Discovering the Whole: Multiple Paths to Systems Learning1

NACTA Journal, Jun 2005 by Schneider, Mindi, Colglazier, Ashley, Pollard, Caleb, Beutler, Rhoda, Francis, Charles

Abstract

In today's university learning environment information and study are divided into discrete packages by discipline, while the problems our graduates confront are multi-faceted and complex. Universities are sometimes accused of producing narrowly focused technicians who are not prepared to deal with uncertainty, context specificity, changing demands, and farming systems. We have come from different directions to study agriculture and food systems, and find that an appreciation of systems can be generated from foundations in philosophy, engineering, international studies, environmental studies, and agricultural education. Divergent paths have led us to the conclusion that dealing with tomorrow's problems will require close collaboration and highly interactive communication across a range of disciplines. We need to recognize where and how integration can take place in the university, and strive to make this happen in as many levels as possible. Several models of action education are described, as well as ways that multiple majors and minors and individualized programs can help students meet goals of breadth and integration. Six specific case studies are described, along with a model for future university organization. We conclude that there are multiple paths to discovering the whole and ways in which university students can achieve interdisciplinary learning.

Introduction

It was the best of teaching. It was perhaps the worst of learning. This paraphrase from Dickens' (1965) A Tale of Two Cities could describe our rush to specialization in agricultural university and college education. Instructors who are often researchers focus on evernarrowing fields, and as they extend the process to the classroom we find the same reductionism driving the teaching of components rather than systems. We fine-tune the packaging and transmission of factoids, yet it may be the worst of learning if the details and narrow processes become ends in themselves. If we lose sight of the whole, and how these components contribute to production and equity in the food system, we have forgotten John Dewey's (1963) insistence on contextual framework and experience as the basis for learning.

The current university structure is shown as a diagram in Figure 1, where the specialized disciplines are represented by their isolated boxes on the university campus. The primarily one-way communication out from the university is parallel to the one-way communication from teacher to student within the university walls, as lectures continue to be the dominant teaching method in most undergraduate courses (from Lieblein et al., 2000). This traditional university structure has changed little over centuries, with theater-style seating in most classrooms that is focused on an authority figure in front. Conventional teaching and classical subject matter may be useful for basic understanding of principles, but is unlikely to prepare students to deal well with the speed and complexity of change in modern agriculture.

A major change in how we view both research and education, especially within agriculture, may begin with the new publication, Frontiers in Agricultural Research: Food, Health, Environment, and Communities from the National Research Council (NRC, 2003). The following excerpt makes clear the need for reconsideration of the current university structure: "Today, the increasing complexity of the issues and challenges facing our food and fiber system, the environment, and families and communities requires disciplinary, multidisciplinary, and systems-level approaches. The future success of the agriculture enterprise in solving complex applied problems will require collaborative and interactive participation across greater numbers of disciplines (p. 97)."

The current university structure, in both research and education, addresses and equips students almost solely with disciplinary perspectives and methods. For example, as we focus only on corn and soybean production practices, many would claim that we lose sight of commodity prices that sever the family from the farm, agricultural subsidies that result in surplus production and grain dumping on global markets, the long-term impact from loss of half of our topsoil in the U.S., and our increasing dependence on fossil fuels. When practiced without context, a discipline-oriented approach produces graduates who are narrowly focused technicians, unequipped for real-world problem solving and critical thinking (Orr, 1994). Alternatively, the inclusion of multidisciplinary and systems-level approaches to research and education better prepare students and researchers alike for solving increasingly complex challenges in the food system. We explore several successful alternatives.

Multiple Paths to Systems Learning

Each person involved in this project has taken a different path to arrive at a similar concern about the importance of system thinking in education. Mindi Schneider spent three years as a philosophy major before interest in environmental ethics and food systems led her to study horticulture and organic farming. Her M.S. thesis research focus was on the relationships among environmental land ethics, land use, and local food systems. Ashley Colglazier's initial major was chemical engineering, then she changed paths to biological systems engineering, and then graduated in agronomy. Rhoda Beutler was seeking a broad insight on world issues to prepare her to address complex global questions, and she decided on a dual degree in agronomy and international studies. Caleb Pollard began his college education as an environmental studies major with an emphasis in biology, then designed an Individualized Program of Study to integrate social, political, developmental, and environmental issues and complexities into a major he named, 'International Sustainable Development'. Charles Francis studied agronomy and crop breeding, then lived in several countries and worked with farmers with diverse cropping systems. Teaching agroecology as "the ecology of food systems" has further convinced him that the greatest gains in science will be made through study of complex systems with multidisciplinary teams.