Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 38:722–743, 2014Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 2168-3565 print/2168-3573 onlineDOI: 10.1080/21683565.2014.881456

Food for Thought: Developing Curricula forSustainable Food Systems Education Programs

KATHLEEN HILIMIRE,1,2 SEAN GILLON,2,3 BLAIR C.MCLAUGHLIN,2,4 BRIAN DOWD-URIBE,2,5 and KATIE L. MONSEN2,6

1Environmental Studies, Fort Lewis College, Durango, Colorado, USA2New Roots Institute for the Study of Food Systems, Santa Cruz, California, USA

3Food Systems and Society, Marylhurst University, Marylhurst, Oregon, USA4Department of Integrative Biology, University of California Berkeley,

Berkeley, California, USA5Department of Environment and Development, University for Peace, San Jose, Costa Rica

6Department of Environmental Studies, University of California Santa Cruz,Santa Cruz, California, USA

The study of food systems is a quickly growing field. In high demandby postsecondary students, new food systems studies programs areemerging from a range of disciplines. Food systems are inherentlycomplex and are best understood from a range of academic per-spectives and practical contexts. We review current scholarship onfood systems pedagogy and present approaches for developing andimplementing food systems curricula. A literature review and ourexperience indicate that effective food systems program approachesinclude emphasizing interdisciplinarity and a systems approachand balancing experience, theory, and practical skills acquisition.We discuss strategies, challenges and opportunities for buildingfood systems curricula.

KEYWORDS agrifood, agroecology, college, curriculum,sustainable agriculture, university

1. INTRODUCTION

Concerns about soil loss, water quality and availability, environmental con-tamination, hunger and nutrition, food safety and security, labor conditions,

Address correspondence to Kathleen Hilimire, Fort Lewis College, Environmental Studies,1000 Rim Drive, Durango, CO 81301, USA. E-mail: kehilimire@fortlewis.edu

722

Dow

nloa

ded

by [F

ort L

ewis

Col

lege

], [K

athl

een

Hili

mire

] at 1

1:59

06

Mar

ch 2

015

Sustainable Food Systems Curriculum Development 723

animal welfare, and the causes of climate change have put agricultureand food systems in the spotlight (Matson et al. 1997; Francis et al. 2003;Gliessman 2004; DeLind and Howard 2008). These areas of concern havedriven efforts to understand and improve food systems’ social and environ-mental outcomes (Lotter 2003; Selfa et al. 2008; Follett 2009; Gwin 2009).Food systems can be defined as the processes involved in the provisioningof food, fiber, and fuel products. These processes include growing, harvest-ing, processing, preparing, packaging, transporting, marketing, consumption,and managing waste. Food systems also include associated inputs to and out-puts from these processes and the relationships between actors, institutions,and agroecosystems, as expressed in food system governance, organiza-tion, management, movements and ownership. Food systems influenceand are influenced by social, political, economic, cultural, and ecologicaldomains, with each component relying on human labor and knowledge(Archer et al. 2008; Ericksen 2008; Cornell University n.d.). Food systemsare inherently complex, and the need to understand and intervene in foodsystems as objects of social and environmental governance is increasing.Demonstrating an interest in meeting this need, demand for food systemseducation is rising, particularly among postsecondary college students, pre-senting educators with the unique challenge of developing effective learningopportunities that prepare students to take a range of leadership roles in foodsystems.

Historically, few opportunities have existed to study food systems.In recent years, however, the number of food systems-related coursesand majors has been increasing steadily.1 There has been a correspond-ing increased focus on postsecondary food systems pedagogy (Ison 1990;Bawden and Packham 1998; Karsten and O’Connor. 2002; Wiedenhoeft et al.2003; Parr and Van Horn 2006; Lieblein and Francis 2007; Waldenstrom et al.2008; Salomonsson et al. 2009; Francis et al. 2011). As such, there exists aunique current opportunity to reflect on the curricular design, organization,learning outcomes, and skills emphases for these new undergraduate andgraduate-level food systems majors, minors, certificates, and courses. In thisarticle, we review current scholarship on food systems pedagogy and identifycommon themes suggested for developing and implementing food systemscurricula. The presented approaches are derived from a synthesis of (a) areview of peer-reviewed literature on postsecondary food systems education,(b) our experiences as interdisciplinary scholars engaged in food systemsteaching and research, and (c) our interdisciplinary graduate and postgradu-ate training and teaching in environmental studies. Because the large majorityof this literature and our experience engage undergraduate education, ourdiscussion of approaches most directly relates to undergraduate food systemscurricula, although insights may be relevant in other contexts. This reviewof food systems learning approaches is appropriate for stand-alone foodsystems majors, minors, and certificates as well as food systems tracks that

Dow

nloa

ded

by [F

ort L

ewis

Col

lege

], [K

athl

een

Hili

mire

] at 1

1:59

06

Mar

ch 2

015

724 K. Hilimire et al.

might exist under a variety of other disciplinary or interdisciplinary majorssuch as agriculture, agroecology, anthropology, ecology, environmentalstudies/science, policy studies, sociology, and others.

Although small, the body of literature on pedagogy related to food sys-tems, agroecology, and sustainable agriculture is informative and innovative.We reviewed extant approaches to food systems learning by searching forpeer-reviewed papers in Web of Science containing the following keywords:agroecology, food systems, sustainable agriculture, education, teaching, andlearning. We also identified additional related scholarship from these papers’references.

In addition to the literature, we drew from our own experiencesas food systems scholars and educators. Among us, we have experienceteaching undergraduate and graduate-level courses that focus on the inter-disciplinary dimensions of food systems, such as agroecology practicum;food sovereignty, hunger, and sustainable agriculture; food policy and cul-ture; food systems inquiry; the principles of sustainable agriculture; programin community and agroecology; and sustainable food systems. We also haveexperience teaching in nontraditional postsecondary settings such as inter-national service-learning courses that gather diverse groups of students andpractitioners to learn about particular food systems topics. We have designedundergraduate and graduate food systems curricula; built field-based foodsystems courses; been involved in the founding of the Sustainable AgricultureEducation Association; and established the nonprofit New Roots Institutefor the Study of Food Systems. We have experimented with various learn-ing techniques, including case studies, field-based studies, student-initiatedgroup projects, and traditional academic skills development. Our courses andfood systems research take place throughout the United States, Latin America,and West Africa and draw from a range of disciplines across the social andnatural sciences. Our current research engagements include literature andsurvey-based work related to the pedagogy of food systems; interdisciplinaryanalysis of the drivers of agroecological change and outcomes in agriculture;analysis of contrasting methods for linking social and ecological inquiry;connections between climate policy and agriculture; evaluation of transgeniccrop introductions; and analysis of the social and environmental dimensionsof community gardens.

