December 22nd, 2024

Sustainable Agriculture and Wetland Preservation: Building Mutually Beneficial Relationships

By Darien Ripple

Link to the JSE December 2024 CECR Issue Table of Contents

Ripple JSE Dec 2024 CECR Issue PDF

 

Abstract: This article provides an overview and reflective narrative of a partnership between Grand Valley State University (GVSU) and Ducks Unlimited (DU) to build mutually benefiting relationships with agricultural communities to preserve and restore healthy wetlands through sustainable farming practices. The partnership involved GVSU students engaged in Human-Centered Design (HCD) working with DU managers, policy makers, and researchers to observe various sectors of agricultural communities and authentically communicate with stakeholders. Through the design thinking process of empathy, ideation, and defining concepts and values, students developed educational programs and protypes focusing on communication efforts aimed towards a new generation of farmers who study agricultural sciences and natural resources. The article observes and analyzes a multi-semester case study that demonstrates best practices in sustainability education by developing holistic education plans involving systems thinking to implement and lay the groundwork for sustainable agricultural practices. The first project involved an educational programing designed for the FFA National Convention to serve as the launching point for a positive education experience economy to establish DU as a familiar ally in sustainable agriculture practices. The second project is a restoration proposal for 34 acres of farm fields at GVSU to become a multiuse sustainable agriculture and wetlands experiential learning center. The case study provides evidence that students who engage in learning through doing such as visiting restoration sites with regional biologists to observe eco-services, talking with farmers about their livelihoods, and meet with local government representatives to explore the challenges associated with transition areas between suburbia, farms, and forests can provide mutually benefiting solutions to promote sustainable agriculture and wetland preservation. The application of HCD by students enhanced their awareness of grassroots level needs of local communities, governments, and non-profits to create new sustainability initiatives.

Keywords: community partner, sustainability education, design thinking, experiential learning, interdisciplinary curriculum

Introduction

Design Thinking to Meet Real-World Needs (INT-323) is an upper-division general education course offered through Brooks College of Interdisciplinary Studies at Grand Valley State University (GVSU), a public liberal arts university in West Michigan providing undergraduate and graduate degrees. INT-323 is designed to have students work in interdisciplinary teams with a client to solve a real world need of an organization, institution, or company (Dreamson & Khine, 2022). Through transdisciplinary applied research, students consult and collaborate with stakeholders and experts to provide a client with a prototype and/or plan to meet a particular need (Brown, 2009; Kroper et al., 2010). Some past clients and projects for the course have been the Boy Scouts of America to design an experiential STEM camp for unrepresented populations, GVSU College of Education to rethink the recruitment of students into the teaching profession, and Founders Brewery to design and market a “Born and Brewed in Michigan” beer (Ripple, 2023).

In the spring of 2021, GVSU began a partnership with Ducks Unlimited (DU) to have INT 323 students work though the design thinking process on a sustainable agriculture and wetlands project. DU is a non-profit organization founded in 1937 with the primary goal of wetland conservation. DU currently has over 700,000 members and in 2019-2020 raised 230 million dollars of which 83 percent went directly to wetland conservation. A team of four DU managers and research scientist at the state, regional, and national level were brought together to work with the course instructor and INT 323 students.

The partnership involved GVSU students engaged in Human-Centered Design (HCD) working with DU managers, policy makers, and researchers to observe various sectors of agricultural communities and authentically communicate with stakeholders. Through the design thinking process of empathy, ideation, and defining concepts and values students were tasked with determining how to build relationships with agricultural communities and create a meaningful awareness of the interdependencies between agriculture and healthy wetlands and the potential for mutually beneficial outcomes. The goal of the partnership was to motivate the agricultural sector to recognize and engage in sustainable agricultural practices that promote productivity while maintaining ecosystem services.

The GVSU/DU Sustainable Agriculture and Wetland Project was from August 2021 through December 2023 involving 20 experts in the agriculture sector working with 68 students from four course sections on two projects (Appendix A). The project is considered a “wicked problem” because students assessed the complexity of ecosystems while focusing on land and watershed management with stakeholders that have different lifeworlds and priorities. Wicked problems can be difficult to make sense of in that they tend to be hard to define and there are not clear and familiar solutions or consensus for the multiple stakeholders with various agendas (Ramaley, 2015; Weber & Khademian, 2008). The project involved a transdisciplinary research approach to the wicked problem through a systems lens incorporating research, education, and policy. This article provides an overview and reflective narrative of the partnership and case study by observing and analyzing two multi-semester projects (IRB Protocol Number 20-191-H). GVSU students involved in the partnership demonstrated best practices in sustainability education by developing holistic education plans involving systems thinking to implement and lay the groundwork for sustainable agricultural practices that mutually benefit stakeholders.

