Open-ended Cases in Agroecology: Farming and ...

Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension Vol. 15, No. 4, 385!400, December 2009

Open-ended Cases in Agroecology: Farming and Food Systems in the Nordic Region and the US Midwest

Downloaded By: [Noragric] At: 10:35 10 February 2011

CHARLES FRANCIS,* JAMES KING,* GEIR LIEBLEIN,$ TOR ARVID BRELAND,$ LENNART SALOMONSSON,$$ NADARAJAH SRISKANDARAJAH,$$ PAUL PORTER% and MARY WIEDENHOEFT%%

*University of Nebraska, USA, $Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway, $$Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Sweden, %University of Minnesota, USA, %%Iowa State University, USA

ABSTRACT Our aim is to describe open-ended case studies for learning real-life problem solving skills, and relate this approach to conventional, closed-ended decision case studies. Teaching methods are open-ended cases in agroecology, an alternative to traditional strategies that lead students through prepared materials and structured discussions to determine an outcome already known to the instructor. Our method promotes a culture of curiosity. Multiple evaluation criteria show how this learning strategy provides students with practice in researching, envisioning and designing potential scenarios for clients in the field. In agroecology case studies, students and instructors are co-learners in a discovery process that includes gathering information from key clients, interviewing major stakeholders, and building an understanding of the current context of the local farming and food systems. Two agroecology courses in Norway, a field course in the US Midwest, and an experimental course in Sweden and Vietnam illustrate this learning strategy. Student evaluations of learning have been highly positive, and skills and methods from courses have been applied in their thesis projects and professional careers. Practical results reveal that students are well prepared for an uncertain, complex, multidimensional and dynamic future, have the capacity to develop alternative future scenarios, and have practiced methods to evaluate options based on production, economic, environmental and social criteria and impacts. This innovative strategy is offered as a complement or alternative to conventional decision case studies and evaluated as an approach to experiential learning, an important and effective method for adult learners. KEY WORDS: Experiential education, Practical decision case studies, Autonomous learning, Co-learning, Organic farming, Community development

Introduction Moving students out of the classroom, physically or mentally, has long been advocated as an effective way to build experience and stimulate learning. A century ago, John Dewey (1966 [1916] ) expounded on the intimate connection between Corresponding address: Charles Francis, 279 Plant Science, Univ. Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583-0915, USA. Email: [email protected] 1389-224X Print/1750-8622 Online/09/040385-16 # 2009 Wageningen University DOI: 10.1080/13892240903309645


386

C. Francis et al.

personal experience and learning. To promote such learning in the classroom, texts including case studies were used at Harvard Law School starting in the 1870s (Langdell, 1871). Dewey’s teaching model was later adopted for education in law, business, and medicine. Landmark programs in medical schools (for example, Marshall University, Oregon Health Science University, Tromsø University) focus on real-life cases with students visiting patients in the first semester. Some medical problems they encounter are complex and open-ended, with no obvious, fixed answers. Once students are grounded in patient-oriented dimensions of medicine, they are presented with specific information, for example names of bones and muscles that are essential to understanding more complex issues. Thanks to early clinical experience, students approach medical details in the context of patients they have met. This learning strategy has been described in the context of agriculture as just-in-time education (Salomonsson et al., 2005). In open-ended cases, just-in-time activity implies a change from an essential, fixed schedule and sequence in learning. Instead the properties and demands of each case determine which components will be pursued by students. This suggests a propositional orientation and problem-oriented attitude, where questions and answers are part of a dynamic process. Focus on real-life cases generates some questions that have fixed or known answers, but also complex questions for which answers are largely unknown (Cliff and Nesbitt, 2005). The former category typically includes facts about the past and present situation of the studied case. With systems issues of greater complexity and focus on the future, answers more often are not fixed, and usually give birth to new questions (Margetson, 1993). A decision case study does not have to be open ended in order to contextualize discipline-oriented theories, facts and methods. However, only an open-ended case can realistically reflect the complexity and uncertainty of most real-life situations. Consequently, an open-ended case offers context-relevant training and builds higher-order process skills such as evaluation and synthesis (Cliff and Nesbitt, 2005). Lieblein et al. (2007) described the process of student learning in open-ended, real-life case studies as a learning ladder where the students must ‘step down’ to basic theory, facts and routine methods and must ‘step up’ to visioning and planning for complexity and future uncertainty (see Figure 1). Barnes et al. (1994) explored the use of complex, real-world cases in business and challenged the value of traditional lecturing. They emphasized that education goes beyond skills and knowledge and involves qualities of mind, qualities of person, and abilities to apply general concepts and knowledge to specific situations. Case studies are especially relevant to agriculture and development studies, where each situation is unique and it is essential to develop applications for new contexts and challenges (King, 1984). The use of open-ended cases has been proposed in situations requiring ecological economics and other integrative approaches that cross disciplinary lines (Swinton, 1995). Especially applicable in developing countries, the context frequently includes interlinked economic, environmental and social dimensions. Creative strategies in teacher education employ a range of case study models (Lundeberg et al., 1999). A wealth of practical advice is available on how to identify useful case situations and use them to increase participation in the classroom, and to help students apply and retain knowledge rather than memorize information for an exam


Open-ended Cases in Agroecology 387

Figure 1. Steps in a dual learning ladder including the external as well as the internal world of the learner. Source: adapted from Lieblein et al., 2007.

