italian institution obtained the frequency score for this term that was one standard deviation above the mean, whereas the remaining 75% of the frequency scores were clustered around the mean. For the concept “ecological niche”, 75% of the European institutions had frequency scores below the mean of approximately one half of a standard deviation. Similarly, the term “integrated pest management” had frequency scores clustered around the mean.

Only one Italian

university had the frequency score one standard deviation above the mean for this concept. The term “integrated farming system” revealed frequency scores one standard deviation above the mean for the 75% of the American institutions and two standard deviations below the mean for half of the European institutions. The results for the term “local food system” illustrate a different scenario. In this case, the low frequency scores were obtained by the American student samples (75% of the frequency were one standard deviation below the mean), whereas 75% of the European student samples obtained frequency values above the mean.

79

In order to further secure the validity of the evaluation instrument, a goodness of fit test on the students’ test scores was performed. From this statistical analysis, it can be concluded that the distribution of the test scores is normal, 2 (5, n=160) = 2.025, p>. 05. Interview Sample and Procedures The interviews were conducted with one faculty member and one administrator for each university participating in the study. The volunteers, four women and twelve men, were initially contacted by electronic mail to establish a convenient time for the telephone interview. The interviews were conducted between April 10 and 28, 2000, and were recorded with the permission of the interviewees. The interviews were conducted in the primary language of each of the participants. Translations of the interview questions into French and Italian are presented in Appendix E.

The list of interview questions is reported below to facilitate the reader in review of tables 6 and 7, where excerpts from the respondents have been transcribed. 1) What is your personal definition of sustainable agriculture? How does this definition relate to the views of agriculture in your teaching and research at your institution? What are some examples of sustainable agriculture in your teaching practices? 2) When did sustainable agriculture principles become part of the curriculum? What were the reasons or issues that promoted this change?

How were the changes

incorporated into the curriculum? 3) What are the perceptions/feelings/attitudes of the faculty and administrators concerning the sustainable agriculture issue? 4) What are the faculty and administrators’ perceptions/feelings/attitudes of the students concerning sustainable agriculture?

80 Table 6. Excerpts from the interview questions by the respondents of the American institutions. Question LA I

F

1 “S.A. deals with farming practices designed to maintain soil fertility. IPM* courses are a major effort in support of S.A. al our school.” “I cannot answer this question because I was not trained in agriculture. However, our programs are in favor of S.A. because students learn by doing.” “S.A. is a complex issue which is considered superficially, sometimes. There are economic, social and environmental aspects linked to S.A.”

2 “I cannot answer this question. I have general concepts about S.A. but I cannot answer this question.”

3 “I am sorry but I cannot answer this question.”

4 “Sorry but I cannot answer this question. We would be so better off if you would FAX me the questions.”

LA I

A

“S.A. has always been part of the curriculum because our philosophy goes back to the land-grant laws.”

“Faculty members have a very positive attitude toward S.A. Our institution is at the cutting edge in teaching and agricultural research.”

“We had a problem in the past with students. They had to be educated to understand the important role that agriculture has in….feeding the world.”

LA II

F

“In the early ‘90s. But changes were incorporated too fast and the Agricultural Curriculum became an environmental program. Production was replaced by environmental awareness to touch every student on this campus.”

“Faculty members who are not agriculturists think the curriculum is fine, but the true agriculturists think it went too far. I support biotechnology in such a curriculum but many disagree.”

A

“S.A. is an agriculture concerned with the environment. It’s a life style that we are promoting on campus and within the community.”

“S.A. was incorporated in our curriculum ten years ago. We looked at a different approach in order to survive because our program was not realistic anymore.”

TX I

F

“We have been working to support S.A. since the late ‘80s, early ‘90s. Economic problems in the farming sector constituted the main motivation to change.”

TX I

A

TX II

F

TX II

A

“S.A. deals with production systems that are sustainable over time. We do not have a curriculum but we have included IPM* in our teachings.” “S.A. means achieving food production without depleting the soil. Our faculty is actively engaged in teaching and research.” “S.A. is performed with methods that do not exhaust the resource base. We speak about S.A. here but we do not practice it, in south Texas.” “ S.A. has to do with practices that allow us to sustain soil and other resources. Difficult to answer. We do not have a policy and every Department feels differently.”

“There is division among the faculty. The agriculturists are resistant to change. Then there are the skeptical, but willing to try, and those totally in favor of it.” “Faculty give many definitions to S.A. and so many different ideas exist.”

“Students are confused because they take the first courses with an environmental activist, rather than a scientist. When they become seniors it’s late to teach them S.A. because they have been brainwashed.”’ “Students are excited about S.A. They wish to learn more and often come to me with these requests.”

LA II

“Students have the desire to learn about S.A.”

“I don’t know. I cannot answer this question.”

“Faculty are sensitive to the S.A. issue.”

“Students attitude is very positive. They want to learn more about S.A.”

“S.A. became an issue of interest since the early’80s. People began to realize that resources are exhaustible and there are restrictions on pesticide use.”

“More faculty are in favor of S.A. There is a broader dose of support to the idea.”

“Students are easy to convince. Many come already convinced and thus, they support the S.A. philosophy.”

“I don’t know. It’s up to the individual professor to include S.A. in courses and I can’t tell you more than this.”

“I never had a discussion with any faculty, but the views are diverse. Young professors are more enthusiastic about S.A.”

“I do not know. We have never done any specific survey like yours.”

Legend: F and A are the abbreviations for Faculty and Administrator. The column numbers refer to the interview questions. IPM* is Integrated Pest Management.

81 Table 7. Excerpts from the interviews with the respondents of European institutions. Questions FI

FI

F II

F II

I. I

I.I

I. II

I. II

F

1 “There are various criteria to define S.A. (economic, ecological and social). Here we work on the first two criteria.”

A “S.A. allows the maintenance of a soil so that production can maintain yield and quality. We have several research projects available to our students.” F “S.A. is a complex issue which entails economic, social and environmental components. S.A. demands a systemic approach and this is what we try to adopt in research and teaching.” A “S.A. respects nature and the environment. I cannot give you examples of S.A. You should speak with any of our Faculty.” F “S.A. is a concept in evolution (what is sustainable today will not be in ten years). S.A. tends to improve any factor of production.” A “S.A. is a more correct way of farming, that can be economically justified. We do not have a specific curriculum in S.A., but these concepts have been incorporated for a long time.” F “S.A. is an agriculture in balance with the environment aimed at guaranteeing a safe production and profit for the farmer.” A “Our school is so young that S.A. principles have been supported since the very beginning. We have the Dept. of Environmental Technologies.”

2 “More or less in 1980. We began to implement certain agronomic practices. Students in their third year must be able to understand and work out production problems as well as environmental protection problems.” “In 1998 we offered a curriculum option in environmental agriculture. The motivation to change is linked to ‘actuality’ so that students can be prepared to solve real problems.”

3 “Everybody speaks about S.A. but still, not too many are involved in it.”

4 “Students are interested, but at different levels. The majority is in favor and these are students interested in production agriculture.”

“I think our professors are quite in agreement to follow a similar approach when they approach S.A. At least, this is what I hope.”

“The students’ attitude toward S.A. is very positive. Many students are interested.”

“The EEC* in 1980 provided guidelines to promote S.A. France became receptive to S.A. and made laws to support these principles in teaching. Our school has added a 5th year to its curriculum to give students a chance to learn about S.A.”

“ The agronomists are very motivated to support S.A., while the animal scientists are divided. The economists become interested when it comes to protect special product quality of typical areas.”

“S.A. became part of our curriculum in 1990 but I am not sure. Speak with our professors because is at their discretion the incorporation of S.A. principles.” “In 1989 the first guidelines on integrated fruit production were considered in Europe. Since then our university has been sensitive to improve courses.”

“I would say that the majority of the faculty is favorable to the ideas of S.A. However, I do not know much.”

“Students who are devoted to production agriculture are very interested. These are one third of our student body. For students interested in cooperatives and marketing, S.A. is an interest of secondary importance.” “Students interested in international agriculture are very interested in S.A. Less interested are those who plan to work for the agro-industry.” “Students are like ‘white books’. Certainly they are receptive to S.A., but they can also be easily manipulated.”

“We have been speaking about S.A. for a few years. The need of maintaining food quality while preserving the environment was a major issue in favor of S.A. We also felt the need to give students better opportunities.” “S.A. became part of the curriculum few years ago. Economic, social and also political reasons motivated changes. These were reflected in certain course syllabi (agronomy, plant protection).” “We have been always concerned of gearing our programs toward S.A. Our curricula have been designed to target biodiversity, soil protection and plant production.”

“Professors are generally in favor of S.A. Many talk about precision agriculture which is a more rational way of farming that looks at profits, but also at the protection of the environment.” “Some faculty members are deeply committed to S.A. in research as well as in their teaching. Others talk about it only. A third group is still skeptical.”

“Our students are very interested and receptive to issues dealing with S.A.”

“The faculty is approving the S.A. philosophy. The contrasts are concerning organic agriculture because it cannot provide a view of S.A.”

“Students are very interested. The three curricula are the outcome of student/faculty/ administration interaction.”

“ The Faculty is very attentive to this issue. Everybody points in this direction.”

“Students want to learn and try to understand the problem. They are also interested if S.A. can give them better employment opportunities.”

Legend: F and A are the abbreviations for Faculty and Administrator. EEC* is the European Economic Community. The column numbers refer to the interview questions.

82

Interviews Questions A series of four primary interview questions with related probes were developed to pursue information related to the issues under investigation. The questions were as follows: 1) What is your personal definition of sustainable agriculture? How does this definition relate to the views of agriculture in your teaching and research at your institution? What are some examples of sustainable agriculture in your teaching practices? 2) When did sustainable agriculture principles become part of the curriculum? What were the reasons or issues that promoted this change?

How were the changes

incorporated into the curriculum? 3) What are the perceptions/feelings/attitudes of the faculty and administrators concerning the sustainable agriculture issue? 4) What are the faculty and administrators’ perceptions/feelings/attitudes of the students concerning sustainable agriculture?

The answer to the first part of the first question (What is Sustainable Agriculture?) was diverse among the respondents.

Four of the sixteen interviewees provided a

definition for this construct by emphasizing the need for maintaining and protecting soil fertility. Three of these were administrators (two from a Texas institution and one from a French institution), and one was a faculty member from a university in Louisiana. Another four of the respondents stressed on the complexity of the issue when attempting to define sustainable agriculture. Three were faculty members (two French professors and a colleague of theirs, from a Louisiana institution), and one was an administrator

83

from one of the two French universities. Three out of sixteen of the respondents pointed out the economic viability of an agricultural production system as an essential element to define sustainable agriculture.

The professor from one of the two Italian universities conceded that sustainable agriculture is a concept in evolution. He declared “We cannot erase the past, because it is from our agrarian tradition that we can develop a new agricultural model, despite the mistakes that have been made.

Sustainable agriculture is molded by the economic

context in which farming is performed because in developing countries, for example, there is the need to supply commodities, and crop yields (quantity) become an important factor. By contrast in the markets of developed countries, the quality of the produce has become a prevailing point of interest by consumers, and therefore, sustainable agriculture has to adapt to fulfill this different market need.”

The administrator of one of the two institutions from Louisiana could not answer this question because she declared she had not been trained in agriculture. Her colleague at the other university in Louisiana expanded on the issue and incorporated her discussion on sustainable agriculture in what she called sustainable development, which is a more global educational objective (in pursuit by this university). The faculty at one of the two universities from Texas expressed concerns about the exhaustion of the resource base to define sustainable agriculture.

The administrator at one of the Italian universities,

although undecided about a precise definition, reiterated that his institution is so young, and that it has been supportive of the sustainable model since the beginning.

84

The second portion of the first question asked the interviewees how their definition of sustainable agriculture related to the views of agriculture in their teaching and research.

Additionally, the respondents were asked to provide examples of

sustainable agriculture in their teaching practices. Seven interviewees out of sixteen (43.75%) pointed out that specific research activities relate to their definition of sustainable agriculture. Three were administrators (respectively from one university in Louisiana, Texas and France) and four were faculty members (one from Louisiana, one from France, and two from the Italian universities).

