This article was downloaded by: [Flinders University of South Australia]On: 04 October 2014, At: 01:34Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: MortimerHouse, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Journal of Agricultural Education and ExtensionPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/raee20

Making the move: a case study in participatorycurriculum development in Danish forestryeducationSusanne Leth a , Nico Hjorts⊘ b & Nadarajah Sriskandarajah c

a Unit of Learning and Interdisciplinary Methods, Department of Economics and NaturalResources , The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University , Rolighedsvej 23, DK -1958, Frederiksberg C Phone: +45 3528 2377 Fax: +45 3528 2377 E-mail:b Unit of Forestry, Department of Economics and Natural Resources , The RoyalVeterinary and Agricultural University , Rolighedsvej 23, DK - 1958, Frederiksberg CPhone: +45 3528 2901 E-mail:c Unit of Learning and Interdisciplinary Methods, Department of Economics and NaturalResources , The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University , Rolighedsvej 23, DK -1958, Frederiksberg C Phone: +45 3528 3432 E-mail:Published online: 30 Jul 2007.

To cite this article: Susanne Leth , Nico Hjorts⊘ & Nadarajah Sriskandarajah (2002) Making the move: a case study inparticipatory curriculum development in Danish forestry education, The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension,8:2, 63-73, DOI: 10.1080/13892240285300041

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13892240285300041

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose ofthe Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be reliedupon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shallnot be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

March 2002

M a k i n g the Move: a Case Study in Par t ic ipa tory C u r r i c u l u m Development in Danish Forestry Educa t ion

Susanne Leth*, Nico Hjortse** and Nadarajah Sriskandarajah***

Abstract

This paper aims to contribute to the experience based on ways of integrating the concept of sustainability into higher education in forestry. It starts by discussing some interpretations of the concept of sustainability and the implications of this for educational goals. The types of competencies needed and their interrelationship and importance are characterised. The specific educational innovation of holding a participatory curriculum development workshop to enable students to influence the design and planning of two of their forest management courses is then described. Finally, the implications of our findings for the integration of the concept of sustainability in the forestry curriculum are discussed. JAgr Educ Ext (2002, 8~ 2, pp 63- 73)

Introduction

The way in which higher education is organised and offered has significant implications for the strive by human beings towards sustainable development. This issue has been given increased attention by politicians, educators and practitioners (Wals and Bawden, 2000; Van de Bor et al., 2000; Walker et al., 2000). The immediacy of the issue was recognised during the 15th European Seminar of Extension and Education held in Wageningen in August 2001. Integration of sustainability into natural resource management education was the main theme of a workshop at the seminar and this was organised by the EU Socrates Thematic Network for Agriculture, Forestry, Aquaculture and Environment (AFANet). Our dependency on the global forest resource as well as the implications for other environmental, agricultural or rural development studies underline the importance of obtaining experiences from the practice of

educational experimentation in higher education and the importance of communicating such experiences. This paper is an attempt to communicate one such experience based on ways of integrating the concept of sustainability into higher education in forestry.

Education at The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University in Denmark (KVL) is aimed at including ecological, economic, social, recreational and technical aspects in the forestry curriculum. This aim is derived from a Brundtland perception of sustainability (WCED 1987) as representing an agreement across generations about balancing economic, ecologic and social dimensions of practising forestry (Larsen 1997). Even though social and recreational aspects are explicitly mentioned as issues to be dealt with in education, the curriculum is still very much focused on aspects of natural science and economics. This means that, in practice, the curriculum still embraces a

* Susanne Leth, Unit of Learning and Interdisciplinary Methods, Department of Economics and Natural Resources, The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Rolighedsvej 23, DK - 1958 Frederiksberg C. Phone: +45 3528 2377. Fax: +45 3528

3709. Email: sul@kvl.dk ** Nico Hjortso, Unit of Forestry, Department of Economics and Natural Resources, The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural

University, Rolighedsvej 23, DK - 1958 Frederiksberg C. Phone: +45 3528 2901. Email: cnh@kvl.dk *** Nadarajah Sriskandarajah, Unit of Learning and Interdisciplinary Methods, Department of Economics and Natural Resources,

The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Rolighedsvej 23, DK - 1958 Frederiksberg C. Phone: +45 3528 3432.

Email: sri@kvl.dk.