(Barbazette, 2004; Simmons et al., 1992). The importance of context, dynamic processes and unpredictable events comes across clearly in complex cases. Pioneering efforts by the University of Minnesota in the Program for Decision Cases in Agriculture have provided a rich set of decision case studies in agriculture (Simmons et al., 1992). After publication in the Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Education, these were assembled in Case Studies (American Society of Agronomy, 2006). In the preface, Steve Simmons cites former Harvard Business School Professor Charles Gragg, who believed that education at the university


388

C. Francis et al.

should include interactive, problem-based, and student-centered teaching to achieve learning that cannot be acquired from lectures. Simmons et al. (1992) provided one example of the open-ended case approach for improving decision-making on contemporary issues where the question is not yet resolved. ‘Now cases’ are presented to clients and students who are personally concerned with the outcomes and impacts of a decision and course of action. This method involves key stakeholders in a process of consensus building or group problem solving, while dealing with an unresolved, current issue in an effective way of engaging students in the process of decision-making. However, case studies in agricultural education are most commonly used as examples to contextualize facts, theories and methods rooted in disciplines or subsystems on narrow suites of issues. Useful to train students in component methods and technologies producing specific, non-ambiguous solutions that are known by the instructors beforehand, the answers are relatively easy to evaluate. Decision cases on farming systems come from the disciplines of agronomy, horticulture, soils, plant protection, environmental science or economics. A mechanistic perspective seems to dominate these cases. In 47 cases included in the compendium cited above, only one delved into basic literature on decision-making (Tan et al., 2001). Thus, decision case studies are generally empirically-based and utilized mainly to ‘step down the learning ladder’. Learning goals of the class will determine whether a closed- or an openended case design is most logical (Cliff and Nesbitt, 2005), but open-ended cases involve both fixed and open elements. Further, the open-ended strategy taps into an underutilized potential for ‘stepping up the learning ladder’ to deal also with higherorder issues and uncertainty in a holistic perspective (see Figure 1), and appears to foster the culture of curiosity (Margetson, 1993) needed in messy real-life situations. In this article, we describe the development and implementation of three programs built on student and teacher participation in open-ended farming and food system case studies to promote learning about agroecosystem structure and functioning (facts and content) and as well as learning how to explore challenges and potential solutions in complex situations (process). Three Approaches to the Study of Open-ended Cases in Agriculture and Food Systems US Midwest Course A field course in Agroecosystems Analysis in the US Midwest incorporates on-farm interviews with farmers, field tours and examination of current production, economic, environmental and social realities. The course has been developed and expanded over the past 10 years to an enrollment of 25 students per year. Prior to the class, readings from Agroecosystems Analysis (Rickerl and Francis, 2004) and other sources are provided. Before arriving on site, students prepare and submit a narrative describing different methods of analysis of sustainability. In a week-long course, the class visits eight farms to interview farmers, and student teams conduct an interdisciplinary analysis, evaluation and summary of the current systems and then envision future scenarios that could help farmers better reach their goals (Wiedenhoeft et al., 2003). Results are presented in oral and written team project reports, and the different teams develop unique types of analyses, models and results, even though

Open-ended Cases in Agroecology 389 they have visited the same farms. The process reflects the diversity of perspectives and options available to students, as well as the richness of an open-ended case approach. No ‘right’ answers exist to the question of how the future situation should appear, however students evaluate several possible future strategies and impacts of each scenario. Most students come from Iowa, Minnesota and Nebraska, although we have attracted students and faculty from across the northern US. The course is required in the agroecology option in the agronomy curriculum at Iowa State University, and is an elective course in the other universities. An instructor from Washington State University participated as a visitor in the course and has started a similar travel course in Washington and Idaho.