The American professor said

“Animal scientists understand the capability of livestock to convert forage into good protein and organic matter for the soil, but breeders have selected heavily for larger animals. I do not agree with this approach. In sustainable agriculture I look at the opposite; select a smaller animal, which maintains feed conversion efficiency.”

Two of the interviewees answered this question pointing out that Integrated Pest Management (IPM) courses and research projects are related to their institutional support to sustainable agriculture, and this is their tangible contribution in support of this innovative, agricultural model. The administrators from one of the French and one from the Italian universities did not have sufficient knowledge of their institutional programs to answer this particular question.

The remaining responses were very diverse.

The

administrator at one of the institutions from Louisiana remarked that the vision of her college of applied life sciences regarding sustainable agriculture becomes a life style that the institution is promoting across campus and the community, through the organization of seminars, workshops and symposia. The administrator at one of the Texas universities

85

said, “It is difficult to answer this question because we do not have a policy about this matter, and every department shows different feelings toward sustainable agriculture.” The faculty at the same university said “We speak about sustainable agriculture (referring to courses in agronomy that he teaches), but we do not practice it in south Texas.”

One of the two French professors pointed out “We try to teach global agriculture, and we have been trying to adopt a systemic approach in our research and teaching. When you farm, you cannot modify man-made molecules to protect the environment but rather consider cultural practices and other available technical alternatives.” One Italian administrator talked about an integrated view of agriculture that at his institution is targeting the protection of biodiversity, of the environment and of the local agrarian culture. “These aspects”, he said, “Are incorporated in the programs of study at our university.”

For the second question (When did sustainable agriculture principles become part of the curriculum?), the following responses were generated. Three of the interviewees did not know when. The administrators at one of the universities in Louisiana and at one of the Italian institutions pointed out that their curricula have always contemplated the incorporation of sustainable agriculture. Half of the respondents (four faculty and four administrators) confirmed the 1990’s to be the years of incorporation of sustainable agriculture in the curriculum whereas three of the interviewees (all faculty members) considered the 1980’s as the years for incorporating sustainable agriculture in their curricula.

86

The second part of the sustainable agriculture question asked what were the reasons or issues that promoted this change, and how these changes were incorporated in the curriculum. Five of the respondents could not answer this question.

One

administrator said: “We have always supported sustainable agriculture because our philosophy goes back to the Land-Grant Laws. Our students work with our researchers and this opportunity allows them to learn agriculture.” One professor pointed out that public awareness of the limitation of resources and stricter regulations on pesticide use were major conditions that promoted the changes to a more sustainable agriculture; and these issues have been added to some courses.

One French professor discussed the

institutional objective of preparing the students to solve practical environmental problems even before the completion of their studies.

The administrator at the same institution

spoke of ‘actuality of the curriculum’ meaning the constant search for preparing graduates for the challenges of agriculture, as a driving force that is promoting change. He reported that research allows students to complete their preparation.

One

administrator from one of the foreign schools attributed the promotion of curricular change as in order to create better opportunities for the students. He reported that “Certain courses have easily incorporated the principles for sustainable agriculture.” An American administrator pointed out the ‘need to survive’ as a main force to consider sustainable agriculture in the curriculum. For this reason, a curriculum in sustainable agriculture is available to students at her school. Two of the respondents mentioned some initial, European guidelines as triggering factors of change for the curricula in place at their institutions. At one school, a fifth year of study has been added in order to teach students about sustainable agriculture, whereas at another European institution, some

87

principles of sustainable agriculture have been added to specific courses. One European professor said, “The motivation that promoted changes in the curriculum was economic, social and political. It is a complex issue. However, changes were incorporated in courses of agronomy and plant protection, primarily.” The administrator of the same institution pointed out that changes have not taken place due to the relative young age of the university. He added, “Since the beginning we have given support to sustainable agriculture, and this is reflected in our curricula that target biodiversity, soil protection, and vegetal production.”

The third question asked the subjects about the perceptions/feelings/attitudes of the faculty and administrators concerning the sustainable agriculture issue.

Six

respondents (four administrators and two professors) stated that faculty members are in favor of the sustainable agriculture philosophy. One administrator pointed out that contrasts among the faculty at his institution are concerned with the organic agriculture philosophy.

Two of the interviewees stated that the commitment to sustainable

agriculture among the faculty is wide and varied, from totally supportive to skeptical. Three faculty members and one administrator affirmed that the cultural background of the professor entails various levels of motivation and feelings for sustainable agriculture. One American professor indicated the need to include biotechnology in the curriculum in sustainable agriculture, but his colleagues do not agree with this idea. Three out of sixteen (two administrators and one faculty member) simply declared they did not know how to answer this question.

88

The fourth and final question asked the respondents about the faculty and administrators’ perceptions/feelings/attitudes of the students concerning the sustainable agriculture issue. Half of the interviewees declared the positive interest expressed by their students. A second group of three respondents discussed that the level of motivation in favor of sustainable agriculture varies among students. The faculty and administrator from one of the French institutions stated that, “Students interested in international agriculture and the problems of the developing world are very supportive of the sustainable agriculture philosophy. Those interested in marketing or who plan to work for cooperatives or for the agroindustry see sustainable agriculture as a more marginal interest.”

One professor discussed that students can be easily led to embrace the

innovative paradigm because they are like ‘white books’. However, he pointed out that care must be observed because, in this context, students can become easily manipulated. Two of the respondents (American administrators) did not know how to answer the question; one of these added that: “Students had to be educated to understand the value and role of agriculture in feeding the world.”

One professor expressed his

disappointment by stating that: “Students are confused because they take the first courses with an environmental activist, rather than an environmental scientist. Therefore, when they become senior students, it is too late to teach them sustainable agriculture because they have been brain-washed.”

Discussion of Research Questions The research questions are reported here below and the answers to these questions are discussed based upon the results obtained from this evaluation study.

89

1.

What are the perceptions of sustainable agriculture as described by faculty and administrators from selected institutions?

2.

What curricular structures exist that direct instruction toward the sustainable agriculture model?

3.

How have instructional resources been used to promote sustainable agriculture in the curriculum?

4.

What are the reasons for having or not having incorporated principles of sustainable agriculture in the curriculum?

5.

What are the faculty and administrators’ perceptions/feelings/attitudes of the students concerning sustainable agriculture?

6.

What are the students’ knowledge of issues and concepts related to sustainable agriculture as represented by their scores on an objectivebased evaluation instrument?

The answer to the first research question derives from the responses of the first interview question in which it appeared difficult to define a sustainable agriculture, despite the generalized interest of pursuing this condition, to ameliorate the status of modern farming systems. However, the professors of agriculture and the administrators of the selected institutions demonstrated an understanding of the importance of pursuing a sustainable agriculture although their commitment to contribute to the replacement of the conventional agriculture model varies considerably.

90

The second research question was answered through the second interview question and the document analysis review.

Chapter two has illustrated various

curricular efforts, in place at certain institutions, in support of a sustainable agriculture. For example, some study programs have been prolonged in order to expose students to sustainable agriculture, or they have been restructured to better prepare the new generation of graduates. The modality of implementation of these educational changes have been the most diverse, ranging from internships to the incorporation of new courses like Integrated Pest Management.

The third research question dealt with instructional resources and how they have been used to promote sustainable agriculture in the curriculum. The answer to this question was derived from data collected during the document analysis review and the responses to the first and second interview questions. The majority of the respondents highlighted how instructional resources (new courses, hands-on activities and students direct collaboration with researchers and professors) have enhanced educational opportunities in support of sustainable agriculture. Other resources (didactic resources) such as: laboratories, experimental farms and equipment, were considered by the document analysis review as assets to maximize the benefits of instruction; and every college of agriculture is well endowed in terms of such resources (Newsome, 1991; Nelson, 1996; Kunkel et al., 1996).

The fourth research question asked the respondents what were the reasons for having or having not incorporated principles of sustainable agriculture in the curriculum.

91

The answer to this question was provided through interview data that were obtained from the responses to the first and third interview questions. Their diversity reiterates the multiformity of thoughts and philosophies that characterize agricultural educators in their effort to acknowledge sustainability and to consider the incorporation of its principles in the curriculum (Kunkel et al., 1996).

The fifth research question asked the interviewees about the perceptions, feelings and attitudes of the students concerning sustainable agriculture. The answer to this question derived from the responses given to the fourth interview question. Young professors of agriculture are less resistant to change, whereas their older colleagues normally are more reluctant to get involved in new, educational ventures (Nelson, 1996). Additionally, land-grant universities experience more difficulties in gearing their curricula toward sustainable agriculture because the chemical industry usually sponsors their research and educational programs (Berry, 1996). On the other hand, smaller universities seem to be more receptive to curricular changes because they cannot compete with the larger agricultural schools for funds and resources. Another important consideration is that administrators are often unaware of what is happening in their programs because they are not directly in touch with their faculties or the curricula. Students are attentive to the changes occurring in the agricultural industry and they are somewhat interested to learn about alternative farming methods that are more environmentally concerned. Concurrently, they are also interested in developing skills that may contribute to make them marketable in the job-world market.

92

Information related to the sixth research question, was provided by the analysis of the scores obtained from the administration of the test to the eight student samples involved in the study. The analysis of the frequencies for every test question indicated the strengths and the weaknesses of the curriculum when students’ academic achievement was measured. More precisely, areas of great knowledge were represented by high mean frequencies of responses to items on the test such as: “humus” (M=0.52), “biomass” (M=0.67), “biodiversity” (M=0.66), “ecology” (M=0.67), “monoculture” (M=0.73), “polyculture” (M=0.72), “carbon/nitrogen ratio” (M=0.67). On the other hand, areas of weakness were represented by low mean frequencies for concepts such as: “eutrophication” (M=0.21), “reductionism” (M=0.20), “alternative agriculture” (M=0.30), “holism” (M=0.33), “green manure” (M=0.33) and “succession” (M=0.29).

Summary of the Data Analysis This study entailed the acquisition of quantitative and qualitative research data in order to answer the research questions. The administration of the evaluation instrument to the student samples brought forth statistics (M=0.5152; S.D.=0.2160; Range=0.00-0.80) that substantiated students’ level of knowledge in sustainable agriculture. The interviews with faculty members and administrators demonstrated a genuine interest for a sustainable agriculture, although very diverse and broad appears to be the spectrum of needs and constraints for promoting a systemic change of the curricula presently in place at these institutions. The document analysis review for the selected colleges verified the availability of resources (farms and laboratories) that serve as assets to maximize the efficacy of instruction.

93

CHAPTER V

Introduction This chapter presents the importance of the study, the purpose of the study, the design and the methodology, and the summary of the findings. The conclusions and recommendations for further research are also presented.

Importance of the Study The study addresses the critical situation in which agriculture and agricultural education have plunged for the last five decades, and it proposes viable recommendations that, from the educational perspective, could improve the curriculum. An innovative curriculum for undergraduate programs of study in the agricultural sciences should incorporate principles of sustainable agriculture. Prompt interventions are needed at the educational level in order to maintain human prosperity for the years to come. Substantial evidence exists to support the idea that the need for systemic changes is truthfully sought at various levels, especially within the colleges of agriculture of modern universities (Vietor, et al., 1996). A secondary purpose of this study is to generate interest in conducting further research in the field and thus, to inspire agricultural educators to initiate the most appropriate curricular changes where they are needed.

Purpose of the Study The main objective of this study was to substantiate the readiness of selected colleges of agriculture and universities to gear their curricula toward the emerging sustainable agriculture model. Agricultural educators, curriculum experts, stakeholders

94

and particularly students should benefit from this evaluation study. The discussion about the findings has illustrated the status of each participating institution in embracing the sustainable agriculture philosophy. This study was designed to generate interest among the various clients and the professional figures involved in food production to look at this ancient human practice from a more holistic perspective.

