Journal of , Food Systems, and Community Development ISSN: 2152-0801 online www.AgDevJournal.com

Sustainable agriculture education and civic engagement: The significance of community-university partnerships in the new agricultural paradigm

Kim L. Niewolny,a, * Virginia Tech, Department of Agricultural and Extension Education Julie M. Grossman,b Department of Soil Science, North Carolina State University Carmen J. Byker,c Montana State University, Department of Health & Human Development Jennifer L. Helms,d Virginia Tech, Department of Agricultural and Extension Education Susan F. Clark,e Virginia Tech, Department of Human Nutrition, Foods and Exercise Julie A. Cotton,f & Specialization, Michigan State University Krista L. Jacobsen,g Department of Horticulture, University of Kentucky

Submitted 5 December 2011 / Revised 20 February and 18 March 2012 / Accepted 29 March 2012 / Published online 23 May 2012

Citation: Niewolny, K. L., Grossman, J. M., Byker, C. J., Helms, J. L., Clark, S. F., Cotton, J. A., & Jocobsen, K. L. (2012). Sustainable agriculture education and civic engagement: The significance of community-university partnerships in the new agricultural paradigm. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, 2(3), 27–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2012.023.005

Copyright © 2012 by New Leaf Associates, Inc.

Abstract a, * Corresponding author: 282 Litton Reaves Hall, Department of Universities and colleges across the United States Agricultural and Extension Education, Virginia Tech, are making innovative strides in higher education Blacksburg, VA 24061 USA; +1-540-231-5784; programming to catalyze a more sustainable era of [email protected] agriculture. This is clearly exemplified through the b 4234 Williams Hall, Department of Soil Science, North formation of community-university partnerships as Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7619 USA; critical illustrations of civic engagement (CE) for +1-919-513-1041; [email protected] sustainable agriculture (SA) education. This paper c 222 Romney Gym, Department of Health & Human explores the praxis of CE for SA education by Development, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717 focusing on the ways in which five land-grant USA; +1-406-994-1952; [email protected] universities (LGUs) with undergraduate programs d 2270 Litton Reaves Hall, Department of Agricultural and in SA have developed and put into practice Extension Education, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061 community-university partnerships. Drawing upon USA; +1-540-231-6836; [email protected] these programs and supportive literature, this e 202 Wallace Annex, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061 article specifically attempts to describe the role and USA; +1-540-231-8768; [email protected] significance of CE for SA education, emerging f A274 Plant & Soil Science Building, Sustainable Agriculture community-university partnership models and their & Food System Specialization, Michigan State University, East implications for prompting food and agriculture Lansing, MI 48824 USA; +1-517-355-0271; [email protected] , and student learning and program g N-310C Agricultural Sciences North, University of assessment outcomes. We also reveal the many Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40546 USA; +1-859-257-3921; challenges and opportunities encountered by [email protected] stakeholders involved in the creation and continu-

Volume 2, Issue 3 / Spring 2012 27 Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development ISSN: 2152-0801 online www.AgDevJournal.com ation of these programs and their subsequent CE opportunities through the LGU lens with coursework. Conclusions offer “real world” special emphasis on undergraduate education. The recommendations for other faculty, staff, student, focus on applied sciences makes LGUs a natural fit and community stakeholders to implement and for integrating CE with SA education programs.2 generate action-oriented scholarship for and with LGUs have a long history of outreach and educa- communities as a viable thread of SA education. tion in which faculty, staff, and students work with community stakeholders to enhance agriculture Keywords knowledge and practice. Central to mutually bene- civic engagement, community-university ficial engagement for communities and universities partnerships, land-grant universities, sustainable is “respecting roles, perspectives, needs, and agriculture education sources of knowledge. It also means sharing information, knowledge, and wisdom, collabora- Introduction tively defining problems, and jointly finding mean- According to the National Academies of Science ingful solutions to those problems” (Peters, Jordan, (National Research Council of the National Adamek, & Alter, 2005, p. 462). Including key Academies [NRC]; Division on Earth and Life examples of CE during LGU strategic plans can Studies; Board on Agriculture and Natural prioritize the needs of the community in education, Resources Board on Life Sciences, 2009), research, and outreach agendas, resulting in the institutions of higher education should provide actualization of applied research with local more agricultural education opportunities that take knowledge and experience (NRC, 2009). students “beyond the institution” (p. 6) so that our As we explore the emergence and significance students may have direct access to civically engaged of community-university partnerships in SA educa- and real world learning experiences. These tion through the lens of CE, we attempt to clarify opportunities may include agriculture-orientated some pertinent questions. First, what do we mean internships, off-campus service-learning opportu- by CE for SA education? How are community- nities, cooperative learning experiences with the university partnerships an illustration of CE for SA agriculture industry, student-led seminars, and self- education, in theory and in practice? How are SA directed practicums. The emergence of sustainable major and minor programs at LGUs incorporating agriculture (SA) education1 is distinctively contem- community-university partnerships into their poraneous within this discourse through the resur- curricula? Drawing upon Melaville, Berg, and Blank gence of community-university partnerships. As (2006), what community-based learning strategies our agriculture and food system is confronting (e.g., agro-environmental, place-based, and service- environmental, economic, and social constraints, based) underpin these opportunities? How do we land-grant university (LGU) partnerships with assess learning in community-based settings? And communities are specifically mobilizing faculty, finally, what are the challenges and opportunities students, and community members toward a more for this kind of CE at LGUs? The following is an sustainable era of agriculture by sharing resources attempt to answer these questions. and knowledge (Molnar, Ritz, Heller, & Solecki, 2010). Sustainable Agriculture Education While civic engagement (CE) varies across Association Preconference Workshop university landscapes, we focus our attention on In August 2011, participants from several LGUs with majors or minors explicitly focusing on

1 Following the Sustainable Agriculture Education Association (SAEA), we define sustainable agriculture as “food and 2 We acknowledge that program names may differ (e.g., agricultural systems that are environmentally sound, sustainable agriculture, agroecology, organic agriculture, and economically viable, socially responsible, non-exploitative, food systems). For clarity and simplicity, we use the term humane, and that serve as a foundation for future generations” sustainable agriculture (SA) education to collectively refer to all (SAEA, n.d., “Promoting the teaching and learning”). of these systems-based programs.