Nordic Master’s Courses in Agroecology An educational team in the Nordic Region has designed experiential learning courses to enrich the graduate study program. Starting with one week PhD courses on farms in the 1990s (Lieblein et al., 1999), the instructors have gained expertise and university support for establishing an Agroecology Master’s Degree Programme that begins with a semester dedicated to experiential learning on farms and in communities. Education is based on projects where student teams engage in cases that are open ended with regard to identifying key issues and envisioning future solutions. The farming system and food system cases used in Norway first involve some understanding of systems theory and methods. One month before the autumn semester begins, students are provided with readings on agroecology and systems with specific topics on participatory learning (Pretty, 1995), background on agroecology (Hecht, 1995), appropriate systems theories and methods (Ison et al., 1997; Ison, 2002; Wilson and Morren, 1990), visualizing systems (Sriskandarajah et al., 1990), and applications of agroecology in future careers (Lieblein et al., 2004). From the first day of the Norway farming systems course, students are introduced to the complexity of the farm viewed as a system. As shown in Figure 1, this is step three on the external ladder which identifies phases in the learning process. Beginning with experience is a departure from the most common sequence that begins with theory and facts. In the Agroecology and Farming Systems course, groups of 4!5 students visit farms and spend time walking the fields and learning about the farmer’s and family’s philosophy and goals, crop and animal enterprises, production resources and constraints, farm environment and surrounding landscape, marketing strategies, and economic successes and challenges. Facts and knowledge are also acquired from other sources. They process the information in group discussions and personal reflections. Their impressions of the farm are analyzed using methods such as SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) analysis and sustainability analysis (multi-criteria analysis of performance). They develop a ‘rich picture’ diagram of the present farm situation to identify and illustrate major interactions among enterprises, inputs, outputs, and other people and organizations that impact the farm. These evaluations provide a structured approach to developing an integrated concept of the farm’s activities and identifying key issues that impact on the success of the farm according to indicators jointly identified and assessed by the


390

C. Francis et al.

farmer and the student team. Based on their understanding so far in the process, they suggest future alternatives addressing the key issues. Then they return to the farmer to check their understanding of the present situation, to get supplemental information and to discuss scenarios and possible actions. It is made clear to students that there is no specific, pre-determined solution to the key issues or scenarios in this open-ended, discovery-driven case study approach. The instructors provide an introduction to soft systems methodology (Checkland and Scholes, 2001), which is the suggested overall protocol for the system inquiry. A justin-time strategy (Salomonsson et al., 2005) is used to provide the students with generic and more specific theory as required in the case study, and students are expected to actively acquire information as needed from available experts, libraries and on-line sources. Organic.Edunet (http://www.organic-edunet.eu/organic/ index.html) is a new internet portal being constructed specifically to meet information requirements in this type of course. The host repository will contain an advanced search engine based on an ontology reflecting agroecological systems thinking (Sa´ nchez-Alonso et al., 2008). With guidance from faculty, students develop several scenarios that embrace the goals of the farm family and prepare an action plan to pursue those goals. This is usually a new learning strategy for students who come from a conventional agriculture or science education background. In the Agroecology and Food Systems course, groups of 5!6 students visit communities and talk with a key client who is often the agricultural development official for that county. Gathering information about a county’s food system is more complex than the same process for a farm, since there are multiple stakeholders involved. Over the course of two site visits, students talk with farmers, processors, marketers and consumers in addition to the government officials involved. Similar to the process in the first course, students uncover both potentials and complexities in the food system, the roles and attitudes of stakeholders, and the general goals that different constituent groups have for the future. The student groups develop a rich picture of the present situation, encompassing the whole food system. In communication with stakeholders, the students develop visions for the future and a plan of action for improvement. Enrollment has grown from 10 students in 2000 to current enrolment of 20 new students per year, and the course is required in the first semester of the master’s program in agroecology. Starting in 2007, the autumn semester courses in Agroecology at the Norwegian University of Life Sciences (UMB) in Norway have become a component of a joint degree program with the Fe´ de´ ration des E´ coles Supe´ rieures d’Ingenieursen Agriculture (FESIA) consortium of private agricultural universities in France (http://www.fesia.org/en/fesia/identity-card/). ‘Test-pilot’ Bachelor Course in Sweden An experimental course in Sweden was designed by students to fit the needs and expectations they had when entering the crop science program (Salomonsson et al., 2009). Using strategies entirely designed by students with oversight by a faculty advisor, the first half of the semester was focused on the Swedish food system. Students started from the farm scale and local focus, then moved to larger scales and