Design and Methodology The evaluation instrument purposefully designed to accomplish this evaluation study was translated into French and Italian (Appendix A). It was administered to a sample of senior students majoring in agriculture to verify their knowledge acquisition of sustainable agriculture principles.

This procedure allowed the collection of raw

quantitative data. A document analysis of relevant issues was accomplished through the study of catalogs, brochures and web pages of many agricultural universities. Finally, interviews conducted with one administrator and one faculty member of each one of the eight participating institutions allowed for the triangulation of the information gained from the three sources.

Data Analysis Quantitative data were analyzed through descriptive statistics. The chi-square test for goodness of fit was also performed with the students’ test data, in order to study the distribution of the test scores. From this analysis the investigator was able to demonstrate the normal distribution of the data and validate the test that was purposefully designed for this study. Chapter four included the analysis and discussion of the qualitative data that

95

were collected at every institution participating to the evaluation study, through interviews and the document analysis review.

Summary of the Findings The results of this study provided answers to six research questions.

The

questions and their related analysis resulted in the following findings. 1.

What are the perceptions of sustainable agriculture as described by faculty and administrators from selected institutions? Data obtained from the first interview question provided the basis for answering this

question. It is still complicated to articulate a comprehensive definition of sustainable agriculture that correctly reflects all its facets and issues (Keeney, 1989). Beyond the difficulties to define this construct, however, it is necessary to understand that its principles have become of universal applicability (Gliessman, 1998). The challenge remains to decide what farming practices can become the most sustainable in what kind of environmental and social contexts.

The complexity of the issue deserves much

attention for every ‘stratum’ of human society. Therefore, the need of improving curricula in the agricultural sciences is also driven by the compelling necessity of educating young agriculturists in making sound decisions when resources are manipulated. 2.

What curricular structures exist that direct instruction toward the sustainable agriculture model? The second research question has been answered through qualitative data collected

during the interviews (second interview question) and the document analysis review. A

96

broad-spectrum range of curriculum and course diversity exists among the studied institutions, despite the common foundations in the biological and physical sciences that are needed to prepare students to challenge the more technical courses. However, the creativity of faculties and appropriate administrative support can synergistically contribute to continue fulfilling their students’ educational needs while responding to the fast changes occurring in the agrarian sector.

The promotion of this dynamism in

curriculum reorganization and implementation should always be looked at attentively by the modern colleges of agriculture and rewards should be granted to those individuals who maintain commitment to these efforts. 3.

How have instructional resources been used to promote sustainable agriculture in the curriculum? The document analysis review and responses to the first and second interview

questions provide evidence of the use of instructional resources to promote sustainable agriculture in the curriculum. It appears, however, that despite the availability of various assets and instructional resources, the human resources (students, farmers, professors and administrators) play an extremely important role in the promotion of a sustainable agriculture. In this context, the support to this philosophy emerges primarily from the synergistic cooperation of every human component engaged in this challenging endeavor, with a particular emphasis on teachers of agriculture. These professionals stand between learners (farmers, students) and the decision makers (administrators, policy makers) and thus, their role becomes pivotal in understanding the learners’ needs while seeking administrative support to implement the curricular changes that will be most beneficial to all parts involved in this educational challenge.

97

4.

What are the reasons for having or not having incorporated principles of sustainable agriculture in the curriculum? The fourth research question was answered on the basis of the responses to the first

and third interview questions. The conception of systemic changes within a college of agriculture aiming at the improvement of its curricula through the incorporation of sustainability issues is an arduous task to undertake.

Therefore, it is legitimate to

comprehend the need of establishing stronger links and opportunities for interactions among faculty members, administrators and students of the college of agriculture in order to promote a prolific discussion that aims at the reorganization of the entire curriculum. 5.

What are the faculty and administrators’ perceptions/feelings/attitudes of the students concerning sustainable agriculture? According to the interview responses of the faculty and administrators, the students

are receptive to learn more about the principles of sustainable agriculture. They are attentive to curricular changes toward sustainability if these efforts may contribute to enhance their employment opportunities. 6.

What are the students’ knowledge of issues and concepts related to sustainable agriculture as represented by their scores on an objective-based evaluation instrument? The analysis of the quantitative data obtained from the students’ test scores provided

evidence of students’ knowledge of sustainable agriculture concepts and issues. These reflected great areas of knowledge in sustainable agriculture but also weaknesses when the students were challenged with the questions of the evaluation instrument.

98

Conclusions The cumulative data analysis of this evaluation study reveals a generalized interest in incorporating principles of sustainable agriculture in the undergraduate curriculum. The quantitative data provided substantial information to draw conclusions about the strengths and weaknesses about the knowledge in sustainable agriculture by senior students. The document analysis at each surveyed institution demonstrated the availability of facilities (farms and laboratories) that are assets to improve instruction efficiency in the agricultural sciences; this capability has the potential to gear teaching and learning toward sustainability. Document analysis data substantiate the interest on this issue and, in some cases, they verify the impetus that has already determined interesting changes in the agricultural curriculum in some foreign countries. Qualitative data verified how the French institutions, for example, have added to their curricula a fifth year of study in order to expose students to sustainable agriculture. Non land-grant institutions and newly established agricultural schools, appear to be highly responsive to the need of steering curricula toward sustainability. The interpretation of this trend seems to be attributable to the need of these institutions to develop an alternative image of their college of agriculture that may attract students to enroll in their programs and to remain in them until completion of their studies. Finally, smaller universities cannot compete for funding with the land-grant colleges and, therefore, their higher level of independence from the agrochemical companies seems to allow them to be more flexible and receptive to change.

99

Land-grant colleges are attentive to the issue, although they may experience greater difficulties to promote change in their curricula due to the fragmentation of the college of agriculture in several highly specialized departments. However, some changes are taking place although they are primarily the outcome of individual or departmental sensibility to more sustainable farming practices.

For example, the Department of

Horticulture of one of the American schools has developed a course in organic vegetable production (P. Hegwood, personal communication, August 4, 1999). Integrated Pest Management courses are already established in some American universities to broaden students’ perspectives in farming practices and technologies that are more environmentally concerned.

Initiatives to incorporate sustainable agriculture principles in the curriculum have been given different levels of emphasis with various reasons to explain this trend. According to Lacy (1997), the most appropriate changes in curricula are inevitable to occur because industry professionals and consumers will remain engaged as life long learners in this crucial area of human livelihood. Therefore, colleges of agriculture must become aware of the increasing diversity of their student body.

The employment

opportunities for the graduates are another important point worthy of consideration as the food industry continues to create new professions, which demand a more diverse type of training. Agriculture majors are no longer young men coming directly from their parents’ farms and, consequently, may not possess the practical experience they used to have prior to coming to college.

They enroll in the agricultural curriculum with very diverse

backgrounds, learning styles and expectations. For these reasons, John, Townsend and

100

Nelson (1996) support the idea of prioritizing the students’ educational needs by incorporating principles of ethics, system studies and societal relationships with food production and other related areas in the agricultural curriculum.

Recommendations for Further Research The data generated during this evaluation study have provided only a partial answer to the problem due to the limitations of the study.

However, additional

implications for further research have emerged from this initial investigation. From this consideration therefore, the following recommendations can be proposed in order to stimulate educators to conduct more research: •

The incorporation of more institutions in future evaluation studies will contribute to the expansion of the knowledge base in the foundations of agricultural teachings and philosophies.



The study of the career path of young graduates will demonstrate the interest of these professionals to pursue careers in agriculture that are more environmentally concerned.

Such a study will reveal also the availability of employment

opportunities and thus, point out the reactions of the job market to the curriculum improvement efforts carried out by the college of agriculture. •

Comparative investigations of sustainable agriculture students versus nonsustainable agriculture students with regards to continuing education, and participation in research will verify the professional preparation of the new generation of agriculturists in responding to environmental challenges.

101



The study of different cultural responses to the need for and study of sustainable agriculture will provide a tangible proof about the emerging sustainable agriculture philosophy from a more holistic perspective.



Studies approaching the institutional support to innovative and qualified faculty members, who are involved in researching and implementing curricular changes, will become the initial step for triggering systemic shifts in education toward sustainability.



The study of the affiliations of the college of agriculture with corporations and agencies will tune philosophies and approaches to the challenges of future food production activities toward a unified theory for sustainable agriculture.

Sustainable Agriculture as a Curriculum Emphasis

It appears that colleges of agriculture are well equipped to impart technical knowledge in the agricultural sciences. The problem seems to stem more from the need of developing a renovated epistemology that shifts away from any fields of specialization.

Modern ethics in agriculture must concentrate on topics about food

quality and salubrity. The long-term capability of farms to remain productive with minimum negative impact on the environment and the legacy that agriculture needs to maintain with rural communities and the management of resources are issues of undeniable importance in the sustainable curriculum in agriculture. Finally, a renovated agricultural policy in support of rural communities appears necessary in agricultural studies, at the undergraduate level. This effort should aim at incorporating a course, or a sequence of ethics courses in the agricultural curriculum.

102

The need of incorporating the principles of sustainable agriculture in the curriculum of the new millennium is a real necessity, although not an easy task. This multifaceted challenge remains an inevitable mandate that every college of agriculture will have to address in the near future. Proposing feasible curriculum changes is a matter of universal concern in order to avoid the demise of the college of agriculture from the university and resulting drastic, negative consequences in the management of farming systems. Newsome (1991) illustrates this condition by explaining the interest that has driven fervent discussions in academe in order to ameliorate the crisis in which agricultural institutions have plunged since the agricultural crisis of the early eighties. In her opinion, a renewed knowledge base for the agricultural sciences will redefine the intellectual purposes of the college of agriculture.

It is not the need to regain the

traditional status of the land-grant institutions but rather to achieve excellence in agriculture at every level. This major objective is to be pursued through the capability of the college of agriculture to continue providing outstanding quality of instruction with limited resources. Van Crowder, Bruening and Doran (1999) point out that agricultural programs are expensive because of the equipment and materials (land, implements, laboratories) that become necessary to enhance students’ learning experiences.

The most innovative agricultural educators propose a curriculum with more emphasis on stewardship and management of resources. These aspects are becoming the guiding focus of sustainable programs of study in agriculture. The increasing societal concern to maintain environmental integrity is slowly reducing the load that production and profit have had for many years in training professionals for the food and agricultural

103

industry (Van Crowder, 1997). Therefore, curriculum developers must consider the educational needs of students of agriculture and agricultural colleges must reestablish links with their communities in order to enhance communication and mutual understanding.

This capability becomes even more important when agricultural

educators attempt to facilitate curricular changes and to promote the evolution of programs of study in response to societal and environmental shifts.

Traditional agricultural education has either focused excessively on the science and technology of production or, through the discipline of agricultural economics, on efficiencies of resource use and income distribution in the farm sector (Collins & Dunne, 1996). Curriculum development may begin either with a general assessment of needs or with a specific problem the curriculum designer attempts to resolve (Pratt, 1980).

If the aim is to study agroecosystems from the system level with the objective of achieving excellence in teaching and maximizing the learner’s experience through sustainable agriculture, then the college of agriculture will have to rely more and more on the quality of its faculty. Therefore, agricultural generalists should be considered the “ad hoc” instructors to fulfill the requirements of the sustainable curriculum and thus, succeed in training the new generation of agriculturists.

Other important implications that derive from this evaluation study have to do with learning and research. If this first construct is the synonym of a never-ending happening, then every operator working in the field should passionately pursue a clearer

104

understanding of agroecosystems. Professional agriculturists are no exception, and while maintaining this inquisitive attitude, they should also become more receptive to the farmers’ practical experience and, accordingly, treasure their knowledge.

The

combination of reflection and action (praxis) must become a focal point of curriculum research in agriculture. The outcome of this endeavor will improve people and empower their decision-making (Freire, 1999). Therefore, learning from our past agrarian history becomes necessary and our agrarian heritage cannot be neglected in a sustainable agricultural curriculum (Enshayan, 1992; Freedgood, 1997). A sustainable curriculum in agriculture must reiterate the efficacy of the learning process in a synergistic effort in which all the figures involved in agriculture are contributing effectively to the acquisition of new knowledge built on the initial experiences of our farming ancestors.

