This paper describes an evaluation of experiential learning in agroecology, based on analysis of learning outcomes as described by students in their individual Learner (Reflection) Documents. Galt et al. (2013) highlighted the importance of reflective essays in reinforcing experiential learning. Each fall semester since 2000, students in an agroecology course in farming and food systems at the Norwegian University of Life Sciences (UMB) have submitted a self-evaluation of their learning as well as the teaching process. Their Learner Document is based on a log the students write about their experiences in the field, including interactions with stakeholders on farms and in communities, and lectures and discussion sessions with students and facilitators in and out of the classroom. Together with practical aspects described in the log is an in-depth reflection by each student on the learning process. While the students work in teams of four to six people to produce a Client (Stakeholder) Document, in cooperation with their stakeholders in the farming and food system, the Learner Document is written individually and reflects their personal learning experience

Breland, Tor Arvid

Francis, Charles

Lieblein, Geir

Morse, Suzanne

Nicolaysen, Anna Marie

Organic Eprints

RAHMANN G & AKSOY U (Eds.) (2014) Proceedings of the 4th ISOFAR Scientific Conference. ‘Building Organic Bridges’, at the Organic World Congress 2014, 13-15 Oct., Istanbul, Turkey (eprint ID 24086)   905 Evaluation of student reflective documents in agroecology education:  a qualitative analysis of experiential learning ANNA MARIE NICOLAYSEN1, TOR ARVID BRELAND2, CHARLES FRANCIS3, GEIR LIEBLEIN4, SUZANNE MORSE5 Key words: experiential learning, educational evaluation, agroecology Abstract Agroecology student learner documents facilitate self-evaluation by students in a course on farming and food systems. Students reflect on their roles in learning in classroom, discussions, field teamwork, and stakeholder meetings. A database of documents from 13 years of courses and more than 200 students provides opportunity for qualitative analysis and interpretation of core consistencies and meanings from their writings. We use this systematic evaluation of learner documents to better understand the educational process as viewed by our students, and to design and improve learning activities in the classroom and in the field. It is especially important to focus on their interactions with stakeholders, find out what they learn from these encounters, and see how the field projects can be modified to create an enhanced learning environment. One goal is to help students acquire and practice communication skills that will be useful in their thesis projects as well as in future life work.  Introduction This paper describes an evaluation of experiential learning in agroecology, based on analysis of learning outcomes as described by students in their individual Learner (Reflection) Documents. Galt et al. (2013) highlighted the importance of reflective essays in reinforcing experiential learning. Each fall semester since 2000, students in an agroecology course in farming and food systems at the Norwegian University of Life Sciences (UMB) have submitted a self-evaluation of their learning as well as the teaching process. Their Learner Document is based on a log the students write about their experiences in the field, including interactions with stakeholders on farms and in communities, and lectures and discussion sessions with students and facilitators in and out of the classroom. Together with practical aspects described in the log is an in-depth reflection by each student on the learning process. While the students work in teams of four to six people to produce a Client (Stakeholder) Document, in cooperation with their stakeholders in the farming and food system, the Learner Document is written individually and reflects their personal learning experience. Material and methods in an Agroecology Course The Norwegian University of Life Sciences offers a two-year Master of Science in Agroecology (http://www.umb.no/study-options/article/master-of-science-in-agroecology) that attracts students from around the world, all concerned about long-term sustainability of agriculture and food systems. Agroecology: Action Learning in Farming and Food Systems is a full-time, sixteen-week, 30 ECTS course during the first semester of the master’s degree. The goal of this course is to develop knowledge, skills and attitudes enabling students to deal with complex situations in agricultural and food systems development (Lieblein et al., 2012). This means that they should not only acquire theoretical knowledge about agroecosystems, but also gain experience with methodology and tools for describing, analysing, and improving them.  The pedagogical basis of the programme is experiential learning with situations “out there” placed in the centre—not as examples of theory but as starting points for the learning process, where theory and experiences will be linked. We thereby aim at bridging the frequently experienced gap between knowing and doing by initiating the learning process using phenomenology, where we begin on the farm and in the food system and the key issues emerge from the experience (Francis et al., 2012). The ability to relate discipline-specific knowledge (theory) to the cases “out there” is a key requirement, both for understanding the present situation and for proposing improvements. However, agroecosystems are complex, and the challenges they contain do not conform to disciplinary boundaries. The learning process                                                  1 Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NMBU), Norway, eMail: anna.marie.nicolaysen@nmbu.no 2 Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NMBU), Norway, eMail: tor.arvid.breland@nmbu.no 3 Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NMBU), Norway, eMail: charf@nmbu.no  4 Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NMBU), Norway, eMail: geir.lieblein@nmbu.no 5 College of the Atlantic, USA, eMail: suzmorse@yahoo.com NICOLAYSEN AM, et al. Evaluation of student reflective documents in agroecology education: a qualitative analysis of experiential learning   906 thus requires a systemic approach to capture the totality of a complex situation and in which integration of several disciplines is essential to understand the whole system.  The dynamic and complex nature of agroecosystems and their environments requires that those involved in development of sustainable farming and food systems become capable of and motivated for continual renewal and life-long learning. Therefore, learning to learn and learning toward the future are central goals in the agroecology course. In a culture of curiosity, the students’ goal is not to uncover answers already known by the teachers but to engage in a joint exploration process together with the facilitators and people in the cases being investigated.  