63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flin

ders

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Aus

tral

ia]

at 0

1:34

04

Oct

ober

201

4

The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 2002, vol. 8, no. 2

concept of productivity grounded mainly in economics and ecology. In this paper, the experiences with an educational innovation aimed at rethinking parts of forestry education at KVL are described. The innovation was part of a larger effort to establish a foundation for educating forest managers within the paradigm of sustainability. The paper starts by discussing some interpretations of the concept of sustainability and the implications of this for educational goals. The types of competencies needed and their interrelationship and importance are characterised. The specific educational innovation of holding a participatory curriculum development workshop to enable students to influence the design and planning of two of their forestry management courses is then described. Finally, the implications of our findings for the integration of the concept of sustainability in the forestry curriculum are discussed. This discussion pays special attention to students' reactions to their involvement in a participatory curriculum development workshop, which was aimed at changing the content of parts of their education.

Concepts of sustainability and competencies to be achieved through education

From a normative perspective, widespread agreement exists on the objective that contemporary higher education in natural resource management must enable students to contribute to environmentally sustainable resource management (Wals and Bawden, 2000; Van de Bor et al., 2000). On the other hand, what is understood by 'sustainable development' may vary greatly, depending on the value system and perspective of the observer. For example, Barrett and Grizzle (1999) identify four value systems found in contemporary environmental discourse, namely, biocentrism, ecocentrism, strong anthropocentrism and weak anthropocentrism. Another distinction can be made between monistic and pluralistic approaches. The monistic position searches for central principles, which form the basis for a unified form of ethics from which all moral judgement can be derived. Pluralists, on the other hand, recognise as valid a variety of approaches and ethical frameworks, which can be used to address moral issues.

Meppem and Gill (1998) in their review of different meanings of sustainable development,

64

argued that the popularity of the definition used by the WCED could be 'attributed to its ambiguity, appealing equally to those with a focus on regenerative capacity of the environment and to those who focus on the potential for technological progress to adapt to changing conditions'. Complexity of biological, environmental, socio-cultural and economic systems hinder conventional processes of scientific verification. This is because scientific positivism cannot adequately address the political and cultural issues, which arise when designing action for sustainable development (Hutchcroft, 1996, in Meppem and Gill, 1998). Here we are presented with one of the major issues in education when making the move from the productivity paradigm to the sustainability paradigm. Natural resource management education in the old paradigm relied primarily on positivist science assuming objective knowledge. In the new paradigm, management is perceived as embedded in a cultural setting where normative beliefs and values shape knowledge and judgmental choices through social practice. In this perspective, knowledge is considered context-dependent. Stakeholders hold very different assumptions regarding the physical nature of problems, on the different management objectives and their relative importance, as well as about what constitute adequate indicators of sustainability. This underlines the importance of addressing stakeholder assumptions, in this case those of the students, and designing process- focused problem solving, starting from an understanding of the problem and issues and then deciding which methods and theories will best help to address them. These considerations led Meppem and Gill (1998) to suggest an alternative definition of sustainability (Box 1).

Designing higher education aimed at preparing professionals to act within this perspective will need a rethinking of curriculum and educational principles. In discussing the educational content in forestry education and based on Illeris (1995), we find it fruitful to divide competencies into three categories, namely, specific, general and personal.

Specific competence is closely related to the physical and technical practice concerning work and can be achieved through the content of education, for example, competence in natural science areas such as biology or soil science.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flin

ders

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Aus

tral

ia]

at 0

1:34

04

Oct

ober

201

4

Leth, Hjorts~ and Sriskandarajah

General competence is associated with achievement of a broader understanding of the context of practice/work, which make possible the transfer of known concepts to new and unknown areas. General competence can also be achieved through the content of education, for example, competence in planning and management theory. Personal competence encompasses competencies that are necessary for carrying out tasks, but closely related to the individual's own personality. These competencies are the result of socialization and can be strengthened through the organization of education. Examples include the ability to co-operate and communicate, and demonstrating empathy and flexibility.

Figure 1 provides an illustration of how we interpret the relationship between these three types of competencies within the productivity and sustainability paradigms respectively. In the former, specific competencies constitute the major educational content. In Denmark, forestry education traditionally focuses on providing specific competencies within a range of disciplines such as chemistry, geology, mathematics, statistics, economics and ecology. During the latter stages of education, these competencies are built on further through 'cap

stone' courses aimed at providing general competencies associated with management and planning. The courses entitled Silviculture and Forest and Natural Resource Planning are examples of such courses. But even these courses focus mainly on the application of specific competencies, although they are offered in the broader context of forest management. Personal competencies are only ever addressed through a two-week introductory course given prior to the students undertaking of a group-based Bachelor project. Personal competencies meaningful for the students' future professional performance are not addressed explicitly at any other stage during their Masters education in forestry.