Sustainability Education by Design Thinking
Sustainability in higher education was founded as a pluralistic subject to be approached by multiple disciplines and lens. Sustainability education as an emerging pedagogy focuses on learner-centered active learning that emphasizes the holistic nature of systems thinking as a way of transforming behaviors (Burns, 2011; Sterling, 2004). The intent is for students to engage in creative problem solving that acknowledges personal and intellectual tensions in the process of discovering solutions through interconnections to wicked problems concerning issues in sustainability (Block et al., 2019). A real-world form of engagement that motivates students to learn and take ownership of the world they have inherited (Sterling, 2021). Sustainability education is premised on the idea that learning is not exclusive to the classroom and ought to involve opportunities for non-formal and joint learning to research, debate, and analyze moderately structured or unstructured sustainability problems.

Design thinking as a problem-solving process compliments the pluralistic nature of sustainability education in that the process begins with the premise that there is not just one right answer to a problem or need, but multiple ways of arriving at solutions. Design thinking is a collaborative method of researching through diverse approaches to resolve complex design needs by exploring a variety of possible solution paths (Brown, 2009; Kroper et al., 2010). Design thinking includes a mixture of divergent thinking to generate choices and convergent thinking to sort through possible options to arrive at a solution. Design thinking provides greater understanding of a problem by engaging alternative visions that included different insights (Dreamson & Khine, 2022; Kelly, 2016). This problem-solving process also includes analysis to breakdown complexed issues and synthesis to provide context for the application of ideas.

INT 323 is designed as a collaborative experiential learning model which includes traditional lectures in a formal classroom setting to establish theories associated with the course and the particular project. But more importantly, the course integrates nonformal hands-on learning addressing a client’s real-world need. Students do this by engaging in HCD incorporating empathy, ideation, and implementation of a prototype to be assessed by the client, so that they can refine the project (Brown, 2009; Kelly, 2016). The intent of the course is to have students learn design thinking by doing (Oxman, 2004).

Figure 1. Grand Valley State University students on a fieldtrip with a landowner, Ducks Unlimited and Fish and Wildlife Service representatives

Wicked Problem

The DU team approached the partnership by providing several possible research projects such as recruitment, retention, and reactivation of DU membership, and waterfowl habitat and water quality. In taking into consideration that GVSU was founded in rural Ottawa County in the 1960s which is currently experiencing rapid urban spawl, a project focusing on the role of wetland habitats in agricultural sustainability was a wicked problem that fit well with the scope of the course. Students would engage in HCD to observe the social interactions of multiple stakeholders with competing perspectives while attempting to find solutions surrounding ecosystems and water management (Block et al., 2019; Weber & Khademian, 2008). DU implements a collaborative problem-solving approach of working with researchers, policy makers, and stakeholders to restore waterfowl populations (van der Valk, 2018) which both serves as a positive mentoring process for INT 323 students and demonstrates how institutions of higher education could work with communities outside of academia (Ramaley, 2015).

An estimated 53 percent (over 220 million acres) of wetlands including up to 80% in some Midwest states have been lost in the United States of American since the founding of the country. Wetlands (swamps) were historically viewed as dark, gloomy places that harbored disease, and obstacles to agriculture and urban development (Herbert & Coluccy, 2021). Early European Americans influenced by the Protestant work ethic viewed uncultivated land as of a lesser value and set out to tame the wilderness in a quest “civilize the country” (Nash, 2014). The development of drainage tiles began the transformation of wetlands into farm fields between 1880 and 1920 and along with poor methods of land management contributed to the dust bowl era drought conditions of the 1930s which devastated farming communities (van der Valk, 2018).