wider perspectives in the food chain. Students compared a conventional farm with an organic farm, and explored their contributions to the food system. The second half of the semester was focused on learning about the impact of globalization on farmers, including a field study to contrast rice and other crop production by farmers in two villages in Vietnam. Students interviewed farmers at three income levels in each village to determine the impacts of globalization on local incomes and family wellbeing. The entire one-semester course placed the focus on ‘reading context’, using the complex reality as the base, and introducing different perspectives, theories and methods as frames of vision that could help students discover new aspects and dimensions of the complex reality, more important than tools to describe ‘the truth in reality’ (Palmer et al., 2008). The course has so far only been implemented once in Sweden with three students, and they self-selected to take this opportunity for one semester instead of the conventional courses in the crop science curriculum. Learning Methods and Processes in Three Courses We can summarize the methods used in these courses as the process outlined in the right side of Figure 2 and summarized in a qualitative comparison with conventional decision cases in Table 1. Students enter the case*the farm or food system*at step three on the learning ladder in Figure 1 by visiting the current situation in the field and talking with key people. As a team they decide what questions to ask the farmers and food system stakeholders in the community, focusing on the whole farm, the landscape in which it is found and the county. Rather than having information provided, they take on the task of discovering the facts and deciding what is important to know. Integrating the information with their personal observations, the students develop a rich picture of the situation, including the multiplicity of interactions and outputs from the system. If the students lack information, identify gaps in their past experience or need more principles or theories on which to base their learning about the farm or community, they can step back down the external learning ladder and return to prior steps in the process by working with colleagues in their groups, visiting the library, using the internet or consulting with instructors or other experts on campus. Thus they develop what they need in an iterative manner and practice lifelong learning skills. Within the context of open-ended cases, ‘stepping down’ the learning ladder to acquire facts, principles and theories becomes an open-ended activity. Instead of the teachers providing a fixed or closed set of readings, their task is to facilitate the students’ search for relevant theory and information. The availability of knowledge repositories and search engines within the Organic.Edunet project will facilitate such an open-ended search for relevant information. The students are then urged to go beyond acquiring new skills and knowledge. They are expected to integrate theory with practice and take additional steps up the external learning ladder to envision potential future options and how they could be implemented. In a quest for purposeful direction and action, students carefully evaluate the farm family’s and community’s philosophy, goals and resources, put their observations of the current situation into context, and articulate possible future

392

C. Francis et al. Conventional Case Study

Farm Case Study

Learning activity


Open-Ended Case Study

Primary goal

Discovering the answer in the case

Learning the process of exploring cases

Case reality

Reading and discussing case

Discovering the case in field/community

Focus of case

Decision on practice or farm enterprise

Whole-farm, landscape, or community decision

Understanding case

Evaluate information, discuss solutions

Gather info from farm or community

Methods

Use methods provided, discuss in class

Develop rich picture, SWOT, Force field analysis

Compare results with known answers

Discuss results with faculty, clients, and evaluators

Present results for semester grade

Deliver results to client, reflect on learning process

Success indicators

Case conclusions

Create new methods

Figure 2. Comparison of the predominant learning processes in conventional, fixed-answer decision cases and open-ended cases used in Nordic Region and US Midwest.

scenarios that will help the farm family or the community reach their short- and long-term goals. Based on available information, the teams evaluate the desirability and feasibility of each of these scenarios, the pluses and minuses and the potential for actually implementing them. In the short span of one week in the US Midwest course, in the eight weeks in each of two Norway courses, or in one semester in Sweden, it is obviously difficult to implement the action step of the learning ladder, and thus do a full-fledged soft systems inquiry (Checkland and Scholes, 2001) and complete the experiential learning cycle (Kolb, 1984). Students discuss results with the faculty and with the clients, and they present a final group consulting report as well as personal reflection on the case they have studied and on the process they have followed. It is possible to

Open-ended Cases in Agroecology 393 Table 1. Summary comparison of conventional decision case learning and open-ended learning strategies used in courses in the US and Nordic agroecology programs. Conventional decision case method learning


Goal

Develop solutions from a pre-determined situation Process Follow a series of defined steps to uncover known solution Information Provided by instructors in a logical/sequential manner End Product Rational solution that may correspond to actual situation Type of learning Closed learning cycle to seek what is known to instructor Evaluation of How closely does solution learning relate to the ‘real answer’ Ownership of Instructors know the answers process and determine student success Learning culture Conventional search by students to find fixed answers Institutional setting Stimulus from teacher and response from students Role of instructor Design the logical steps to reach the known (right) answers Role of student Active learner, engaged in a comfortable process Responsibility for Starts with instructor, passed to learning students in case study Applicable mainly to Past and present situations that are known Appropriate mostly Lower hierarchical system for levels Most useful for Simple, well-defined systems and situations Answers and Mostly fixed and solutions pre-determined Major sources of Hard facts and discrete systems inspiration that are well known

Open-ended cases for learning in agroecology courses Envision potential solutions to real-world situations Follow a discovery process to envision alternatives Students seek out needed information from key clients in field/community Multiple possible future scenarios and their potential impacts Open co-learning by students and instructor to explore unknown How creative are future scenarios and evaluations of potential impacts Students own the learning and set their own criteria for success Open ended co-search to develop future options and predict impacts Multiple sources of stimulation, continuous interaction toward goals Open a learning landscape for creative discovery of alternatives Autonomous learners find discomfort in a stressful open-ended situation Primarily rests with students, who are free to pursue different options Future situations that are complex and unknown Higher order hierarchical system levels Complex, ill-defined systems and situations Mostly open and dependent on multiple factors and context Hard facts and social methods, plus human judgment and creativity

anticipate impacts, based on available information, but the clients are the principal actors who will implement the scenarios and live with the consequences. The major differences between an open-ended case approach and conventional decision case studies used in agriculture in terms of specific goals are summarized in Table 1. As Cliff and Nesbitt (2005), we recognize a large degree of overlap, as most courses incorporate some elements of each of these contrasting models. What we emphasize here is the explicit ‘openness’ of each case as a key property of integrated ecological and social systems that are evolving, even during the study. Rather than leaning on a mechanistic worldview and extrapolation of experimental results from simplified conditions into a complex and dynamic situation, we help students focus