28 Volume 2, Issue 3 / Spring 2012 Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development ISSN: 2152-0801 online www.AgDevJournal.com sustainable agriculture and food systems discussed paper, we systematically draw upon a range of the state of sustainable agriculture programs at the programmatic and scholarly literature to further participating institutions. The preconference frame these themes, and the evolution of our five workshop took place prior to the 4th National LGU programs (Michigan State University, Sustainable Agriculture Education Association Montana State University, North Carolina State (SAEA) Conference in Lexington, Kentucky. This University, University of Kentucky, and Virginia full-day forum was designed as a unique opportu- Tech) with special emphasis on service learning, farm nity for participants to develop regional and study, and self-directed practicums as empirical models national-level collaborations at peer institutions to of community-university partnerships in SA enhance their programming in areas of key national curricula. We purposely choose to focus on these needs. As part of this facilitated workshop, faculty models of community-university partnerships and student participants shared successes and embedded in our sustainability curricula given their challenges of meaningful engagement opportunities prominence in our programs. To that end, we with community partners in their programming reveal our SA program structures, educational and instructional efforts. Our SA program experi- content, learning audiences, and formative ences were among those shared at this workshop assessment methods and outcomes that help (see the introductory paper, “Sustainable Agricul- inform how these models are put into practice. ture Undergraduate Degree Programs: A Land- It should be noted that although somewhat Grant University Mission” by Jacobsen, Niewolny, common in practice, very little has been written on Schroeder-Moreno, Van Horn, Harmon, Chen the relationship between CE and SA programs in Fanslow, Williams, and Parr in this issue for further higher education. Even less is written about the details). The facilitated workshop was organized as actual ways in which institutions of higher educa- a series of large- and small-group discussions and tion are providing specific CE opportunities breakout sessions. These sessions were a mix of through SA programs. The focus on the role of CE facilitator-led discussions and world café discussion in SA programs at LGUs was also intentional. As sessions. Large-group discussions were digitally stated in the Introduction article in this issue, recorded, transcribed, and reviewed for common LGUs are rapidly providing new space for SA themes pertaining to our SA education experiences. program development — despite the many chal- World café discussion sessions were hand recorded lenges experienced along the way. Our experiences and reviewed for similar and divergent themes as with SA education are also embedded within the they emerged from the discussion. LGU system. The authors acknowledge, however, While many topics emerged through workshop that other universities and colleges (e.g., liberal art dialogue, the mutually constitutive nature of CE in colleges) contribute to the SA education discourse our SA programs emerged as one of several major in many important ways. As far as the authors are themes repeatedly discussed throughout the day. aware, this manuscript is the first to provide a Four subsequent themes further informed our SA comprehensive framework for CE that is specific education programming knowledge and experi- to SA programs across several LGUs. Our aim is ences as they pertained to the role of CE: therefore to present a succinct case for CE in SA community-university partnerships as a key programs at LGUs so that our experiences may example of CE in SA education; empirical models provide footing for others, both in and outside the of community-university partnerships in our LGU system. At a minimum, we have provided a programs; community-based learning strategies starting point for this emerging discussion. We supporting our SA education programs; and the begin by exploring the role of civic agriculture as a purpose or utility of these community-university promising framework to understand the role of CE partnerships. Within each of these themes, insight- in SA education. ful situations of struggle and achievement with our students, departments, colleges, and community groups were at the heart of our accounts. In this

Volume 2, Issue 3 / Spring 2012 29 Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development ISSN: 2152-0801 online www.AgDevJournal.com

Civic Agriculture as a Framework to strengthen students’ understanding of the for CE in SA Education connections among food, agriculture, and the Agriculture and food systems have experienced community. Community-university learning several transformations over the last century. opportunities, for example, allow students and Guided by a growing (post)industrialized discourse, community members to join together in demo- technological changes such as mechanization, cratically structured ways that help reveal complex synthetic inputs, and biotechnology have revolu- issues of food system hegemony, social justice, and tionized agriculture. Increased specialization and (Colasanti, Reau, & Wright, 2009). transnational economic arrangements from pro- These community-based learning experiences also duction to consumption have further transformed provide group capacity-building and collaborative agrofood system practices. In response to this leadership development for enhanced under- globalized trajectory, a new agricultural paradigm standing and action (Wright, 2006). Others draw has emerged that focuses on the “embedding of upon such formats as community forums and local agricultural and food production in the study circles to create dialogue about and envision community” (Lyson, 2004, p. 62). This concept of a more sustainable agriculture and food system “civic agriculture,” as coined by Lyson (2004), (Poincelot, Francis, & Bird, 2006). supports strategies and enterprises for the What makes these approaches unique for reconfiguration of food production, distribution, universities and colleges of agriculture is their and consumption in North America. Represen- commitment to serving the needs of students and tative initiatives such as community supported community stakeholders. According to Hassanein agriculture (CSA), farmers’ markets, community (2003), democratic participation and CE are the gardens, and farm-to-institution arrangements are means and ends for pragmatic learning to catalyze growing rapidly by way of public participation and agriculture and food system transformation. By local support. For Hinrichs (2007), this civic agri- exposing students to community-learning oppor- culture paradigm sets the stage for new forms of tunities in SA programs, we are in fact teaching knowledge, networks, and standards of agricultural them how to (re)structure the food system by way practice through the dual aims of civic revitaliza- of eliciting the values, knowledge, and experiences tion and food system transformation. A civically of those involved in the food system (Colasanti et engaged agriculture is built through the founda- al., 2009). In other words, we are asking students to tions of social embeddedness, reciprocity, and trust become directly involved in this change by learning (Tolbert, Irwin, Lyson, & Nucci, 2002). In other with and within the community. In this light, we words, a civically engaged foundation of agriculture are creating the space for continued problem- may contribute to creating a democratic environ- solving and public dialogue that may actually ment for higher levels of social wellness, capacity inform a more . building, and community engagement. The concept of civic agriculture has been Community-University Partnerships applied in various contexts as a development Guided by the Land-Grant Mission paradigm. According to Thomson, Maretzki, and Engagement is an essential component to the Harmon (2007) and Wright (2006), civic agricul- twenty-first-century LGU mission. It is connecting tural principles are undoubtedly applicable to students, faculty, and community together in a educational frameworks.3 We further propose that mutually beneficial learning process and providing civic agriculture may provide the conceptual “an opportunity for all — faculty, staff, students, groundwork for developing SA education that aims and public — to learn together in seeking solutions to real problems” (Byrne, 2000, p. 17). For Peters, Jordan, Adamek, and Alter (2005), the role of LGU 3 Not all programs mentioned here refer to civic agriculture as a pedagogical framework for SA education. Instead, the faculty is to engage with the community with authors draw upon civic agriculture as a suitable theoretical democratic and civic responsibility to problem- foundation for discussion and application. solve from a plethora of perspectives; here

