Individualized student-centred education: prototype for anagroecology BSc programme

Cecilia Waldenstrom1*, Lennart Salomonsson1, Charles Francis2, Mike Moulton3

and Geir Lieblein3

1Swedish Agricultural University, Uppsala, Sweden; 2University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA; and3Norwegian University of Life Sciences, As, Norway

Students in agricultural universities follow a rather conventional and structured sequence of courses inspecific discipline subjects. Here, a BSc programme in agroecology is proposed that will build on theunique competencies and prior experiences of each student, and will combine individual pathsthrough the learning landscape with team projects and other group work to ensure social learning.Drawing on experiential learning theory and action learning, and confronting some of the perceivedweaknesses in these theories, the programme is geared to build confidence in graduates to deal withcomplexity and uncertainty in future agricultural and food systems. Academic study will therefore becombined with field internships and frequent interactions with a range of people who are active in thefarming and food system. Much of the learning will be accomplished outside of traditional academicboundaries. This, as well as the proposed blended use of electronic media in education, may presentchallenges to teachers and faculties. Teachers will need support to reconsider their roles and toredesign courses. Yet, we believe that steps can be taken in the direction of the proposedprogramme. There are already several examples of models for organizing teaching that can offerinspiration.

Keywords: action education, agroecology, experiential education, farming systems, food systems

Introduction

The agricultural university mission is to provideeducation and training to help graduates functionwell in tomorrow’s society. A rapidly evolving jobmarket requires broad-based skills and an appreci-ation of complexity and breadth of current andfuture economic, environmental and social chal-lenges in agricultural production and food systems.In addition, to know about these systems and under-stand how to deal with them, graduates should

acquire the social skills that will help them to partici-pate actively in groups and activities in sociallyresponsible ways. We provide here a prototype fora BSc programme in agroecology that seeks tobuild confidence in graduates who are prepared todeal with complexity and uncertainty in future agri-cultural and food systems.Students need to be educated for a complex future

and we need both new educational structures anda broadened content to prepare them to meetsociety’s needs. We need approaches in educationthat deal with complexity and allow students tobe familiar with using natural science, as well associal science approaches. As Frand (2000: 17)*Corresponding author. Email: Cecilia.Waldenstrom@sol.slu.se

doi:10.3763/ijas.2008.0246

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY 6(4) 2008, PAGES 236–247# 2008 Earthscan. ISSN: 1473-5903 (print), 1747-762X (online). www.earthscanjournals.com

points out ‘as our students enter the work force, theability to deal with complex and often ambiguousinformation will be more important than simplyknowing a lot of facts or having an accumulationof knowledge’.We need approaches which help stu-dents build on their individual capabilities andwhich drawon the current developments in learningand teaching.As a subject, agroecology is in a good position to

meet these challenges for education. It is an interdis-ciplinary and practice-oriented discipline that hasemerged as a consequence of the current challengesin agriculture. The focus is on the ecology offood systems (Francis et al., 2003), and interac-tions among societal activities and ecological pro-cesses are central in the subject. Furthermore,agroecology can be envisioned as a vehicle forintegrating values-based agendas with researchand education (Ison & Russell, 2000), as well asfor taking up the challenge of including issues ofsustainability in higher education (Corcoran &Wals, 2004). Innovative BSc programmes in agroe-cology may well meet the call for interdisciplinaryand practice-oriented higher education, and mayalso contribute to the attractiveness of agriculturalstudies.The declining university student numbers in agri-

culture suggest that current programmes are notperceived as relevant. However, attempting newprototypes that more closely align our graduates’capabilities with the needs of society may counter-act the negative trend. This leads us to the outlinefor a prototype BSc in agroecology that presentsopportunities for experiential education which isboth individualized and inclusive of the sociallearning needed for tomorrow’s professional, notonly within agriculture, but also for other sectorsof society.

Rationale for an action learningagroecology BSc programme

Students enter the university with a desire to com-plete a BSc degree, to advance their general edu-cation and competencies, to find a rewarding joband perhaps to continue in formal education.Although there is some flexibility for students incurrent class selection, the overall programmedesign is based on a curriculum approach

(cf. Mattsson & Waldenstrom, 2008). What weoften recommend in the university curriculum is awell-marked trail, with signposts confirming com-pletion of set requirements and an order of achiev-ing them that is geared to the average. Thecurriculum is perceived to provide an experiencethat meets the needs of all students in order for usto certify them as ‘graduates’ of our educationalinstitutions. Our teaching today may includeinspired lectures and the latest in animation andPowerPointTM technology, but do they prepare fortomorrow’s work environment? And are today’sscreenagers able to adapt to the traditional class-room and readings (Moulton, 2008)?Students in agroecology need to become familiar

with the importance of multiple interactions, activi-ties and action contexts in production systems.Understanding that knowledge and interests areconstructed differently depending on context,tasks and perspective is central for successfulcommunication (Rommetveit, 1990), and thus forhandling complex challenges responsibly and con-structively. This is also a basis for understandingsocial learning situations and the challenges forethical deliberation. We suggest that this can beachieved through individualized, student-centrededucation, coupled with projects and practiceperiods to strengthen the capacity to work inteams and familiarity with action contexts relatedto agroecology. In the next section we lay out thetheoretical basis for an education which seeks toencompass these demands.