This less restrictive but more realistic alternative to learn about agricultural systems, which stands at the interface of natural systems and the purposeful activities of people, becomes a pivotal factor for the design of a sustainable curriculum in agriculture. Professional agriculturists need to communicate more effectively with the members of rural communities, value their experience and incorporate this knowledge into the acquired wealth of information that has been pursued through rigorous experimentation. Only in this way can the maximum, long-term benefits for human communities be achieved.

The design of a curriculum in sustainable agriculture requires the

acknowledgement of archaic farming techniques. The challenge consists of blending this knowledge harmoniously with the most sophisticated technology applicable to specific, local conditions with minimal negative impact on the environment. Therefore, to this

105

end, the educational philosophy here proposed for developing curricula in sustainable agriculture should incorporate the following principles:



Require that agriculturists approach all major issues dealing with the management of the cultivated field from the perspective of the “whole” biodiversity, rather than of a single, or a few species.



Consider that knowledge is always approximate and in continuous evolution, rather than stationary and absolute (Capra, 1996).



Comprehend that only through holistic decision-making can humanity pursue a sustainable agriculture and develop prosperous communities.



Realize that sustainability deals with the well being of all species, not just humans.



Comprehend that farming systems have been evolving over time (just like natural ecosystems) and scientists possess only a limited understanding of their functioning thus, more humility and respect should be embraced by agriculturists when they manipulate resources.



Require that courses in the agricultural sciences incorporate principles of ecology, ethics and evolution.

A summary table (Table 8) illustrates the objectives of the proposed curriculum model in sustainable agriculture. Additionally, it illustrates the innovative model with the objectives of curricular paradigms already in place in various world countries that were discussed previously in Chapter two.

106 Table 8. Summary of program objectives in the agricultural sciences curricula of various world countries and proposed model for a sustainable curriculum in agriculture (Model III).

Objectives

Model I -prepare graduates to work in the (classical) agriculture U.S. and industry European -graduate study

-well-being society

II

-develop managerial skills

Model III Sustainable Agricultural Curriculum

-curricula may be broad but they lead students toward a specialization field

-best technology available to prepare graduates and fulfil needs of agroindustry firms -(*) appropriate technology

of

-develop managerial skills -technical assistance to coops and farms

-continue higher studies

Adaptation Totally diverse (due to objectives different technology)

-solid background in the physical and biological sciences

-communication skills

Model (Italian)

Similar objectives (Foundation)

-graduates are generally specialized in one technical sector -majority of students major in agribusiness curricula -agribusiness degree offers better job opportunities

-very curriculum

broad

-solid background in the physical and biological sciences

-high levels of technology and mechanization -quality production systems

-lack of specialization but comprehensive, broad, technical preparation in many aspect of modern agriculture

for

-rural appraising and surveying -communication skills -continue for graduate studies -develop good stewardship -wastes disposal and recycling -develop sound knowledge in production, biology and cultural practices

-solid background in the physical and biological sciences

-function on use of local resources -high levels of technology and mechanization are available -be built on knowledge and culture of local inhabitants

-graduates are competent in: ecology, ethics, political economy, sustainability, conservation biology and evolution. -focus on long term productive capacity -conserve and give value to biodiversity

-improve the environment LEGEND. (*) In this category of objectives Model I can be very diverse because the curricula of former European colonies around the world have been strongly influenced by western countries.

107

Evolutionary and ecological perspectives (Figure 3) become fundamental components for the development of courses in plant or animal breeding because the scientific foundations that explain how long-term change takes place in an ecosystem also apply to the cultivated plant and animal species in their environments. This approach makes students reflect that we, humans, are part of nature, and cooperating with it becomes mandatory for the present and future sustenance of the whole system (Raeburn, 1995). The idea of dominating nature is only the arrogant illusion that Callicott (1990) describes as Newtonian-mechanical agriculture, and that cannot help to solve the ethical nor the ecological problems engendered by modern agriculture.

Ecology

Conservation

Community

Evolution

Ethics

Education Figure 3. Key concepts and interactions for the proposed curriculum model in sustainable agriculture.

108

Historically, this approach has dominated human ontological contexts since the birth of modern science and the development of the Cartesian philosophy.

This

hegemonic epistemology, however, has failed to withstand time, as more recent scientific discoveries and their supporting theories have amply demonstrated the complexity of the universe.

Conceiving knowledge as a continuum, linear sequence of logic steps is

dramatically simplistic and therefore, most probably erroneous. According to the most recent scientific theories, the pursuit of knowledge proceeds through a multi directional network of spaces; it is acquired in limited amounts and every component of this knowledge is connected to many more parts of it in an infinite, intertwined web (Capra, 1996).

Education, conservation, and community represent three ancillary constructs that reinforce the meanings and effects of the three primary concepts of the model (ecology, ethics and evolution). Education is a process feature in the proposed curriculum model. It is viewed as the vehicle that leads the learner to a comprehensive understanding of agricultural sustainability.

Community points out how synergies develop in a diverse environment and how positive the outcomes will be, if the free incorporation of every element in the system is always maintained. Conservation refers to the necessity of managing resources (natural and cultural) more responsibly. It enhances the concept of stewardship in the learner’s mind from the very beginning of his/her curriculum.

However, according to Aldo

Leopold (1949), conservation cannot be pursued unless mankind rejects the idea of

109

conceiving the land as a commodity.

Only when the land is comprehended as a

community, to which people also belong, then it may be regarded with love and more respect. For this purpose, Leopold’s land ethic should be incorporated as a mandatory foundation of instruction in the new curriculum in sustainable agriculture.

The connectedness among the six constructs highlights the network of relationships that become necessary to maintain the stability of the system.

The

established interactions foster the acquisition of more approximate knowledge and ultimately, they promote the evolution of the curriculum model proposed here a step further.

110

REFERENCES Ablemann, M. (1993). From The Good Earth. New York, NY: Harry N. Abrams Incorporated. Aiken, L. R. (1966). Another Look at Weighting Test Items. Educational Measurement, 3, 183-185.

Journal of

Altieri, M. A. & Francis, C. A. (1992). Incorporating agroecology into the conventional agricultural curriculum. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 7, 8993. Altieri, M. A. & Rosset, P. (1995). Agroecology and the conversion of largescale conventional systems to sustainable management. International Journal of Environmental Studies, vol.#, 1-21. Andersen, M. (1993). Studying across difference. In J. M. Stanfield II, and R. Dennis, (Eds.), Race and Ethnicity in Research Methods (pp. 39-52). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Aubrecht, G. H. (1990/1991). Is There a Connection Between Testing and Teaching? Journal of College Science Teaching, 20, 152-157. Baker, M., Miller, C., Brill, R. & Feliz, J. (1990). Curriculum for International Agriculture. The Agricultural Education Magazine, 63, 8-9+November. Batie, S S. & Swinton, M. S (1994). Institutional issues and strategies for sustainable agriculture: View from within the land-grant university. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, 9, 23-27. Baxter, G. P., Shavelson, R., J., Goldman, S., R. & Pine, J. (1992). Evaluation of Procedure-Based Scoring for Hands on Science Assessment. Journal of Educational Measurement, 29(1), 1-17. Bawden, R. J., Macadam, R. D, Packham, R. J. & Valentine, I. (1984). Systems Thinking and Practices in the Education of Agriculturalists. Agricultural Systems, 13, 205-225. Bennet, R., Rock, D. & Wang, M. (1991). Equivalence of Free Response and Multiple Choice Items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 28, 77-92. Berry, W. (1996). The Unsettling of America. Culture and Agriculture. San Francisco, CA: Sierra Club Books. Beauchamp, G. (1972). Basic components of a curriculum theory. Curriculum Theory Network 3(10), 16-22.

111

Beauchamp, G. (1978). A hard look at curriculum. Educational leadership 35(5), 404-409. Beus, C. E. & Dunlap, R. E. (1990). Conventional versus Alternative Agriculture: The Paradigmatic Roots of the Debate. Rural Sociology 55(4), 590-616. Bezdicek, D. F. & DePhelps, C. (1994). Innovative approaches for integrated research and educational programs. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 9, 3-7. Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Cognitive Domain. New York, NY: McKay.

Handbook I:

Borsari, B. & Shirley, V. B. (1993). Preservation of Natural Habitats: Biodiversity and Farming. Annual Proceedings of the American Society of Environmental Science, 181-187. Borsari, B. (1997). Agriculture in Tropical Africa: Achieving a balance between land use and conservation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of Sigma Xi, Scientific Research Society, Louisiana Chapter, Eunice, LA. Borsari, B. (1998a). Sustainable Agriculture: Concepts and Educational Applications. In B. Borsari & M. F. Vidrine (Eds.), Sustainable Agriculture Seminar Proceedings: Vol. 1, Low Input Agriculture: Feasible Alternatives to Conventional Agricultural Practices (pp. 14-19). Eunice, LA: LSU-E Press. Borsari, B. (1998b). Teaching Introductory Agriculture Courses through Distance Education Technology at Louisiana State University. Journal of College Science Teaching, 28(1), September/October, 62-64. Borsari, B. (1999a). A Practical Application of Andragogical Theory Assumptions in Introductory Biology Courses. Adopting an Educational Paradigm that Targets the Adult Learner. Journal of College Science Teaching 28(5), March/April, 311-314. Borsari, B. (1999b). Teaching Agriculture in Tropical Africa: Understanding the Local Culture for the Design of a Sustainable Curriculum. Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa. [On-line serial], 1(2). Available at: http://www.kzoo.edu/africa/ Borsari, B. & Vidrine, M. F. (2000). An Evaluation Tool for Improving Undergraduate Curricula in Agriculture. Sustainable Agriculture-Fertile Ground for Growth in the Agricultural Sciences. Journal of College Science Teaching, 29(4), 235240. Breece, D. J. (1993). University course work for farmers. Journal of Extension, Fall, 35.

112

Callicott, B. J. (1990). The metaphysical transition in farming: from the Newtonian mechanical to the Eltonian-ecological. Journal of Agricultural Ethics, 3, 3639. Capra, F. (1996). The Web of Life. New York, NY: Anchor Books, Doubleday. Carlgren, I. & Kallos, D. (1997). Lessons from a comprehensive school system for curriculum theory and research: Sweden revisited after twenty years. Journal of Curriculum Studies 29, 407-430. Carson, R. (1962). Silent Spring. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin. Cheser Jacobs, L. & Chase, C. I. (1992). Developing and Using Tests Effectively: A Guide for Faculty. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Chiasson, J. (1987). African Journey. New York, NY: Bradbury Press. Collins, R. J., & Dunne, A. J. (1996). Utilizing multilevel capstone courses in an integrated agribusiness curriculum. Agribusiness, 12(1), 105-112. Conti, G. J. & Welborn, R. B. (1986). Teaching learning styles and the adult learner. Lifelong Learning, 9(8), 8-11. Danbom, D. B. (1997). Past Visions of American Agriculture. In W. Lockeretz (Ed.), Visions of American Agriculture (pp. 3-16). Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press. Diamond, J. E. (1987). A Philosophy of International Agricultural Education. The Agricultural Education Magazine 59 (9), 22-23. Donald, J. D. (1986). Education 15(3-4), 267-282.

Knowledge and the university curriculum.

Higher

Driscoll, F. G. (1972). T[rascendental] M[editations] as a secondary school subject. Phi Delta Kappan (December), 236-237. Due, J. M. & Gladwin, C. H. (1991). Impacts of structural adjustment programs on African women farmers and female-headed households. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 73, 1431-1439. Ebel, R. L. (1975). Can Teachers Write Good True-False Test Items? Journal of Educational Measurement, 12, 31-36. Ebun-Cole, W. A. (1992). Adult learning principles for the improvement of agricultural extension in Sierra Leone. Convergence, 25(3), 53-65.

