Using multidisciplinary, conflict-based experiential learning to train students on how to address controversy at the public-private land interface
Teaching at the public-private land interface
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56103/nactaj.v66i1.15Keywords:
multidiciplinary, conflict-based, experiential, conservation, controversyAbstract
Agricultural and natural resource managers face complex problems that involve thinking across multiple disciplines, particularly in North America where professionals often have to work in multi-use landscapes containing both private and public lands. Here we describe a multidisciplinary, conflict-based experiential learning course we developed to prepare students to address complex issues facing future managers working at the public-private land interface. Using both pre- and post-course surveys and qualitative analysis of reflective essays, we observed that following our course students (1) were more aware of conservation needs and more sensitive to perspectives of various stakeholder groups concerning those needs, (2) embraced complexity and multidisciplinary thinking needed to address management challenges at the public-private land interface, and (3) showed appreciation of and became more comfortable discussing controversial issues with stakeholders and the general public. Students also became more willing to travel, work independently, and take a leading role in peer groups. By embedding students in a charged learning environment with multiple competing perspectives, our course has been able to build a more knowledgeable, empathetic and confident cohort of future employees who are better prepared to address complex issues facing agricultural and natural resource managers working at the public-private land interface.
Downloads
References
Andrade, K., C. Corbin, S. Diver, M.V. Eitzel, J. Williamson, J. Brashares and L. Fortmann. 2014. Finding your way in the interdisciplinary forest: notes on educating future conservation practitioners. Biodiversity and Conservation 23(14): 3405-3423.
Bates, S.F. 1993. Discussion paper: the changing management philosophies of the public lands. Natural Resource Law Center, University of Colorado School of Law.
Cannavò, P.F. 2007. The working landscape: Founding, preservation, and the politics of place. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Carbutt, C., W.D. Henwood and L.A. Gilfedder. 2017. Global plight of native temperate grasslands: going, going, gone? Biodiversity and Conservation 26(12):2911-2932.
Casey, B.A. 2010. Administering interdisciplinary programs. In: Frodeman, R., J.T. Klein, C. Mitcham and J.B. Holbrook (eds.). The oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Crowshoe, R. and D. Lertzman. 2020. Invitation to ethical space: A dialogue on sustainability and reconciliation. In: R. Colbourne and R.B. Anderson (eds.). Indigenous Wellbeing and Enterprise. London, UK: Routledge Press.
Easterly III, R.G., A.J. Warner, B.E. Myers, A.J. Lamm and R.W. Telg. 2017. Skills Students Need in the Real World: Competencies Desired by Agricultural and Natural Resources Industry Leaders. Journal of Agricultural Education 58(4):225-239.
Freeth, R., Clarke, E. A. and Fam, D. (In press). Engaging creatively with tension in collaborative research: Harnessing the ‘I’ and ‘we’ through dialogue. In: V. Brown, J. Harris and D. Waltner-Toews (eds.). Independent thinking in an uncertain world. London, UK: Routledge Press.
Hoogstra-Klein, M.A., V. Brukas and I. Wallin. 2017. Multiple-use forestry as a boundary object: from a shared ideal to multiple realities. Land Use Policy 69: 247-258.
Jost, J.T., J. Glaser, A.W. Kruglanski and F.J. Sulloway. 2003. Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin 129(3): 339-375.
Jungst, S.E., J.R. Thompson and G.J. Atchison. 2003. Academic controversy: Fostering constructive conflict in natural resources education. Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Education 32(1): 36-42.
Kruger, J. and D. Dunning. 1999. Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77(6): 1121-1134.
Mariojouls, C., D. Montagne, S. Boulanger-Joimel, P. Sahuc and B. Fournier. 2020. Educating for an Integrated Management of Coastal Zone: An Example of a Course Initiating to an Applied Multidisciplinary Approach. In: Ceccaldi, H.J., Y. Henocque, T. Komatsu, P. Prouzet, B. Sautour and J. Yoshida (eds.). Evolution of Marine Coastal Ecosystems under the Pressure of Global Changes. London, UK: Springer Press.
McKim, A.J., C.M. Pauley, J.J. Velez and T.J. Sorensen. 2018. Interdisciplinary Learning Opportunities in Agriculture, Food, Natural Resources, and Science: The Role of The Teacher. Journal of Agricultural Education 59(2): 179-196.
Millenbah, K.F. and J.J. Millspaugh. 2003. Using experiential learning in wildlife courses to improve retention, problem solving, and decision-making. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31(1): 127-137.
Mazurkewicz, M., A. Harder and T.G. Roberts. 2012. Evidence for Experiential Learning in Undergraduate Teaching Farm Courses. Journal of Agricultural Education 53(1): 176-189.
National Research Council (NRC). 1996. Colleges of agriculture at the land grant universities: Public service and public policy. Committee on the Future of the Colleges of Agriculture in the Land Grant University System. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Öberg, G. 2011. Interdisciplinary environmental studies: a primer. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Pauley, C.M. and A.J. McKim. 2019. Interdisciplinary connections: evaluating collaboration between afnr and leadership, mathematics, and science educators. Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies in Education 8(1): 30-44.
Pedersen, W.S., L.T. Muftuler, and C.L. Larson. 2018. Conservatism and the neural circuitry of threat: economic conservatism predicts greater amygdala–BNST connectivity during periods of threat vs safety. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 13(1): 43-51.
Quesada-Pineda, H.J., E. Adams and A.T. Hammett. 2011. Incorporating experiential teaching methods in sustainable natural resources curriculum: A case study. Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Education 40(1): 181-190.
Ryan, M.R. and H. Campa III. 2000. Application of learner-based teaching innovations to enhance education in wildlife conservation. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28(1): 168-179.
Scott, G.W., R. Goulder, P. Wheeler, L.J. Scott, M.L. Tobin and S. Marsham. 2012. The value of fieldwork in life and environmental sciences in the context of higher education: a case study in learning about biodiversity. Journal of Science Education and Technology 21(1): 11-21.
Titus, K. and D.S. Jachowski. In press. Persistent negative stakeholder perspectives limit recovery of a critically endangered carnivore. Conservation Science and Practice.
VERBI Software. 2019. MAXQDA 2020 [computer software]. Berlin, Germany: VERBI Software. Available from maxqda.com.
Wiedenhoeft, M., S. Simmons, R. Salvador, G. McAndrews, C. Francis, J. King and D. Hole. 2003. Agroecosystems analysis from the grass roots: A multidimensional experiential learning course. Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Education 32(1): 73-79.
Wisdom, J. and J.W. Creswell. 2013. Mixed methods: Integrating quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis while studying patient-centered medical home models. Rockville, MD: BMJ Publishing Group.
Yu, S.W., K. Kunkle, D. Austin, S. Heidebrink, and D.S. Jachowski. 2021. Reintroduction of plains bison to the American Prairie Reserve in Montana, USA. In: P. Soorea (ed.). Global Re-introduction Perspectives 2021. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN Conservation Translocation Specialist Group.