Finally, in writing this article, we drew on our graduate and postgraduatetraining in interdisciplinary environmental studies to inform our discussion offood systems curricula. Similar to the field of environmental studies, food sys-tems education and research are characterized by complex and value-ladentopics that transcend traditional academic disciplinary boundaries. As such,our experiences and perspectives as environmental studies scholars allowedus to offer insight into the construction of effective interdisciplinary food sys-tems curricula. Our interdisciplinary and disciplinary academic engagementsinclude: agroecology, agricultural and environmental history, agrifood system

Dow

nloa

ded

by [F

ort L

ewis

Col

lege

], [K

athl

een

Hili

mire

] at 1

1:59

06

Mar

ch 2

015

Sustainable Food Systems Curriculum Development 725

and rural studies, sociology, conservation biology, environmental studies,human and environmental geography, plant ecology, policy studies, politicalecology, restoration ecology, and sociology.

In this article we address the following questions: What has theoreticaland empirical research shown about how to best organize food systems cur-ricula? What practical and analytical skills could such programs effectivelyemphasize? Finally, what techniques best facilitate learning about complexfood systems? In the first section of the article we outline common andeffective theoretical and pedagogical approaches to food systems learning.We focus on interdisciplinary and systems-based approaches and the impor-tance of a complement of experience, theory, and skills in food systemseducation. In the second section of the article we review specific strategiesfor building food systems curricula, focusing on three main approaches wehave found to be effective for learning: immediate exposure to a food system,case study analyses, and cooperative group learning. We treat each of thesepedagogical tools as they relate to food systems studies, and offer referencesto other literature in which the general concepts or techniques have beenexplored comprehensively. Finally, we identify and suggest ways to addresscommon challenges in food systems curriculum development and teaching.

2. THEORETICAL AND PEDAGOGICAL APPROACHES TO FOODSYSTEMS LEARNING

Innovative curricula are required to craft learning opportunities for theupcoming generation of leaders in food systems, whose critical role in societywill require them to make connections between diverse topics such as foodconsumption and justice, farm management and federal policy, and otherlinked social and ecological food system dynamics. We find that emphasizinginterdisciplinarity and a systems approach and balancing experience, theory,and practical skills acquisition are effective approaches for food systemslearning.

2.1. Interdisciplinarity and a Systems Approach

A survey of food systems practitioners and academics identified bothinterdisciplinarity and a systems approach as founding principles forsustainable agriculture education (Trexler et al. 2006; Parr et al. 2007).Along with Francis et al. (2011), we find the same to be true for foodsystems programs. Food systems are inherently connected to the domainsof multiple disciplines, and, as such, their study requires an interdisci-plinary approach. Interdisciplinary education engages multiple perspectivesthrough both theory and method (Clark et al. 2011), and as such, can

Dow

nloa

ded

by [F

ort L

ewis

Col

lege

], [K

athl

een

Hili

mire

] at 1

1:59

06

Mar

ch 2

015

726 K. Hilimire et al.

effectively engage students’ prior knowledge and experience (Lattuca et al.2004). Interdisciplinary education can also encourage reflective thinkingand judgment by stressing analysis, synthesis and evaluation, particularly inproblem-solving oriented approaches; and it can model a complex view ofknowledge that builds skill in student ability to recognize, evaluate, chooseamong and integrate multiple perspectives. An interdisciplinary approach toresearch, education and practice “rests on a higher order means of organiz-ing knowledge and action,” focusing on “integration . . . to reorganize andinvigorate the knowledge structure in the humanities and social and biophys-ical sciences to address problems” (Clark et al. 2011, 109). Pedagogically,this involves developing students’ abilities to think through and solve wholesystem problems, rather than preparing students to solve the problems of iso-lated disciplines (Salomonsson et al. 2009). In our experience, an isolated,disciplinary problem-solving approach is inadequate for the task of analyz-ing and addressing today’s persistent and newly emerging multi-dimensionalfood systems issues.

Interdisciplinarity, or cross-disciplinary inquiry and collaboration, comesin many forms. Analyzing variation in interdisciplinary research and teach-ing approaches and outcomes, Lattuca (2001) and Lattuca (2004) specifyseveral forms of multi-disciplinary engagement: 1) informed disciplinarityretains a disciplinary focus, but draws on other relevant disciplines to informthe primary disciplinary area of inquiry; 2) synthetic interdisciplinarity com-bines approaches from multiple disciplines while maintaining identifiableboundaries between approaches; 3) transdisciplinarity develops originalmethods, concepts and theories without maintaining disciplinary bound-aries and tests these new approaches across disciplines; and 4) conceptualinterdisciplinarity draws on multiple disciplines to better understand partic-ular phenomena without reducing their complexity. That is, the object ofinquiry’s complexity is privileged over any disciplinary basis, suggesting thatany single approach would only offer a partial representation of the phenom-ena in question. Our experience and the literature suggest that food systemseducation is best served by approaches that go beyond multidisciplinary orinformed disciplinary engagement. We find that synthetic interdisciplinarity,transdisciplinarity, and conceptual interdisciplinarity are most appropriate forfood systems curricula because of the need to synthetically integrate multipleperspectives and fields in the study of almost any food systems topic.

A systems approach is an important complement to interdisciplinaryfood systems teaching and research. While interdisciplinarity defines themode of inquiry in food systems studies, a systems approach helps to definethe object of inquiry as a larger set of relationships and factors than is typ-ical among more disciplinary approaches. Specifically, a systems approachrequires that the object of analysis be a system rather than an isolated com-ponent of a larger set of dynamic patterns and processes. Accordingly, asystems approach emphasizes the use of a range of modes and scales of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [F

ort L

ewis

Col

lege

], [K

athl

een

Hili

mire

] at 1

1:59

06

Mar

ch 2

015

Sustainable Food Systems Curriculum Development 727

inquiry, from more reductionist or experimental to more broadly framed orholistic approaches, encouraging students to more fully engage multiple anddynamic ecological, social and institutional dimensions of problems (Bawdenand Packham 1998; Parr and Van Horn 2006; Francis et al. 2011). Franciset al. (2011), who define a systems approach as a “multi-perspective way ofseeing the world, distinct from that employed by single disciplines” (227),illustrate the concept with the example of the development of a new high-yielding wheat variety. While a nonsystems approach might be concernedsolely with the goal of increasing genetic production potential, a systemsapproach would emphasize analysis of synergies and trade-offs among dif-ferent dimensions of the development of the varietal. This would involveconsideration of prices and availability of inputs, environmental impacts,market dynamics, and distribution as critical components to the process ofthe wheat varietal development. A systems approach to food systems stud-ies requires that programs be crafted uniquely, emphasizing the object ofinquiry as a system and introducing tools and methods that support syntheticinterdisciplinary analysis.

2.2. The Experience-Theory-Skill Complement

Connecting experience, theory and practical skills acquisition in foodsystems education provides opportunities for rich learning experiences,systematic reflection, and analysis informed by student experience andrelevant theoretical approaches. We find that an “experience-theory-skillcomplement” integrates: direct exposure to complex food systems topics;scholarship that frames, analyzes, and critiques those topics; and specifictools needed to engage with those topics. This synthetic complement allowsstudents to engage a topic from multiple perspectives. Designing a curricu-lum with a complement of the three can allow for meaningful exposureto complex scenarios, in-depth learning of theory, and proficiencies withspecific skills and tools.