The green revolution of Post-World War Two America with the invention of hybrid drought resistant seeds, insecticides, and petroleum-based fertilizers, allowed for the expansion of food production, although in time would be at a social, economic, and environmental cost (Mann, 2001; Woodbridge, 2004). The dominant corporate model in agriculture production which focuses on short-term financial profits that are dependent on market forces promote farming practices that create monocultures such as corn-soybeans crop rotation, while allowing for soil erosion that creates water quality concerns and contributes to gulf hypoxia from artificial nitrogen. The structural nature of industrial agriculture limits farming practices and the autonomy of farmers, while pushing small family farms out of business. As a result, many agricultural communities have not tended to focus on the need for biodiversity conservation in reference to crop production and ecological economics (luliano, 2024).

Thus, any policy or plan to re-envision the role of wetlands in the United States should include effective communication and collaboration with American farmers. Farmers in the 21st Century are living in more marginalized communities. By 2030 only 13percent of Americans will be living in farming communities competing for natural resources and social services in a country where there is a greater divide between urban/rural populations. Farmers feel they are ideologically isolated from urban areas and disenfranchised by politicians that ignore their local knowledge and enact policies that disregard their cultural or faith-based values, resulting in unintended consequences that have been detrimental to their livelihoods (Nabhan, 2018). This trust deficit with mainstream society and government agencies coupled with a view that wetlands are a waste of good cropland further impede farmers from adapting conservation friendly agriculture practices. And yet, the preservation and reintroduction of wetlands into agricultural communities can be beneficial to farmers and the commons. The reintroduction of wetlands can provide ecosystem services including flood control, water supply, flood and erosion control, fish and pollinator habitats, as well as recreation and education opportunities (Whole Farm Conservation Best Practices Manual, 2020).

Educational Design and Case Study

The educational design of INT 323 consists of a variety of active learning methods structured to have students solve a need of a client or organization. Students engage in a situated learning design that develops their ability to interpret, comprehend, analyze, and find solutions for a client. The intent is for students to gain knowledge and skills that can be put into practice while finding solutions that are disseminated to diverse stakeholders (Weber & Khademian, 2008). Students working with a client on a project take ownership of their learning process, become motivated to adopt knowledge, and develop a willingness to finding real solutions (Hyytinen et al., 2023; Orr, 2002). The oscillating nature of thoughts and communication that can be entangled in the lifeworld of students sifting through values such as democracy and capitalism while assessing artifacts associated with everyday issues involving sustainability engages students in active learning that can be transferred beyond the course providing lifelong skills (Block et al., 2019; Hyytinen et al., 2023; Trechsel et al., 2023).

INT 323 is an upper-division general education course without prerequisites thus most incoming students are not familiar with the subject. Students tend to be novices to the subject, so the structure of the course involves a process of sequence and reinforcement (Vella, 2002) which establishes general ideas, skills, and ways of collaborating in the beginning of the semester that will be applied to more complex problem-solving as the project progresses. In the first four weeks of a sixteen-week semester, the course primary focuses on teaching students about design thinking and necessary knowledge and skills required to successfully engage in solving a client’s need. This normally includes reading materials, videos, guest speakers, and lectures from the instructor to provide relevance and context to the course and project, but also weekly discussion forums, and World Café (Brown & Isaacs, 2005) style collaborations to encourage students to share knowledge and perspectives (Appendix B). Almost all of the students were unfamiliar with DU, farming, and wetland conservation, so establishing a knowledge base became center to learning goals in the beginning of the course.

Each semester in week five of the course, students are assigned into teams of four to six members who will work together throughout the rest of the semester. As an upper-division general education course, teams are intentional matched with members that are from different majors having different skill sets and perspectives. The format of the course after week five continues to provide presentations from experts, although there are less lectures and students engage in more hands-on work going on fieldtrips and further researching and working on the project. The teacher’s role becomes a facilitator who directs students towards relevant resources and provides feedback on prototypes, plans, and presentations. In week twelve via Zoom, teams present the client with a prototype and/or plan and receive feedback from the client. Through the process of ideation, students research and revise a final version of the project for the client in week sixteen.

The GVSU/DU partnership involved 68 students from four different semesters working on ways to promote wetland conservation and sustainable agriculture practices in farming. What is unique about the format of the course and project is that each of the four semesters involved a new set of students to work on the project. All four semester involved DU team members zooming into the course to educate students about the history, goals, and operations of the non-profit. For example, students are introduced to DU’s community-based collaboration process of protecting waterfowl habitats and restoring wetlands by working as partners with private landowners and agricultural communities. This is achieved through direct fee title acquisition of property and conservation easements where landowners maintain ownership of the property. All students participating in the project went on field trips with DU biologists and researchers who guided students in the terminology of the project by demonstrating examples of sustainable agriculture and wetland restoration. Also, students every semester engage in HCD listening to the perspectives of farmers.