30 Volume 2, Issue 3 / Spring 2012 Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development ISSN: 2152-0801 online www.AgDevJournal.com community actors bring “distinct but comple- Models of Community-University mentary motivations, interests, and goals to the Partnerships in SA Undergraduate table, as well as somewhat different understandings Curriculum of the public issues that are at stake” (p. 38). Having characterized the attributes, scope, and While the LGU has a clear responsibility to scale of CE for SA education, we now focus on contribute to the community, student engagement three specific community-university partnership has not been a primary way that universities have models taking place at five LGUs that illustrate acted or served in communities. More extractive what this looks like in practice: service-learning, farm relationships, such as traditional student intern- study, and self-directed practicums. Table 1 in the appen- ships or faculty-guided research, have provided dix summarizes these models from our program- student learning opportunities; however, these matic perspectives. Drawing upon Melaville, Berg, opportunities have not necessarily reciprocated and Blank (2006), we focus on the description of benefits to the community. Instead, community- SA education, community-university learning university partnerships, as primary examples of strategies, and the utility of the models that the five civic engagement, should build relationships that LGU programs have applied within SA coursework. benefit the public good, therein serving the LGU While we focus on these five LGUs, it is important mission and increasing community capacity to note that the community-university partnerships simultaneously (Kellogg Commission on the in SA education vary from university to university. Future of State Universities and Land-Grant LGUs across the country are also assessing Colleges, 1999). learning in similar yet distinctly different ways with Despite their mission, universities and regards to their CE opportunities. Other colleges communities frequently develop an antagonistic and universities are uniquely contributing to the relationship (also known as the town and gown divide) formation and refinement of community-university for reasons such as campus separation from town partnerships in SA education. It is important to life (McGirr, Kull, & Enns, 2003), or perception of note, however, that time and space limitations only the community as merely a “client” for research allows for specific attention to be given to these (Bruning, McGrew, & Cooper, 2006, p. 126). The five LGU programs. apparent town and gown divide prompted the Service-Learning. Service-learning is perhaps Kellogg Commission on the Future of State the most common form of CE through SA educa- Universities and Land-Grant Colleges (1999) to tion. Each of our LGU SA programs demonstrate petition higher education institutions for better some form of service-learning. Focus group collaboration with the public in order to problem- themes largely emphasized the way in which solve local and global issues in an increasingly community-university partnerships are the driving complex society. Civically engaged activities can force behind these learning opportunities for most help integrate university activities with the local of our programs. Service-learning can be defined as community. Public scholarship, the act of uniting a teaching and learning strategy that integrates scholarship and/or the arts with constituencies to meaningful community service with instruction and form a partnership that addresses practical, local- reflection to enrich the learning experience, teach ized issues, is also an avenue to engage campus and civic responsibility, and strengthen communities community with the intent for civic progress (Butin, 2010; Connors & Seifert, 2005). The three (Peters et al., 2005). SA is an appropriate common characteristics of service-learning have been ground for universities and communities to specifically defined as “learning and academic rigor, problem-solve given prevalent concerns about the reflective thinking, and civic responsibility” current food system’s environmental impacts (Duncan & Kopperud, 2008, p. 7). (Foley et al., 2005) and inability to provide imme- At our universities, partnerships between diate or future food security (Godfray et al., 2010). students and community organizations have emerged with the dual goals of improving student learning through civic empowerment, structured