The intended competency profile of graduates in agroecology therefore includes the capacity to achieve the following:  • Knowledge of farming and food systems • Ability to link real-life situations and theory • Skill and comfort in using appropriate methods • Confidence in handling complexity and change • Competent communication and facilitation skills • Potential for autonomous and life-long learning  Students work in groups, with each group assigned to an ongoing project in Norway that deals with sustainability of farming and food. The case study encompasses the entire food system, including a farm interested in major changes in the farm operation. The task of the project work is an extensive analysis of the current and desired future of farming and food systems. This implies working with a farmer to develop a farm conversion plan and with other community stakeholders to develop the food system in the region/municipality. The students prepare two group reports or Client Documents, one for the farmer and one for the food system stakeholders. Focus is on what the stakeholders could consider as scenarios to achieve their future vision developed during the systems inquiry. In addition each student prepares an individual report, the Learner Document. As the project work is the core of the course, the students include in the Learner Document a condensed version of the Client Document. An important goal of the project work is to improve their ability to link the concrete and practical situations experienced during the project work with theoretical knowledge, and the reflection document is their opportunity to demonstrate such ability. The students’ empirical material from the fieldwork, as well as from the entire course, is analysed and discussed in relation to current knowledge in the area. It is important for this analysis that they have carefully logged the experiences and facts that will be the basis for their discussion and reflection. What we look for in the Learner Documents is the degree to which they use agroecological perspectives and terms to describe the farming and food systems’ structure and functioning (what), the process of farm and food systems analysis and transition planning (how), and the goals and values involved (why). Further we assess whether they are able to critically examine both concepts and methods and how these were used in their particular case study. Finally, do they reflect on their personal experience from the systems inquiry, including communication with the stakeholders and fellow group members, and its role in their learning?  This analysis is based on the Learner Documents submitted over a period of 13 years. From the beginning of the program in 2000, the course consisted of two parts: a course on Farming System, followed by a course on Food System. During the years from 2000 to 2008, the students wrote a Client Document and a Learner Document pertaining to each course. From these years there are 270 Learner Documents (139 from the Farming System, and 131 from the Food System Course). In 2009 it was decided to merge the two courses into one, embracing both Farming and Food System. From 2009 to 2012, the students wrote a Client Document for the Farming System, and a Client Document for the Food System, but one Learner Document for the whole semester. From these last four years there are 86 Learner Documents.  RAHMANN G & AKSOY U (Eds.) (2014) Proceedings of the 4th ISOFAR Scientific Conference. ‘Building Organic Bridges’, at the Organic World Congress 2014, 13-15 Oct., Istanbul, Turkey (eprint ID 24086)   907 Table 1:  Table of Learner Documents for Analysis Learner Documents Farming system Food System Farming and Food System Total # Learner Documents 2000-2008 139 131  270 2009-2012   86 86 2000-2012 139 131 86 356  The Learner Documents are mostly between 15 and 45 pages long, while a few reach beyond 80 pages. With a low estimate of what is relevant text, this body of information includes at least 10.000 pages. This relatively large volume of text is being explored through a systematic classification process, in order to analyse the content. We code the material by identifying themes in the text, and our main themes are the ones related to the course goals, namely reflection, observation, visioning, dialogue and participation. These themes are further divided into sub-codes, as a way of structuring our data and to be able to capture the full richness of the material. Coding themes with examples of their sub-codes are as follows: 1. Reflection Students indicate understanding of the structure and function of farming and food systems, display systems thinking by discussing complexity, holism, and how the parts are related to the whole. They link theory to real life situations, and link experience to their personal development. Students are analytical with an etic or ‘outsider’ approach.  2. Observation Students show that they have the competence to create a rich picture of a situation or a problem, and to carefully examine situations before drawing conclusions. 3. Visioning Students reveal the capacity to go beyond existing thought patterns, a willingness to take risks, and are not inhibited by a fear of failing. 4. Dialogue Students demonstrate the ability to listen, to express interest in other perspectives, a willingness to change or to reconsider personal point of view and learn from others, and exhibit writing skills. 5. Participation Students recognize values and goal conflicts, dare to act, and are empathically engaged. Results and discussion Although we are still early in the analytical process, we observe that student descriptions indicate a rich and extensive volume of text on the learning experience from their points of view. Some trends that can be mentioned are:  Many students express that they are excited with the fieldwork based on cases, and describe how they will remember what they learned in this setting, working alongside their peers and interacting with stakeholders in the farming and food systems. For many this was their first learning experience starting out in the field, and then later to explore theory as needed in their specific case. This eased the understanding of abstract theories, and helped give lived examples to pin them on. At the same time, this linking of real life experiences to theory is weak among some students. Such as shift in the starting point for learning can be described, with reference to Aristotle in the Nicomachean Ethics (Bostock, 2000), as a shift from theoretical knowledge (theology, natural sciences and mathematics) to practical knowledge (called Praxis by Aristotle). The practical knowledge is activated and developed when dealing with unique cases, and it is different from theoretical knowledge (Lieblein et al., 2012). The extent to which students are able to reflect on their own learning experience also varies, from eloquent descriptions of the cognitive process of thinking about thinking, to those that are almost purely descriptive of NICOLAYSEN AM, et al. Evaluation of student reflective documents in agroecology education: a qualitative analysis of experiential learning   908 the activities undertaken during the course. Some admitted being overwhelmed when realizing the complexity of a food system, and how this makes changes seem challenging. At the same time this realization indicates an understanding of systems, relationships between the whole and the parts, and resistance to change.  There are numerous interesting reflections of learning from interactions within the group. Some learn from initial frustrations and are able to create productive cooperation, while others seem to use those difficulties as an explanation for how they performed in the course. Several indicate the feeling of being ready to take on the world. After this experience of working in an environment of multiple perspectives dealing with complex problems, they feel confidence in communicating with stakeholders and well prepared to take on other challenging tasks.  On the whole, experiential learning based on the students’ own solving of real-life cases proves to be a meaningful and valuable experience. The knowledge acquired through bridging the academic study of farming and food systems with their own lived experience is not easily replaced—hopefully only through careful and critical evaluation. References  Bostock, D., 2000. Aristotle’s Ethics. Oxford: OUP Francis, C., T.A. Breland, E. Østergaard, G. Lieblein, and S. Morse, 2012. Phenomenon-Based Learning in Agroecology: A Prerequisite for Transdisciplinarity and Responsible Action. J. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Sys. 37(1):60-75. Galt, R., D. Parr, J.V. S. Kim, J. Beckett, M. Lickter, H. Ballard, 2013. Transformative food systems education in a land-grant college of agriculture: the importance of learner-centered inquiries. Agricuilture and Human Values, 30:129–142 Lieblein, G., T.A. Breland, C. Francis, and E. Østergaard, 2012. Agroecology Education: Action-oriented Learning and Research J. Agric. Educ. Ext. 18(1):27-40   