 

Figure 2. Grand Valley State University students observe how an edge-of-field pond is constructed and maintained

What differed each semester and will be described and explored in this section is that a new set of students entered the project at different stages of the design and development. All sections engaged in the design thinking process of inspiration, ideation, and implementation of a prototype and plan, but after the initial semester, proceeding sections borrow and rework ideas from previous sections. The partnership produced two projects involving students from Fall 2021 and Winter 2022 sections and a different project involving students in Winter 2023 and Fall 2023 sections.

Project 1- FFA National Convention

In August 2021, 15 INT 323 students began the process of developing a program that would influence farmers to adopt sustainable agriculture practices and efforts aimed at wetland restoration. As novices to the project, students began taking a deep dive into the subject and engaged in the process of empathy to better understand agricultural communities and farming practices by listening to experts in the field and farmers. In the first few weeks of the course students learned from guest speakers that there is not a single definition of a good farmer and there are multiple generations of individuals who come at the practice from a variety of angles. The identities of farmers and their families will vary according to the local, social, ecological, and agricultural systems. What farmers have in common is that their livelihood is dominated by an industrialized agriculture system that has concentration planting options, reducing food into a commodity. This system has farmers in a financial state that makes them very unwilling to deviate from the norm by adopting new (or reintroducing old) practices that might be a perceived threat to their livelihood.

In conversations with the DU team, it was determined that students would be split into three teams of five students who would focus on three different aspects of sustainable agriculture: in-field conservation practices, edge-of-field conservation practices, and sustainable grazing. Each team was asked to provide a project brief (Appendix C) that included a task, goal, background, problem statement, objectives, target audience, key attributes and benefits, communication priorities, and creative considerations to be included in the week 12 prototype. Students engaged in transdisciplinary research that begins with divergent thinking (open-ended to generate ideas), and then engaging in convergent thinking (sorting through the possibilities) to provide project briefs.

In the last four weeks of the semester while revising the final presentation, students rethought their communication priorities in respect to getting “traditional” farmers. Through the design thinking process of empathy, ideation, and defining concepts and values (Brown, 2009), students determined that DU communication efforts should focus on a new generation of farmers such as those who study agricultural sciences and natural resources in FFA high school programs. In addition, students from this first semester laid the foundations for future course sections by defining key aspects of the project and providing valuable information about farming communities.

After the final presentation in the Fall of 2021, the DU team expressed interest in having the 15 new INT323 students provide an educational program to be introduced to high school students at the 2022 FFA National Convention (https://convention.ffa.org). The convention would serve as the launching point of a positive education experience economy to establish DU as a familiar ally in sustainable agriculture practices such as edge-of-field conservation, in-field conservation, and sustainable grazing. The Winter 2022 students borrowed the research including project briefs with historical context, facts, and definitions from the previous semester.

In week five, students were assigned into three teams of five, although this time each team would focus on providing their own prototype and presentation. Students focused on the concept of a positive experience economy as put forth in Change by Design by Tim Brown (Brown, 2009). Students engaged in human-centered design to think about what it is like for a high school student to be interacting with the booths, technology, and DU representatives. They began thinking about the full experience journey including ways to leverage touchpoints and build relationships between DU representatives and FFA students. Teams engaged in the process of empathy to develop ways to go beyond a generic experience and assuring FFA students would be involved and actively participating in meaningful and emotionally satisfying experiences. After the week 12 presentation, all teams worked together on a combined and revised final presentation that included selected ideas from all presentations that the DU team thought would work best for the project.

The final plan and prototype for the FFA convention booth embedded a positive experienced economy which would begin a month before the conference with a social media plan to generate excitement in FFA attendees. Design thinking students developed daily media posts for Instagram and Snapchat such as FFA Friday where attendees could send in photos of their chapters to become a featured story at the DU booth. Once the attendees were at the conference, the DU booth would have QR codes linked to websites, articles, videos, and even a sustainable agriculture themed phone game app.