113

Elliot, D., Hirsch, M. L., & Puro, M. (1993). Overcoming institutional barriers to broad-based curricular change. Innovative Higher Education, 18(1), 37-46. El Titi, A. & Landes, H. (1990). Integrated farming Systems of Lautenbach: A Practical Contribution Toward Sustainable Agriculture in Europe. In: Sustainable Agricultural Systems, (pp. 265-286). Soil and Water Conservation Society, Ankeny, Iowa. Enshayan, K. (1992). Rethinking agricultural education. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 7(4), 146-147. Ernst, E. W. (1989). 79,(January/February), 20-24.

Curriculum Development.

Engineering Education,

Fairnie, I. J., Stanton, J. H. & Dobbin, L. (1989). A profile of tomorrow’s agribusiness leaders: the Australian perspective. Agribusiness, 5, 259. Faustman, C., Riesen, J., Suter, D. & Vietor, D. (1996). New Forms of Higher Education in Agriculture. In H. O. Kunkel, C. L. Skaggs & I. L. Maw (Eds.), Revolutionizing Higher Education in Agriculture. Framework for Change (pp. 74-94). Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press. Ferris, F. L. (1960). Testing for Physics Achievement. American Journal of Physics, 28, 269-278. Fox, B. (1987). Training for Growth. The Work of the International Agricultural Training Programme in Developing Agricultural Training Skills. Agriculture International, 39, (Supplement), 7-8. Francis, C. & King, J. (1994). Will there be people in sustainable ecosystems? Designing an educational mosaic for the 22nd century. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, 9, 16-22. Freedgood, J. (1997). Farming to Improve Environmental Quality. In W. Lockeretz (Ed.), Visions of American Agriculture (pp. 77-90). Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press. Freire, P. (1999). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York, NY: The Continuum Publishing Company. French, E. C., & Erven, B. L. (1985). Agribusiness and professional M. S. Degree programs in agricultural economics in the United States. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 67, 1215-1222. Frisbie, D. A. (1974). Multiple Choice and True-False. A Comparison of Reliability and Concurrent Validity. Journal of Educational Measurement,12, 29-35.

114

Fromm, E. (1981). Anatomia della Distruttivita’ Umana. [Anatomy of Human Destructiveness]. Milano, Italy: Arnoldo Mondadori Editore. Glesne, C. (1999). Becoming Qualitative Researchers: An Introduction. 2nd Ed. White Plains, NY: Longman. Gliessman, S. R. (1992). Agroecology in the Tropics: Achieving a Balance Between Land Use and Preservation. Environmental Management 16(6), 681-689. Gliessman, S. R. (1998). Agroecology. Ecological Processes in Sustainable Agriculture. Chelsea, MI: Sleeping Bear Press. Grant, L. D. & Caplan, N. (1957). Studies in the Reliability of Short-Answer Examinations. Journal of Educational Research, 51, 109-116. Hawley, W. D. (1990). The theory and practice of alternative certification: implications for the improvement of teaching. Peabody Journal of Education 44, 3-34. Hill, J. C. (1988). How to be responsive to stakeholders in curriculum studies. NASSP Bulletin, 72(509), 8-13. Holmgren, P. (1992). Avoiding the Exam Return Question “Wall” – Working with Your SERC Committee. Journal of College Science Teaching, 21(4), 214-216. Hopman, S. & Kunzli, R. (1997). Close our schools! Against current trends in policy making, educational theories and curriculum studies. Journal of Curriculum Studies 29(3), 259-266. Huck, S. W. & Cormier, W. H. (1996). Reading Statistics and Research. New York, NY: Harper Collins Publishers Inc. Jackson, W. (1985). New Roots for Agriculture. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. John, H. H., Townsend, C. & Nelson, G. (1996). Envisioning Higher Education in Agriculture. In H. O. Kunkel, C. L. Skaggs & I. L. Maw (Eds.), Revolutionizing Higher Education in Agriculture. Framework for Change (pp.41-61). Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press. Johnson, G. L. & Okigbo, B. N. (1989). Institutional building lessons from USAID’s agriculture faculty development projects in Nigeria. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 71, 1211-1218. Keeney, D. R. (1989). Toward a sustainable agriculture: Need for clarification of concepts and terminology. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture,4(3-4), 101105.

115

Kuder, G. F. & Richardson, M. W. (1937). The Theory of Estimation of Test Reliability. Psychometrika, 2(70), 151-160. Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 3rd Ed. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Kunkel, H. O., Skaggs, C. L. & Maw, I. L. (1996). Revolutionizing Higher Education in Agriculture. Framework for Change. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press. Lacy, W. B. (1997). Educating Lifelong Learners for the American Food System. In W. Lockeretz (Ed.), Vision of American Agriculture (pp. 219-230). Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press. Lele, U. (1992). Aid to African agriculture: Lessons from two decades of donor’s experience. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 43, 179-187. Leopold, A. (1949). A sand county almanac and sketches here and there. New York: Oxford Univesity Press. Linder, M. P. (1993). What is agriculture in the classroom? Hortscience, 28(2), 91-92. Litzenberg, K. K., & Schneider, V. E. (1987). Competencies and qualities of agricultural graduates sought by agribusiness employers. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 69, 1031. Macadam, R. D. & Packham, R. G. (1989). A case study in the use of soft system methodology: Restructuring an academic organization to facilitate the education of systems agriculturalists. Agricultural Systems, 30, 351-367. Maguire, P. (1987). Uncovering generative themes: Learning through dialogue. In Doing Participatory Research: A Feminist Approach. The Center for International Education, School of Education. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts, pp. 163193. Marshal, T. A. & Herring, D. R (1991). Sustainable Agriculture: An Essential Part of the In-Agriculture Curriculum. The Agricultural Education Magazine 64, 10-21. McMorris, R. F., DeMers, L. P. & Schwartz, S. P. (1987). Attitudes, Behaviors, and Reasons for Changing Responses Following Answer-Changing Instruction. Journal of Educational Measurement, 24,(2), 147-155. Miller, G. & Polito, T. (1999). The Effect of Cooperative Learning Team Composition on Selected Learner Outcomes. Journal of Agricultural Education 40(1), 66-73.

116

Miller, R. W. & Gardiner, T. D. (1998), Soils in Our Environment. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc. Miller, G. & Polito, T. (1999). The Effect of Cooperative Learning Team Composition on Selected Learner Outcomes. Journal of Agricultural Education 40(1), 66-73. Nelson, A. G. (1996). Making Change Decisions: Deciding to Change Colleges of Agriculture. In H. O. Kunkel, C. L. Skaggs & I. L. Maw (Eds.), Revolutionizing Higher Education in Agriculture. Framework for Change (pp. 102-112). Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press. Newsome, R. (1991). How can Undergraduate Education be Improved? Food Technology, (July), 122-130. Ornstein, A. C. & Hunkins, F. P. (1989). Curriculum Theory: Meaning, Function and Practice. NASSP Bulletin 73, 103-110. Orr. D. W. (1992). Ecological Literacy. Education and Transition to a postmodern World. New York, NY: State University of New York Press. Osborne, E. W. & Moss, J. W. (1991). Biological science applications in agriculture. The Agricultural Education Magazine 63, 8-10. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Pickett, C. H. & Bugg, R. L. (1998). Enhancing Biological Control. Habitat Management to Promote Natural Enemies of Agricultural Pests. Berkley, CA: University of California Press. Pilione, T. (1998). Holistic management decision-making: Producing a profit while considering human values and restoring the environment. In B. Borsari & M. F. (Eds.), Sustainable Agriculture Seminar Proceedings: Vol. 1, Low Input Agriculture: Feasible Alternatives to Conventional Agricultural Practices (pp. 20-26). Eunice, LA: LSU-E Press. Popham, J. W. (1993). Educational Evaluation. (3rd Ed.), Needham Heights, MA, Prentice Hall. Pratt, D. (1980). Curriculum design and development. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.

New York, NY:

Pudasaini, S. P. (1983). The Effects of Education in Agriculture: Evidence from Nepal. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, (August), 509-515.

117

Raeburn, P. (1995). The Last Harvest. The Genetic Gamble that Threatens to Destroy American Agriculture. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Riley, K. L. & Slater Stern, B. (1998). Using Authentic Assessment and Qualitative Methodology to Bridge Theory and Practice. The Educational Forum 62, 178-185. Rodale, R. (1972). Small growers need more help from the agriculture colleges. Organic Gardening, (September), 30-37. Rodale, R. (1976a). Small is necessary. (February), 58-62.

Organic Gardening and Farming,

Rossman, G.& Ralls, S. (1998). Learning in the Field: An Introduction to Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Russel, E. B. (1993). Attracting youth to agriculture. How colleges of agriculture can expand their role. Journal of Extension, (Winter), 13-14. Salvador, R. J., Schmidt, A. G. & Miller, B. E. (1993). Sustainable Agriculture Course Delivered Nationally Via Satellite. Journal of Natural Resources and Life Science Education, 22(1), 11-21. Sanders, J., H. Meyer, R., L., Fox, R., W. & Peres, F., C. (1989). Agricultural University Institution Building in Brazil: Sucesses, Problems, and Lessons for other Countries. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 71, 1206-1210. Schumann, G. L. (1987). Plant pathology in general education. Plant Disease, 71, 857-860. Shepherd, E. M. (1929). The Effect of Quality of Penmanship on Grades. Journal of Educational Research, 19, 102-105. Silletto, T. A., Von Bargen, K. & Schinstock, J. L. (1993). Revitalizing a curriculum. University of Nebraska-Lincoln identifies “outcomes” needed from an education – to benefit students, potential employers. Agricultural Engineering, 74 21-3+. Singha, S., Skaggs, C. L. & Nelson, G. (1996). Facilitating Systemic Change. In H. O. Kunkel, C. L. Skaggs & I. L. Maw (Eds.), Revolutionizing Higher Education in Agriculture. Framework for Change (pp. 113-126). Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press. Soule, J. D. & Piper, J. K. (1992). Farming in Nature’s Image. Washington D.C., Island Press.

118

Stauber, K. N. (1994). Alternative Agriculture, 9, 9-15.

The futures of agriculture.

American Journal of

Swaminathan, H., Hambleton, R. K. & Algina, J. (1974). Reliability of Criterion-Referenced Tests: A Decision-Theoretic Formulation. Journal of Educational Measurement, 11(4), 263-267. Townsend, C. & H. O. Kunkel. (1996). Curricular Design. In H. O. Kunkel, C. L. Skaggs & I. L. Maw (Eds.), Revolutionizing Education in Agriculture. Framework for Change (pp. 62-73). Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press. Van Crowder, L. (1997). A Participatory Approach to Curriculum Development. [On-line serial]. Available at: http://WWW.FAO.ORG/WAICENT/FAOINFO/SUSTDEV/Exdirect/EX0017.htm Van Crowder, L., Lindley, W. I., Bruening, T. H.& Doron, N. (1999). Agricultural Education for Sustainable Rural Development: Challenges for Developing Countries in the 21st Century. [On-line serial]. Available at: http://WWW.FAO.ORG/WAICENT/FAOINFO/SUSTDEV/Exdirect/Exan0025.htm Vidrine, M. F. & Borsari, B. (1999). Restoring Native Habitats as Part of IPM in Southwestern Louisiana, USA. In Association Nationale de Protection des Plantes (Ed.), Cinquième Conférence Internationale sur les Ravageurs en Agriculture (pp. 853-860). Montpellier, France: AGRO Montpellier. Vierich, H., I., D. & Stoop, W., A. (1990). Changes in West African savanna Agriculture in Response to Growing Population and Continuing Low Rainfall. Agriculture, Ecosystem and Environment, 31, 115-132. Vietor, D., John, H. H., Thompson, P. B. & Kunkel, H. O. (1996). Higher Education in Agriculture: The Setting and the Need for Change. In H. O. Kunkel, C. L. Skaggs & I. L. Maw (Eds.), Revolutionizing Higher Education in Agriculture. Framework for Change (pp. 6-16). Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press. Walter, G. & Reisner, A. (1994). Midwestern land-grant university scientists’ definitions of sustainable agriculture: A delphi study. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, 9(3), 109-121. White, L. Jr. (1967). The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis. Science, 155, 1203-1207. Williams, D. L. (1997). Teaching Tomorrow’s Agriculture Today. Agricultural Education Magazine 69, 10-11+ March/April.