Volume 2, Issue 3 / Spring 2012 31 Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development ISSN: 2152-0801 online www.AgDevJournal.com reflection on course content, and actively meeting opportunities both within and outside of their the needs of the local community (Ash, Clayton, & home institutions (e.g., Iowa State University, Atkinson, 2005). At the same time, such projects Washington State University, University of have also been shown to increase awareness of Minnesota, University of Nebraska, University of issues of social justice and societal inequities Kentucky, and Michigan State University). Such (Einfeld & Collins, 2008; Eyler & Giles, 1999 courses often last from one week to 10 days, and Hughes, Welsh, Mayer, Bolay, & Southard, 2009). include precourse readings and interviews with Preparing students to participate in society, being farm families focusing on production, economic, civically and politically engaged, and being socially and social challenges. Particular emphasis is placed responsible are desired educational outcomes of on student evaluation of interview responses, data both service-learning and volunteerism (Strand, analysis in small teams, and presentation of Cutforth, Stoecker, Marullo, & Donohue, 2003). synthesized results in both oral and written forms. However, when compared to volunteerism, we Such tours have been found to increase both argue that service-learning delves in deeper, asking student motivation for learning and retention of students to analyze and synthesize their agricultural course content (Wiedenhoeft, Simmons, experiences in a formal manner. Salvador, McAndrews, Francis, King, & Hole, From workshop discussions, we learned that 2003). Community partners are not as influential the SA programs at our five LGUs similarly recog- on curricula development or the reflection process nize how student engagement with community can using this learning strategy. encompass various time frames, from simple As an example from our set of five LGUs, the immersion activities consisting of only a few hours University of Kentucky incorporates a week-long of community contact time, to a fully integrated, farm study tour into the capstone course (SAG 490) semester-length course with multiple contact of its SA undergraduate major. Throughout the points and the establishment of deeper relation- first weeks of the semester-long course, students ships with community members. Examples of work with the instructor to create learning objec- service-learning integrated into SA education tives and identify the types of agricultural enter- curriculum from our institutions include one-day prises they would like exposure to before com- field trips to a community garden (e.g., North pleting the program. Working collaboratively, SAG Caroline State University), one-week spring break students, faculty, and staff assemble a travel service experience in an international location (e.g., itinerary and spend the week interviewing farmers Virginia Tech), and a semester-long project assist- and reflecting on their experiences collectively over ing local farmers via on-farm service visits (e.g., meals and travel times. Students then incorporate Michigan State University). These examples are knowledge gained from the study tour into a final further characterized as service-learning through a project focused on either planning for their future range of purposeful, critical-reflection writing farm or building capacity for local organizations assignments (e.g., reflection assignments using e- working on community food issues. The projects Portfolios at Virginia Tech) that allow students to are presented as written reports and class move beyond simple volunteerism toward a more presentations. civically engaged practice with community partners. In another example outside our group of This reflection-based pedagogy is central to LGUs, faculty representing diverse disciplines from engendering authentic service-learning (Duncan & multiple institutions lead a study tour in which Kopperud, 2008; Eyler & Giles, 1999). students review available methods and develop and Farm Study. In recent years, multiday farm utilize their own protocols for analyzing farm sites study and tour courses have been developed with that compose “the assemblage of agroecosystems the intention of engaging students with agricultural within the four state region of southwestern course content and presenting them with the multi- Minnesota, northwestern Iowa, southeastern South dimensional challenges of agricultural production. Dakota, and northeastern Nebraska” (DeHaan, Workshop discussants specifically noted farm study Porter, Francis, & Wiedenhoeft, 2011, p. 1). In this

32 Volume 2, Issue 3 / Spring 2012 Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development ISSN: 2152-0801 online www.AgDevJournal.com community-learning course, student teams pursue tors then aid students in locating additional experiential learning and then prepare a document resources needed to complete their work or summarizing their farm analysis. Students then negotiate their relationship with the community present their work in both oral workshops and a partner as needed. written final report. A highlight of this course is the Examples from Michigan State University’s completion of what is called a Learner Document, capstone course in Sustainable Agriculture and which provides an opportunity to reflect on the Food Systems include a documentary about dairy process by which students are learning during the farmers who transitioned from confined to grazing week. This allows for formalizing the process as operations that is utilized by outreach and exten- both an experience and an opportunity for learning sion, and a prototype composting program linking that takes place as a result of the experience retail and service businesses with a local (Francis et al., 2011). urban farm. Virginia Tech‘s Civic Agriculture and Self-Directed Engagement Practicum. Our Food System (CAFS) capstone projects are struc- focus group sessions further illustrated that self- tured similarly; examples of coursework include a directed practicums were also often used as a movable campus demonstration garden, a school community-engagement learning strategy. What garden education program, and a Photovoice composed the practicums, however, differed across anthology of a campus farm and garden. Through our five LGUs programs. In discussion, it was these and similar learning experiences, students are agreed that the primary objective of a self-directed provided the opportunity to accomplish a tangible engagement practicum is for students and com- food system goal, gain professional and personal munity partners to create a “useable” end product. skills, and to give community partners assistance In our programs, students are encouraged to that is of real and immediate value. exercise their creativity and learned knowledge, and to use a broad skill set to address an SA or food Student Learning Through SA Curricula system topic that would be otherwise be difficult to Our LGU program experiences provide a unique encapsulate in teacher-centered coursework. These opportunity to place agriculture students in students often bring awareness of local agricultural communities where they can learn (1) personal, (2) and food system issues or of a topic or discipline academic, and (3) professional skills (Grossman, that is of interest to the community. Interdisci- Patel, & Drinkwater, 2010; Jordan, Andow, & plinary courses and programs can pose compli- Mercer, 2005; Motavalli, Patton, & Miles, 2007). cations for instructors, as student learners’ needs First, in some cases, according to Grossman, Patel, and goals vary. However, well-crafted practicum and Drinkwater (2010), civically engaged learning experiences that provide strong support for self- experiences may help students learn to personally directed projects can provide appropriate learning and professionally interact with opportunities for each student. different from themselves and become aware of In student-led projects within our LGUs, socioeconomic issues faced by disadvantaged faculty assist students by providing a process and populations. Such experience may provide students tools for students to carry out their own research an advantage when seeking employment following or action-based community project. After deter- graduation, for example, with new kinds of mining a general topic and community partner, the agricultural organizations requiring interaction with student or student groups use provided templates ethnically, economically, and culturally different to define their interests, roles, responsibilities, and populations from themselves. Perhaps more expected outcomes with their community partners. importantly, these experiences may also provide By negotiating their relationships and end products the necessary foundation for critical thinking and with their community partner, they learn the con- reflection about governing power structures (e.g., straints of the particular setting and environment. race, gender, class ideologies in the food system)— Instructors receive a formal project proposal, enabling opportunities for social action and change adapted appropriately to each practicum. Instruc-