Education aimed at providing competencies in line with the definition of sustainability given in Box 1, should recognise the three types of competencies equally. Specific and general competencies in process design and management are required, for example, to organise and facilitate participatory learning, conflict manage- ment, problem-solving, public participation, and negotiation processes. Personal competence must be developed to enable managers to perform as facilitators, to engage in and reflect on learning processes (including their own), and to engage in group decision-making and teamwork. Finally, awareness, understanding of and sensitivity to the

Paradigm of productivity Paradigm of sustainability

Figure 1. Prioritising of specific (S), general (G) and personal (P) competencies in tertiary education under the paradigms of productivity and sustainability.

65

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flin

ders

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Aus

tral

ia]

at 0

1:34

04

Oct

ober

201

4

The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 2002, vol. 8, no. 2

pluralism in ethical and philosophical positions held by stakeholders, involves different types of competencies. Following this, forestry education should, as much as possible, be organised to foster integration of all three types of competences in the learning situation.

Soft operations research methods

In relation to natural resource management in general, the most significant difference between the two paradigms, described above, is the emerging recognition of an explicit integration of a social dimension and a personal (subjective) dimension in the foundation for management. Mingers and Gill (1997) provide a conceptual framework that supports the integration of problem-solving and a holistic approach to management. They argue in favour of a multi-

paradigm multi-methodology approach that integrates Habermas' (1984) distinction of our relations to, and interactions with, three worlds: the material, the social and the personal world, with a four-phased model of intervention consisting of: appreciation, analysis, assessment, and action (Box 2). Box 2 indicates the implications of acting in the sustainability paradigm showing the character and range of diverse situations and tasks that problem-solving, conflict management and participatory processes must be able to address.

A focus on problem-solving, conflict management and participatory decision-making is one obvious way to develop and extend the traditional problem-solving approaches within operations research (OR) approaches. There are tools already well-known in forestry and

Box 1. A definition for sustainability from a learning perspective (From Meppem and Gill, 1998).

Sustainability describes a state that is in transition continually:

(1) The objective of sustainability is not to win or lose and the intention is not to arrive at a particular point. (2) Planning for sustainability requires explicit accounting of perspectives (world view or mindset) and

must be involving of broadly representative stakeholder participation (through dialogue). (3) Success is determined retrospectively, so the emphasis in planning should be on process and collectively

considered, context-related progress rather than of achieving remote targets. A key measure of progress is the maintenance of a creative learning framework for planning.

(4) Institutional arrangements should be free to evolve in line with community learning. (5) The new role for policy makers is to facilitate learning and seek leverage points with which to direct

progress towards integrated economic, ecological and socio-cultural approaches for all human activity.

Box 2. Problem solving in a holistic perspective. The figure illustrates the diversity in tasks related to enquiry processes depending on whether social personal or material aspects are addressed (From Mingers and Gill 1997).

Social

Personal

Material

Appreciation of

Social practices, power relations

Individual beliefs, meanings, emotions

Physical circumstances

Analysis of

Distortions, conflict, interests

Differing perceptions and personal rationality

Underlying causal structure

Assessment of

Ways of altering existing structures

Alternative conceptualisations and constructions

Alternative physical and structural arrangements

Action to

Generate empowerment and enlightenment

Generate accommodation and consensus

Select and implement best alternative

66

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flin

ders

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Aus

tral

ia]

at 0

1:34

04

Oct

ober

201

4

agricultural production planning within the productivity paradigm to achieve this, often referred to as 'hard' quantitative methods. Hard methods have been criticised for their lack of ability to address psychological, sociological and political aspects, which are main contributors to the complexity and messiness of problems. 'Soft' OR, focusing on problematic situations characterised as 'messes', have grown from the 'hard' tradition. Ackoff (1974) introduced the distinction between "problem' and 'mess', describing 'a mess' as a set of external conditions that produces dissatisfaction. The kind of management questions, which must be addressed in the paradigm of sustainability, are characterised as being conflicts or as messy situations. The intention of soft OR is to address messy situations through interpretative inquiry into the subjective understanding of a situation by the problem owners, whereas hard OR operates with an objective and value-neutral search for solutions. The so-called soft or interpretative paradigm in management science and OR provides a platform for dealing with the social and personal dimensions of problem-solving and conflict management. Serensen and Vidal (1999) argue that the role of soft OR is 'to encourage creativity, and engagement among participating individuals by developing the political and social environment in which decisions are made'. Soft OR interventions are mostly facilitated processes and being a good facilitator requires specific, general as well as personal competencies.