Education and learning: theoreticalbasis of experiential learning theoryand beyond

So, how can a programme be designed to meet thedemands discussed above? Focusing on societalmotives for education, Fritzell (1996) suggests a tri-partite structure primarily based on Dewey (1940).In this, social integration and cultural reconstructionis central to the learning activity. This is manifestedby the participants in their work with subject-related cognitive–instrumental, moral–practicaland aesthetic–expressive standpoints and perspec-tives. Drawing on Habermas’s analysis of communi-cative rationality (Habermas, 1984) leads to similardemands on education: to promote the development

INDIVIDUALIZED STUDENT-CENTRED EDUCATION 237

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY 6(4) 2008, PAGES 236–247

of (1) knowledge; (2) social values, norms and inte-gration; and (3) self-expression and identity for-mation (Waldenstrom, 2001). We suggest the needfor education programme development to be basedon attentive reflection over the following motives:theoretical knowledge and practice, social inte-gration and ethical deliberation, self-expressionand identity, and not least, learning as an activityand individual function.In the development of our programmes, Kolb’s

experiential learning theory (ELT) has provided aformative influence (Kolb, 1984). Kolb’s theoryelaborates on the individual capacity for learning.Central elements in ELT are concrete experiencesand abstract conceptualization as ways of acquiringexperience, and reflective observation and activeexperimentation as ways of transforming experi-ence into knowledge. In the experiential learningcycle these are arranged in the sequence: concreteexperience, reflective observation, abstract concep-tualization and active experimentation. Kolbpoints out that although this cycle summarizes theoverall process, there are different patterns ofacquisition and transformation leading to differentlearning styles.ELT lays a theoretical ground for action learning.

Furthermore, research in agroecology often hasbeen action oriented (Lieblein et al., 2005b), andKolb’s learning cycle has been a source of inspi-ration for many strands of action research. Asaction research and participative methods werecentral in the development of the agroecology,these must be included in teaching the subjectmatter. Developing relations between science andpractice may be seen as part of the content. More-over, the recognition of learning styles and of indi-vidual development and intentionality in ELT, hascontributed to our providing individual pathsthrough the learning landscape.ELT has been criticized for having a simplistic

approach to cognitive processes (cf Kayes, 2002).There is, for instance, ample evidence that bothexperience and observation are dependent onprior concepts and hypotheses (Miettinen, 1998).Moreover, research suggests that informal andexperiential learning has its limits and depends onknowledge and conceptual tools that cannot beacquired by experience alone (Ellstrom, 2001).Nonetheless, this is no shortcoming in developingour prototype BSc, as ELT complements the

theoretical and conceptual focus of academic edu-cation. In academic settings, ELT can be a meansfor attending to the basic elements of learning(Doos, 1999). It gives theoretical motivation toarrange space for reflection and action, for connec-tions to the practical world and the application ofthe course contents. It may also be used to supportstudents’ lifelong learning by helping them under-stand how they learn as well as how to apply theirexperiences in new situations.One way to handle the theoretical limitations of

ELT is simply to expand particular parts of it. Forinstance, reflection can be given greater emphasisand the procedures for critical reflection tosupport emancipation from limiting assumptionssuggested by Mezirow (1991) may be included ineducation without disrupting the theoreticalgrounding. The same applies for encouraging reflec-tion over alternative perspectives and approacheswithin a given subject area, as suggested by Perry(1968) in his seminal study on how teachingcan further students’ epistemological and ethicaldevelopment. Both Mezirow and Perry focus onreflection asmeans for individual cognitive develop-ment. However, both also perceive the individualas part of society and elaborate on the role ofeducation in supporting students in becoming con-scious of their participation in the reconstructionof society. Reflection over assumptions andperspectives, they suggest, may contribute both toindividual and societal emancipation, ethical com-mitments and identity formation.Tilbury emphasizes that ‘the terms “critical

reflection”, “values clarification” and “participa-tive action research” have become core componentsof Environmental Education for Sustainability’(Tilbury, 2004: 101).We suggest that by expandingELT, it provides a good rationale for educationaldevelopment to do so, but it needs further consider-ation to lay a theoretical base for participative andsocial learning. Although applying ELT in edu-cational contexts implies that collective learningprocesses are arranged for, this does not necessarilymean that social and cultural dimensions oflearning are included. Focus may be on interactiveprocesses that facilitate individual movementaround or within the learning cycle, or on collectivelearning by enhancing the accessibility of othergroup members’ understandings (cf Dixon, 1994).However, since Kolb developed ELT, cultural

238 C. WALDENSTROM ET AL.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY 6(4) 2008, PAGES 236–247

studies on learning have led to theoretical develop-ments in which learning is understood as integralto practice. Situated learning approaches focuson persons-acting-in-settings, appropriating thecapacity to act as increasingly competent actorswithin an activity, increasingly understanding howsocial activities are structured and what they mean(Lave & Wenger, 1991). In activity-theoreticalapproaches, which build on the legacy of Vygotskyand sociocultural theory, societal contradictionsand challenges within activities are seen as thebasis for learning in practice and in professions(Engestrom, 2001; Seppanen, 2004). WhereasELT gives theoretical grounding for practiceperiods as assets for action learning, affordingopportunities for students to connect theory andpractice, these approaches point out that practiceperiods may further students’ recognition of themanifold activities, action contexts and cultures inthe food system, in which knowledge, practice andperspectives develop differently. This can be usedto help students discern the variation of centralaspects of the food system.We see these approachesas complementary. A coherent inclusion ofsociocultural aspects in ELT demands a reformula-tion of its theoretical foundation that goes beyondthe scope of this paper (see Kayes, 2002).