Experience-based learning emerged in response to lecture-based edu-cation that privileged the knowledge of the teacher, emphasized unilateralassessment, and encouraged memorization and repetition of lectures overdeep problem solving (Dewey 1916). Instead, experience-based curriculaexpose students to practical contexts and learning experiences crafted bypersonal interests, which creates a richer learning experience than the class-room alone (Ison 1990; Kolb and Kolb 2005). In a food systems program,experience-based learning can include field trips to and internships in sitesacross the food system, including farms and ranches, processing facilities,meal centers, or regulatory agencies. Experience-based learning can alsooccur as participatory involvement, for example through food system-relatedemployment, involvement in a campaign for food system workers’ laborrights, or documenting a food system controversy.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [F

ort L

ewis

Col

lege

], [K

athl

een

Hili

mire

] at 1

1:59

06

Mar

ch 2

015

728 K. Hilimire et al.

Scholars of experience-based learning have long pointed to the impor-tance of systematic reflection as part of this learning process (Kolb 1984;Baker et al. 2005). On its own, experience is merely contact with observa-tion. In order to become meaningful, experience must be reflected upon(Kolb 1984; Baker et al. 2005). There are many ways to systematically incor-porate reflection into the learning process. We use the term “systematic”to indicate that reflection is explicitly incorporated into curricula, either inor outside of class. Tools for systematic reflection include journaling, in-class discussion, and written assignments that ask students to synthesize andcontextualize their experience with food systems and engagement with litera-ture. In-class conversations can be a particularly powerful form of reflectionbecause they facilitate dynamic learning (Baker et al. 2005). As studentsassimilate what others learned from an experience, their own interpretationsgrow and change in meaning.

Experience with and reflection on food system issues can be comple-mented and informed by relevant theoretical engagement (Waldenstrom et al.2008). Engagement with theory, contemporary debates, and historical per-spectives provides a basis for hypothesis development and informed analysisin the context of experience (Kolb and Kolb 2005). As such, the complementof experience with theory can create a rigorous learning space in whichstudents are engaged and invested. No textbook currently exists for food sys-tems classes, yet there is an extensive literature on many of the themes andtopics salient in food systems learning. Food systems scholars often engagein debate and conversation via academic publications. We have found thatdebates in the primary literature on topics such as food and farm policy,nutrition and health, commodity chains and ownership in food systems, laborand labor movements, food security and safety, breeding and biotechnology,and consumer movements can be valuable complements to experience-based learning. Students can engage with this literature and evaluate theirexperiences against the findings and arguments of food systems researchers,creating meaningful learning through the resolution of contrasting theoreticalperspectives and personal experiences (Kolb and Kolb 2005). For example,students might bridge theory and experience with the topic of fair tradelabeling. They could simultaneously participate in or analyze a particular fairtrade campaign while reading articles on fair trade written from multiple per-spectives. Such articles could include criticisms of market-based approachesto social justice (e.g., Bacon 2005; Brown and Getz 2008; Wilson 2013) alongwith articles showing how fair trade rents have improved household incomelevels (e.g., Méndez et al. 2010). As students reconcile readings with theirexperiences, they likely will develop new insights and perspectives.

Using a combination of experience and theory in food systems pro-grams also serves to build students’ confidence to engage with practitioners(Waldenstrom et al. 2008; Parr and Trexler 2011). To succeed in such a highlyapplied field, students of food systems need to be willing to engage with

Dow

nloa

ded

by [F

ort L

ewis

Col

lege

], [K

athl

een

Hili

mire

] at 1

1:59

06

Mar

ch 2

015

Sustainable Food Systems Curriculum Development 729

practitioners and cross the traditional boundaries of a range of communitiesand institutions, as well as disciplines. This requires an educational approachthat empowers students to take the risks of engaging with practitioners andcommunities, when no clear right answers exist; this may mean simply listen-ing and watching to identify key needs or areas of concern (Guthman 2008).Engagement with practitioners through experience-based learning has beensuggested to encourage this kind of confidence in students (Lieblein andFrancis 2007; Waldenstrom et al. 2008; Parr and Trexler 2011). Direct expe-rience also encourages students to apply theoretical and innovative problemsolving to practical situations, facilitating student engagement with practition-ers to find solutions to food systems problems (Lieblein and Francis 2007;Ostergaard et al. 2010). Combining direct experiences with theoretical skillscan help build student confidence to bring emerging theory and new ideasinto entrenched systems.

The third component to the experience-theory-skill complement is skillsacquisition. Distinct from the experience-based learning described above,skills acquisition refers to the learning of specific research and analysis meth-ods or job-related tools. Skills can be broadly placed into two groups: coreskills and practical skills. Core skills refer to the set of proficiencies devel-oped in many liberal arts degree programs. These include evidence-baseddecision making and argument building, critical thinking and self-reflection,interdisciplinary analysis, and communication skills. Advancing core skills isan important part of food systems programs. In addition, educators need toconsider the practical skills students can acquire in food systems programs.

The choice of practical skills advanced in an individual program willdepend on many factors: the orientation of the program, the skills of programeducators, the availability of resources, demand by students, and geographicarea. Selection of practical skills for a particular program needs to be dynamicas the need for specific skills will change as new methods, tools, and foodsystem futures develop. As such, practical skills will need to be tailored to theneeds of the time and place of the particular course. Though not exhaustivewe suggest the following list as an example of practical skill areas, withexamples of particular skills, as possible core elements of an interdisciplinaryfood systems program.

! agroecological research methods (identifying plants, taking soil samplesand conducting and interpreting nutrient analyses, measuring biodiversity,trapping and identifying insects);

! community engagement and outreach skills (effectively engaging diversecommunities, communicating research findings to communities and gen-eral audiences);

! horticultural skills (applied soil science, water management, sowing andtransplanting, crop planning, weed management);

Dow

nloa

ded

by [F

ort L

ewis

Col

lege

], [K

athl

een

Hili

mire

] at 1

1:59

06

Mar

ch 2

015

730 K. Hilimire et al.

! industry-specific skills (reading and interpreting organic regulations, craft-ing a business plan, food policy literacy);

! social science research skills (the ethics of working with human par-ticipants, constructing a survey instrument, conducting an interview,participant observation).

Practical job-specific skills acquisition can be built into curricula througha specific methods class or via insertion of “methods days” in other food sys-tems classes. For example, a sustainable food systems class might include aproject that requires students to assess different agricultural inputs for com-pliance with organic regulations using interpretation of policy documents.Alternatively, the class could include a weekly skills day on a student farmwhere students learn horticultural skills such as pest management and covercropping strategies. Field trips are an effective space for skills acquisition, asstudents can learn directly from food systems practitioners the skills essen-tial to their jobs. For example, a health advocate from a nonprofit couldteach students how to conduct a household nutrition assessment. Buildingpractical skills acquisition into food systems curricula empowers studentswith tools for analysis of food systems, and it exposes students to some ofthe daily work of food systems careers, which may help them to craft theireducational experience toward a particular career goal.