Participatory curriculum development

From the above descriptions it becomes clear that a move towards sustainability in forestry relates to an achievement of competencies needed to perform in modern natural resource management, that is to say, to perform in participatory processes. A possible tool relevant for use in the practical sustainable natural resource management is soft OR, with methods and methodologies which focus on participation and problem-solving seen as a learning process. To follow these ideas of how to perform in real- life natural resource management into the educational setting poses many challenges for the arrangement of education and for providing the students with an optimum balance between theory and practice. In this way the faculty's effort to integrate sustainability in the forestry

Leth, Hjortso and Sriskandarajah

curriculum consisted of an introduction of new content and new tools as well as organising appropriate learning situations. As participation is central in the new paradigm, it seemed obvious to involve the students in the process.

At KVL, student participation in curriculum or course development is primarily achieved through written course evaluations and discussions with the teachers on completion of each course unit. Usually, based on such evaluation, minor revisions are made to the courses from year to year. Involvement of students in the entire development process is uncommon at KVL and the case study described here is, to our knowledge, the first example of student participation in the planning stages of course development. Taylor (2000) proposed a model of Participatory Course Development (PCD) consisting of five inter-related areas, namely, situation analysis, aims, planning, implementation and evaluation, typically addressed in this order. In comparison with Taylor's model, the present case study included activities in the first three areas of Taylor's development cycle, namely, situation analysis, aims and planning. These were applied to the development of a course plan with the aim of integrating parts of the two existing courses entitled Silviculture and Forest and Natural Resource Planning. The two faculty members in charge of the course were given a free hand to develop the curriculum. Central to the process was the conviction that the integration of the social dimension of sustainable management was essential. In the initial process of setting course aims, considerations in line with the above discussion on paradigmatic change led to the introduction of soft OR as a foundation for complex problem-solving and conflict management. After preliminary situation analysis and definition of course aims, it was decided to proceed with a participatory process where students were actively involved in further analysis, objective setting and planning of the course.

The workshop process

The objectives of the workshop can be summarised as follows: • To make students recognise the need for a shift

in the forestry curriculum towards a paradigm of sustainability

67

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flin

ders

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Aus

tral

ia]

at 0

1:34

04

Oct

ober

201

4

The Journal o f Agricultural Education and Extension, 2002, vol. 8, no. 2

• To introduce students to soft OR methods and the learning aspect of problem-solving

• To allow students to a gain practical experience in problem-solving and negotiation

• To engage students in participatory curriculum development by having them define objectives, formulate course content, develop a time schedule and activity plan, and if possible reach consensus on this course plan

• To design a workshop which enabled the development of personal, specific and general competencies, these being integrated in each activity

The overall purpose of the workshop was to create a participatory process where students had an opportunity to influence the development and planning of the new integrated course. The teachers decided beforehand the frames and requirements to be met by the students in the new plan. Those can be summarised as follows:

Should relate to the objectives for the education and its other courses Should relate to silvicultural as well as socio- economic and political problem areas Should provide acquaintance and experience with problem identification and analysis, planning and implementation, communication, aspects of participation, learning and techniques used for negotiation Should include problem-oriented project-based group work Form of evaluation and examination to be decided finally by teachers

First, students formed six groups with six to eight persons in each and commenced situation analysis by reflecting on their expectations about future professional careers, discussing what social aspects these career expectations implied and identifying which competencies they thought they would need to acquire. Second, each group engaged themselves in a problem identification and structuring workshop where they used one of six soft OR methodologies/methods, described in the textbook for the course, Sorensen and Vidal (1999). The methods were as follows: SWOT analysisl; Future Workshops2; Scenarios3; Strategic Option Development and Analysis4; Strategic Choice ApproachS; and Soft Systems Methodology 6. Six volunteers from the class were instructed in one of the six methodologies/methods and were prepared for the facilitation task.

68

The problematic situation presented to the class required them to define course objectives based on the situation analysis made previously and to design a plan for the course. They were provided with a handout describing the structural and formal limitations and the resources available for the course. The third requirement was for the six groups to negotiate a process design that could be used by all of the groups to merge their plans into a single course plan, preferably based on consensus within the entire student group. Finally, the students were required to undertake this consensus negotiation, reach a result, verify its feasibility with the teaching staff, and present the course plan.