Challenges, opportunities andinspiring examples

Students come to university at different ages, andeach has a unique background and experience.Some arrive directly from upper secondary school,where they have been in school for over a decade.Others come to university after serving in the mili-tary or working for some years. Often, studentswith a background in farming bring excellentmechanical and field skills, and knowledge ofcrops and farming systems, whereas city studentshave other experiences related to food systems.We have observed that students often prefer tospend more time in areas where they already haveexperience, rather than explore new frontiers.In designing programmes, we need to establishincentives to go beyond current knowledge, compe-tence and comfort zones, and to develop breadthin new areas connecting that to what isalready known.

Depending on prior schooling, some students arewell prepared to enter advanced courses in particu-lar subject areas; others need additional prep-aration. With a rigid set of requirements withineach major and the need to be cost-effective inreaching many students, we usually assign peopleto a strict sequence of courses. For example, in agri-culture wewill recommend a sequence of chemistry,biochemistry, physiology, basic biology, soilscience, and then advanced crop science and econ-omics. With increasing costs per student in publicuniversities, we are compelled to reach the largestnumber possible, even though learning may sufferin the process.So, how can we tailor programmes to fit the

unique capabilities, needs and learning styles ofeach student? The prototype we propose in thispaper includes design of a more participatory andindividualized just-in-time education (Salomonssonet al., 2005). This refers to the sequence of coursesthat is appropriate to student interests and motiv-ation for a particular subject. The concept ofjust-in-time education makes educational sense andis made more possible with electronic methodsof instruction. Our challenge is to provide arange of opportunities, courses, online learning,laboratories, demonstrations, hands-on field activi-ties and participatory learning with farmers, andin the food system and other creative approaches tolearning that matches students’ motivationsand needs.A model for organization of university to support

individualized and various learning has been pro-vided by Lieblein et al. (2000). In a ‘future activelearning university’, theoretical education oncampus would be blended with practical experienceand learning on farms, in business, in governmentand in communities. The practical learning ingroups would include frequent communicationswith stakeholders in the rural landscape and commu-nities. The concept of ‘faculty’ would expand toinclude specialists in farming, environmental issues,food processing, marketing, consumer issues andnutrition, who would serve as advisors and resourcepeople for students doing group work. Continuousinteraction between campus and rural communitieswould be part of education. A diagram of thisfuture university is shown in Figure 1.We currently provide such systems-oriented and

experiential based courses at the Norwegian

INDIVIDUALIZED STUDENT-CENTRED EDUCATION 239

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY 6(4) 2008, PAGES 236–247

University of Life Sciences (UMB) within a mastersprogramme in agroecology. An introductory courseis offered online: Ecology of Farming and FoodSystems – Introductory Agroecology (describedand with pedagogical reflections by Lieblein et al.,2005a). Two intensive, full-time courses of eightweeks each are offered in autumn semesterat UMB; Agroecology and Farming Systemsand Agroecology and Food Systems. We have pro-vided insight into how students can becomeagro-ecologists through a range of options (Liebleinet al., 2005b). The significant contribution made byKolb in establishing a link between theory andaction through the experiential learning cycle hasrepresented an important inspirational and concep-tual basis for the agroecology courses at UMB. Reallife case studies are the basis for the learning pro-cesses in both courses, and the students interactwith farmers and other key stakeholders in thewider food system. Starting with a wide descriptionof the current farming or food system, students areasked to formulate suggestions to their farm andfood systems clients as to how their operationscan be improved, in a so-called client document.

The experiences that the students gain throughthis involvement with outside stakeholders aredealt with in plenary and small group reflection ses-sions in the classroom. They then are asked to indi-vidually reflect on the totality of their experiences ina learner document.

ICT: a challenging opportunity

Developments in Information and CommunicationTechnology (ICT) during recent decades haveseveral consequences for higher education. Studentscoming to universities in the industrialized worldhave grown up using electronicmedia for communi-cation, and may have skills in dealing with thesethat their university teachers do not fully under-stand (Hartman et al., 2005). ICT is increasinglyapplied in education, on campus as well as in dis-tance learning. On-line education is becomingincreasingly popular. Today, Web-based universitycourses and programmes, in-service training forprofessionals and courses for the general publicare abundant. For example, see theOpen Universityhomepage (http://www.open.ac.uk), the references

Figure 1 Schematic description of future university for active learning and research, with student and faculty learningactivities often in the farming environment, and close relationships with both natural resource and urban societycontexts (from Lieblein et al., 2000)