3. TECHNIQUES FOR BUILDING A FOOD SYSTEMS CURRICULUM

Thus far we have outlined effective, general approaches to designing andimplementing food system curricula. Here, we discuss more specific learningmethodologies, outlining four of the most successful approaches for improv-ing education outcomes of food systems curricula: (1) early initial exposureto a food system (exposure first); (2) case study learning approaches;(3) experience-based learning; and (4) cooperative group learning.

3.1. Exposure First

Immediate exposure to a food system as the first step in a food systems cur-riculum has been shown to be a powerful way to support student investmentand engagement with learning (Ison 1990; Lieblein et al. 2007; Lieblein andFrancis 2007). This stands in contrast to a more traditional linear approach inwhich students must first acquire theoretical knowledge and tools, secondlyare exposed to practical exploration of a system, and finally engage in syn-thesis and purposeful action (Lieblein et al. 2007). For example, using thetraditional, linear approach in a food systems curriculum, students mightbe required to take a progression of single-disciplinary courses, such as

Dow

nloa

ded

by [F

ort L

ewis

Col

lege

], [K

athl

een

Hili

mire

] at 1

1:59

06

Mar

ch 2

015

Sustainable Food Systems Curriculum Development 731

biology and soil science, before “graduating” to a farm visit. In the non-linear, exposure-first approach, exposure to complexity comes first, beforesingle disciplinary requirements, encouraging inquisitiveness and creatinga sense of urgency around the learning of specific tools and theories. Theexposure-first model posits that students become curious and engaged whenexposed to the complexity of a food system. They also learn what ques-tions to ask, placing new knowledge in its context and developing a richerunderstanding even before subjects and topics are mastered (Ison 1990; Parret al. 2007; Salomonsson et al. 2009). This motivates students’ investmentin acquisition of theory and skills for understanding, analyzing, and problemsolving. Students can then combine insight gained from exposure with newlyacquired theory and skills to craft careful analysis and engage in synthesisand purposeful action.

Exposure first in food system studies can take place through field trips,readings, documentaries, or presentations. For example, an assignment couldbe to describe major food and agricultural production systems of a regionincluding a range of farm sizes, the demographics of farmers, workers, andeaters, relevant health issues, food-related policies and infrastructure, andmajor food system actors. Depending on the focus of the course, this styleof project could be focused at the local, regional, or national scale. Withfield trips, a class could visit several processing facilities, grocers, governingagencies, or farms. Ideally, field trips would highlight different food sys-tem practices and philosophies. Regardless of the form, the exposure-firstapproach allows the learner to develop questions and hypotheses that willdrive engagement with other course components.

3.2. Case Study Learning Approaches

Case study learning can build on the exposure-first technique by provid-ing more regular and extended contact with a food system after initialexposure. Case study learning methods are used in a range of disciplinarycurricula, from medicine to social sciences, because of their potential forencouraging creativity and innovation (Ghosh 1993) and for increasing com-prehension and retention of knowledge (Angelides et al. 2000). Food systemseducation scholars recommend using case study methods to link theoreti-cal learning to practical challenges, make abstract concepts concrete, andground ideals in the practicalities of a particular situation (Waldenstromet al. 2008; Salomonsson et al. 2009; Francis et al. 2011). Case studies alsoprovide opportunities to connect a single case, about which students canlearn deeply, to wider patterns and processes. For example, if students areengaged with learning the particulars of a community-supported agriculture(CSA) operation through case study research, they can consider how thatCSA compares to others, or how the CSA fits into broader policies and theregional economy. There are multiple approaches to case study learning

Dow

nloa

ded

by [F

ort L

ewis

Col

lege

], [K

athl

een

Hili

mire

] at 1

1:59

06

Mar

ch 2

015

732 K. Hilimire et al.

that can be applied to food systems pedagogy. Here, we discuss inductive,deductive, and scenario-based approaches.

In an inductive approach, the topic is introduced but problems andpatterns are left undefined. Through inquiry and analysis, students definewhat a particular food system is a case of and why. Students could exam-ine, for example, the topic of strawberry production on California’s CentralCoast. Based on guided student research and observation, students coulddefine the most pressing issues present as related to labor, agricultural chem-ical use, markets, pest management, varietal selection, or land use. Studentscould then connect the multiple dimensions of strawberry production onthe Central Coast and situate these in the context of broader food systempatterns and processes, linking theory with a more particular set of relation-ships. An inductive case study learning approach, or open-ended case study,asks students to develop their own narrative or explanations of the relevantquestions or issues for a particular case (Francis et al. 2011). Educators pointout the learning value of an inductive approach in which problems have notalready been solved, and outcomes or right answers have not been prede-termined by the instructor or the practitioners involved in the case (Liebleinand Francis 2007; Francis et al. 2011; Francis et al. 2013). The inductive casestudy learning approach is particularly well suited for following an exposure-first method because it offers an opportunity for students to freely pursuethe questions developed from their initial interactions with a particular foodsystem.

A second approach uses case studies as evidence in deductive reason-ing. Here, multiple cases are considered together to form the foundationfor addressing a broader food system challenge or research question.Salamonsson et al. (2009), for example, recommend the use of contrastingcase studies in very different systems to enhance learning with a comparisonof how different concepts play out in different food systems. For example,multiple case studies could be used to contrast different modes of production(Salomonsson et al. 2009) or various responses to food insecurity. As a spe-cific example, a deductive case study learning approach could ask studentsto compare the challenges cafeteria managers from schools of different sizesor in different geographical locations might face in obtaining fresh foodsfor meals. In this example, students have the opportunity to identify widevariation among food systems cases, appreciate the challenge of develop-ing broad-scale solutions, and apply evidenced-based reasoning and criticalthinking skills to address practical problems.

In a third approach, scenario-based case study learning, students arepresented with an actual or simulated scenario in which a practitionerexpresses a variety of problems related to a food system with which theyare engaged. This form of case study teaching uses engaging narrativesthat put learning into context (Herreid 1999). A case study scenario pre-sented in objective narrative form following and related to the exposure-first

Dow

nloa

ded

by [F

ort L

ewis

Col

lege

], [K

athl

een

Hili

mire

] at 1

1:59

06

Mar

ch 2

015

Sustainable Food Systems Curriculum Development 733

experience may help to build students’ investment in and understanding ofa particular case. Students are charged to identify key information about thenarrative case and suggest multiple scenarios to address the issues definedas important by the scenario (Waldenstrom et al. 2008; Salomonsson et al.2009; Francis et al. 2011). Using the example of a cafeteria case studyagain, students could be presented with a case study of a college cafe-teria manager who desires to incorporate more local food into the menubut is struggling with budgetary constraints, networking with farmers, andmanaging the inconsistencies of seasonal, small-scale food supply. Studentswould then decide what key information they need to obtain, forminghypotheses based on theoretical training. They might hypothesize, for exam-ple, that farmers are reticent to partner with an institution that is likely tohave demanding regulations for food handling or that the harvest seasonis mismatched with the school year. Subsequently, they would use multi-ple methods to gather the information, such as interviews with farmers andobservation of harvest dates to test their hypotheses and apply informationlearned to developing a recommendation for the cafeteria manager. With thistechnique, co-learning with actors in the case study occurs as students brain-storm potential futures for the food system under study and propose coursesof action.