EVALUATION OF STUDENT REFLECTIVE DOCUMENTS IN AGROECOLOGY EDUCATION: A QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF EXPERIENTAL LEARNING

Bridging the large gap between science and experience of farmers is a crucial focus for educators who are intent on developing learning programs featuring phenomenology and practical experiences. Agroecology is emerging as an integrative and holistic approach to study agricultural and food systems. Understanding lessons learned from indigenous systems and the ecological principles on which they are built, focusing on the uniqueness of place in design and practice of farming, shifting from a discipline-specific to a holistic systems perspective, and integrating the human dimension into study of farming and food systems are all essential to building effective bridges between farmer experience and science as we practice this in university research and education. Key farmer applications in organic farming, multiple cropping systems, permaculture, and integrated crop/animal systems provide useful teaching examples that help students to bridge the space between theory and practice. On-farm learning and discussions with farmers help to build awareness of how to improve communication as part of the bridging process, and to build student confidence in how to more easily work with stakeholders in the future. One useful perspective is to pursue learning in agroecology as an analysis and application of the ecology of food systems, one that includes production, economics, environmental impacts, and social implications in future systems design. Each of these dimensions is explored in this paper, building on experiences of more than a decade of teaching in agroecology at the Norwegian University of Life Sciences (UMB)