Volume 2, Issue 3 / Spring 2012 33 Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development ISSN: 2152-0801 online www.AgDevJournal.com as part of a tradition of emancipatory education programs illustrate several student learning (Brookfield, 2005; Hart, 1990). outcomes, these social action outcomes have not Second, we argue that CE can serve to develop yet been recorded. We now focus on how student critical academic skills such as problem-solving and learning is currently assessed within our SA leadership. SA CE is particularly well-suited to education programs. engender these aims by way of linking classroom and field-based activities that place students in Assessing Student Learning and direct contact with professional organizations and Programmatic Outcomes farming activities such as field management (Parr, Through the development of our programs, it is Trexler, Khanna, & Battisti, 2007). Although our clear that tools to evaluate student-learning out- SA programs have been successful in providing comes from CE activities are not well documented. professional development opportunities, we admit Although mixed-methods are used, qualitative that the learning experience can be complex. experience is difficult to quantify (Bringle & Students often negotiate their time and commit- Hatcher, 2009). To that end, each of our programs ments with those of their community partner, uses some form of reflective writing or verbal which can be challenging for everyone involved. As processing as part of a student learning assessment. students are exposed to the “messiness” of the real For example, reflective writings and presentations world through their activities, however, we suggest are regarded as highly effective tools for students that they learn lessons related to persistence, to critically compare their value system to their resource identification, and flexibility as they work experience in order to facilitate deep learning toward accomplishing community-identified goals, (Connors & Seifer, 2005). Such writings often ask often as a team (e.g., the CAFS capstone project at students to define specific things they have learned, Virginia Tech). at what point in the experience they learned it, and Third, students may also be empowered to what they will do with the knowledge in other take an active role as citizens in their community facets of their life (Ash et al., 2005), in written form, and become agents of social change. Part of oral form, or both. Qualitative focus groups and developing a sense a community occurs when interviews held before and after the community- individuals feel that they are members of a group engaged experience can also help inform instruc- (McMillan & Chavis, 1986). Through CE, a “sense tors about preconceptions that a student may have of place” is developed (DeLind, 2002, p. 222). prior to an activity, and how that activity changed Furthermore, CE frames SA in a way that places these perceptions (i.e., Virginia Tech CAFS minor). democratic participation at the focus of placed- If such qualitative assessments are transcribed for based agriculture initiatives (Lyson, 2004). By content evaluation (Strauss, 1987), quotes can be promoting a sense of place and democratic prin- extracted from these conversations and lend ciples through CE in civic agriculture, we promote strength to any quantitative data collected, along the development of citizens who are members with the generation of prominent themes across contributing to a particular place. Critical scholars the learner . Pre- and post surveys using such as Dewey (1897) and Freire (1970) have Likert scales are often used to collect such quanti- identified education as a means for social progress. tative data, comparing student self-assessments of While applying knowledge, students gain an particular learning objectives to the degree they felt understanding of value systems and how to change increases in knowledge in particular areas. Often a and strengthen them (Byrne, 2000). For example, triangulation is recommended, with at least two or one study showed that undergraduates participating more of these methods used in combination to in CE wanted to promote diversity and influence draw a clear picture of student learning resulting social structures (Astin & Sax, 1998). While our from often complex engaged experiences.

34 Volume 2, Issue 3 / Spring 2012 Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development ISSN: 2152-0801 online www.AgDevJournal.com

Table 2. Assessment Methods and Outcomes

Assessment Methods of Student Learning Student Learning Outcomes

. Student and community members interviews . Leadership development . Postcourse surveys and/or evaluations . Critical thinking analysis, problem-solving, adaptive skills . Fieldwork reflective journal analysis . Teaching and articulation skills . Student focus groups . Interacting with diverse audiences . Class fieldwork activities that integrate community . Networking partner . Effective multidimensional communication skills . Written community action project proposal development . Community project implementation . Capstone community action project . Personal and professional growth . Self, peer, faculty, and community evaluative feedback . Increased metacognition and civic engagement

We have drawn upon a variety of these community partners request academic expertise. methods to conduct assessments, many of which Some workshop participants expressed that are formative. Given the young age of these pro- although their institutions may be morally suppor- grams, summative evaluations are still months and tive of the efforts, and even enjoy positive publicity years away. However, for the purpose of reporting and improved community relations due to SA- our current state of programming, we have com- oriented CE activities, formal institutional support piled basic measures of assessment and outputs for these efforts is lacking. In the experience of across our five programs. Table 2 illustrates our workshop participants, CE efforts are often mini- compiled assessment methods and outputs.4 mally funded and lack formal reward in traditional faculty evaluation structures. Further, there is Challenges and Opportunities opportunity cost within this structure for time at Land-Grant Institutions spent cultivating community relationships that During the SAEA preconference workshop in could otherwise be spent on efforts that receive August 2011, participants shared their successes merit (e.g., manuscript and grant writing, research and challenges to meaningful engagement of activities, etc.). community partners in their programming and We learned that building more integrated, instructional efforts. CE was widely acknowledged positive community relationships take time, crea- by all programs present as beneficial and integral to tivity, and commitment from both the educational student learning and programmatic missions. institution and community partner. Considering the However, the dialogue revealed common constrained choices of the community partner, be challenges to initiating, maintaining, assessing, and it economic, political, biophysical, social, or from sustaining these relationships in the long term. any other source, is essential in providing a service CE efforts are resource-intensive and require of value. Instructors are implicitly or explicitly investment on the part of the community partner asking our community partners for time, training, and the academic institution. Workshop partici- or accommodation, which has a real cost to them pants noted the time and effort needed to cultivate or their organization. This lack of understanding of relationships with community partners, be it the resources required of community partners to through dialogue, planning and participating in host activities and experiences can potentially service activities, or reciprocating efforts when overtax the relationship and saturate the partner with students and requests for involvement (e.g., volunteer events, interns, tours, etc.). While the 4 Assessment methods used were drawn from Grossman, Patel, benefits may exceed these costs, understanding & Drinkwater, 2010; Grossman, Sherard, Prohn, Bradley, how engagement affects the community partner is Goodell, & Andrew, in press; Huba & Freed, 2000; Walvoord, important in tending to this relationship. Most 2004.