Each case study learning approach can be applied in a variety of for-mats: as a focal point of an entire course; as the basis for a one-day in-classdiscussion; as the focus of writing assignments; or as a single exam questionthat relays the outlines of a case and asks students to interpret, comment,or pose solutions. Case studies can be undertaken by students individually,or can provide excellent opportunities for cooperative learning in a groupsetting. Inviting practitioners into the classroom for guest lectures or work-shops is an excellent way to enhance students’ depth of understanding of aparticular food system case.

Case studies can play an important role in linking academic theory withcomplex food system scenarios. Interdisciplinary approaches, in particular,can be effectively demonstrated in this process. Case study analysis that con-fronts multifaceted food system challenges can demonstrate to students thevalue of asking questions from a range of perspectives and using a varietyof methods and disciplines to address them. Case studies can also provideopportunities for students to consider uncertainty and to integrate informa-tion to engage in priority setting around what kind of analysis, information,or action is most important in a particular context.

3.3. Experience-Based Learning

Experience-based learning can allow students direct experience bridgingtheoretical knowledge and practical problems. Experiences that allow pro-longed and meaningful contact with practitioners allow students to interact

Dow

nloa

ded

by [F

ort L

ewis

Col

lege

], [K

athl

een

Hili

mire

] at 1

1:59

06

Mar

ch 2

015

734 K. Hilimire et al.

with food systems professionals in ways that can prepare them for futureprofessional communications. Internships, field trips, service-learning, andapplied research opportunities are all examples of experience-based learn-ing that can help students link practice with theory (Parr and Trexler 2011).These experiences can be designed to take place across a range of points inthe food system, including places of production such as farms and slaughter-houses, packing and distribution centers, retail centers such as grocery storesand farmers markets, and regulatory agencies, such as local water or com-modities boards. If it is unfeasible for students to spend time outside of theclassroom, practitioner experts can be brought into the classroom for guestlectures or workshops to give students a better sense of how the theory theyare learning applies in a practical context. Student farms also function as abridging point between theoretical learning and practical challenges, provid-ing similar and additional benefits to off-campus farm experiences (Parr andTrexler 2011).

Experience-based learning is also an effective way to build student-centered learning into food systems curricula. Student-centered education,or autonomous learning, in which students take the initiative to “shape theirown path through the educational system” and learning process, can allowstudents to practice taking the initiative necessary to apply a theoreticalframework in a novel way (Waldenstrom et al. 2008, 241; Salomonsson et al.2009). Student-selected internships and research projects allow students tocraft their learning experiences and gain expertise in an area of potentialcareer development. These experiences also can empower students to learntechnical competencies aligned with their goals for food system engagement,increasing confidence in their abilities to take an active and valuable part inimproving food systems (Parr and Trexler 2011).

3.4. Cooperative Group Learning

Engagement with food systems is a universal human experience—we alleat—but each student brings unique perspectives, experiences, and profi-ciencies to the topic of food systems. Students in any one classroom mayrepresent a variety of experiences with food production, food security orinsecurity, and food handling through retail or restaurant work; along withhaving diverse personal values and interests in particular foods, produc-tion systems, or marketing methods. In addition, if food systems coursesare designed to draw students from a range of disciplines, students mayhave competencies in a wide range of academic subjects and methodologi-cal approaches. Food systems programs can build on these diverse studentperspectives by engaging in cooperative group learning. Cooperative learn-ing is well-studied, highly effective, and has been used in medical, law,and business education for over a century (Herreid 2005). This peer-to-peerlearning is identified as important in food systems programs (Parr and Trexler

Dow

nloa

ded

by [F

ort L

ewis

Col

lege

], [K

athl

een

Hili

mire

] at 1

1:59

06

Mar

ch 2

015

Sustainable Food Systems Curriculum Development 735

2011), and can be a valuable component of the exposure-first and case studylearning techniques.

The complementarity of approaches, experiences, and knowledge basesof a group of students can encourage multi-dimensional and creative think-ing around food systems problem solving. For example, a student teamwith a range of individual expertise in agronomy, biology, geography, andeconomics could be asked to consider a case of genetically engineeredpapaya introduction to a region. The team could simultaneously addressagroecological issues such as key viruses and cultural practices in papayaagroecosystems; the ecology and genetics of viruses and host plants; as wellas social issues including the political economy of gene patents and knowl-edge production, and the economic tradeoffs between using patented andunpatented varieties. In addition to diversity in academic training, studentsfrom different social backgrounds might have different insights into issuessuch as the social significance, costs and benefits of papaya productionand consumption that would inform the group’s understanding of the case.Overall, the group learning approach allows students to engage with thecase in a much deeper way than each would have been able to individually.Cooperative group learning also allows instructors to behave as facilitatorsof knowledge rather than holders of knowledge, overturning some of thetraditional academic boundaries that are particularly ineffective in food sys-tems learning where consumers, farmers, ranchers, professionals, students,and instructors all form part of the “community of learners” (Ison 1990, 7).While cooperative group learning in the example provided above may bebest suited for graduate-level programs where students have developed aknowledge base from which to begin and contribute to group learning, itskey principles can be applied elsewhere. Undergraduate courses of manage-able size can build upon students’ experiences with and knowledge aboutfood systems in the absence of substantive, disciplinary knowledge.

4. ANTICIPATING COMMON CHALLENGES

Some common challenges occur when constructing food systems curriculaor teaching food systems courses. In this section, we discuss the followingchallenges and provide suggestions for addressing them: a) logistical andfinancial barriers to experience-based learning, b) uneven access to the foodsystem and practitioner bias, c) the challenges of interdisciplinarity, and d)the tendency to reduce “food systems” to “sustainable agriculture.”