Prior to the group work, students were introduced to Kolb's learning theory (Kolb, 1984) with a focus on the role of learning by problem-solving. Students worked through Kolb's Learning Style Inventory and exchanged experiences from previous learning situations with each other. Also, a short introduction to the paradigmatic discussion outlined in this paper was given prior to group work.

The workshop outcomes, especially concerning the students' reactions to the innovation, were evaluated using three questionnaires. These questionnaires, designed to enhance the students reflections, were given in the beginning, during and at the end of the workshop. The outline of the questionnaire can be characterised as quantitative but with few open-ended questions. The six facilitators were interviewed as one group, using a semi-structured interview format and allowing a conversation flow. This interview dealt with the different methodologies used, how they could be implemented in the students' planning process and about the working process in the groups. Participant observations of the workshop process were also made.

Experiences from the workshop

The students were informed about the workshop and introduced to its aims and content during a plenary session. Most of the students reacted with great surprise and uncertainty to this introduction and the information about the consequences for the rest of the courses in Silviculture and Forest and Natural Resource Planning. They reacted with scepticism and reluctance concerning the change of course

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flin

ders

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Aus

tral

ia]

at 0

1:34

04

Oct

ober

201

4

content and raised questions regarding the feasibility of such a change within the existing curriculum, course descriptions and rules of the study board. They were concerned about the possible disparity between the courses they chose from the study handbook and what they were going to get. Seen as most problematic was the impression that these changes would lower the importance of biological and ecological contents in the Silviculture course, and therefore a possibility of not achieving enough specific silvicultural knowledge. Concerning this, they also expressed the feeling that the new content was more relevant for a change in the Planning course rather than in the Silviculture course.

Immediately after the plenary introduction of the workshop, the students were given the first questionnaire. Contrary to what might have been expected on the basis of the students' reaction to the introduction session, the picture that emerged from their responses to this questionnaire was much more positive. Students who had previous experience with similar workshops or process- oriented courses expressed positive feelings towards the workshop. Concerning those previous experiences, they valued most the achievement of what we would describe here as personal competencies. These included the abilities to co-operate, communicate, give and receive critique and learn about their own strengths and weaknesses. They expected this workshop to give them further tools and experiences to improve on those competencies. When commenting on the relevance of the workshop in their education, the students made arguments such as:

Silviculture will not be seen as isolated from the rest of the society It is important to deal with Conflict Management It is positive to be involved and integrated in the planning process of the courses and to gain influence over their own education Problem-solving as a theme is important

The students expected the workshop to provide an environment where they, as individuals, would be given the chance to influence the result and, as a group, would be able to reach consensus about a final suggestion to the planning of the autunm semester.

From observations made and the questionnaire given during the workshop and based on

Leth, Hjortso and Sriskandarajah

interviews of the student facilitators, the overall reaction of the students to the educational innovation could be outlined here. During the workshop, the students continued to express a positive attitude similar to those uncovered from the first questionnaire. They valued not only the possibility to forward their own ideas and influence others, but also the fact that their peers had the same possibilities. They gained an understanding of the existence of different learning styles, therefore of different individual modes of problem-solving, and they recognised this as a potential benefit for the decision process. The process itself was seen as demanding. On the other hand, they appreciated the organization of the workshop and valued the possibility to deal with the problem of planning for the autumn semester. However, it was evident that the process had a limited impact on their view of what a good course plan was.

With regard to the use of the specific soft OR methods, the students were uncertain as to how much they actually relied on them during the planning process. The facilitators themselves expressed some uncertainty about the use of the techniques. It appeared that the groups used the techniques mainly as inspiration and relied more on a mixture of previous knowledge and skills gained from similar processes, for example, from working in groups with their Bachelor level projects. The facilitators had found it difficult to use the techniques in practice, but agreed that the techniques had provided a structured and constructive process.

The most important and valued aspect of the final process of negotiation seemed to be the ability to reach consensus about the objectives for the autumn semester and the way it was possible for the students to structure this process. Generally speaking, the students reacted positively to their being involved in the planning process. The workshop was rated as highly relevant, because of the opportunity it gave them to influence their own education and the possibility it gave them for achieving personal competencies relevant to the future. Several of the students expressed astonishment over the diversity within the class, regarding their desires for future employment. This seemed to have changed their image ofthemselves as a very homogeneous group.