Volume 2, Issue 3 / Spring 2012 35 Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development ISSN: 2152-0801 online www.AgDevJournal.com organizations have finite resources and care must tors incorporating CE activities into their course- be taken to design experiences that do not over- work have not typically received formal training in burden the community partner. Aiming to have a constructing activities and assessing student learn- mutually beneficial long-term relationship requires ing. More often instructors have been classically that the services students provide be worthwhile, trained along traditional disciplinary lines such as and that the engagement remains appropriate to soil science, agronomy or ecology; teaching SA the changing needs of the community. Likewise, curricula is often just a portion of their teaching sharing these considerations with students prepares activities. Community engagement efforts in their them by providing context for the experience; this programs are motivated by an inherent valuation of can lead to more successful engagement efforts. community partners as sources of information and Similarly, we learned that community partners “real world” application. Thus, many of the are not traditionally rewarded for their contribu- workshop participants were learning to cultivate tions as sources of knowledge and agents of community partnerships through independent change in communities, but rather as recipients of research on pedagogy and assessment, or informal service. It is important to acknowledge community networks and resource exchanges with peers. partners’ time and expertise. Examples of such acknowledgement from our programs include Conclusion and Recommendations honoraria for farm tours and speaking events, By drawing upon programmatic and scholarly contribution of resources (e.g. farm supplies, literature, and our lived experiences in developing money, expertise) to service-learning projects, or civically engaged SA curricula, we have illustrated praising the community partner’s work at public how a portion of higher education is moving events or in media. toward a civically engaged future in relation to We also put forward that there are many education for and about SA and food systems. opportunities to better equip students to work in LGUs have a responsibility to contribute to the communities more effectively. For example, some community. Until recently student engagement in faculty in this case have designed precourse train- SA education was not a primary way that univer- ing to help prepare students for working with sities acted or served in communities. In response, diverse audiences and offering basic skill-building we argue that the foundations of civic agriculture in teaching and outreach realms (e.g., Smith & can be applied to SA programming to increase Grossman, 2011). Such training often takes place in public dialogue, problem-solving capacities, and structured sessions prior to engagement with the social action. We also argue that community- community and provides a forum for learning university partnerships are primary examples of CE about community partner organization and goals in SA education. To that end, we drew upon through guest lectures. In other instances, training various bodies of literature to frame the way our manuals have served this purpose. A training LGUs have created and sustained three specific manual outlines specific expectations about student models of community-university partnerships: conduct, community partner roles, and faculty service-learning, farm study, and self-directed responsibilities. A guide that details modes of practicums. Table 1 in the appendix summarizes communication, avenues for actualizing the project, these models. Our institutions do not use these and assessment tools can help relieve anxieties models in isolation; instead, we draw upon about properly managing a project, representing elements of each model across our programs to the university and community in a positive manner, effectively inform our students’ experiences. Here and, ultimately, ensuring sustainability of a we described how farm study opportunities have community-university partnership because of good been shown to promote critical thinking while relations. connecting student-centered topics in SA. The self- In addition to a common lack of widespread directed practicum example has been established as a institutional support and funding for CE activities, place-based learning strategy where stakeholders SAEA workshop participants noted that instruc- work to discover capacities to mobilize assets for

36 Volume 2, Issue 3 / Spring 2012 Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development ISSN: 2152-0801 online www.AgDevJournal.com community improvement. Service-learning is shown • Develop a standard protocol for university- to connect community service to academic studies community interactions, including a training with reflection activities integrated into the manual for students and an acknowledgement curricula. The utility of this model addresses structure for community partners. community needs and confers significant benefits • Help students learn about themselves and what to community partners. they are learning by creating opportunities for We also focused on student learning outcomes personal reflection through journals or and assessment measures, including but not limited reflection-oriented assignments. to leadership development, critical thinking analysis, problem-solving, cultural awareness, communica- Recommendations for students: tion skills, personal and professional growth, and • Understand that community partners are often increased metacognition through real-world juggling multiple projects and may rely on application of SA skills and knowledge. Finally, we volunteers for a significant portion of their shared the ways in which these SA programs have labor. not only been successfully created, but discuss the • Be open and flexible with scheduling and tasks pitfalls that have occurred along the way. Of cri- whenever possible. Follow through when you tical importance here is the need for open dialogue make a commitment to an organization or with stakeholders about programmatic assumptions. farmer. For example, concerns over administrator support • Follow established protocol for CE activities for engagement efforts are a driver for ongoing and realize that you are a representative of the dialogue about programmatic sustainability. university. In building upon these ideas, we conclude with • Actively link hands-on experiences with course the following recommendations. While not concepts by making connections between field exhaustive, these suggestions serve as a model for activities and related coursework and engaging establishing and sustaining CE in SA programs in dialogue with peers, faculty, and community within higher education institutions. partners.

Recommendations for community practitioners: Acknowledgements • Reach out to university faculty who might We would like to give generous thanks to our provide content-area expertise and resources students, faculty colleagues, and community to mutually problem-solve. partners who contribute to the programs at the • Proactively communicate your needs and Michigan State University, Montana State expectations to university partners. University, North Carolina State University, • Be honest about volunteer capacity, time University of Kentucky, and Virginia Tech. We are limitations, and resource constraints. also grateful for our friends and supporters of the • Be prepared to both teach and learn content Sustainable Agriculture Education Association. knowledge and skills.