The

Zais, R. S. (1976). Curriculum Principles and Foundations. New York, NY: Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc.

119

Zucconi, F. (1996). Declino del Suolo e Stanchezza del Terreno. [Soil Sickness and Decline]. Padova, Italy: Spazio Verde.

120

APPENDIX A Sustainable Agriculture Test Please, consider each one of the following questions by circling only one of the four (a, b, c, d,) options. You are free to use your books and notes from regular course work if you wish to do so. Completion for this test should not take longer than 30 minutes, however there is no time limit.

1.

a. b. c. d.

2.

a. b. c. d.

3.

a. b. c. d.

4.

a. b. c. d.

The term “sustainable agriculture” has been used for a couple of decades in order to convey the innovative idea of agricultural systems that are: ecologically sound economically and socially viable integrating various crops, livestock species and management practices all of the above

An innovative agricultural practice that aims to protect crops from insect pests without using synthetic insecticides but rather utilize beneficial insect species is known as: integrated pest management biological control pest monitoring sexual confusion

An organism place and function in the environment, defined by its utilization of resources is called the: ecological niche habitat organismal role ecosystem

What is the fraction of soil organic matter resulting as the end product of the decomposition and mineralization of organic materials called? mulch crop residues humus manure

121

5. a. b. c. d.

6.

a. b. c. d.

7.

a. b. c. d.

8.

a. b. c. d.

9.

a. b. c. d.

The mass of all the organic matter in a given system at a given point in time. mulch detritus biome biomass

An agricultural system conceived as a complex system of complementary relationships between living organisms and their environment within a certain physical area is called: functional system agroecosystem farm cultivated field

How would you define the total number of species and the genetic variability within each species in the formation of integrated biological communities? biospeciation biodiversity biodynamism none of the above

How would you define a more sustainable method of managing pastures in which herds graze a number of smaller plots and are moved frequently from plot to plot after they consume the grass within a plot? intensive grazing overgrazing method rotational grazing semi-intensive grazing method

Which of these phrases is likely to provide us with the most valid and direct evidence of an integrated farming system? a system in which IPM is commonly practiced a system highly specialized in maximizing yields and profits from a major crop a system that is diversified in terms of crops, livestock, and activities none of the statements above is correct

122

10.

a. b. c. d.

11.

a. b. c. d.

12.

a. b. c. d.

13.

a. b. c. d.

14.

a. b. c. d.

If you were interested in learning more about the relationships and interactions of plants, animals, microorganisms and their habitats, what discipline would you have to study? ecology biology agronomy animal science

Eutrophication and in particular the accumulation of phosphorus in various aquifers is not solely caused by the pollution of water sources, but also by: massive application of biocides on the land leaching of pesticides through soil profile suspended sediments of eroded topsoil none of the above A more “environmentally friendly technique” that stands between conventional and organic farming, with the aim of protecting crops against pathogens, insects and weeds is known as: reduced pesticide application integrated pest management biological control best management practices

On-farm resource that derives from recycling crop residues and that reincorporated into the soil produces beneficial amending effects. crop stubble organic matter manure compost

Highly specialized farming system whose main objective is to produce maximum yields from just one single crop. superculture polyculture monoculture hydroculture

123

15.

a. b. c. d.

16.

a. b. c. d.

17.

a. b. c. d.

18.

a. b. c. d.

The philosophical approach leading to non-sustainable decision making would be criticized by an ecologist as being: holistic opportunistic reductionist ineffective

A farming system which includes the simultaneous growing of several, different species is known as: polyculture primitive agriculture subsistence farming monoculture

Alternative agriculture is the art of farming without using chemicals or other high energy inputs. Which of the terms listed below could be identified with this concept? permaculture ecological agriculture biodynamic agriculture all of the above

Which of the most important soil element ratios become an important parameter to determine the level of stabilization of the organic matter? phosphorus/potassium carbon/nitrogen carbon/calcium calcium/magnesium

19. Why is holistic management (H.M.) a plausible component of the sustainable agriculture paradigm? a. because H.M. helps farmers to maximize profit b. because H.M. helps farmers to make decisions that are socially, economically and environmentally sound c. because H.M. helps farmers to achieve maximum yields from their crops d. because H.M. offers alternatives to the use of high energy, costly equipment

124

20. The achievement of an effect produced by the action of two or more substances, organs, or organisms that is greater than the sum of the two effects when acting separately is called: a. b. c. d.

21.

synergism antagonism mutualism companion effect J.C. Smuts in 1926 coined the word “holism” for the first time in his work Holism and Evolution. Which of the following observations is most supportive of this concept when applied to sustainable agriculture?

a. everything is already known about functioning and productivity of agroecosystems b. to achieve a sustainable agriculture is a matter of maintaining best management practices c. agroecosystems are still relatively known but biotechnology is the key factor to achieve sustainability in the future d. agroecosystems are “whole units” and still very little is known about the laws that regulate their equilibria.

22. a. b. c. d.

23.

a. b. c. d.

What is the name of the underground space explored by the plant root system? rhizome rhizobium rhizosphere rhizotrone

When cover crops are tilled into the soil, the organic matter added to the soil is called…. humus compost green manure mulch

125

24.

a. b. c. d.

25.

a. b. c. d.

If a plant species would progressively tend to replace another one to achieve ecological climax, how would you define this phenomenon? rotation cultivation succession evolution

Disregarding the various technical practices within a sustainable agriculture system, which of these economic strategies do you see as the most valid in support of the sustainable agriculture philosophy? food scale economy local food system, like a community supported agriculture monopoly by few food corporation subsistence food economy

126

Test sur L’Agriculture Durable Après avoir lu attentivement chacune des questions suivantes, entacez une des quatre réponses (a, b, c, d). Vous pouvez utiliser vos livres et vos notes si vous le souhaitez. Le test ne devrait pas durer plus de 30 min., mais le temps n’est pas limité.

1.

a. b. c. d.

2.

a. b. c. d.

3.

a. b. c. d.

4.

a. b. c. d.

L’expression “agriculture durable” est utilisé depuis une vingtaine d’années pour désigner un aspect fondamental d’une agriculture qui: prenne en compte les aspects écologiques et utilise correctement les resources soit viable sur le plan économique et social intègre diverses cultures, pratiques agronomiques et techniques d’élevage toutes ces réponsus sont correctes

La technique agricole qui consiste à protèger les cultures contre les insectes nuisibles sans utilizer d’insecticides mais plutôt grâce á l’introduction d’insectes prédateurs des nuisibles s’appelle: lutte intégrée lutte biologique monitorage confusion sexsuelle L’implantation et la fonction d’un organisme interne à un milieu specifique, définie par l’utilisation des ressources disponibles est connue sous le nom de: niche écologique habitat rôle de l’organisme écosystème

Quel est le composant stable de la matière organique qui résulte dans le sol de la décomposition et de la minéralisation des résidus organiques en climat tempéré? mulch résidu de cultures humus fumier

127

5.

a. b. c. d.

6.

a. b. c. d.

7.

a. b. c. d.

8.

a. b. c. d.

9.

Quel terme définit la masse de toutes les substances organiques que l’on peut trouver en un lieu donné á un moment précis? mulch détritus organique biome biomasse Comment s’appelle un système agricole complexe à l’intérieur duquel s’établissent des relations complémentaires entre les divers organismes vivants et le milieu à l’interieur d’une zone déterminée? systéme fonctionnel agroécosystém ferme agricole champ cultivé Quel terme definit le nombre total d’espècès et la variabilité genetique de chacune d’entre elles dans la constitution de communautés biologiques intégrées? Biospeciation biodiversité biodynamisme aucune des réponses pré- citées

Comment pourrait-on définir une gestion plus durable des pâturages par une réduction de la taille des parcelles et un déplacement fréquent du troupeau à mesure de l’épuisement d’une parcelle? pâturage intensif pâturage super intensif pâturage en rotation pâturage semi-intensif Sans tenir compte de l’organisation des systémes agricoles diverses, quelle de ces phrases définit le mieux une exploitation agricole intégrée?

a. une ferme ou se pratique la protection intégrée des cultures b. une exploitation tournée vers l’optimization des rendements et des bénéfices d’une culture principale c. une ferme aux cultures, à l’élevage et aux activités diversifiés d. aucune de ces réponses n’est correcte

128

10.

a. b. c. d.

11.

Si vous souhaitez apprendre et approfondir votre connaisance des diveses relations qui s’établissent entre plantes, animaux, microrganismes et leur habitats, quelle matière vous foudra-t-il étudier? l’écologie la biologie l’agronomie la zootechnie L’eutrophisation et en particulier le mode d’accumulation du phosphore dans divers dépôts aquifères n’est pas seulement le résultat de la pollution de l’eau, mais aussi:

a. l’utilisation massive de biocides b. l’infiltration de pesticides dans le sol c. la suspension de sédiments provenant de sols érodés

12.

a. b. c. d.

13.

a. b. c. d.

14.

a. b. c. d.

Une “technique plus respectueus de l’environnement” qui se trouve entre l’agriculture conventionelle et l’agriculture biologique et son but est de protéger les récoltes contre les agents pathogènes, les insectes et les mauvaises herbes. utilisation réduite de pesticides gestion intégrée contrôle biologique meilleure gestion de l’exploitation

Produit qui provient du recyclage de résidus de cultures et qui, une fois réintroduit dans le sol, constitue un amendement efficace. chaume substance organique fumier compost Système agricole très spécialisé dont l’objectif principal est de fournir un rendement maximum pour une seule culture. superculture polyculture monoculture hydroculture

129

15.

a. b. c. d. 16.

a. b. c. d.

17.

a. b. c. d.

18.

a. b. c. d. 19.

Un écologiste critiquerait l’approche philosophique conduisant à une prise de décision non durable comme étant: holistique opportuniste réductionniste inefficace Un système agricole dans lequel on cultive simultanément différentes espèces est connu sous le nom de: polyculture agriculture primitive agriculture de subsistance monoculture En agriculture, on pourrait désigner l’alternative à l’utilisation de produits chimiques ou équipement côuteux en énergie par le concept de: permaculture agriculture écologique agriculture biodynamique toutes les réponses sont correctes

Parmi les rapport suivants entre composants chimiques du sol, lequel constituera un paramètre important pour déterminer la stabilité de la matière organique présent dans le terrain: phosphore/potassium carbone/azote carbone/calcium calcium/magnesium Pourquoi peut-on considérer une approche holistique comme une composante concrète d’une agriculture durable? Parce que:

a. elle permet aux agriculteurs d’optimiser leur bénéfices b. elle aide les agriculteurs à prendre des décisions fiable sur le plan social, économique et écologique c. elle permet aux agriculteurs d’obtenir des rendements maximums d. elle offre des alternatives à l’utilisation d’équipements consommant beaucoup d’énergie

130

20.

a. b. c. d.

21.

Lorsque l’action combinée de deux ou plusieurs substances, organes ou organismes est plus grande que la somme des actions isolée de ces substances, on appell cela: synergie antagonisme mutualisme effet d’accompagnement J.C. Smuts a créé le terme “holisme” en 1926 dans son ouvrage “Holisme et évolution”. Laquelle des observations suivantes illustre le mieux ce concept dans le cadre de l’agriculture durable?

a. le fonctionnement et la productivité des systèmes agroécologiques sont deja connus b. por établir une agriculture durable, il est nécessaire d’utiliser les meilleures pratiques agricoles c. la connaisance des systèmes agroécologiques est encore limitée mais les biotechnologies sont sûrement la clé de la durabilité* d. chaque système agroécologique est une unité et l’on connaît encore très peu les loies qui régissent leur équilibre

22. a. b. c. d. 23.

a. b. c. d.

24.

a. b. c. d.

Quel est le nom de la partie du sous sol ou se développent les racines des plantes? rhizome rhizobium rhizosphère rhizotrone Lorsque l’on enfoui une culture dans le sol, la substance organique déposée dans le sol s’appelle: humus compost engrais vert mulch

Comment définiriez vous le phénomène au cours du-quel une espèce végétale à tendance à remplacer une autre pour atteindre un équilibre écologique optimal? rotation culture succession évolution

131

25.

a. b. c. d.