394

C. Francis et al.

on the need for learning about the importance of context, dynamic processes, and impact of unpredictable events. These phenomena have been increasingly highlighted in resilience theory (Gunderson and Holling, 2002) and in scenario building (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). The individual and internal learning process shown in Figure 1 is one that we strive to encourage in agroecology courses. We try to foster autonomy and selfconsciousness in the learning process and a culture of curiosity and creativity that is needed when dealing with real-life challenges. Students tell us the class group reflections, individual practical field experiences and writing their personal reflections are all essential for learning. We are seeking ways to evaluate how students individually progress and grow on the internal learning ladder; when we carefully reread the learner reflection documents with some specific hypotheses in mind, the results likely will be revealing. This has not yet been done.


Challenges Associated with the Use of Open-Ended Cases We emphasize the role of the student as an autonomous learner, where responsibility for learning rests with each individual and with the student teams. Teachers design the learning landscape, practice adaptive management to fine-tune the schedule as each course progresses, and serve as mentors in the learning process. At first glance one might predict that such an educational philosophy and program would be strongly welcomed by students and a relief to instructors who are liberated from preparing lectures. Yet the process is not that simple. Outcomes from the courses and cases are multiple future scenarios that are presented back to clients for them to take action, as well as to instructors for evaluation. This is quite different from a student team seeking known answers to a more narrowly defined problem, and the instructors checking their list to be sure everything was covered. More important than the scenarios developed by teams are skills in listening, analyzing, synthesizing and summarizing which drive the process in each team. Considering that education prepares people for a future career, these skills are a highly valuable learning outcome, though more difficult initially for the students to recognize during the course and for the teachers to evaluate. Many students who come from a traditional science education develop considerable frustration during the first days or weeks in an educational program that uses their personal experiences as a major foundation. We place primary emphasis on observing, reading the context of the case and reflecting individually, in groups and in plenary class meetings. In this initial phase, dominated by an unfamiliar divergent mode of exploration and learning, students miss the tangible quality of fixed answers resulting from most prior experience in activities of convergence. In past courses, they have viewed the acquisition of answers as a key indicator of learning. After engaging in this new experience, the feeling of ‘learning nothing concrete’ is soon replaced for most students by a recognition of the positive value of finding out how to identify and deal with complex issues where the alternatives and ‘answers’ emerge from the group process. For faculty, the challenges are to move from the role of expert on the lecture stage to a subtler role as designer of the learning landscape, to become a promoter of the process of students seeking out relevant questions, and to perform as mentor who


Open-ended Cases in Agroecology 395 challenges and encourages students through this complex activity. In our experiences over more than a decade, this process may take more time, requires a different quality of engagement with the material and with students, and is not a role we have learned through prior academic teaching experience. Although it is not easy at first, we have all adapted and grown to appreciate this new form of pedagogy. Given the relatively small maximum student numbers in courses where dialogue-based activities in groups and general sessions are important activities, we recognize that our current experiential model is not as cost effective as the conventional approach using large lectures, nor as simple as guiding students along a well-known path. Part of our own excitement comes from seeing the students’ growth in grappling with real-world challenges. Our continuing challenge is to seek a more efficient process that can succeed even when funding is short and student credit hour accumulation remains one of the key metrics to measure outputs in education. Using open-ended cases, we maintain focus on quality of learning and capabilities of students that emerge from the process (Lieblein et al., 2004). Educational innovation and quality are prerequisites to attract students to agriculture, a field with a declining number of applicants in most industrialized countries. Also there is considerable time saved for both student and instructor when we reduce one-way communication in lectures; based on demands emerging in each case study we refer students to books, face-to-face meetings with experts and high-quality internet-based information. This allows space to prioritize ‘live-time’ with students for feedback and facilitation without necessarily exceeding the norms for time use. We do not minimize or trivialize the importance of personal communications with individual students and groups, but rather organize our time to be available when needed and to encourage all participants to move at their own pace. Today high-quality material is available for ‘one way information’ transfer. Thus we can spend less time in lectures, and more time in facilitating the learning process and giving live feedback to students regarding their processing of ‘teaching materials’ and data from interviews, observations and group discussions. Evaluation of Learning There are multiple windows through which we observe direct or indirect indicators of learning, our own effectiveness in designing the learning landscape, and how we perform as individual instructors. The written record of client and learner documents, oral exams, feedback forms, and an electronic university evaluation are the most permanent and transparent windows. They provide both quantitative and qualitative feedback and give us specific ideas on how to improve the courses. There are other sources of information, some obvious, and some more subtle. Here we discuss the quality and success of our open-case approach on the basis of available information from students and others. Instructor interactions with individuals and groups, and team responsibility: Qualitative observations suggest active and enthusiastic participation by most students at most times in group work. Teams are small enough that everyone can be directly involved with interviews of farmers and other clients and there is little chance to be left out of team deliberations. Communications challenges, domination by individuals, and balancing of workload have usually been worked out within the