240 C. WALDENSTROM ET AL.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY 6(4) 2008, PAGES 236–247

on the BBC homepage (http://www.bbc.co.uk/learning/) or the FAO homepage (http://www.fao.org/) (all accessed in February 2008).An advantage with Web-based education is that

the availability of education is decoupled from thelocation of the individual student or instructor.ICT can make it possible for participants to followcourses at their own pace. Such asynchronous learn-ing allows time for reflection and gives students lessinclined to raise their hands in class the possibility toactively participate in discussions. Today manytechniques are available also for synchronous inter-action and time-bounded activities; this means thatclasses can be kept together in a series of exercises(Haefner, 2000). For instance, a distance learningcourse was first offered in 2004 in the NordicAgroecology MSc and is continuing (Liebleinet al., 2005a). Computer facilities can also be usedto promote connections among students, to helpthem establish ‘learning communities’ (Goodyear,2005). Now, flexible use of ICT, blending face-to-face teaching and meetings with ICT-mediatedprocesses are increasingly used. There is a plethoraof ideas on how to interface the new informationtechnology with the classroom (Diaz, 2001;Janovy, 2003).However, technology is not an end in itself. ICT

can only support learning in as much as it is used inways that enhance fundamental learning processes.Oblinger and Hawkins (2006) point out that anyteaching technology needs to address issues ofmotiv-ation, opportunities and availability, interactionwith others and the ability to transfer learningacross contexts. This implies that the pedagogymust support these aspects of the learning context.Carmean and Haefner (2002) claim that robustand effective learning environments can be createdby ensuring that learning is social, active, contextual,engaging and student-owned. When designingtechnology-based contexts for learning, one needsto take into account how students already use thetechnologies. Their familiarity with new technol-ogies is an opportunity, but also poses challenges.Hartman et al. (2005) list challenges such as shallow-ness in reading, comparative lack of critical thinkingskills, naıve views on intellectual property and theauthenticity found on the Internet. A furtherconcern that has been raised is that first-hand experi-ences of the environment through the senses arebecoming rarer, in contrast to experiencing second-

hand, preprocessed information (Reed, 1996). Forour purposes ICT will be used to enhance learningprimarily in a blended setting. The dimensions oflearning proposed by Kolb in ELT, expanded asdescribed above, are central to the learning environ-ments we propose.

Towards an individualized learningprogramme for Bsc students

Our aim is thus to design a programme that offersstudents the opportunity to shape their own paththrough the educational system, allowing themmore scope in shaping their learning trajectories.Concurrently, the programme will be based on theoverall motives for education presented above:enhancement of theoretical knowledge and practice,social integration and ethical deliberation, and self-expression and identity. This demands the inclusionof new kinds of knowledge and skills, and guidingstudents in clarifying their attitudes toward studyand their long-term goals (Francis et al., 2003).How can a BSc programme be designed to achievethis? What would the components be?

Learning student capabilities andenhancing individual paths

A first component would be to assess the skills,knowledge and experience that each studentbrings to the university. This could be donethrough an introductory course in ‘discovery learn-ing’, where not only instructors are able to discovermore about each student but where each studentcould discover where they are strong, where theyneed more theoretical background or practicalexperience and what direction is best in line withtheir motives for choosing the programme via aserves of activities. Given this process of self discov-ery, the placement of each student and design of anindividual programme would be the product ofnegotiation between student and faculty.The introduction could be an agriculture and

food systems course that presents students withthe wide range of challenges faced by professionalsand begins in a phenomenological approach with ajoint field experience. Each lesson or exercise couldbe presented on levels of increasing complexity, sothat all students could benefit from the topic while

INDIVIDUALIZED STUDENT-CENTRED EDUCATION 241

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY 6(4) 2008, PAGES 236–247

finding out how much they really know. Theywould also be able to explore different kinds oflearning activities, for example, lectures, self-studyonline, reading, case studies off campus, and be sup-ported to develop into self-directed learners (seeRogers, 1969), yet drawing realistically on theopportunities afforded by the university.

Framing individual paths

A series of paths would be provided for students todraw on to construct their own paths. For this to bepossible it is important that expected learning out-comes and assessment criteria are clearly communi-cated and discussed with students. Grading needs tobe in accordance with the established criteria at theuniversity, yet some programme central capacitiessuch as preparation, planning and keeping dead-lines would need to be highly rated in assessing stu-dents. Students would also need constructivefeedback on independence, creativity, participationand ethical deliberation. The planned paths alsoneed to ensure opportunities for students toconnect theory and practice, give space for reflec-tion and for developing familiarity with the activi-ties and action contexts in the food system.