4.1. Logistical and Financial Barriers to Experience-Based Learning

Experience-based learning, with its emphasis on field trips and communityengagement, can pose logistical challenges that easily become barriers if

Dow

nloa

ded

by [F

ort L

ewis

Col

lege

], [K

athl

een

Hili

mire

] at 1

1:59

06

Mar

ch 2

015

736 K. Hilimire et al.

not addressed in the early planning phases. Here we discuss the practicallimitations to implementing a curriculum with attributes outlined. Major logis-tical and planning challenges include cultivating a positive experience forfield trip hosts and community partners, field class preparation and manage-ment, and the frequently higher costs of experiential versus classroom-basededucation. Often, instructors will find that hosts and partners are initiallyenthusiastic to support field trips, host research projects, or give interviews.As time progresses, practitioners may grow weary of the extra work associ-ated with the class or with answering similar questions and receiving similarreports from students. We have experimented with techniques to facilitatebeneficial interactions between practitioners and students with the goal ofcultivating lasting long-term partnerships. Useful approaches to these part-nerships include building continuous projects, defining research prioritieswith practitioners, and providing compensation to practitioners.

In circumstances where students will have extended interactions withcommunity members or practitioners, instructors can help structure continu-ous, multi-year research projects associated with an ongoing course so thatresearch is cumulative rather than repetitive. For example, students workingon a food security analysis in a particular community could establish baselinedata in year one of the class; in year two, students could collaborate withcommunity members to develop solution-oriented interventions, building onthe work produced in year one. In year three, year-two’s intervention projectscould be assessed, and so on. With this technique, the nature of the researchfor the same class changes on a yearly basis, builds to a more substantivebody of work, and community partners are less likely to experience “researchfatigue” from repetitive projects. Another technique is to involve commu-nity partners directly in framing and setting research priorities early on inproject development, which can build increased investment in the project(Bacon et al. 2005; Hoffmann et al. 2007). This type of practitioner-centeredapproach encourages active participation in the co-creation of knowledgeand allows practitioners to identify objectives for the work (Ostergaard et al.2010).

In some situations, such as when course time or practitioner time is con-strained, building such variability and participation into a field experience isnot possible. For example, a course may always visit the same farm for a touron grass-fed cattle, during which the goal is simply exposure of students to aparticular food system component. In this situation, it may be appropriate tooffer compensation to the practitioner. This could take the form of payment,which could be derived from course fees, or it could consist of student volun-teer hours, which can be a valuable contribution as long as student volunteermanagement does not create extra work for the practitioner.

Managing the classroom in the field can create additional logisticalchallenges. Visits to food systems-related sites may include farms, slaugh-terhouses, offices, and neighborhoods. Each of these poses its unique

Dow

nloa

ded

by [F

ort L

ewis

Col

lege

], [K

athl

een

Hili

mire

] at 1

1:59

06

Mar

ch 2

015

Sustainable Food Systems Curriculum Development 737

requirements. For example, a farmer may want students to know ahead oftime not to step on newly seeded rows that may just look like bare groundto students, or a slaughterhouse may have a close-toed shoe policy. Priorto a field trip, the instructor should inquire from a community host aboutetiquette and safety and pass this information along to students.

Another logistical challenge to experience-based education is the extrapreparation frequently required of instructors to coordinate field trips andcommunity engagement. Planning for a field trip can include finding andcontacting a host, coordinating transportation, acquiring compensation,preparing students for the field experience and envisioning an adaptive fieldday itinerary. Additionally, the instructor may need to account for meal plan-ning, accommodations, and equipment. This extra work for instructors, oftenalready strapped for time, can be a major deterrent to planning field-basedlearning activities. We suggest three approaches to address this issue. First,an instructor, staff person, or student can create a food systems practitionerdirectory, which contains names, contact information, field trip concepts,and desired compensation of potential field trip hosts. This step requiresan upfront time commitment but eventually streamlines the process of set-ting up field trips and can be shared among multiple colleges in a region.A second solution is to require students to engage in field-based learning ontheir own time through internships or assignments. For example, a weekendhomework assignment could ask students to visit a grocery store, the farm-ers’ market, and a convenience store and compare prices and ingredientsof food items. Finally, the instructor can bring components of the field intothe classroom. Using the previous example, an instructor could bring bagsof groceries from various markets to the classroom to use as the basis for acomparative discussion.

In addition to logistical challenges for experience-based learning, thereare also financial challenges. Field trips typically require insurance, trans-portation, and practitioner compensation. Departments may be reluctant tooffer a field-based course because of higher associated costs compared toa traditional lecture-based course. We have dealt with this problem in twoways, with course fees and with external funding. Applying for grants tosupport field-based courses can make these classes affordable to studentsand to departments.

4.2. Uneven Access Across Food Systems

In experience-based food systems courses, it can be a challenge to accessdifferent components of food systems evenly. We have found the fewestbarriers in coordinating with small-scale and/or alternative farmers and themost challenges in connecting with non-farm food systems practitionersand conventional farmers. We have experienced highly asymmetrical accessbetween small-scale and/or alternative farms and conventional farms. Small

Dow

nloa

ded

by [F

ort L

ewis

Col

lege

], [K

athl

een

Hili

mire

] at 1

1:59

06

Mar

ch 2

015

738 K. Hilimire et al.

and/or alternative farmers tend to be receptive to hosting field trips andare often enthusiastic to share their worldviews with students. Large-scaleand/or conventional operators, on the other hand, may be more skepticalabout allowing access, potentially creating a biased exposure for students.Approaching conventional institutions in a nonjudgmental way and ensuringthat students show appropriate respect for all practitioner hosts can help tobuild the trust required for a full spectrum of experience-based partnerships.

A related challenge is making sure the suite of field experiences matchesthe breadth of the food system program. It can be tempting to lean on farmvisits as the primary field experience since farms can often accommodatelarge groups and are relatively easy to find. However, including other sites inthe food system, such as water and commodity boards, regulatory agencies,distributors, packaging centers, and processing facilities, is important in orderto expose students to all aspects of a food system. Coordinating field tripsto non-farm food system sites can pose challenges, such as the difficulty oflocating appropriate hosts or the logistics of bringing a field trip to an officebuilding that may not be able to accommodate a large group. Educators canutilize professional networks and research contacts to help identify properhosts. In the event that a particular site is not appropriate for a large group,we have found that guest lectures, invited panel discussions, shadowingprofessionals, and service-learning projects provide valuable substitutes forclass field visits.

4.3. The Challenges of Interdisciplinarity

Implementing interdisciplinarity can pose a further challenge to the creationof a food systems program. Educators may rely on their disciplinary training,which can contribute to a mismatch between interdisciplinary food systemscurricular goals and the approaches faculty are comfortable teaching. Despitestrong dedication to interdisciplinary and holistic approaches to food systemsteaching, Bawden and Packham (1998), reflect in a critical manner on theirearly efforts to implement an interdisciplinary systems-oriented program: “Itwas true that we had adopted experiential strategies from the start . . . butwe were there simulating the problems, structuring the projects, sneaking inkey concepts from our disciplines . . . we were still natural scientists weddedto a view of agriculture as a technical endeavor even if our ontologicalperspective had shifted . . .” (404).