396

C. Francis et al.

teams. In the Nordic courses, different native languages, cross-cultural challenges, contrasting concepts of being on time, and prior study in different disciplines complicate communication and understanding. In 2008, one food systems group had three people working part-time jobs and one immobilized from a bicycle accident; the remaining two picked up major responsibilities and reported that they considered this their normal duty as part of a project team. We were impressed with this dedication to their colleagues and to learning community goals. Questions from individual students: Both in class and in individual meetings with students we are continuously monitoring the pace and content of course activities and responding to specific questions. Students often have difficulty adapting to a course that is heavy on process, with less emphasis on learning new skills or memorizing new knowledge. Most prior university experience has been in contentheavy courses. The new emphasis on applications and action must be explained in the context of their personal goals and future jobs in teams to solve real-world challenges. Most embrace this new direction once they appreciate the need for autonomous learning and information seeking in a ‘just-in-time’ learning environment (Salomonsson et al., 2005). Informal conversations: Often during shared meals on the farm, travel to project sites, breaks in the class schedule, and social events we learn about individual concerns about the learning environment. Since the learning landscape we organize is different in terms of expectations and shared exploration of the cases, students need to be convinced numerous times that there is no specific and correct answer in the outcomes. Often their appreciation of this learning environment is enhanced by oneon-one, informal conversations, where we relate the process to their individual experiences. Group reflection sessions: Another window on individual and social learning is structured group reflection sessions. There are large differences among students in their willingness to share in a group, but everyone is expected to participate and valuable insights emerge from the sessions. We must establish a safe space in the learning community where everyone is empowered to share personal reactions and feelings about the course. In 2006 one student said in a final reflection, ‘This is the first time in 20 years in school . . . that I have ever been asked my opinions about what I have learned and how to improve the course.’ We were gratified with the confidence he shared. Criticisms are also welcomed, and affirm the importance of creating an open environment for learning and challenging the instructors in what Freiri (1970) called a ‘pedagogy of no mercy’. Team client documents about the farm and food system: Final project reports sent to key clients and submitted for grades are typically 40!80 pages of writing, tables and figures, analysis and evaluation of issues and alternative future scenarios to help a farmer or county meet their objectives. Students often describe the positive relationships established with their key clients and how the project provided a unique opportunity for learning in a real-life setting. Team report and reflection document: The Swedish ‘test pilot’ learning experience provided insight into what highly motivated students could do when given the opportunity to develop their own autonomous learning situation. Particularly in Vietnam, students collected an impressive amount of data from interviews and focus groups with farmers. Beyond their analysis and synthesis of this information,


Open-ended Cases in Agroecology 397 presented in a bulletin from their university (Palmer et al., 2008), the students recognized the impact of their home culture, language and farming systems on their ability to read the context in another place. They highly recommended this type of learning adventure to other students. Individual learner documents: The final reflection document of each student provides an individual perspective on the team project plus observations and feelings about their growth during the overall class activities. Students frequently comment on their personal roles in the group, comfort in assuming each role, and challenges of working through conflicts within a team and essential accommodations needed to reach common goals. One frequent comment in the US eight day course: ‘I have learned more in this class than in any previous class I have taken on campus.’ Comments from clients and others: Another window on learning is the reaction of clients to student interviews and final reports. Both in Norway and in the US, the farmer clients have invariably asked to have students visit again the next year. They have found questions stimulating, scenarios thought provoking and recommendations useful to consider in their farm operations and community planning process. We consider this an outcome of the open-ended case approach, where the students are assessing current problems that have not yet been worked out, where they function as co-learners with the clients as well as with instructors, and where neither clients nor faculty have already arrived at the most logical answers. Value of the course to clients has been confirmed in Norway, where in 2009 four project communities have invited our students to make two working visits and have provided funding to pay for their travel and on-site expenses, an emergent property of the learning strategy. Official university evaluation: At each university, a structured final electronic evaluation is voluntary, but students are urged to submit quantitative feedback to administrators and teaching coordinators, as well as to course instructors. Responses generally are highly positive, and quantitative evaluations are above average for courses in the departments. Few students include additional comments, thus these evaluations provide limited information or insight on learning. There is also no way to compare the open-ended cases with more traditional approaches to case study learning, as many cases have some ‘openness quality’ built into the process and expected results. Open-ended evaluations for instructors: In the US course we ask students to evaluate instructors and report whether their expectations for guidance have been met. Even at the conclusion of courses, there is lingering concern from some students that we have relied too much on student initiative to dig out relevant information. Thus some have not totally captured the essence of autonomous learning. Some students feel a strong dependence on faculty to sort out what is relevant and to set specific expectations and hurdles to jump, similar to what they experience in a conventional classroom course. This also applies to some students in Norway, even though there is more time for students to adapt to the new learning strategy. Each of these windows has been used to adjust class activities during the courses and to change the process each year. We consider evaluation an integral and ongoing part of the education process. Yet we find it difficult to convince some students that we really do not have the correct answers for each farm or food system, and perhaps this is due to years of conditioning. Most academic experience has been in class or