 

Figure 3. A prototype depicting a short film to be displayed at the Ducks Unlimited booth

The prototype included a detailed description of video to be played at the booth. INT 323 students researched and provided options for interactive edge-of-field conservation models that could be displayed at the booth and less expensive models to be given away as door prizes to schools attending the conference. The booth would provide FFA advisors with free supplemental course materials coordinating with FFA curriculum and learning objectives involving experiential learning lesson plans (Appendix D). Finally, INT 323 students proposed that current DU scholarships should be revised and connected to sustainable agriculture and wetland conservation. The scholarships could be promoted at the conference connecting FFA and DU to opportunities in higher education. Students proposed that DU create essay and social media scholarships that focused on sustainable agricultural techniques to benefit waterfowl populations that could be promoted to farming communities.

 

Figure 4. Ducks Unlimited booth display at the 2022 FFA National Convention

Project 2 – Sustainable Agriculture and Wetland Conservation Experiential Learning Center

In the Fall of 2022, the INT 323 course did not make because of scheduling issues, although the DU/GVSU partnership continued the planning process by going in a new direction to promote sustainable agriculture and wetland preservation in West Michigan. During a conversation about this partnership with GVSU facilities, the instructor discovered that the university owned 100 acres of farmland near the Allendale campus that was being leased out to a farmer including 34 acres surrounding the five-acre GVSU Sustainable Agriculture Project (SAP) which has community gardens and experimental growing plots.

 

Figure 5. A map that displays the farm fields at Grand Valley State University

In January 2023, 14 INT 323 students began researching and developing a prototype to create a Sustainable Agriculture and Wetland Conservation Experiential Learning Laboratory on the 34 acres. The students would continue the task and goal of the DU partnership focusing on being a familiar ally in sustainable agriculture practices, while also borrowing information from ideations of past projects. The previous research into sustainable farming practices and the creation of a positive education experience economy would serve as the foundations of the new project.

Winter 2023 students in week five were divided up into three teams and would separately create a prototype and plan by means of the design thinking process. Teams were tasked with creating a prototype for a working agriculture field that also served as an experiential learning lab focused on edge-of-field and in-field conservation practices. Students were to research the historical nature of land use at the property and surrounding area to determine how to best communicate with local communities and organizations who might use the lab. As with the Winter 2022 semester, individual teams would present prototypes in week 12 and the best ideas were selected by the DU team to be ideated into one final prototype in week 16.

The final prototype presentation put in context that over 60% of wetlands in Ottawa county had originally been lost to the creation of farmlands, but between 2012-2017 the county lost eight percent of its farmland to development, along with 17 percent of the farms. The students conveyed a message that there was a need for a place that could highlight both the importance of farming and wetland conservation. The 34 acres were an ideal location because the SAP was an existing location for engaging in sustainable agricultural practices. The presentation provided previous definitions and resources from project one to properly communicate a need for sustainable agriculture and wetland preservation. The prototype of the proposed learning lab included maps laying out how the 34 acres would be used, including a pavilion, walking paths, educational signs with QR codes, experiential learning stations, and native plants.

Figure 6. A prototype of a QR code that is linked to a website with information about the proposed GVSU Sustainable Agriculture and Wetland Conservation Learning Lab

INT 323 students concluded the presentation by focusing on their communication priority to convince the GVSU administration to develop the 34 acres into an active farm field that also could be an experiential learning lab. The students appealed to GVSU’s commitment to sustainability by noting their involvement in the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE) by maintaining a gold rating in the Sustainability Tracking, Assessment & Rating System (STARS) program since 2013. The learning lab could also be used by GVSU students taking courses from land management, biology, environmental studies, education, and other majors that engage in experiential learning. The lab could also be for K-12 field trips, FFA students working on certifications, and community members visiting the site to watch birds. The learning center would be used to educate a wider audience to the importance of family farming and wetland preservation. The idea of creating connections to wetlands through wildlife recreation should increase community members’ involvement in wetland conservation (Rutter et al., 2022).

The Fall 2023 INT 323 section was the final semester of Project 2 and involved 24 students that would be formed into four teams going through the same timeline and educational process of the previous semester. The design thinking teams engaged in empathy and ideation to refine the prototype, presentation, and plan developed by winter 2023 students. The winter 2023 prototype was presented to the facilities office who after review suggested the project be put forth for approval by the GVSU Real Estate Committee. This meant that the Fall 2023 students needed to focus on a connection to the SAP, GVSU’s strategic plan, estimated costs of the project, and additional funding sources.