In our own efforts to craft food systems curricula, as trained inter-disciplinary scholars, we also have found that our own topical areas ofexpertise still create biases and blind spots. One way to address disciplinaryblind spots is to develop curricula with a group of interdisciplinary schol-ars who bring a diversity of perspectives. However, even when workingas an interdisciplinary group, we were challenged to avoid the commonpitfall of creating atomistic, disciplinarily organized curricula. We initially

Dow

nloa

ded

by [F

ort L

ewis

Col

lege

], [K

athl

een

Hili

mire

] at 1

1:59

06

Mar

ch 2

015

Sustainable Food Systems Curriculum Development 739

found ourselves dividing coursework into natural sciences and social sci-ences sections, instead of truly integrating these topics into bigger conceptualtreatments of food systems. Ultimately, we found that creating interdisci-plinary, systems-based food systems curricula required an iterative, continualprocess of discussion, reflection, and improvement. Iterative discussions ofcurricular goals led to synthesis of our multiple perspectives. Because thisprocess is so critical, building explicit space for group work by educatorsshould be a systematic part of food systems curriculum development.

4.4. The Tendency to Reduce “Food Systems” to “SustainableAgriculture”

Another challenge we have confronted as food systems educators is a ten-dency for students and faculty to conflate food systems with sustainableagriculture. Faculty may find that students in food systems programs find thehorticultural work and lifestyle of sustainable agriculture appealing. Recentresearch by Hilimire (in prep.) found that students surveyed at a publicliberal arts college were most interested in food systems classes that empha-sized acquisition of horticultural skills. When these same students were askedabout their prospects for postgraduation employment, at least 50% of respon-dents ranked each of the following options as a preference for a possiblecareer choice: community food systems development; international food sys-tems development; food marketing; food justice work; scientist/researcher ofagriculture and food systems; and policymaking for legislation that governsfood systems. This range of career interests demonstrates a need to connectstudents to a range of skills, not limited to agricultural production. Preparingstudents for future endeavors beyond horticulture is also relevant becausethere is a tendency for students to grow less interested in farm work asthey gain direct experience with it. These findings underscore the need tocarefully craft food systems programs so that they engage with a range oftopics and skills and prepare students for careers in food systems not limitedto production agriculture. The persistent non-farm social and political chal-lenges of food systems also demand curricular attention to a much broaderset of issues.

5. CONCLUSION

In this article, we have examined theory and practice for designing foodsystems programs. We find that effective programs are those that emphasizeinterdisciplinarity and systems thinking, reflecting the inherent complexity

Dow

nloa

ded

by [F

ort L

ewis

Col

lege

], [K

athl

een

Hili

mire

] at 1

1:59

06

Mar

ch 2

015

740 K. Hilimire et al.

of food systems themselves. We also find that effective programs bal-ance experience, theory, and skills as methods for learning. The focus onexperience-based learning and community engagement provides studentsthe opportunity to build problem-solving capacities and communicationskills, both of which are increasingly viewed as critical parts of postsec-ondary education. We find that exposing students to the complexities andcontroversies of food systems through exposure-first approaches and casestudies, as opposed to traditional linear education models, encourages stu-dent investment in learning and skills development. Carefully crafted foodsystems programs can support essential core and food-systems specific skillsacquisition and problem-solving capacities.

As new additions to the academic landscape, food systems programs areuniquely poised to integrate contemporary, effective pedagogy. Participatory,non-hierarchical approaches to learning are a logical fit for food systemsprograms—every student already has direct knowledge of food systemsbecause food is a universal part of the human experience. The syn-ergistic exchange that occurs when students engage with food systemsstudies creates a dialectic experience where the student is both participantand observer, forming the basis of meaningful learning. Learning meth-ods that engage students as participants, discussed in this article, includestudent-centered learning approaches such as self-directed internships andresearch projects, as well as cooperative group learning and peer-to-peerapproaches such as group projects and community engagement. These typesof approaches overturn traditional academic hierarchies and are particularlywell suited to food systems programs where, without a standard canon oftheories and literature, understanding of food systems is constantly beingbuilt. With no set foundational texts, contemporary observation and problemsolving form the critical basis for topical areas of inquiry. The experienceof investigating food systems through participatory approaches also createsthe opportunity for instructors to behave as facilitators of knowledge ratherthan holders of knowledge. In this community of learning, consumers, farm-ers, ranchers, professionals, students, and instructors are all participants (Ison1990). Food systems programs can create new spaces of learning that supportcore skill development and food system specific problem-solving capabili-ties, essential for future leadership in addressing the myriad challenges forglobal and local food systems.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for theirinsightful comments on this manuscript.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [F

ort L

ewis

Col

lege

], [K

athl

een

Hili

mire

] at 1

1:59

06

Mar

ch 2

015

Sustainable Food Systems Curriculum Development 741

NOTE

1. Based on the growing numbers of programs listed by the Association for the Study of Foodand Society (www.food-culture.org/food-studies-programs) and the agroecology site at University ofCalifornia, Santa Cruz (www.agroecology.org), along with observations noted in Parr et al. (2007) andSchroeder et al. (2006).

REFERENCES

Angelides, D. C., A. Poulopoulos, I. Avgeris, and P. Haralampous. 2000. Case studiesand information technology in civil engineering learning. Journal of ProfessionalIssues in Engineering Education and Practice 126:125–132.

Archer, D. W., J. Dawson, U. P. Kreuter, M. Hendrickson, and J. M. Halloran. 2008.Social and political influences on agricultural systems. Renewable Agricultureand Food Systems 23:272–284.

Bacon, C. 2005. Confronting the coffee crisis: Can fair trade, organic, and specialtycoffees reduce small-scale farmer vulnerability in northern Nicaragua? WorldDevelopment 33:497–511.

Bacon, C., V. E. Mendez, and M. Brown. 2005. Participatory action research andsupport for community development and conservation: examples from shadecoffee landscapes in Nicaragua and El Salvador. Center Research Brief #6. SantaCruz, CA: Center for Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, University ofCalifornia, Santa Cruz.

Baker, A. C., P. J. Jensen, and D. A. Kolb. 2005. Conversation as experiential learning.Management Learning 36:411–427.

Bawden, R. J., and R. G. Packham. 1998. Systemic praxis in the education ofthe agricultural systems practitioner. Systems Research and Behavioral Science15:403–412.

Brown, S., and C. Getz. 2008. Towards domestic fair trade? Farm labor, food localism,and the “family scale” farm. GeoJournal 73:11–22.

Clark, S. G., M. M. Steen-Adams, S. Pfirman, and R. L. Wallace. 2011.Professional development of interdisciplinary environmental scholars. Journalof Environmental Studies and Science 1:99–113.

Cornell University. n.d. A primer on community food systems: Linking food, nutrition,and agriculture. Discovering the food system. Division of Nutritional Sciences,Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.

DeLind, L. B., and P. H. Howard. 2008. Safe at any scale? Food scares, foodregulation, and scaled alternatives. Agriculture and Human Values 25:301–317.