398

C. Francis et al.

field case learning environments where there are fixed answers that students attempt to figure out to achieve the best grade possible. Using each of the above windows on individual students and groups, we attempt to determine how they are progressing in what we most easily observe externally as well as their internal learning (see Figure 1). Although the latter is a difficult process to measure, we can glimpse pieces of the complex learning puzzle through various types of interaction we have during the courses. Among the negative comments gleaned from evaluations, we identify basic contradictions between autonomous learning and structured courses, difficulties of some students in adapting to a unique style of study and learning, and continuing challenges of highly variable English language skills among team members in the Norway courses. Some students recognize our emphasis on identifying and building on individual strengths and learning styles, but criticize a course heavy on group work and activities that tailored for the whole class. At times the content is too simple for those with prior experience and too difficult for students with no agricultural, ecological or systems thinking background. Students who come from a highly structured and hierarchical learning system have challenges working in a system where much study is self-guided, teachers function as co-learners, and case studies are open-ended with no specific right answer. Lastly, in Norway students who are excellent speakers of English, including Nordic and Dutch students, often feel they spend too much time translating for team colleagues, and take on extra writing and editing tasks, to the detriment of learning new information about systems. We strive to overcome these issues, and to date only have partial solutions. Summary When evaluation of learning is an integral part of our goals as instructors, the quality of learning is enhanced. Rather than teachers evaluating students and students evaluating teachers as two different classes of actors*teachers as knowledge providers and students as knowledge consumers*we move away from the market logic of higher education towards a dialogue-based education. The dialogue process happens as a matter of necessity in the study of open-ended cases, in comparison to a traditional, lecture based education. Dialogue is less obviously needed where teachers have a predominant role as knowledge providers through lectures, and students function mainly as passive receivers of knowledge (see Figure 3). We also sense that open-ended case studies are more conducive to open dialogue than conventional, closed, decision case approaches, where the teachers and clients have already identified the tasks and logical solutions. Yet we have not tested this conjecture. There is no solid way to evaluate whether the positive evaluations nor the observed success are definitely due to the open-ended case approach. It would be an interesting challenge to design a study that would compare open-ended and closed-ended cases in the same farming context, with random groups of students, and over several years. This has not been done. In this open-ended case study model, teacher and student roles are distinctly different from the conventional model. Teachers leave their comfort zones and dominant role as controllers over right answers and the process of seeking them. Neither students nor teachers can claim to have the final solution to complex issues encountered in ‘whole systems’. Therefore, we have to join forces in shared



Figure 3. Major roles of teachers and students in education based on lectures, on closed ended cases, and on open-ended case studies.

exploration, and co-creation of relevant knowledge, through a dialogue approach. We think that interactions among teachers, clients and students described above, and the student-driven activity they foster, form the basis for the excitement and learning we have observed in three countries and diverse learning landscapes. Based on these experiences, we are convinced that the open-ended case approach in farming and food systems is an effective educational strategy.

References American Society of Agronomy (2006) Case Studies Published in Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Education, 1992!2005. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy. Barbazette, J. (2004) Instant Case Studies: How to Design, Adapt, and Use Case Studies in Training. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer. Barnes, L.B., Christensen, C.R. & Hansen, A. (Eds)(1994) Teaching and the Case Method. Boston, MA: HBS Publishing Division, Harvard Business School, 3rd ed. Checkland, P.B. & Scholes, J. (2001) Soft Systems Methodology in Action. In: Rosenhead, J. &. Mingers, J. (Eds), Rational Analysis for a Problematic World Revisited. Chichester: John Wiley, pp. 61!90. Cliff, W.H. & Nesbitt, L.M. (2005) An Open or Shut Case? Contrasting Approaches to Case Study Design. Journal of College Science Teaching, January!February, pp. 14!17. Dewey, J. (1966 [1916]) Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education. New York: Free Press. Freire, P. (1970) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Transl. M Bergman Ramos. New York: Seabury Press. Gunderson, L.H. & Holling, C.S. (Eds) (2002) Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems. Washington, DC: Island Press.