Sans tenir compte des différentes techniques agricoles, laquelle des strategies économiques suivantes consideriez-vous comme étant la plus valable pour appuyer l’agriculture durable? économie d’échelle système agricole caractérisé pour des productions locales monopole économie de subsistance

132

Test sull’ Agricoltura Sostenibile Considera ciascuna delle seguenti domande cerchiando una delle quattro (a, b, c, d) opzioni. Sei libero di usare appunti e libri, o altro materiale che possa venirti utile. Questo test dovrebbe venire completato in circa 30 minuti. Ad ogni modo, non ci sono limiti di tempo. 1. La parola “agricoltura sostenibile” e` in uso da una ventina di anni per trasferire una nuova idea su sistemi agrari che siano: a. b. c. d.

2.

a. b. c. d.

3.

a. b. c. d.

4.

a. b. c. d.

ecologicamente fattibili economicamente e socialmente adeguati che integrino diverse colture, allevamento di specie animali e pratiche colturali tutte queste opzioni sono corrette

Una nuova tecnica agraria che ha lo scopo di proteggere le colture dai danni di insetti senza che si utilizzino insetticidi, ma piuttosto il lancio di insetti benefici, e` conosciuta come: lotta integrata lotta biologica monitoraggio confusione sessuale Il sito e la funzione di un organismo all’interno di uno specifico ambiente, definiti dall’utilizzo delle risorse che questi e’ in grado di operare, si chiama: nicchia ecologica habitat ruolo dell’organismo ecosistema

Come si chiama la componente di sostanza organica che risulta, come prodotto finale, del processo di decomposizione e di mineralizzazione della sostanza organica stessa? materiale pacciamante (mulch) residuo colturale humus letame

133

5.

a. b. c. d.

6.

a. b. c. d.

7.

a. b. c. d.

8.

a. b. c. d. 9.

Come si definisce la massa di tutta la sostanza organica che si puo’ trovare in un determinato punto ed in un preciso contesto temporale? materiale pacciamante (mulch) detrito organico bioma biomassa

Un sistema agrario concepito come sistema compleso nel quale si stabiliscono relazioni complementari fra i diversi organismi e l’ambiente, all’interno di una ben determinata area, e’ conosciuto come: sistema funzionale agroecosistema azienda agraria campo coltivato Come si definisce il numero totale delle specie e la variabilita’ genetica all’interno di ciascuna specie, per la costituzione di comunita` biologiche integrate? biospeciazione biodiversita` biodinamismo nessuno di questi termini e` corretto

Come definiresti un modo piu` sostenibile di conduzione dei pascoli nei quali le mandrie vengono tenute in appezzamenti di area ridotta, e frequentemente spostate da appezzamento ad appezzamento, dopo avere completamente consumato la vegetazione all'interno di uno di questi? pascolamento intensivo pascolamento super-intensivo pascolamento in rotazione metodo di pascolamento semi-intensivo Senza considerare l’organizzazione delle seguenti aziende, quale di queste frasi ci puo` meglio dare un’idea di un’azienda agraria integrata?

a. un’azienda nella quale si pratica la lotta integrata b. un’azienda particolarmente efficiente nella massimizzazione di rese colturali e profitto c. un’azienda molto diversificata nel numero di colture, allevamenti ed attivita’ d. nessunba delle opzioni disponibili e’ corretta.

134

10.

a. b. c. d.

11.

a. b. c. d.

12.

a. b. c. d.

13.

a. b. c. d.

14.

a. b. c. d.

Se tu fossi interessato ad imparare e ad approfondire la conoscenza fra le diverse relazioni che si stabilicono fra piante, animali, microrganismi ed i loro habitats, quale materia dovresti studiare? ecologia biologia agronomia zootecnia L’eutrofizzazione ed in particolar modo l’accumulo del fosforo in vari depositi acquiferi, non e’ solamente causato dall’inquinamento delle acque, ma anche da: una massiccia distribuzione di biocidi sul territorio la percolazione dei pesticidi attraverso il profilo dei terreni la sospensione di sedimanti di suoli erosi nessuna di queste opzioni e’ corretta Una tecnica agraria, piu’ rispettosa dell’ambiente che si puo’ considerare a mezza via fra l’agricoltura convenzionale e biologica nella lotta contro malerbe ed i patogeni si chiama: lotta guidata lotta integrata lotta biologica migliori pratiche di conduzione dell’azienda

Risorsa aziendale facilmente reperibile che deriva dal riciclaggio dei residui colturali e che reintrodotta nel terreno, produce benefici effetti ammendanti. stoppie sostanza organica letame compost

Sistema agrario (azienda) altamente specializzato/a il cui obiettivo principale consiste nella produzione a massima resa di una singola coltura. supercoltura policoltura monocoltura idrocoltura

135

15.

a. b. c. d.

16.

a. b. c. d. 17.

a. b. c. d.

18.

a. b. c. d.

19.

Un’approccio filosofico che conduce a decisioni tecniche non sostenibili verrebbe criticato da un ecologo come un approccio: olistico opportunista riduzionista inefficiente

Un sistema agrario (azienda) nel quale vengono simultaneamente coltivate diverse specie e’ conosciuto/a come: policoltura agricoltura primitiva agricoltura di sussistenza monocoltura L’agricoltura alternativa e’ l’arte di coltivare senza utilizzare prodotti chimici, o altri inputs ad alto costo energetico. Quale dei termini qui sotto elencati potrebbe venire identificato con questo concetto? permacoltura agricoltura ecologica agricoltura biodinamica tutte le opzioni sono corrette.

Quale dei seguenti rapporti fra elementi chimici diventa un importante parametro per la stabilizzazione della sostanza organica? fosforo/potassio carbonio/azoto carbonio/calcio calcio/magnesio Perche’ un approccio olistico si puo’ considerare come una componente concreta di un’agricoltura sostenibile?

a. perche’ tramite un’approccio olistico gli agricoltori massimizzano i loro profitti. b. perche’ un approccio olistico aiuta gli agricoltori a prendere decisioni che sono socialmente, economicamente ed ecologicamente valide. c. perche’ un approccio olistico aiuta gli agricoltori ad ottenere buone rese dalle colture d. perche’ un approccio olistico offre alternative all’utilizzo di mezzi ad alto costo energetico.

136

20.

a. b. c. d.

Un effetto prodotto dall’azione di due o piu’ sostanze, organi, oppure organismi che e’ piu’ grande della somma dei singoli effetti quando agiscono separatamente si chiama: sinergismo antagonismo mutualismo effetto accompagnatore

21. J.C. Smuts uso’ la parola “olismo” per la prima volta nel 1926 nel suo libro intitolato: Olismo ed Evoluzione. Quale delle seguenti osservazioni da’ maggiore appoggio a questo concetto quando lo si applica all’agricoltura sostenibile? a. si conosce gia` tutto sul funzionamento e produttivita` degli agroecosistemi b. per il raggiungimento di un’agricoltura sostenibile occorre mantenere le migliori pratiche agronomiche c. le conoscenze sugli agroecosistemi sono ancora limitate ma le biotecnologie offrono sicuramente la soluzione al raggiungimento della sostenibilita` d. gli agroecosistemi sono “unita`” ed ancora limitate sono le conoscenze delle leggi che regolano i loro equilibri. 22.

a. b. c. d.

Qual’e’ il nome dello spazio nel sottosuolo che viene esplorato dall’apparato Radicale della pianta? rizoma rizobio rizosfera rizotrone

23. Quando una cover crop viene incorporata nel terreno, la sostanza organica che viene cosi’ ad aggiungersi al suolo si chiama………….. a. b. c. d.

humus compost letame verde materia pacciamante (mulch)

24. Se una specie vegetale venisse progressivamente a rimpiazzare una specie diversa raggiungendo cosi un climax ecologico, come definiresti questo fenomeno? a. b. c. d.

rotazione coltivazione successione evoluzione

137

25. Senza considerare le diverse pratiche tecniche in un sistema agrario sostenibile, quali delle seguenti strategie economiche considereresti la piu’ valida in supporto della filosofia per un’agricoltura sostenibile? a. b. c. d.

economia di scala sistema agrario di produzione locale monopolio economia di sussistenza

138

APPENDIX B Ecole Nationale Supérieure Agronomique. (1998). Mission de Transfert technologique et d’Insertion professionelle de jeunes diplômés. [Brochure]. Montpellier, France. Institut Supérieur d’Agriculture Rhônes-Alpes. Pedagogique. [Brochure]. Lyon, France.

(1996/1997).

Programme

Agriculture: einseignement technologique et professionel. (Avril, 1997). Centre d’Information et de Documentation Jeunesse, 1, 1-24. Pour une meilleure synergie einseignement-entreprise. Gaillarde, 9, 1.

(1999)

La lettre de la

Filière verte: vers la fin d’un “modèle”? Sommaire-L’einseignement agricole. Le Monde [On-line]. Available: http://www.educagri.fr/systeme/etudes/lettre.htm Universita’ degli Studi di Ancona. (1997-1998). Guida alla Facolta’ di Agraria. [Catalog]. Ancona, Italy. Universita’ degli studi di Bologna. (1998-1999). Guida alla Facolta’ di Agraria. [Catalog]. Bologna, Italy. Universita’ degli Studi di Pisa. (1999). I Diplomi Universitari della Facolta’ di Agraria. Pisa, Italy. [On-line Catalog]. Available at: http://www.agr.unipi.it/DU/ Istituto Tecnico Agrario Statale G. Garibaldi. (1997). Il Cerere Unitario. Il quadro orario, I programmi, I moduli. [Catalog]. Cesena, Italy. The University of Louisiana at Lafayette. (1999-2001). Undergraduate Bulletin. [Catalog]. Lafayette, LA. Louisiana State University Agricultural & Mechanical College. Undergraduate Bulletin. [Catalog]. Baton Rouge, LA.

(1999-2001).

McNeese State University. (1998-1999). Undergraduate Bulletin. [Catalog]. Lake Charles, LA. Southern University and A&M College. Available at: http://www.subr.edu/

Baton Rouge, LA.

[On-line Catalog].

Texas A&M University. (1999-2001). Undergraduate Catalog. [Catalog]. College Station, TX. Texas A&M University-Kingsville. (1998-2000). Catalog. Kingsville, TX.

139

Abilene Christian University.

Abilene, TX.

[On-line Catalog].

Available at:

http://www.acu.edu/academics/agenv/

Formacion Agropecuaria En Las Escuelas Polivalentes. Boletin del Centro Nacional de Documentacion y Informacion Educativa, 9, 13-21. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 067 915) Universidad Nacional de Cuyo. (1998). Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias. Cuyo, Argentina. [On-line Catalog]. Available at: http://www.uncu.edu.ar/agrari/default.htm Justus-Liebig-Universität. (1996/97). Agrarwissenschaften und Umweltsicherung. [Catalog]. Giessen, Germany. University of the Philippines at Los Baños. (1998). College of Agriculture. [On-line Catalog]. Available at: http://www.uplb.edu.ph/ca/ St. Petersburg State Technical University. (1998). Applied Ecology Department. St Petersburg, Russia. [On-line Catalog]. Available at: http://www.unilib.neva.ru/stu/home.html Welsh Institute of Rural Studies. (1998). Common European Specialization in Ecological Agriculture. Aberysthwyth, UK. [On-line Catalog]. Available at: http://www.aber.ac.uk/~wirwww/europe.html

The University of New England. (1997). School of Rural Science and Natural resources. Armidale, NSW, Australia. [On-line Catalog]. Available at: http://www.ecoman.une.edu.au/units/unitlist.html

The University of Reading. (1998). Department of Agriculture. BSc Agriculture (D200). Reading, UK. [On-line Catalog]. Available at: http://www.rdg.ac.uk/AcaDepts/Agri/ugcourse/agrd200.html

The University of Zambia. (1998). School of Agricultural Sciences. Lusaka, Zambia. [On-line Catalog]. Available at: htpp://www.unza/agric/contents/intro.htm

140

APPENDIX C

141

APPENDIX D Table 9. Test Scores and Statistics of the university I, from Louisiana.