RAHMANN G & AKSOY U (Eds.) (2014) Proceedings of the 4th ISOFAR Scientific Conference. ‘Building Organic Bridges’, at the Organic World Congress 2014, 13-15 Oct., Istanbul, Turkey (eprint ID 24012)   899 Bridging farmer experience and science: learning for  agroecological design of sustainable farming systems  CHARLES FRANCIS1, ANNA MARIE NICOLAYSEN2, SUZANNE MORSE3,  TOR ARVID BRELAND4, GEIR LIEBLEIN5  Key words: experiential learning, agroecology, farming, food systems, phenomenology Abstract Bridging the gap between academia and farmers requires unique learning methods, teaching based on multiple information sources, and instructor willingness to embrace the importance of farmer experience as a legitimate resource. Agroecology is emerging as one holistic field that includes farming and food systems, and integrates production, economics, environmental issues, and social dimensions in education. We explore how biophysical and socioeconomic characteristics and research methods are important to understanding human activity systems related to food, and we use examples from organic farming, permaculture, multiple cropping, crop/animal, and local systems to expand student understanding of food security and food sovereignty. Instructors are mentors and co-learners using phenomenology and practical experience with stakeholders in a carefully designed educational journey through the food system learning landscape. The Agroecology MSc Program is used as a case study. Introduction Bridging the gap between academia and farmer experience is crucial in developing learning programs using phenomenology. Agroecology is an integrative and holistic approach to study agricultural and food systems. Understanding farmer systems and ecological principles as foundation, focusing on uniqueness of place in farming design, shifting from disciplines to holistic perspectives, and integrating human dimensions are all essential. Farmer experience in organic farming, multiple cropping systems, permaculture, and crop/animal systems provides teaching examples to bridge theory and practice. On-farm discussions with farmers build communication skills and confidence in working with stakeholders. Learning agroecology as the ecology of food systems includes production, economic, environmental and social factors in future systems design (Francis et al., 2003). Experiences here are based on more than a decade of teaching in at the Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NMBU).  Learning methods Methods of guiding students through an agroecology learning landscape and developing greater capacity to communicate with stakeholders are imbedded in the curriculum of a MSc course in classroom and field. The course begins with transect walks across farms and natural landscapes to develop multiple senses to understand the farming context (Francis et al. 2012). Students work on farms and interview farmers in an initial exercise, learning key interview techniques and designing relevant questions to make best use of the farmer’s time (Ostergaard et al. 2013). Interviews are designed to learn about current farmer systems and their rural context. Focus on ecological principles in classroom, discussions, and farm conversations provides understanding of farm, field and enterprise niches, uniqueness of place, and that one system does not fit all circumstances (Altieri 1983). Importance of holistic thinking and moving from discipline-based to transdisciplinary approaches is fostered in lectures, discussions, and interviews with farmers (Lieblein et al. 2008), and in reflections by students who summarize field experiences and draw mind maps to organize information from farms they have visited (Breland et al. 2012). Integrating understanding of people at the heart of the human activity systems we call farming is accomplished by maintaining continual focus on decisions and designs that farmers develop in choice of practices and farming systems each year. A visioning process is introduced in class and in the field with clients (Lieblein et al. 2011). By practicing these methods with farmers, and engaging a wider stakeholder group in study of community food systems,                                                           1 Norwegian University of Life Sciences [NMBU], Norway, eMail: charf@nmbu.no [contact person] 2 Norwegian University of Life Sciences [NMBU], Norway, eMail: anna.marie.nicolaysen@nmbu.no 3 College of the Atlantic, USA, eMail: suzmorse@gmail.com 4 Norwegian University of Life Sciences [NMBU], Norway, eMail: tor.arvid.breland@nmbu.no 5 Norwegian University of Life Sciences [NMBU], Norway, eMail: geir.lieblein@nmbu.no Norwegian Univ. Life Sciences, Ås, Norway, charf@nmbu.no FRANCIS C, et al Bridging farmer experience and science: agroecological learning strategies for sustainable farming systems   900 students gain confidence in dealing with those who design and implement changes in the system, and thus become better prepared for responsible action in the future (Lieblein and Francis 2007). The educational process has been successful in a one-semester full-immersion module in autumn term at NMBU (30 ECTS) and in an on-line introductory agroecology course in spring term taught by instructors from four Nordic universities (5 ECTS). In these courses, we recognize the multiple interpretations of the term agroecology as a science, as a set of practices, and as a movement (Wezel et al. 2009), and encourage students to explore all three as an integrated and holistic approach to learning.  