Dewey, J. 1916. Democracy and education. New York: MacMillian.Ericksen, P. J. 2008. Conceptualizing food systems for global environmental

change research. Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions18:234–245.

Follett, J. R. 2009. Choosing a food future: Differentiating among alternative foodoptions. Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics 22:31–51.

Francis, C., T. A. Breland, E. Ostergaard, G. Lieblein, and S. Morse.2013. Phenomenon-based learning in agroecology: A prerequisite for

Dow

nloa

ded

by [F

ort L

ewis

Col

lege

], [K

athl

een

Hili

mire

] at 1

1:59

06

Mar

ch 2

015

742 K. Hilimire et al.

transdisciplinarity and responsible action. Agroecology and Sustainable FoodSystems 37:60–75.

Francis, C., G. Lieblein, S. Gliessman, T. A. Breland, N. Creamer, R. Harwood, L.Salomonsson, J. Helenius, D. Rickerl, R. Salvador, M. Wiedenhoeft, S. Simmons,P. Allen, M. Altieri, C. Flora, and R. Poincelot. 2003. Agroecology: The ecologyof food systems. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 22:99–118.

Francis, C. A., N. Jordan, P. Porter, T. A. Breland, G. Lieblein, L. Salomonsson, N.Sriskandarajah, M. Weidenhoeft, R. DeHaan, I. Braden, and V. Langer. 2011.Innovative education in agroecology: Experiential learning for a sustainableagriculture. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 30:226–237.

Ghosh, S. 1993. An exercise in inducing creativity in undergraduate engineeringstudents through challenging examinations and open-ended design-problems.IEEE Transactions on Education 36:113–119.

Gliessman, S. 2004. Integrating agroecological processes into cropping systemsresearch. Journal of Crop Improvement 11:61–80.

Guthman, J. 2008. Bringing good food to others: investigating the subjects ofalternative food practice. Cultural Geographies 15:431–447.

Gwin, L. 2009. Scaling-up Sustainable Livestock Production: Innovation andChallenges for Grass-fed Beef in the U.S. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture33:189–209.

Herreid, C. F. 1999. The bee and the groundhog: Lessons in cooperative learning—Troubles with groups. Journal of College Science Teaching 28:226–228.

Herreid, C. F. 2005. Using case studies to teach science. American Institute forBiological Sciences. Available at www.actionbioscience.org/education/herreid.html (last modified May 15, 2005).

Hoffmann, V., K. Probst, and A. Christinck. 2007. Farmers and researchers: How cancollaborative advantages be created in participatory research and technologydevelopment? Agriculture and Human Values 24:355–368.

Ison, R. 1990. Teaching threatens sustainable agriculture. Gatekeeper Series No. 21.London: International Institute for Environment and Development.

Karsten, H. D., and R. E. O’Connor. 2002. Lessons learned from teaching an interdis-ciplinary undergraduate course on sustainable agriculture science and policy.Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Education 31:111–116.

Kolb, A. Y., and D. A. Kolb. 2005. Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancingexperiential learning in higher education. Academy of Management Learning &Education 4:193–212.

Kolb, D. A. 1984. Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning anddevelopment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Lattuca, L. R. 2001. Creating interdisciplinarity: Interdisciplinary research and teach-ing among college and university faculty. Vanderbilt University Press, Nashville,TN.

Lattuca, L. R., L. J. Voight, and K. Q. Fath. 2004. Does interdisciplinarity promotelearning? Theoretical support and researchable questions. Review of HigherEducation 28:23–48.

Lieblein, G., T. A. Breland, E. Ostergaard, L. Salomonsson, and C. Francis. 2007.Educational perspectives in agroecology: Steps on a dual learning ladder towardresponsible action. NACTA Journal 51:37–44.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [F

ort L

ewis

Col

lege

], [K

athl

een

Hili

mire

] at 1

1:59

06

Mar

ch 2

015

Sustainable Food Systems Curriculum Development 743

Lieblein, G., and C. Francis. 2007. Towards responsible action through agroecologicaleducation. Italian Journal of Agronomy 2:79–86.

Lotter, D. W. 2003. Organic agriculture. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 21:59–128.Matson, P. A., W. J. Parton, A. G. Power, and M. J. Swift. 1997. Agricultural

intensification and ecosystem properties. Science 277:504–509.Méndez, V. E., C. M. Bacon, M. Olson, S. Petchers, D. Herrador, C. Carranza,

L. Trujillo, C. Guadarrama-Zugasti, A. Cordón, and A. Mendoza. 2010. Effectsof Fair Trade and organic certifications on small-scale coffee farmer house-holds in Central America and Mexico. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems25:236–251.

Ostergaard, E., G. Lieblein, T. A. Breland, and C. Francis. 2010. Students learningagroecology: phenomenon-based education for responsible action. Journal ofAgricultural Education and Extension 16:23–27.

Parr, D. M., and C. J. Trexler. 2011. Students experiential learning and use of studentfarms in sustainable agriculture education. Journal of Natural Resources andLife Sciences 40:172–180.

Parr, D. M., C. J. Trexler, N. R. Khanna, and B. T. Battisti. 2007. Designing sustainableagriculture education: Academics’ suggestions for an undergraduate curriculumat a land grant university. Agriculture and Human Values 24:523–533.

Parr, D. M., and M. Van Horn. 2006. Development of organic and sustainable agri-cultural education at the University of California, Davis: A closer look at practiceand theory. Horttechnology 16:426–431.

Salomonsson, L., A. Nilsson, S. Palmer, A. Roigart, and C. Francis. 2009. Farmingsystems education: Case study of Swedish test pilots. Renewable Agricultureand Food Systems 24:48–59.

Selfa, T., R. A. Jussaume, and M. Winter. 2008. Envisioning agricultural sustainabilityfrom field to plate: Comparing producer and consumer attitudes and practicestoward environmentally friendly’ food and farming in Washington State, USA.Journal of Rural Studies 24:262–276.

Trexler, C. J., D. M. Parr, and N. R. Khanna. 2006. A Delphi study of agriculturalpractitioners’ opinions: Necessary experiences for inclusion in an undergraduatesustainable agricultural major. Journal of Agricultural Education 47:15–25.

Waldenstrom, C., L. Salomonsson, C. Francis, M. Moulton, and G. Lieblein. 2008.Individualized student-centred education: prototype for an agroecology BScprogramme. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 6:236–247.

Wiedenhoeft, M., S. Simmons, R. Salvador, G. McAndrews, C. Francis, J. King, and D.Hole. 2003. Agroecosystems analysis from the grass roots: A multidimensionalexperiential learning course. Journal of Natural Resources and Life SciencesEducation 32:73–79.

Wilson, B. 2013. Delivering the Goods: Fair Trade, Solidarity, and the Moral Economyof the Coffee Contract in Nicaragua. Human Organization 72:177–187.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [F

ort L

ewis

Col

lege

], [K

athl

een

Hili

mire

] at 1

1:59

06

Mar

ch 2

015