Recommendations for faculty: • Incorporate community-based learning strategies into coursework requirements such as service learning, case studies, farm tours, or self-directed practicums. Create an avenue for reflection in CE approaches. • Communicate clear expectations for the roles of all involved: students, community partners, and faculty members.

Volume 2, Issue 3 / Spring 2012 37 Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development ISSN: 2152-0801 online www.AgDevJournal.com

Appendix

Table 1. Categorization of CE for SA Education

Models of Community- University Community-Based Exemplar Partnerships for Description of SA Learning Strategies Community-University University SA Education Education Supporting SA Educationa Utility Programb Experiential learning “Agro-environmental” Recognition and MSU activities on working farms application of SA NCSU with focus on exploring SA That is, learning that uses knowledge using UK Farm Study production practices (i.e., agriculture and life science experiential, hands-on hands-on learning in settings to build upon methods. student and university farm student interest and settings). experience Stakeholders work to “Place-based” Community partners can MSU discover capacities to both set the SA agenda MoSU mobilize assets for That is, student and evaluate work; they NCSU community improvement engagement is directed serve as respected UK Self-Directed (e.g., internship on a farm; toward specific community partners and contributors, VT Practicum co-directed asset-based needs and interests; and cogenerate SA community food system community members serve knowledge. planning). as resources and partners in every aspect of teaching and learning. Connecting community “Service-based” Addresses community MSU service to academic needs and confers MoSU studies with integrated That is, service activity significant benefits to NCSU reflection activities (e.g., meets actual needs of the community partner setting; UK spring break service community partner students learn to critically VT Service-Learning experience; semester-long identified by students and evaluate their experience service projects assisting community partners. through reflection. farmers, community Learning is integrated with gardens, food banks, and in-class work and student community kitchens). reflection. a Descriptions adapted from Melaville, Berg, & Blank (2006) b University program abbreviations: Michigan State University (MSU), Sustainable Agriculture and Food Systems (B.S. & B.A. specialization); Montana State University (MoSU), Sustainable Food Systems Program (B.S major); North Carolina State University (NCSU), Plant & Soil Sciences major with an Agroecology B.S. concentration; University of Kentucky (UK), Sustainable Agriculture (SAG) Program (B.S. major and minor); Virginia Tech (VT), Civic Agriculture and Food Systems (CAFS) (B.S. minor).

38 Volume 2, Issue 3 / Spring 2012 Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development ISSN: 2152-0801 online www.AgDevJournal.com

References Dewey, J. (1897). My pedagogic creed. The School Journal, Ash, S. L., Clayton, P., & Atkinson, M. (2005). 54(3), 77–80. Integrating reflection and assessment to capture Duncan, D., & Kopperud, J. (2008). Service-learning and improve student learning. Michigan Journal of companion. Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton Community Service Learning, 11(2), 45–59. Mifflin Company. Astin, A. W., & Sax, L. J. (1998). How undergraduates Einfeld, A., & Collins, D. (2008). The relationships are affected by service participation. The Journal of between service-learning, social justice, College Student Development, 39(3), 251–263. multicultural competence, and civic engagement. Bringle, R., & Hatcher, J. (2009). Innovative practices in Journal of College Student Development, 49(2), 95–109. service-learning and curricular engagement. New http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/csd.2008.0017 Directions for Higher Education, 147(Fall), 37–46. Eyler, J., & Giles, D. (1999). Where’s the learning in service- http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/he.356 learning? San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass. Brookfield, S. (2005). The power of critical theory: Liberating Foley, J. A., DeFries, R., Asner, G. P., Barford, C., adult learning and teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bonan, G., Carpenter, S. R.,…Snyder, P. K. (2005). Bass. Global consequences of land use. Science, 309(5734), Bruning, S. D., McGrew, S., & Cooper, M. (2006). 570–574. Town-gown relationships: Exploring university- http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1111772 community engagement from the perspective of Francis, C. A., Jordan, N., Porter, P., Breland, T. A., community members. Public Relations Review, 32(2), Lieblein, G., Salomonsson, L., Langer, V. (2011). 125–130. Innovative education in agroecology: Experiential http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2006.02.005 learning for a sustainable agriculture. Critical Reviews Butin, D. W. (2010). Service-learning in theory and practice. in Plant Sciences, 30(1), 226–237. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07352689.2011.554497 http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/9780230106154 Friere, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Byrne, J. V. (2000). Engagement: A defining character- Continuum. istic of the university of tomorrow. Journal of Higher Godfray, H. C. J., Beddington, J. R., Crute, I. R., Education Outreach and Engagement, 6(1), 13–21. Haddad, L., Lawrence, D., Muir, J., …Toulmin, C. Colasanti, K., Wright, W., & Reau, B. (2009). Extension, (2010). Food security: The challenge of feeding 9 the land-grant mission, and civic agriculture: billion people. Science, 327(5967), 812–818. Cultivating change. Journal of Extension, 47(4). http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1185383 Retrieved from Grossman, J. M., Patel, M., & Drinkwater, L. E. (2010). http://www.joe.org/joe/2009august/a1.php Enhancing undergraduate agro-ecological Connors, K., & Seifer, S. D. (2005). Reflection in higher laboratory employment through experiential education service-learning. Retrieved from Learn learning. Journal of Natural Resources & Life Sciences and Serve America’s National Service-Learning Education, 39(1), 31–39. Clearinghouse website: http://dx.doi.org/10.4195/jnrlse.2009.0017n http://www.servicelearning.org/instant_info/fact_ Grossman, J., Sherard, M., Prohn, S.M., Bradley, L., sheets/he_facts/he_reflection Goodell, S., Andrew, K. (In press). An exploratory DeHaan, R., Porter, P., Francis, C., & Wiedenhoeft, M. analysis of student-community interactions in urban (2011). Agroecosystems analysis field course (Unpublished agriculture. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and course syllabus). Dordt College, University of Engagement. Minnesota, University of Nebraska, and Iowa State Hart, M.U. (1990). Liberation through consciousness University. raising. In J. Mezirow and Associates (Eds.), DeLind, L. B. (2002). Place, work, and civic agriculture: Fostering critical reflection in adulthood: A guide to Common fields for cultivation. Agriculture and transformative and emancipatory learning (pp. 47–73). Human Values, 19(3), 217–224. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1019994728252