400

C. Francis et al.

Hecht, S.B. (1995) The Evolution of Agroecological Thought. In: Altieri, M.A. (Ed.), Agroecology: The Science of Sustainable Agriculture. London: IT Publications, pp. 1!19. Ison, R., Maiteny, P. & Carr, S. (1997) Systems Methodologies for Sustainable Natural Resources Research and Development. Agricultural Systems, 55(2), pp. 257!272. Ison, R. (2002) Developments in Theory and Practice of the Concept of Agroecosystems. V. Pananerican Farming Systems Symposium (ESA/SBSP), Florianopolis, Brazil, 20!23, May, http://systems.open.ac.uk/objects/RayI/ray-eisforia.doc (accessed November 2008). King, J.W. (1984) A Framework for Using Case Study Methodology to Describe Development Communication Programs. Development Communications (DEVCom) Quarterly, 2(3), pp. 1!11. Kolb, D. (1984) Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Langdell, C.C. (1871) Selection of Cases on the Law of Contracts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Law College. Lieblein, G., Breland, T.A., Østergaard, E., Salomonsson, L. & Francis, C. (2007). Educational Perspectives in Agroecology: Steps on a Dual Learning Ladder toward Responsible Action. National Association of College Teachers of Agriculture (NACTA) Journal, 51(1), pp. 37!44. Lieblein, G., Francis, C., Salomonsson, L. & Sriskandarajah, N. (1999) Ecological Agriculture Research: Increasing Competence through PhD Courses. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 6(1), pp. 31!46. Lieblein, G., Østergaard, E. & Francis, C. (2004) Becoming an Agroecologist through Action Education. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 2(3), pp. 1!7. Lundeberg, M.A., Levin, B.B. & Harrington, H.L. (1999) Who Learns What from Cases and How?. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Margetson, D. (1993) Understanding Problem-Based Learning. Educational Philosophy & Theory, 25(4), pp. 40!57. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystem and Human Well-Being: Scenarios. Washington, DC: Island Press. Palmer, S., Nilsson, A. & Roigart, A. (2008) Dynamic Change in Rice Production Systems in the Mekong Delta: A Students Field Study Report from An Gian. Rapporter Institutionen fo¨ r Stad och Land, number 3/2008, Swedish Agricultural University, Uppsala, Sweden. Pretty, J. (1995) Participatory Learning for Sustainable Agriculture. World Development, 23(8), pp. 1247! 1263. Rickerl, D. & Francis, C. (Eds) (2004) Agroecosystems Analysis. Monograph Series No. 43, American Society of Agronomy, Madison. Salomonsson, L., Francis, C., Lieblein, G. & Furugren, B. (2005). Just in Time Education. National Association of College Teachers of Agriculture (NACTA) Journal. December 49(4), pp. 5!13. Salomonsson, L., Nilsson, A., Palmer, S., Roigart, A. & Francis, C. (2009) Farming Systems Education: Case Study of Swedish Test Pilots. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 24(1), pp. 48!59. Sa´ nchez-Alonso, S., Ca´ ceres, J., Holm, A.S., Lieblein, G., Breland, T.A., Mills, R.A. & Manouselis, N. (2008) Engineering an Ontology on Organic Agriculture and Agroecology: The Case of the Organic.Edunet Project. In: Proceedings of the World Conference on Agricultural Information and IT (IAALD AFITA WCCA 2008), Tokyo, Japan, 24!27 August 2008. Simmons, S.R., Crookston, R.K. & Stanford, M.J. (1992) A Case for Case Study. Journal of Natural Resources & Life Sciences Education, 21(2), pp. 2!3. Sriskandarajah, N., Bawden, R.J. & Pakham, R.G. (1990) Systems Agriculture: A Paradigm for Sustainability. Association for Farming Systems Research & Extension (AFSRE) Newsletter, 2(3), pp. 1!5. Swinton, S.M. (Ed.)(1995) Teaching and Learning with Cases: Promoting Active Learning in Agricultural, Food and Natural Resource Education. East Lansing, MI: College of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Tan, S.C., Turgeon, A.J. & Jonassen, D.H. (2001) Developing Critical Thinking in Group Problem Solving through Computer Supported Collaborative Argumentation: A Case Study. Journal of Natural Resources & Life Sciences Education, 30, pp. 260!266. Wiedenhoeft, M., Simmons, S., Salvador, R., McAndrews, G., Francis, C., King, J. & Hole, D. (2003) Agroecosystems Analysis from the Grass Roots: A Multidimensional Experiential Learning Course. Journal of Natural Resources & Life Sciences Education, 32, pp. 73!79. Wilson, K. & Morren Jr., G.E.B. (1990) Systems Approaches for Improvement in Agriculture and Resource Management. New York: Macmillan, pp. 27!35, pp. 67!115.