Results When students work on farms, even for one day, they begin to learn first-hand about the rigours of farm labor and rural life. They also learn to value the criteria of farmers and why they have designed their current systems, plus how these relate to the science that they have learned at the university. An important next step is to understand the foundations of ecology and how these apply to present systems and how they could be used for future systems design. To appreciate the multiple and complex connections in farming and food systems, we find it essential for students to think outside the traditional disciplines in our agricultural education and research system, and to develop skills for whole systems thinking. These whole systems include the farm owner or manager who designs the farming system and selects the practices, and those professionals who are part of the food system as teachers, advisors, and government officials. Results in each of these areas and how we have observed student learning is discussed in more detail.   1. Learning from indigenous systems and building bridges to science It comes as surprise to some students that our courses give major attention to farmer experience at the same time as we are exploring principles of science and especially ecology. The full day of work on biodynamic farms in the second week of the course have focused student energies on tasks selected by the farmers, and tasks have ranged from harvesting onions and potatoes, to stacking firewood, to cleaning livestock barns, and even to searching the forest for lost goats that had likely been killed by wolves. In each situation, students felt that they were contributing labor to activities considered important to the farmer, and in a way exchanging their time for what the farmer provided to them during the interview and farm tour. On numerous occasions farmers have invited students for lunch where they have joined the family and farm interns in a valuable discussion of farming and some details about the specific operations.   Experiences such as combing the forest for goat carcasses provided high adventure, and exposed students to the risks inherent in livestock raising in remote areas of summer pasture. They learned about the personal strength needed to work alone, at a distance from the farm and the safety and companionship of others. The team that stacked wood all day could be seen as pursuing a totally menial task, yet their reports of discussions on alternative sources of fuel, renewable energy options, and life cycle analysis of timber as it compares to other means of heat and power revealed the rich learning experience that was generated from within the group. We were not sure at the outset if this would be seen as useful by farmers and a worthwhile investment of limited learning time by students, but both groups have confirmed the value of the exercise.  Yet more important than the social experience of getting to know farmers and families as people, and more than the high adventure of perhaps sighting a predatory wolf in the forest, were the gains in understanding the farming system and the reasons why certain enterprises and practices were chosen to fit into the context of a certain environment and set of natural and human resources. The students learned that green manures and composting provided viable alternatives to chemical fertilizers on these farms, that farmers could live with a low level of weed infestation in fields, and that biodiversity in the field margins and natural areas on small farms were part of the total ecosystem. The experiences provided a bridge to the principles they had learned previously in classes, and students were learning about holistic farming design using ecological models as the starting point. This is a clear bridge between farmer experience and science.   2. Building farm and food systems designed using ecological principles Central to agroecology is the application of ecological principles to design farming systems that are more dependent on internal, renewable resources and less on imported fossil fuels and their derived production inputs. Nutrient and water cycles, natural methods of pest protection, and conservation of energy through practices that mimic the functions of natural ecosystems are emphasized in texts and journal articles in agroecology (eg. Gliessman 2007). Research in science to better understand how structure and function in alternative systems contribute to productivity and stability has increased in recent years, although there is still a domination of the chemical and industrial paradigm in most education in agriculture. One of the best RAHMANN G & AKSOY U (Eds.) (2014) Proceedings of the 4th ISOFAR Scientific Conference. ‘Building Organic Bridges’, at the Organic World Congress 2014, 13-15 Oct., Istanbul, Turkey (eprint ID 24012)   901 sources of empirical data, perspectives, and applications of ecoprinciples is still the collective experiences of farmers.   Although experienced farmers on the ground may not use the same terms as scientists in universities, farmers possess a wealth of information and practices that need to be observed, evaluated, and incorporated into a comprehensive agroecological education for students. Obviously not everything is correct, nor can all practices be widely applied. This is where student and instructor energy, careful consideration of the literature, and common sense come into evaluation. We have found that student observations of farmer practices and the ideas gleaned from interviews can be highly instructive in helping us all bridge the gap between farmers and university. Although we are hesitant to challenge the conventional wisdom of practices that appear to work on a particular farm, we can inquire together with students about how and why a specific activity is successful, whether that is consistent with research information, and how important context can be  in the evaluation of practices and results. This is a learning process that involves students, farmer clients, and instructors working together to ‘bridge the gap’.  