Volume 2, Issue 3 / Spring 2012 39 Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development ISSN: 2152-0801 online www.AgDevJournal.com

Hassanein, N. (2003). Practicing food democracy: A promote urban sustainability. Environment: Science and pragmatic politics of transformation. Journal of Rural Policy for , 53(1), 18–28. Studies, 19, 77-86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00139157.2011.539944 Hinrichs, C. C. (2007). Introduction: Practice and place Motavalli, P., Patton, M. D., & Miles, R. J. (2007). Use in remaking the food system. In C. C. Hinrichs & T. of web-based student extension publications to A. Lyson (Eds.), Remaking the North American food improve undergraduate student writing skills. system: Strategies for sustainability (pp. 1–15). Lincoln, Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Education, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press. 36(1), 95–102. Huba, M. E., & Freed, J. E. (2000). Learner-centered National Research Council of the National Academies assessment on college campuses: Shifting the focus from [NRC]; Division on Earth and Life Studies; Board teaching to learning. Needham Heights: Allyn & Bacon. on Agriculture and Natural Resources Board on Hughes C., Welsh, M., Mayer, A., Bolay, J., & Southard, Life Sciences. (2009). Transforming agricultural K. (2009). An innovative university-based education for a changing world. Washington, D.C.: The mentoring program: Affecting college students’ National Academies Press. attitudes and engagement. Michigan Journal of Parr, D., Trexler, C., Khanna, N., & Battisti, B. (2007). Community Service Learning, 16(1), 69–78. Designing sustainable agriculture education: Tolbert, C. M., Irwin, M. D., Lyson, T. A., & Nucci, A. Academics' suggestions for an undergraduate R. (2002). Civic community in small-town America: curriculum at a land-grant university. Agriculture and How civic welfare is influenced by local capitalism Human Values, 24(4), 523-33. and civic engagement. Rural Sociology. 67(1), 90–113. Peters, S. J., Jordan, N. R., Adamek, M., & Alter, T. R. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1549-0831.2002. (Eds.). (2005). Engaging campus and community: The tb00095.x practice of public scholarship in the state and land-grant Jordan, N. R., Andow, D. A., & Mercer, K. L. (2005). university system. Dayton, Ohio: The Kettering New concepts in agroecology: A service-learning Foundation Press. course. Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Poincelot, R. P., Francis, C. A., & Bird, G. W. (2006). Education, 34, 83–89. Overview of the educational social contract: Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land- Building a foundation for sustainable agriculture. In Grant Colleges. (1999). Returning to our roots: The C. Francis, R. Poincelt, & G. Bird (Eds.), Developing engaged institution. Washington, D.C.: National and extending sustainable agriculture: A new social contract Association of State Universities and Land-Grant (pp. 1–23). Binghamton, New York: Haworth Press. Colleges. Smith, S., & Grossman, J. (2011, Oct 15–19). Preparing Lyson, T. (2004). Civic agriculture: Reconnecting farm, food, students for a diverse future: Designing and evaluating a and community. Medford, Massachusetts: Tufts cultural competency training program for community University Press. engagement in agriculture. Published abstract, Soil McGirr, D., Kull, R., & Enns, K. S. (2003). Town and Science Society of America International Meetings. gown. Economic Development Journal, 2, 16–23. San Antonio, Texas. McMillan, D. W., & Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense of Strand, K. J., Cutforth, N., Stoecker, R., Marullo, S., & community: A definition and theory. Journal of Donohue, P. (2003). Community-based research and Community Psychology, 14(1), 6–23. higher education: Principles and practices. San Francisco : http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1520-6629(198601) Jossey-Bass. 14:1%3C6::AID-JCOP2290140103%3E3.0.CO;2-I Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Melaville, A., Berg, A. C., & Blank, M. J. (2006). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Community-based learning: Engaging students for success http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511557842 and citizenship. Coalition for Community Schools. Sustainable Agriculture Education Association [SAEA]. Retrieved from http://www.communityschools. (n.d.). Promoting the teaching and learning of org/assets/1/AssetManager/CBLFinal.pdf sustainable agriculture. Retrieved from Molnar, C., Ritz, T., Heller, B., & Solecki, W. (2010). http://www.sustainableaged.org/About/tabid/ Using higher education-community partnerships to 56/Default.aspx

40 Volume 2, Issue 3 / Spring 2012 Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development ISSN: 2152-0801 online www.AgDevJournal.com

Thomson, J. S., Maretzki, A. N., & Harmon, A. H. Wiedenhoeft, M., Simmons, S., Salvador, R., (2007). Community-initiated dialogue: McAndrews, G., Francis, C., King, J., & Hole, D. Strengthening the community through the local (2003). Agroecosystems analysis from the grass food system. In C. C. Hinrichs & T. A. Lyson roots: A multidimensional experiential learning (Eds.), Remaking the North American food system: course. Journal of Natural Resources and Life Science Strategies for sustainability (pp. 183–200). Lincoln and Education, 32, 73–79. London: University of Nebraska Press. Wright, W. D. (2006). Civic engagement through civic Walvoord, B. E. (2004). Assessment clear and simple: A agriculture: Using food to link classroom and practical guide for institutions, departments, and general community. Teaching Sociology, 34(3), 224–235. education (Second edition). San Francisco: Jossey- http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0092055X0603400302 Bass.

Volume 2, Issue 3 / Spring 2012 41