INT 323 students proposed to expand the area surrounding the current SAP to include an interactive wetland (edge-of-field conservation) with a watch tower and duck blinds for outreach and educational purposes, and to work with FWS to improve the quality of GVSU farmland by strategically implementing sustainable agricultural practices. The final prototype and plan included creating an enclosed multipurpose pavilion that could be used by GVSU classes to engage in experiential learning at the lab, but also could be rented out for special events such as weddings and corporate retreats. With the addition of a pavilion, students also introduced a parking plan necessary for K-12 field trips and FFA learning events.

Students included a detailed description and budget to restore the land. FWS would provide services to create habitats for migratory birds and native pollinators by establishing wetland restorations and grassland/pollinator plots. The 34 acres would create educational opportunities, while minimizing loss of cropland by providing creative ways to improve agriculture (irrigation/drainage/pollination). FWS and DU would be able to support the restoration project technically and financially, and students further researched possible corporate sponsors for the education center. Some examples of sponsors included John Deere, Purina, and Michigan based Kellogg’s. The final presentation also provided a detailed description of what kind of materials could be used for the pavilion and paths which would be ADA compliant.

Design thinking students in both the FFA National Convention and Sustainable Agriculture and Wetland Conservation Experiential Learning Center projects engaged in HCD incorporating empathy and creativity to develop holistic education plans involving systems thinking to implement and lay the groundwork for sustainable agricultural practices. The two projects in this case study provide evidence that INT 323 design students demonstrated the ability to interpret, comprehend, analyze, and find solutions for developing mutually benefiting relationships to promote sustainable agriculture and wetland conservation. In March 2024, the GVSU Real Estate Committee voted to move forward on having the 34 acres surveyed by FWS for the development of the experiential learning lab. FWS followed up in December 2024 providing GVSU with a project proposal including blueprints, budget, and timeline.

Figure 7. A prototype of the proposed Sustainable Agriculture and Wetland Conservation Experiential Learning Center

Conclusion

This article presents a multi-semester case study of design thinking students applying HCD by incorporating empathy and creativity to develop holistic education plans involving systems thinking to implement and lay the groundwork for sustainable agricultural practices. The students applied design thinking practices to engage in a wicked problem by considering the various competing perspectives and social interactions of multiple stakeholders to find mutually benefiting land and water management solutions to improve the commons and lives of farmers (Kroper et al., 2010). Students engaged in the process of empathy to recognize a trust deficit farming communities had with mainstream society and government agencies. Students made effective communication and collaboration with American farmers a priority in planning educational programs to promote and reintroduce wetlands and adapting conservation friendly agriculture practices.

Students engaged in learning through doing by visiting restoration sites with regional biologists to observe eco-services, talking with farmers about their livelihoods, and meeting with local government representatives to explore the challenges associated with transition areas between suburbia, farms, and forests gaining a better understand of sustainable agriculture, the needs of stakeholders, and skills necessary for sustainability education. In doing so, this article challenges the role of university faculty to embrace deeper engagement in the societal issues that reach into the communities that our universities are embedded (Ramaley, 2015).

Design thinking is not a new process for engaging in wicked problems, although this article provides a blueprint for successfully networking and collaborating with local communities, businesses, governments, and non-profits. The transdisciplinary nature of this project involved cooperation between academics and other societal actors such as biologist policymakers, governmental as well as non-governmental agencies, K-12 and higher education, and farmers to meet a complex societal challenge (Block et al., 2019; Klein, 2021). Students went beyond passively reviewing information provided by interdisciplinary perspectives to critically engaging in societal attitudes motivated by personal values while providing solutions to a wicked problem (Trechsel et al., 2023). This HCD educational framework provides students with the skills to better understand needs of local communities, governments, and non-profits. The educational framework can be adapted to similar projects promoting new sustainability initiatives. HCD incorporates empathy as a way of making authentic connections with stakeholders and their lifeworlds in developing mutually beneficial relationships at both grassroots and international levels.