Opportunities for reflection

Opportunity for reflection is a crucial aspect of anydesigned learning situation. Taken for grantedknowledge and norms, as well as routine beha-viours are difficult to change without consciouslyattending to and reflectively questioning them. InKolb’s learning cycle, reflective observation is anessential step, and students need to be supportedto reflect over their experiences during practiceperiods, over central concepts in the teaching aswell as over ethical issues related to epistemologicalperspectives and professional roles.Providing more structured opportunity for reflec-

tion and feedback, a ‘lecture/discussion’ formatcould build more on students’ self study. Lectures,readings and assignments can be made available ata Website, and after some brief presentations inclass, in-class time can be spent mostly on studentreflection and discussion of key questions. Toincrease the scope for learning, the self-studymaterial must offer a variety of perspectives. This iscentral in Perry’s (1968) recommendations for

supporting students’ development of epistemologicaland ethical commitment. Recent research on teach-ing and learning also emphasizes that teachingshould be geared towards helping learners becomeaware of how central aspects of phenomena vary(cf Marton et al., 2004). Joint reflection with othersis also central in the transformative learningsuggested byMezirow (1991). It is in communicationwith others that assumptions supporting one’sown and others’ beliefs and judgements can becritically questioned.

Field internships

A central component of the programme is ‘fieldinternships’ during which students spend time onfarms, in agriculture- and food-related industries,or in public or civil sector organizations. Basedon the individual plans, students are to learnskills and gain perspective on the practical aspectsof agroecology. More than a work experience,this should be a guided learning activity thatincludes work but puts the activity into thecontext of the food system. Students wouldprepare reports back to their advisors, and sharethese with fellow students in seminars and inwriting. The internships can help graduatesbecome more secure in dealing with actors in thefield; however, they are also crucial in connectingtheory and practice and in letting students exploresocietal contradictions in activities. Becoming fam-iliar with several contexts may also help students’understanding that knowledge and values are con-structed differently in different cultures and seg-ments of the agro-food system.

Team projects and other group work

A structured series of activities would be included inthe curriculum to assure that students learn to workin team projects, an invaluable skill in their compe-tency profile. Students should participate in at leastone case study/group project in every term ofstudy. The management of complex problems oftenrequires a group of experts in different fields, orpeople who bring different perspectives to addresschallenges. Understanding group communicationand cooperation is also part of the competenceneeded for working with competing interests andconflict management. Students need to learn group

242 C. WALDENSTROM ET AL.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY 6(4) 2008, PAGES 236–247

interaction skills and the ability to communicatewith others under a wide range of circumstances.For this, introductions to social psychology andgroup dynamics are needed as well as opportunitiesto reflect on one’s own ways of interpreting andhandling group situations.

Seminars and research communication

Another component of a BSc programme would belearning to communicate with different groups andfor different purposes. This relates to understandingthe role of knowledge in particular action contexts.One forum for reporting on the internship experi-ence and group project activities could be aseminar series that includes presentations by bothstudents and faculty. There could be posters, oralgroup presentations, panel discussions and guidedactivities with outside specialists, as well as withuniversity faculty. Thus, this would be an academicforum, albeit with outside specialists from the fieldtaking part. However, students also need to be ableto communicate with other kinds of actors. Report-ing back to the settings where the field internshipwas made and communicating with other groupsrelated to projects made, is important.

Integrating ICT in the programme

Integrating the use of Web-based learning into theBSc programme is crucial. Affording individualizedpaths implies that there needs to be ample opportu-nities for self-study. This is partly for students whoneed to catch up with the main group. This com-ponent should therefore include courses that moststudents have studied already, but which areneeded by a few. In part, self-study opportunitiesare needed for those who wish to go deeper thanthe main group into particular areas.Self-study may be accomplished by taking courses

that are entirely Web based. Courses could be syn-chronous, with many students taking the classtogether and interacting with the instructor on a real-time basis, as discussed above.Other courses could beentirely self-paced with each student moving at theirindividual rate of achievement. However, we see theblended use as the main option in the programme.ICT will be helpful for communication among stu-dents and between teachers and students, especiallyduring field internships. It can also prepare students

to use computer skills, for example, in workingtogether with others to deal with complex tasks andfor research communication purposes.

BSc thesis

A thesis project would be an essential part of theproposed BSc programme. Many universitiesalready require a special project in the third-yearBSc programme, sometimes only for honour stu-dents. It is mandatory in the European Union (EU)Bologna format for higher education. The thesismay range from a comprehensive literaturereview, to participation in laboratory or field exper-iments, to interviews and surveys on campus or inthe field. Completing a thesis teaches self discipline,independence, creativity and clear writing, alongwith other communication skills. It also demandsreflection over epistemology, method, scientificdevelopment and critical thinking. Two examplesof projects completed in a capstone BSc agroecologycourse at University of Nebraska were published bySchneider et al. (2005a, 2005b).

What are the changes for students?

The major changes for students will be their involve-ment in planning and the degree to which they candesign their own learning voyage and developcapacity for self-directed learning. In this proposedindividualized education, we anticipate higherlevels of motivation, greater interest in the chosensubjects and activities, and an ability to generalizewhat has been learnt to practical situations. Insome ways, the learning environment will moreclosely resemble where students will be workingafter graduation. The programme will be mosteasily embraced by highly self-motivated studentswho are already, to some degree, autonomous lear-ners. However, it may also attract students forwhom traditional programmes without the opportu-nities for self-directed learning are too restricted. Thelearning situations will embrace a combination ofexperiences in practice contexts, theory and reflec-tion, and also take account of different learningstyles. The programme will focus on building newcompetencies where students feel they are weak, aswell as furthering their knowledge in areas of priorcompetence and special interest. An excellent

INDIVIDUALIZED STUDENT-CENTRED EDUCATION 243

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY 6(4) 2008, PAGES 236–247

example already implemented at Swedish Universityof Agricultural Sciences (SLU) involved three agron-omy students who designed their own programme ofstudy in the autumn semester of 2006. They workedwith two Swedish farmers north of Uppsala tocompare organic and conventional farmingsystems, participated in a seminar and interviewedfarmers in two villages in Vietnam. The experiencesof these ‘Swedish Test Pilots’ have been summarizedfor publication (Salomonsson et al., 2008).