3. Shifting from disciplines to whole systems thinking Implicit in the agroecosystems analysis of farms and food systems is the importance of shifting beyond comfortable disciplinary boundaries and into the mode of whole systems thinking. The classical disciplines, as well as ecological principles, are all human constructs that we use for convenience to understand and communicate about components and systems. Farmers are by nature holistic thinkers, although they may appear to focus down on specific components such as which hybrid to plant or what weed management strategy to apply. While conducting interviews with farmers, our students at times express frustration with not being able to get answers to all their pre-designed questions. Their clients may pursue what appear to be tangents to the questions, while in fact they are hoping to communicate the complexity of problems and how so many issues are connected. This is a good lesson coming from interviews, and students profit by the broad perspective uncovered by interviews even while talking about specific practices and rotations. Multiple crops and crop/animal integrated systems are particularly interesting because of the complexity of their structure and the multiple objectives farmers have in their design and expected diversities outputs.   4. Integrating the human dimension into evaluation of food systems Perhaps the most complex challenge for students is incorporating the human component into their thinking and analysis of systems. This is likely due to their prior focus on the biophysical and economic issues, one by one, without explicitly thinking that the bridges that link all the components are more than nutrient/crop interactions or responses to irrigation, but are obviously related directly to the human management of the system. Students uncover incredible complexity on the farm, and even more in community food systems. They grapple with how to understand complexity by using a series of ‘agroecosystems analysis’ tools, including social science methods, and strive to use science to put a foundation under what are observed as practical and functioning systems on the farm and in the community (Rickerl and Francis 2004). These provide essential perspective for designing potential future scenarios, our preferred output from student teams, rather than specific solutions or rigid recommendations.  Conclusions We conclude that the agroecology MSc course in autumn at NMBU provides both safe space and a stimulating team environment that fosters systems learning as well as gains in confidence for communicating with a range of stakeholders in the field. Communication is key to bridging of knowledge from farmers and other clients and academic science from the university. Through multiple interviews and  data collection in the field, access to official statistics, use of tools from both natural science and social science disciplines, and reflection on results students are empowered to learn about complex farming and food systems and to use the results to design potential scenarios to present back to their clients in the field. This learning approach is then applied to a thesis project that culminates the agroecology MSc degree, and phenomenology as a foundation for learning has proven successful for more than a decade in agroecology at NMBU.    FRANCIS C, et al Bridging farmer experience and science: agroecological learning strategies for sustainable farming systems   902 References Altieri MA (1983): Agroecology. Univ. California Press, Berkeley, California, USA.  Breland TA, Lieblein G, Morse S, & Francis C (2012): Mind mapping to explore farming and food systems interactions. NACTA Journal 56(1), 90-91.  Francis C, Lieblein G, Gliessman S, Breland TA, Creamer N, Harwood R, Salomonsson L, Helenius J, Rickerl D, Salvador R, Wiedenhoeft M, Simmons S, Allen P, Altieri MA, Flora C, & Poincelot R (2003): Agroecology: ecology of food systems. Journal Sustainable Agriculture 22(3), 99-118.   Francis C., Morse S, Breland TA, & Lieblein G (2012): Transect walks across farms and landscapes. NACTA Journal 56(1), 92-93.   Lieblein G, Breland TA, Morse S, & Francis C (2011): Visioning future scenarios. NACTA Journal 55(4), 109-110.   Lieblein G., Breland TA, Salomonsson L, Sriskandarajah N. & Francis C (2008): Educating tomorrow’s agents of change for sustainable food systems: Nordic Agroecology MSc Program. Journal of Hunger and Environmental Nutrition 3(2), 309-327.   Lieblein G. & Francis C (2007): Towards responsible action through agroecological education. Italian Journal of Agronomy/Rivista Agronomia 2, 79-86.   Ostergaard E, Francis C, & Lieblein G (2013): Practicing and preparing for stakeholder interviews. NACTA Journal 57(1), 97-99.  Rickerl D & Francis C, editors. Agroecosystems analysis. Agronomy Monograph No. 43, American Society of Agronomy, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.  Wezel A, Bellon S, Dore T, Francis C, Vallod D, & David C (2009): Agroecology as a science, a movement or a practice. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 29(4), 503-516.  

EVALUATION OF STUDENT REFLECTIVE DOCUMENTS IN AGROECOLOGY EDUCATION: A QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF EXPERIENTAL LEARNING

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Organic Eprints

Organic Eprints