Student

Score

1 2 3 4 5

56 64 16 64 72 76 52 64 52 80 56 48 48 72 52 56 56 68 60 76

6

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 M=59.4

Correct Answers

14 16 4 16 18 19 13 16 13 20 14 12 12 18 13 14 14 17 15 19 SD=14.11

Wrong Answers

11 9 21 9 7 6 12 9 12 5 11 13 13 7 12 11 11 8 10 6 Range=16-80

Table 10. Test Key concepts interpretation by the university I, from Louisiana.

Concept

Correct Interpretation

Wrong Interpretation

No Answer

Eutrophication

3

17

0

IPM

8

12

0

Reductionism

2

18

0

Alternative Agriculture

8

12

0

Holism

6

14

0

Green Manure

2

18

0

Local Food System

6

14

0

142 Table 11. Test Scores and Statistics of the university II, from Louisiana.

Student

Score

Correct Answers

Wrong Answers

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

52 60 68 52 76 80 40 76 76 60 68 72 68 52 44 44 64 80 80 44

13 15 17 13 19 20 10 19 19 15 17 18 17 13 11 11 16 20 20 11

12 10 8 12 6 5 15 6 6 10 8 7 8 12 14 14 9 5 5 14

M=62.8

SD=13.61

Range=40-80

Table 12. Test Key concepts interpretation by the university II, from Louisiana.

Concept

Correct Interpretation

Wrong Interpretation

No Answer

Biological Control

4

16

0

Rotational Grazing

6

13

1

Eutrophication

5

15

0

Reductionism

4

16

0

Alternative Agriculture

10

10

0

Holism

10

10

0

Green Manure

5

14

1

143 Table 13. Test Scores and Statistics o f the university I, from Texas.

Student

Score

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Correct Answers

88 56 68 68 72 72 56 52 56 60 68 84 76 76 64 64 68 64 88 48 M=67.4

Wrong Answers

22 14 17 17 18 18 14 13 14 15 17 21 19 19 16 16 17 16 22 12 SD=11.25

3 11 8 8 7 7 11 12 11 10 8 4 6 6 9 9 8 9 3 13 Range=48-88

Table 14. Test Key concepts interpretation by the university I, from Texas.

Concept

Correct Interpretation

Wrong Interpretation

No Answer

Agroecosystem

2

18

0

Eutrophication

2

18

0

Reductionism

2

18

0

Holistic Management

1

19

0

Holism

5

15

0

Succession

4

16

0

Local food system

5

15

0

144 Table 15. Test Scores and Statistics of the university II, from Texas. Student

Score

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Correct Answers

88 76 96 100 100 60 56 68 60 48 48 44 56 48 56 48 68 48 72 96

M= 66.8

Wrong Answers

22 19 24 25 25 15 14 17 15 12 12 11 14 12 14 12 17 12 18 24

SD=19.47

3 6 1 0 0 10 11 8 10 13 13 14 11 13 11 13 8 13 7 1

Range= 44-100

Table 16. Test key concepts interpretation by the university II, from Texas.

Concept

Correct Interpretation

Wrong Interpretation

No Answer

Eutrophication

6

14

0

Integrated Pest Management Compost

11

9

0

10

10

0

Reductionism

7

13

0

Holism

10

10

0

Green Manure

5

13

2

Local Food System

7

11

2

145 Table 17. Test Scores and Statistics of the university I, from France.

Student

Score

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

80 72 80 64 56 84 72 84 80 56 72 76 84 68 60 88 72 76 56 76 M=72.8

Correct Answers

Wrong Answers

20 18 20 16 14 21 18 21 20 14 18 19 21 17 15 22 18 19 14 19

5 7 5 9 11 4 7 4 5 11 7 6 4 8 10 3 7 6 11 6

SD=10.01

Range=56-88

Table 18. Test Key concepts interpretation by the university I, from France.

Concept

Correct Interpretation

Wrong Interpretation

No Answer

Integrated Farming System Eutrophication

1

19

0

8

9

3

Reductionism

6

13

1

Alternative Agriculture

7

12

1

Holism

8

10

2

Green Manure

10

10

0

Succession

8

12

0

146 Table 19. Test Scores and Statistics o f the university II, from France.

Student

Score

Correct Answers

Correct Answers

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

52 72 64 68 60 88 68 80 76 76 72 68 72 56 68 36 76 60 72 48

13 18 16 17 15 22 17 20 19 19 18 17 18 14 17 9 19 15 18 12

12 7 9 8 10 3 8 5 6 6 7 8 7 11 8 16 6 10 7 13

M=66.6

SD=11.98

Range=36-88

Table 20. Test Key concepts interpretation by the university II, from France.

Concept

Correct Interpretation

Wrong Interpretation

No Answer

Ecological niche

8

11

1

Integrated Farming System Integrated Pest Management Compost

2

18

0

10

10

0

7

13

0

Reductionism

7

11

2

Alternative Agriculture

6

13

1

Succession

2

18

0

147 Table 21. Test Scores and Statistics of the university I, from Italy.

Student

Score

Correct Answers

Wrong Answers

52 32 76 84 60 64 36 72 76 68 52 60 80 44 56 56 64 72 88 52

13 8 19 21 15 16 9 18 19 17 13 15 20 11 14 14 16 18 22 13

12 17 6 4 10 9 16 7 6 8 12 10 5 14 11 11 9 7 3 12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 M=62.2

SD=15.21

Range=32-88

Table 22. Test Key concepts interpretation by the university I, from Italy.

Concept

Correct Interpretation

Wrong Interpretation

No Answer

Integrating Farming System Eutrophication

6

14

0

1

18

1

Reductionism

3

13

4

Alternative Agriculture

5

13

2

Holistic Management

8

5

7

Holism

4

8

8

Succession

7

13

0

148 Table 23. Tests Scores and Statistics of the university II, from Italy.

Student

Score

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Correct Answers

Wrong Answers

13 15 15 18 19 20 15 16 12 15 17 17 17 16 17 15 19 18 18 19

12 10 10 7 6 5 10 9 13 10 8 8 8 9 8 10 6 7 7 6

52 60 60 72 76 84 60 64 48 60 68 68 68 64 68 60 76 72 72 76 M=66.4

SD=8.74

Range=48-84

Table 24. Test key concepts interpretation by the university II, from Italy.

Concept

Correct Interpretation

Wrong Interpretation

No Answer

Sustainable Agriculture

10

10

0

Ecological niche

9

11

0

Integrated Farming System Eutrophication

9

11

0

6

14

0

Compost

5

15

0

Alternative Agriculture

0

19

1

Succession

4

16

0

149

APPENDIX E

Demandes pour l’entrevue 1) Qu’est-ce que c’est que vôtre définition d’agriculture durable? Quel rapport a cette définition aux idées d’agriculture dans vos classes et vos recherche chez vôtre institution? Donnez des exemplaires d’agriculture durable que vous avez employé comme professeur.

2) Quand est-ce que les principes d’agriculture durable sont devenus incorporé dans le plan d’études? Pour quelles raisons ou quelles pensées est-ce que ce changement a été promû?

Comment est-ce que ces changements ont été incorporé dans le

programme?

3) Quels sont les perceptions, les sentiments, ou les attitudes des professeurs et des administrateurs sur l’idée d’agriculture durable?

4) Quels sont les perceptions, les sentiments, ou les attitudes des professeurs et des administrateurs sur les étudiants et leur l’idée d’agriculture durable?

150

Domande per l’intervista

1) Qual’e’ la sua definizione di agricoltura sostenibile?

Come si relaziona questa

definizione con la visione dell’agricoltura nell’insegnamento e nella ricerca della sua universita’?

2) Quando i principi dell’agricoltura sostenibile sono divenuti parte del curriculum? Quali ragioni o motivi hanno promosso questo cambiamento? Come sono stati incorporati questi cambiamenti nel curriculum?

3) Quali sono a suo parere le opinioni, i sentimenti e le attitudini dei docenti e degli amministratori a riguardo dell’agricoltura sostenibile?

4) Quali sono a suo parere le opinini, i sentimenti e le attitudini che i docenti e gli amministratori hanno degli studenti a riguardo dell’agricoltura sostenibile?

151

APPENDIX F Glossary of Agricultural Terms

Agroecosystem. An agricultural system (farm) understood as an ecosystem. Alternative agriculture. The science of farming without using chemical inputs also known as: Organic, Biodynamic, Ecological, Low Input, Natural, Permaculture. Annual. Plant that completes its life cycle within a year. Barrier. Obstacle that impedes progress or achievement. Biocide. Substance capable of inhibiting or annihilating living organisms. Biodiversity. Existence and association among different organisms, in the formation of integrated, biological communities. Biological control. Density or activity reduction of a noxious pathogen through the massive introduction of antagonists or through environmental manipulation. Biomass. Mass of living or dead organisms and their products. Biotechnology. Applied biological science that deals with the manipulation of living cells and their DNA. Carbon/nitrogen ratio.

Ideal proportions of these two elements that facilitate

microbial decomposition of soil organic matter. Compost. Mixture of well stabilized, organic materials to be used in agriculture as fertilizers or organic amendments. Decomposition. Initial stage of degradation of an organic substrate due to enzymatic activity. Detritivore. Soil organisms that feed on organic residues available in soils.

152

Eutrophication. Excessive growth of algae due to the accumulation of phosphorus in bodies of water which suppresses the life of other aerobic organisms. Green manure. Crop incorporation into the soil aiming at the maintenance of fertility. Humus. Stable product of the decomposition of organic matter. Integrated Pest Management. The use of many different techniques in combination to control pests, such as the combined uses of resistant plant varieties, natural predators of the pest, specific pesticides, preventive measures and good management practices, such a s crop rotation. Local Food System. Agricultural production economy that functions efficiently in a restricted context, like a community supported agriculture (CSA). Monoculture. The cultivation of a single crop within the same agroecosystem. Mineralization. Organic matter degradation into its inorganic constituents. This event allows nutrient absorption by plants. Perennial. Plant that lives for an indeterminate number of years. Polyculture. The cultivation of several different species in the same agroecosystem. Reductionism. A simplistic way to approach problem-solving situations. Rhizosphere. The underground space explored by the plant root system. Rotation. Crop succession in the same cultivated field. Rotational grazing.

Intensive pasture management that despite the high livestock

pressure allows an outstanding recovery of the vegetation and controls soil erosion. Soil sickness. Inhospitable soil conditions due to the continuous cultivation of the same crop on the same field.

153

Synergism. The action of two or more substances, organs, or organisms achieving an effect which is greater than the sum of the two effects when acting separately. Systemism/holism. See Holistic Management. Transgenic organism. Animal or plant that contains genes (DNA) transferred from other animals or plants, usually from a different species.

154

VITA

Bruno Borsari was born in Cesena, Italy and received his Laurea in Agricultural Sciences from the University of Bologna in 1986.

On behalf of Cooperazione

Internazionale (Italian NGO) he taught agriculture in Sierra Leone between 1987 and 1989. He was an Instructor of Biology at Louisiana State University at Eunice from 1991 to 1993. He returned to Africa in 1994 where he was an agroforestry consultant in Bangui, Central African Republic.

He also worked in Italy as a Seed Production

Manager for SUBA Seed Co. (1994) and later as an Organic Food Inspector for APOFRUIT, one of the major Italian agricultural cooperatives (1995).

In 1996 he

returned to Louisiana State University at Eunice where he was challenged to develop a curriculum in agriculture with strong emphasis on the emerging sustainable agriculture model. He has been leading the sustainable agriculture movement for several years and his research has been presented at national and international conferences, and published in various journals and conference proceedings. He is presently the Coordinator for the Master of Science Program in Sustainable Systems, as well as an Assistant Professor of Agroecology in the Department of Parks, Recreation and Environmental Education at Slippery Rock University in Pennsylvania.