What are the changes for teachers andfaculty?

In the initial implementation of an individualizedBSc in Agro-ecology, it may be necessary to buildon the current available courses and infrastructureof the university. With faculties who are busy withmultiple activities, especially research, and do nothave release time to prepare before the next seme-ster or quarter begins, this will not happenquickly. Tilbury (2004) suggests that innovationrather than integration is at the heart of includingenvironmental sustainability into higher educationinstitutions and distrusts the possibility of insertingit in existing learning structures. Our experience ismore in line with Calder and Clugston’s obser-vation that through course development and bygetting institutional support, changes can be madewithin an existing educational system (Calder &Clugston, 2004). Elements of what we suggestalready exist in many universities teaching agricul-ture, but not in a comprehensive programme andnot grounded in the understanding of learningwe suggest.Depending on the individual planned path,

courses can initially be chosen from the universitycatalogue based on relevance and methods ofinstruction. Students will be advised to includecourses based on, or more closely related to, experi-ential learning and systems approaches. We antici-pate that students with prior experience in generalsystems agroecology courses will move ontocourses with high expectations for application tosociety’s contemporary challenges, and bring theirown agenda to the course learning environment.This may present a challenge to teachers who aremore comfortable with the traditional course struc-ture and passive student participation.

Our prototype will demand changes in the rolesof teachers. Although we recognize that researchis more highly rewarded than teaching inmajor uni-versities, it is also important to recognize that mostacademics see themselves as committed to teaching(Baldwin, 2005). It is likely that teachers will needfaculty development opportunities to learn newmethods. Teachers need to learn about action learn-ing, how to guide and facilitate students’ choicesalong the individualized paths, about how to func-tion as facilitators for reflection over experiencesin the field, and how to guide student reflectionsover values and assumptions related to theirsubject. There are also compelling arguments thatnew ‘learning centred technologies’ will be amongthe skills needed by teachers (Bates, 2000; Barone,2001). Moulton (2008) summarizes the strategiesneededwith respect to the integration ofWeb-basedtechnologies into the learning environment:

† Focus on learning: good teaching, pedagogicalinnovation, and student learning.

† Faculty and students need easy access: demystifyinformation technologies.

† Emphasize collaboration: group work, colla-borative projects, cooperative thinking.

† Support is critical: technical support, cooperationamong faculty, adequate rewards.

Changes that go beyond learning new teachingmethods may also be needed. In traditional edu-cation, learning and assessment have been individua-lized and competitive. We suggest that group work,projects, collaborative thinking and in-depth reflec-tion must be carefully designed to achieve good‘learning conversations’ (Brown & Isaacs, 1996)and assure students that they will be evaluated ontheir learning as well as their ability to work effec-tively with others. This should ideally also be mod-elled by faculty, who can teach courses in teams. Itis further suggested that faculty members need tobecome reflective practitioners with respect to theirteaching (Laurillard, 2002).Will the programmewe suggest takemore time of

the instructor and be more costly than present pro-grammes? Our experience as teachers in theAgro-ecology MSc includes preparing an actionlearning agenda that takes students out of the class-room, onto farms and into the food system. We

244 C. WALDENSTROM ET AL.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY 6(4) 2008, PAGES 236–247

have found that there is more time spent in planningactivities and making contacts, more preparationwith students before the start of the course, lesstime spent preparing lectures, and more time inactual contact hours and communication with stu-dents in discussion and in the field. It is not necess-arily more total time spent, but a reallocation oftime that is important. Also, the time needed isless predictable compared to our accustomed prep-arations for lectures and laboratory sessions. Forthe proposed Agro-ecology BSc, there would be anobvious need for very good planning, placementof materials on an accessible Website, and moretime spent counseling individual students in theireducational journeys. The proposed programmewill initially need extra inputs for planning andtraining. However, some of the suggested changesare likely to be relevant for future university tea-chers anyway. That teachers need to learn moreabout the use of electronic media, how to supervisefield internships and develop collaboration withactors outside the academic setting will be relevantin an increasing number of subjects, as the demandfor practice and ability to collaborate in interdisci-plinary settings increase. Such contacts may alsoinspire the academic staff in their research.