69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flin

ders

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Aus

tral

ia]

at 0

1:34

04

Oct

ober

201

4

The Journal o f Agricultural Education and Extension, 2002, voL 8, no. 2

When it came to the content of the two courses, Silviculture and Forest and Natural Resource Planning, which were the object of the workshop, the students' main concern regarding possible change of content in the courses had to do with the silviculture course rather than with the planning course. They felt that the new direction would imply a trade-off between a new focus on conflict management/problem-solving and the usual focus of the course on specific silvicultural competences. Furthermore, this concern about limited acquisition of specific silvicultural knowledge from the course led to the students expressing a sense of insecurity concerning what this change would mean for their examination, their performance in it as well as for their future employment. Evaluating the three questionnaires together, the most striking observation was the difference between their reactions initially, when the workshop was introduced to them, and their eventual reaction after completion of the problem-solving and negotiating tasks during the workshop. The questionnaires uncovered the diminution of the resistance so markedly demonstrated at the beginning. The students expressed a very positive attitude towards the opportunity they had to build on what we consider here as personal competencies and some of the general competencies. Their concern for the promised specific competencies, however, remained even at the end of the workshop.

The outcome and the content of the final plan for the autumn semester can be summarised as follows:

Introduction to theories of conflict management, negotiation, systems-thinking, qualitative methods, stakeholder democracy, power and participation Workshops in conflict management and negotiation with involvement of different types of stakeholders Introduction to different tree species (ecology and growth) and silvicultural systems in relation to the educations excursion at Master level

The final course plan produced through consensus at the workshop and the manner in which it was to be implemented, reflected the views of the students and maintained the clear distinction they made between silvicultural issues and social issues.

Discussion

A basic assumption behind the identification of course aims by faculty members and course teachers was that the explicit integration of the social dimension in the forestry context is crucial when preparing students for sustainable management of natural resources. This assumption is not trivial to the students. Many did not share the same perspective and did not necessarily see the need for explicit integration of a social dimension in silviculture. On the other hand, the need for integrating the social dimension in the overall forestry curriculum was recognized, as long as it did not compromise the offering of specific silviculture competence. It seems that when students view themselves as members of a modern society, or consider the very likely scenario that they may have to seek employment outside the primary forestry sector, they then see the importance of achieving personal competencies and valued the opportunity to learn through the workshop. These results from the workshop outcomes are in congruence with results from a questionnaire given to the same students at the beginning of the silviculture course 7. Students' responses to this questionnaire revealed that the understanding of forest practice among forestry students, and their thoughts on competencies needed for this practice, were mainly grounded in what we in this paper have described as the productivity paradigm. This has some interesting implications for the participatory curriculum development process. It is obvious that most students saw the situation very differently from the teachers and members of the faculty involved. The teachers did recognise the importance of managing this difference in perspectives but they did not deal with it successfully. The workshop was a success from an instrumental perspective, in enhancing awareness of problem-solving, facilitation and learning issues. Whether it created enough acceptance of the need for specific forest related education to move towards a paradigm of sustainability is questionable. This was illustrated by the final course plan produced during the workshop where the distinction between silvicultural issues and social issues were clearly made.

This raises a fundamental theme in participatory curriculum development: If students and teachers do not share a common platform of values,

70

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flin

ders

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Aus

tral

ia]

at 0

1:34

04

Oct

ober

201

4

norms and assumptions about reality, they may formulate very different educational aims and objectives. In the case of a perceived need for a paradigmatic change this becomes crucial. A fundamental paradox remains:

How can we create educational change through participatory processes i f students do not see a need for change? The assumption behind this question is that educators can claim a superior position in relation to setting the teaching aims and can remain in power to do so. This was the situation in relation to this case study. Normally, it is during the course revision process when students have the chance to influence courses that have already been taught, through their evaluation of courses. Here, student participation was designed to focus on the planning part of the development cycle, that is to say, issues of course content and form, whereas the initial stages of analysis and setting aims were primarily a normatively driven top-down approach. This approach did not lead to change in perspective. This raises the following question:

What kind o f power relations should exist between educators and students in the process o f participatory educational change? In our understanding of the paradigm of sustainability, teaching implies a shift from the former authoritative mode towards a student- empowering form of co-operative and autonomous mode (Heron, 1999). This implies an extensive distribution of power to the students and a situation where the educational situation must become subject to dialogue, debate and negotiation between involved parties. This position makes a normative process of setting course aims in a top-down manner questionable. If we intend to move towards sustainability, we must recognise that the faculty's normative position is only one out of several perspectives, which are subject to discussion. Discussions over general, ethical and moral issues, as well as the philosophical basis for courses, are not common in traditional natural science education systems. But engagement in such discussions is fundamental for facilitating change. A move towards a paradigm of sustainability may imply a radical change in individual values, norms and beliefs. The challenge seems to be to create a common platform of understanding. The educational innovation attempted here failed in

Leth, Hjortso and Sriskandarajah

doing so. Because the process was concerned with change of a paradigmatic character, it becomes fundamental to challenge the norms, values and beliefs of all participants, including the teachers. This raises the question:

How can we structure participatory processes that explicitly challenge participants' worldviews and foster reflectivity ? Changes or innovations in higher education may address different institutional levels, such as course plans, as in this case study, an entire program of study or whole educational systems, as was the case with the University of Western Sydney, Hawkesbury in Australia (Bawden 2000). The design of participatory change processes will depend on the institutional context. For example, at the course level, the time available, personal resource base and background of the teaching staff may constitute limitations to what kind of processes are feasible. An innovation cannot be seen in isolation. In the case study here, an explicit attempt was made to move towards a paradigm of sustainability at the course level. The participants were still heavily grounded in a paradigm of productivity and the culture of a traditional educational system. If changes are to be made within the framework of existing institutions, this kind of incremental change process seems to be the only likely approach available.

Conclus ions

We wish to conclude the discussion of this case study experience by evoking a more difficult question. Is it possible to change educational systems toward a paradigm of sustainability through incremental change processes at specific course level or can this move only occur through more radical change processes at programme and institution levels? Our case study showed that the pathway of incremental change constitutes a significant challenge to educators. Our students do not clearly see how the ethical rationality of the new paradigm relates to forest management issues in a Danish forestry context. Wals and Bawden (2000) refer to this problem when they ask, 'How can we expect someone to take interest in problems that seem physically, socially and psychologically remote?' On the other hand, the case study also showed that students were open-minded and did recognise the educational content implied by the change. They also seemed

71

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flin

ders

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Aus

tral

ia]

at 0

1:34

04

Oct

ober

201

4

The Journal o f Agricultural Education and Extension, 2002, vol. 8, no. 2

capable of dealing with the risk of accepting a new initiative. The different perspectives taken by the learners on silviculture and general management can be used to explain this apparent contradiction. This does indicate the likelihood for changes implied by the move towards sustainability to be implemented at course level. But, if the faculty desires a clear linkage of this to be made to forest management, then they are faced with the challenge of convincing students that such a linkage exists in a Danish context. Experiential learning theory has shown us the importance and role of real-life experiences in

the learning process. Incorporating experiences, which highlight the need for change towards sustainability in forest management, seems to be the most important activity for the faculty to engage in, in order to establish a common platform of understanding. If this link can be established convincingly, a general acceptance of the ethical foundation of the paradigm of sustainability seems achievable, not just in forestry education but in all endeavours of preparing professionals for a role in natural resource management.

Notes

1 SWOT refers to the analysis of an organisation's internal Strengths and Weaknesses, and its external Opportunities and Threats (see e.g. Weihrich, 1982).

2 A future workshop is a methodology developed for activating a democratic basis for critique and development of ideas for a wanted future (see e.g. Jungk and Miillert, 1989).

3 Scenarios are used to gain insight of future possibilities to enable an organisation to make necessary and possible decisions to meet the future in the best way (see e.g. Godet, 1994).

4 Strategic Option Development and Analysis (SODA) is a methodology that aims at creating a common understanding of the characteristics of a situation as the basis for a negotiation phase (see e.g. Eden, 1989; Eden and Ackermann, 1998).

5 Strategic Choice Approach is a planning methodology focused on management of risk and uncertainty in problem-solving and decision-making (see e.g. Friend and Hickling, 1997).

6 Many describe Soft Systems Methodology, developed by Peter Checkland, as an almost ideal method for structuring problems in the way it combines hard systems thinking in a soft problem structuring process (see e.g. Checkland, 1988).

7 Susanne Leth gave this questionnaire as a part of the empirical studies in a science educational research project. The results from the questionnaires are discussed in greater details in Leth & Sriskandarajah (2002).