Appendix A

INT 323 – Design Thinking to Meet Real World Needs
August 2021 – December 2023

Ducks Unlimited Team

Dr. Ellen Herbert – Ecosystem Services Scientist
Dr. John Coluccy – Director of Conservation Planning
Mark Flaspohler – Director of Conservation Programs & Farmer
Kali Rush – Regional Biologist

*Each semester the DU team made presentations and were responsible for mentoring students and assessing projects

Presenters for the Project

Fall 2021

Jeff Hanratty – Sustainability Leader, General Mills
Gib King – Service Biologist, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Richard Schwallier – Farmer
Dr. Tim Boring – Founder & President, Michigan Agriculture Advancement & Farmer
Kellis Moss – Director of Public Policy, Ducks Unlimited
Chris Sebastian – Public Affairs Coordinator, Ducks Unlimited
Trey Malone – Assistant Professor, Michigan State University & Farmer

Winter 2022

Dr. Kaylan Kemink – Director of Conservation Planning, Ducks Unlimited
Mark Horobetz – Manager of National R3 Program, Ducks Unlimited
Samantha J. Ludlam – Agriscience Teacher & FFA Advisor, Coopersville High School & Farmer
Dr. Jacob DeDecker – 4-H Youth Development Director, Michigan State University
Mark Fitzpatrick – Parks Director, City of Ada

Winter 2023

Adam Putnam – CEO, Ducks Unlimited
Chris McLeland – Director of Agriculture Programs, Ducks Unlimited & Farmer
Richard Schwallier – Farmer
Dr. Yumiko Jakobcic – Director, GVSU Office of Sustainability Practices
Samantha J. Ludlam – Agriscience Teacher & FFA Advisor, Coopersville High School & Farmer
Dr. Chelsea Duball – Assistant Professor, GVSU Biology Department
Brent Rudolph – Director of Sustainability Partnerships, Pheasants Forever & Quail Forever

Fall 2023

Dr. Yumiko Jakobcic – Director, GVSU Office of Sustainability Practices
Gib King – Service Biologist, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Samantha J. Ludlam – Agriscience Teacher & FFA Advisor, Coopersville High School & Farmer
Dr. Chelsea Duball – Assistant Professor, GVSU Biology Department
Dr. Tim Boring – Director, Michigan Agriculture & Rural Development & Farmer

Appendix B

Week of 9/11/23 – Change by Design

The following assignment must be completed before 9/12/23 @ 11:59PM:

Watch: Scroll down and watch Farmer of the Year; Trusted Advisor of the Year; and Collaboration of the Year
https://fieldtomarket.org/our-programs/awards-and-recognition/sustainability-leadership-awards/

Read: Change by Design by Brown, Introduction & Chapter 1

Watch: Man in the Maze
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BN9JR6n6EMU&t=98s

Review: Week 3 PowerPoint

Due: Discussion I – (Post by 9/12/23 @ 11:59PM & respond by 9/13/23 @ 11:59PM)- Students will post 3 paragraphs analyzing Chapter 1 of Change by Design by Tim Brown and respond with at least 1 paragraph to 2 other posts (5% of grade). Make sure to provide evidence from the reading (direct quotes with page numbers) to support your claims.

On Campus – 9/13/23

Guest Lecturer: Farmers Perspective – Mark Flaspohler – DU Director & Farmer

World Café: Change by Design by Brown, Introduction & Chapter 1

Exercise: Systems Thinking & Wicked Problems

Appendix C

Ripple Appendix C

Appendix D

Lesson: In-Field Practices: Tilling, Crop Rotation, and Cover Crops
Duration: 35 minutes
Grade Level/Class: High School Agricultural Science A

Lesson Overview
Students will explore 3 types of in-field practices: tilling, crop rotation, and cover crops. Students will travel to a local farm and have a lesson with the farmer. He/She will show the students pictures of the farm after in-field practices have been completed.
After the lesson, students will:

  • Be able to describe the difference between tilling, cover crops, and crop rotations
  • Be able to appreciate the benefits of each in-field practice (tilling, crop rotation, and cover crops)
  • Be able to understand the costs of each in-field practice

Learning Objectives

  • Apply principles and practices of sustainable agriculture to plant production (i.e., calculate cost/benefits, plan production, identify certifying options) (Pathway II.C.5)
  • Develop and implement a fertilization plan for specific plants or crops (Technical II.B.3)
  • Develop a fertilization plan using the results of an analysis and evaluation of nutritional requirements and environmental conditions (Pathway II.A.1)
  • Evaluate soil/media nutrients using tests of appropriate materials and/or by examining data (Pathway II.A.2)

Resources

  • Whole Farm Conservation Best Practices Manual (recommended)
  • https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/cmis_proxy/https/ecm.nrcs.usda.gov%3A443/fncmis/resources/WEBP/ContentStream/idd_C0C69073-0000-C21A-BD7D-EB376097921E/0/WholeFarmConsPractice_CLG105.pdf

Curriculum Resources

  • https://www.canr.msu.edu/agriscience/curriculum/segments/

 

References

Block, T., Van Poeck, K., & Östman, L. (2019). Tackling wicked problems in teaching and learning. Sustainability issues as knowledge, ethical and political challenges. In K. Van Poeck, L. Östman, & J. Öhman (Eds.), Sustainable development teaching: Ethical and political challenges (pp. 28-39). Routledge.