Conclusions: future learninglandscapes

To implement an education entirely or partly basedon the suggestions proposed in this prototypewouldrequire somemodifications in our current universitystructure.Many of the components and facilities arealready in place or available on the universitycampus or the surrounding community. Already,there are Web-based courses, seminar series onspecial topics and internships with farms,businesses and consumer groups available at col-leges and universities. Yet, in few places do all ofthese options exist in one coherent programme,and we have found few examples of flexibility forstudents to design an individual path through aprogramme.The primary change needed would be in the

thinking and planning of university programmes.It is this change in the teaching praxis andapproach to education that is most importantand perhaps the most difficult. There have been

proposals for organization and implementationof the learning university as shown in Figure 1(Lieblein et al., 2000). In this model the traditionaldepartments would be restructured into multi-dimensional, loose affiliations of groups of tea-chers and researchers working on similar themesand forming interdisciplinary associations. Teach-ing would be done by an array of small groupswho would teach module-based courses on specialtopics. Education would take place both on andoff campus, and actors from business, government,consumer groups and the non-profit sector wouldcontribute in teaching. Much of the off-campusstudy would be done in teams around specialtopics of current interest to farmers, communitiesand society. The projects would reflect the currentneeds in society. Education would then be part ofpraxis development and students would returnfrom practical internships or group projects to thecampus to engage in ‘just-in-time courses’ onneeded topics, and for reflecting and reportingexperiences as described earlier. Alternatingbetween field and on campus studies is central toour proposal.We recognize that this is an idealized, future

situation. However, there are universities that areorganized around similar concepts to the onesdescribed. An example of individualizing educationonline is the Open University in the UK (http://www3.open.ac.uk/, accessed 22 March 2006) thatcurrently has about 150,000 undergraduates and30,000 graduate students enrolled. Evergreen StateCollege creates student/faculty learning communitieseach quarter to pursue unique and integrative topics(www.evergreen.edu). Internships abound in landgrant universities, and are integrated into on-campuscourses to varying degrees.On-campus organic farmsand Community Supported Agriculture initiatives(CSAs) run by students are found inMaine,Michiganand at the University of California Santa Cruz(UCSC). Janovy (2003) has developed individual edu-cation at a research station in western Nebraska, andhas found ways to stimulate individualized learningin large lecture classes on campus.We believe that it is possible to borrow ideas from

these and other currently operating models andapply them to the organization of an interactivelearning university with programmes in agricultureand food systems. Although the focus here has beenon agroecology, we are convinced that these

INDIVIDUALIZED STUDENT-CENTRED EDUCATION 245

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY 6(4) 2008, PAGES 236–247

principles are equally valuable for the study ofmanyother subjects. To attract and keep students in theuniversity, we need to attempt new models – andopening up to self-directed learning and individualpaths, coupled with experiential and social learn-ing, is one approach to consider.

References

Baldwin, G. (2005) Re-thinking academic staff develop-ment in universities. Uniped 28, 4–14.

Barone, C.A. (2001) Condition for transformationinfrastructure is not the issue. Educause Review 36,41–47.

Bates, A.W. (2000) Managing Technological Change –Strategies for College and University Leaders.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Brown, J. and Isaacs, D. (1996) Conversation as a corebusiness process. The Systems Thinker 7, 1–6. Cam-bridge, MA: Pegasus Communications.

Calder, W. and Clugston, R. (2004) Lighting many fires:South Carolina’s sustainable universities initiative. InP.B. Corcoran and A. E. J. Wals, (eds) Higher Edu-cation and the Challenge of Sustainability: Proble-matics, Promise, and Practice (pp. 249–262).Hingham, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Carmean, C. and Haefner, J. (2002) Mind over matter –transforming course management systems into effectivelearning environments. Educause Review 37, 27–34.

Corcoran, P.B. andWals, A.E.J. (eds) (2004)Higher Edu-cation and the Challenge of Sustainability: Problem-atics, Promise, and Practice. Hingham, MA: KluwerAcademic Publishers.

Dewey, J. (1940) Education Today. New York: G.P.Putnam.

Diaz, D.P. (2001) Taking technology to the classroom:pedagogy-based training for educator.The TechnologySource, November/December. On WWW at http://technologysource.org/article/taking_technology_to_the_classroom. Accessed 15 June 2008.

Dixon, N. (1994) The Organizational Learning Cycle:HowWe Learn Collectively. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Doos, M. (1999) How and why does a course make adifference – from a constructivistic viewpoint. In J.Ohlsson and M. Doos (eds) Pedagogic Interventionsas Conditions for Learning. Seminar on ContextualDidactics and Knowledge Formation Report 34,14–35, Department of Education, StockholmUniversity.

Ellstrom, P.E. (2001) Integrating learning and work:Conceptual issues and critical conditions. HumanResource Development Quarterly 12, 421–435.

Engestrom, Y. (2001) Expansive learning at work:Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization.Journal of Education and Work 14, 133–156.

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

Frand, J.L. (2000) The information-agemindset: Changesin students and implications for higher education.Educause Review 35, 15–22.

Fritzell, C. (1996) Pedagogical split vision. EducationalTheory 46, 203–216.

Goodyear, P. (2005) Educational design and networkedlearning: Patterns, pattern languages and design prac-tice. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology.21, 82–101.

Habermas, J. (1984). Theory of Communicative Action.Part 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society.Cambridge: Polity Press.

Haefner, J. (2000) Opinion: the importance of being syn-chronous. AcademicWriting. OnWWWat http://wac.colostate.edu/aw/teaching/haefner2000.htm. Accessed15 June 2008.