References

Ackoff, R. L. (1974). Redesigning the Future: A Systems Approach to Societal Problems. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Inc.

Barrett, C. B. and R. Grizzle (1999). A Holistic Approach to Sustainability Based on Pluralism Stewardship. Environmental Ethics 21 (1): 23-42.

Bawden, R. (2000). Of Reform and Transformation: A Case Study in Curriculum Innovation. Workshop: Changing Learning and Education in Forestry. 16th-19 th April 2000, Sa Pa, Vietnam.

Checkland, P. (1988). Soft Systems Methodology: Overview. Journal of Applied Systems Analysis 15: 27-30. Eden, C. (1989). Using Cognitive Mapping for Strategic Options Development and Analysis (SODA). In:

Rosenhead, J. (ed.), Rational Analysis for a Problematic World. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons. Eden, C. and E Ackermann (1998). Making Strategy. The Journey of Strategic Management. London: SAGE

Publication. Friend, K. J. and A. Hickling (1997). Planning under Pressure. The Strategic Choice Approach. Oxford:

Butterworth-Heinemann. Godet, M. (1994). From Anticipation to Action. A Handbook of Strategic Prospective. France: UNESCO

Publishing. Habermas, J. (1984). The Theory of Communicative Action. Volume 1. Reason and the Rationalization of

Society. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

72

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flin

ders

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Aus

tral

ia]

at 0

1:34

04

Oct

ober

201

4

Leth, Hjorts~ and Sriskandarajah

Heron, J. (1999). The Complete Facilitator's Handbook. London: Kogan Page Ltd. Hutchcroft, I. (1996). Local Authorities, Universities and Communities: Alliances for Sustainability. Local

Environment 1 (2). Illeris, K. (1995). L~ering, udvikling og kvalificering, [Learning, Development and Qualification], 6. delrapport

fra Almenkvalificeringsprojektet. Erhvervs- og voksenuddannelsesgruppen, Roskilde Universitetscenter. (In Danish).

Jungk, R. and N. M~illert (1989). Hhndbog i Fremtidsv~erksteder [Handbook in Future Workshops]. Copenhagen: Politisk Revy. (In Danish).

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experimental learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Englewood Cliffs, N J: Prentice-Hall.

Larsen, B. (1997). Skovbruget ved en skillevej - teknologisk rationalisering eller biologisk optimering? [Forestry at crossroads - technological rationalisation or biological optimising?] S~ertryk af Dansk Skovbrugs Tidsskrift, 82.~rgang. (In Danish).

Leth, S. and N. Sriskandarajah (2002). Moving beyond Productivity - Incorporating Sustainability in Forestry Education in Denmark. Proceedings of The Fifth IFSA European Symposium, Florence, Italy, April 8th-11 th. (In press).

Meppem, T. and R. Gill (1998). Planning for Sustainability as a Learning Concept. Ecological Economics 26: 121-137.

Mingers, J. and A. Gill (eds.) (1997). Multimethodology: The Theory and Practice of combining Management Science Methodologies. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

Sorensen, L. and V. Vidal (1999). Strategi og planl~egning som l~ereproces. Seks blode fremgangsm~ider [Strategy and Planning as a Learning Process. Six Soft Approaches] Copenhagen Business School Press. (In Danish).

Taylor, P. (2000). Improving Forestry Education through Participatory Curriculum Development: A case study from Vietnam. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension. 7(2): 93-104.

Van den Bor, Holen, P., Wals, A. E. J. and Filho, W. (eds.) (2000). Integrating Concepts and Sustainability into Education for Agriculture and Rural Development. Frankfurt/M, Peter Lang Publishers.

Walker, K., Thomas, I. and Wals, A. E. J. (2000). Sustainability as Innovation: Changing Higher Education in two Australian Universities. Paper presented at the 2000 American Educational Research Association meeting held in New Orleans in April 24-28 2000.

Wals, A. E. J. and Bawden, R. (2000). Integrating Sustainability into Agricultural Education: Dealing with complexity, uncertainty and diverging worldviews. Interuniversity Conference for Agricultural and Related Sciences in Europe (ICA). AFANet 2000.

Weihrich, H. (1982). The TOWS Matrix: A Tool for Situational Analysis. Long Range Planningl5(2): 54-66). World Commission of Environment and Development (WCED) (1987). Our Common Future (The Report of the

Brundtland Commission). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flin

ders

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Aus

tral

ia]

at 0

1:34

04

Oct

ober

201

4