Brown, J., & Isaacs, D. (2005). The world café: Shaping our futures through conversations that matter. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

Brown, T. (2009). Change by design: How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation. HarperCollins.

Burns, H. (2011). Teaching for transformation: (Re)designing sustainability courses based on ecological principles. Journal of Sustainability Education, 2.

Dreamson, N., & Khine, P. H. H. (2022). Abductive reasoning: A design thinking experiment. The International Journal of Art and Design Education.

Herbert, E., & Coluccy, J. (2021). Meet the client: Ducks Unlimited. Ducks Unlimited.

Hyytinen, H., Laakso, S., Pietikäinen, J., Ratvio, R., Ruippo, L., Tuononen, T., & Vainio, A. (2023). Perceived Interest in Learning Sustainability Competencies Among Higher Education Students. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 24(9), 118-137.

Kelly, R. (2016). Creative development: Transforming education through design thinking, innovation, and invention. Brush Education Inc.

Klein, J. T. (2021). Beyond interdisciplinarity: Boundary work, communication and collaboration. Oxford University Press.

Kroper, M., Lindberg, T., & Meinel, C. (2010, November 2010). Interrelations between motivation, creativity and emotions in design thinking processes – An empirical study based on regulatory focus theory. 1th International Conference on Design Creativity, Kobe, Japan.

luliano, B. (2024). No farm is an island: Constrained choice, landscape thinking, and ecological insect management among Wisconsin farmers. Agriculture and Human Values.

Mann, C. (2001). 1493: Uncovering the new world Columbus created. Alfred A. Knopf.

Nabhan, G. P. (2018). Food from the radical center: Healing our land and communities. Island Press.

Nash, R. F. (2014). Wilderness and the American mind (Fifth ed.). Yale University Press.

Orr, D. W. (2002). The nature of design: Ecology, culture and human intention. Oxford University Press.

Oxman, R. (2004). Think-Maps: Teaching design thinking in design education. Design Studies, 25(1), 63-91.

Ramaley, J. A. (2015). Navigating the rapids: On the frontiers of the knowledge revolution. Liberal Education, 101:4/102:1(Fall 2015/ Winter 2016), 36-43.

Ripple, D. (2023). Design thinking: Chasing the what if. Issues In Interdisciplinary Studies, 41(Fall), 47-76.

Rutter, J. D., Dayer, A. A., & Raedeke, A. H. (2022). Ecological awareness, connection to wetlands, and wildlife recreation as drivers of wetland conservation involvement. Wetlands, 42, 1-14.

Sterling, S. (2004). Higher Education, Sustainability and the Role of Systemic Learning. In P. B. Corcoran, Wals & A. E. J. (Eds.), Higher Education and the Challenge of Sustainability -Problematics, Promise, and Practice. Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Sterling, S. (2021). Educating for the Future We Want. In The Pedagogy of Transition: Great Transition Initiative.

Trechsel, L. J., Diebold, C. L., Zimmermann, A. B., & Fischer, M. (2023). Students between science and society: Why students’ learning experiences in transformative spaces are vital to higher education institutions. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 24(9), 85-101.

van der Valk, A. G. (2018). Assisting nature: Ducks, “Ding” and DU. Wetland Science and Practice, 35(2), 60-67.

Vella, J. (2002). Learning to listen, learning to teach: The power of dialogue in educating adults. Jossey-Bass.

Weber, E. P., & Khademian, A. M. (2008). Wicked Problems, Knowledge Challenges, and Collaborative Capacity Builders in Network Settings. Public Administration Review, 68(2), 334-349.

Whole Farm Conservation Best Practices Manual. (2020).

Woodbridge, R. (2004). The next world war: Tribes, cities, nations, and ecological decline. The University of Toronto Press.

| | PRINT: print




Leave a Reply