Hartman, J., Moscat, P. and Dziuban, C. (2005) Prepar-ing the academy for the learner of tomorrow. In D.G.Oblinger and J.L. Oblinger (eds) Educating the NetGeneration. Boulder, CO: Educause.

Ison, R. and Russell, D. (2000) Agricultural Extensionand Rural Development: Breaking Out of Traditions.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Janovy, J. (2003) Teaching in Eden: Lessons from CedarPoint. New York: Routledge Falmer.

Kayes, D.C. (2002) Experiential learning and its critics:Preserving the role of experience in management learn-ing and education. Academy of Management Learningand Education 1, 137–149.

Kolb, D. (1984) Experiential Learning: Experience as theSource of Learning and Development. New Jersey:Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking teaching for theknowledge society. Educause Review 37, 16–25.

Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991) Situated Learning. Legit-imate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Lieblein, G., Francis, C. and King, J. (2000) Conceptualframework for structuring future agricultural collegesand universities. Journal of Agricultural EducationExtension 6, 213–222.

Lieblein, G., Moulton, M., Waalen, W., Breland, T.A.,Francis, C., Sriskandarajah, N., Porter, J., Helenius,J., Salomonsson, L. and Langer, V. (2005a) Systemsthinking and experiential learning: a Nordic net-basedcourse in agroecology: integrating student learningand teacher collaboration. European Journal of Openand Distance Learning (EURODL) Vol. 1. OnWWW at http://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2005/Lieblein.htm. Accessed 15 June 2008.

Lieblein, G., Østergaard, E. and Francis, C. (2005b)Becoming an agroecologist through action education.

246 C. WALDENSTROM ET AL.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY 6(4) 2008, PAGES 236–247

International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 2,147–153.

Mattsson, M. and Waldenstrom, C. (2008) Reflectionsfrom Sweden. In J. Ax and P. Ponte (eds) CritiquingPraxis: Conceptual and Empirical Trends in the Teach-ing Profession. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Marton, F., Amy, B. and Tsui,M. (eds) (2004)ClassroomDiscourse and the Space for Learning. London: Law-rence Erlbaum Associates.

Mezirow, J. (1991) Transformative Dimensions of AdultLearning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Miettinen, R. (1998) About the legacy of experientiallearning. Lifelong Learning in Europe 3, 165–171.

Moulton, M. (2008) Reflections on screenagers, facultydevelopment and net-supported learning. TurkishOnline Journal of Distance Education [TOJDE] April2008, 9 Notes for Editor–1. On WWW at http://tojde.anadolu.edu.tr/tojde30/notes_for_editor/notes_for_editor_1.htm. Accessed 15 June 2008.

Oblinger, D.G. and Hawkins, B.L. (2006) IT myths – themyth about no significant difference. Educause ReviewNov/Dec, 14–15.

Oblinger, D.G. and Oblinger J.L. (eds) (2005) Educatingthe Net Generation. Boulder, CO: Educause.

Perry, W.G. (1968) Forms of Intellectual and EthicalDevelopment in the College Years. New York: Holt,Rinehart and Winston.

Reed, E.S. (1996) The Necessity of Experience. NewHaven: Yale University Press.

Rogers, C.R. (1969) Freedom to Learn. Columbus:Charles E. Merrill, Publishing Company.

Rommetveit, R. (1990) On axiomatic features of a dialo-gical approach to language and mind. In I. Markova

and K. Foppa (eds) The Dynamics of Dialogue.Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Salomonsson,L.,Francis,C.A.,Lieblein,G.andFurugren,B.(2005) Just in time education. National Association ofCollege Teachers of Agriculture (NACTA) Journal 49,5–13.

Salomonsson, L., Nilsson, A., Palmer, S., Roigart, A. andFrancis, C. (2008) Farming systems education: Casestudy of Swedish test pilots. Renewable Agricultureand Food Systems (in print).

Seppanen, L. (2004) Learning challenges in organic veg-etable farming: an activity theoretical study of on-farm practices. PhD thesis, University of Helsinki.

Schneider, M., Colglazier, A., Beutler, R., Pollard, C. andFrancis, C. (2005a) Student advisor, and employeropinions on interdisciplinary education in agriculture.Journal of Natural Resources Life Sciences. Education34, 101–106.

Schneider, M., Colglazier, A., Beutler, R., Pollard, C.and Francis, C. (2005b) Discovering the whole:Paths to Systems learning. National Association ofCollege Teachers of Agriculture (NACTA) Journal49, 15–22.

Tilbury, D. (2004) Environmental education for sustain-ability: A force for change in higher education. InP. B. Corcoran andA.E.J.Wals (eds)Higher Educationand the Challenge of Sustainability: Problematics,Promise, and Practice (pp. 97–112). Hingham, MA:Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Waldenstrom, C. (2001) Constructing the World in Dia-logue: A Study of Advisory Situations in Swedish Agri-culture. PhD thesis, Department of Education,Stockholm University, Stockholm.

INDIVIDUALIZED STUDENT-CENTRED EDUCATION 247

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY 6(4) 2008, PAGES 236–247