Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE)
2002 Program for North American Mobility in Higher Education
Academic Enrichment and Experiential Learning
through Trilateral Curriculum Modification and
Rural Community Information Delivery
with emphasis on
Extension/Information and Animal Sciences
by
MidAmerica International Agricultural Consortium (MIAC)
through
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
College of
as the MIAC Lead University
Submitted to
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Postsecondary Education
March 28, 2002
One Page Project Summary
Project Title:
Academic Enrichment and Experiential Learning through Trilateral Curriculum
Modification and Rural Community Information Delivery (with emphasis on Extension/Information and Animal Sciences)
Summary of Program and Activities:
Our programs nurture a new agricultural leadership with the knowledge and vision to support a North American perspective and that understands and appreciates what each country and culture can contribute. FIPSE Programs have supported NAFTA initiatives by increasing human productivity, integrating knowledge, and promoting a better understanding through exchange of information, students and faculty. But, the special student mobility problems shared by agriculture colleges have caused our participation in FIPSE to be uneven.
Expense, pressure to help at home, loss of income and doubts about the value of international and language experience all discourage agriculture student participation. Rural parental apprehension, unfavorable stereotypes, fear, and misinformation about agriculture and culture-especially between the U.S. and Mexico-add to the difficulty. FIPSE student stipends are vitally important to break down student resistance. But the consortium fully understands that we must find new approaches together. We start this process with three innovative approaches: 1) Innovative organizational structure. Experienced MIAC leadership will coordinate the program, joined by AMEAS and Laval. MIAC leads U.S. universities in comprehensive programs with Mexican agriculture. Sustained without reliance on outside funding, MIAC is positioned to help smooth communication problems and attract private and other support. 2) Innovative curricula modification. We emphasize one-hour lecture modules and distance education models to engage faculty, benefit non-mobile students, and support our student recruitment needs. 3) Innovative student experiential learning. Rural community extension support programs will strengthen cultural appreciation and understanding, and enhance student employment and leadership through practical experience with new information delivery systems. We link students and student counterparts to rural families and agencies working in rural communities.
We emphasize critical mass for greater visibility and impact. We accomplish this by unifying themes in livestock and extension/communication, and by consortium sub-groups. Many vital topics need stronger emphasis in our classes. Animal science examples are: agro-terrorism and porous borders; NAFTA policy shifts impacting the sector; food safety; and closely related environmental impacts on air and water. These and similar topics will be greatly enriched by the broader North American perspective gained through our FIPSE program.
| Consortium Institutions: | United States | Canada | Mexico |
| Coordination: | MIAC | Laval University | AMEAS |
| Lead University | University of Nebraska | Laval University | Univ. Auto de Chihuahua |
| Partner Univ. #1 | Oklahoma State Univ | University of Manitoba | Univ. Auto de Chapingo |
Number and length of time of U.S., Canadian, and Mexican students targeted for study abroad: (minimum numbers) Long term: 9 per institution = 54 total. Short term: 15 per institution = 90 total.
Number of trilateral consortium meetings: 4 director + 4 consortium meetings. Year 1 in Cuernavaca, Mexico during MIAC International Food Safety Symposium. Year 2 at OSU to allow surface travel from Mexico; Year 3 at Laval. Year 4 sub group (unbudgeted) meetings at Nebraska and Manitoba; 4 MIAC-Mexico coordination meetings in DF on cost share basis.
Appendices (to be completed)
FIPSE PROPOSAL NARRATIVE
NAFTA has achieved notable success in integrating North American markets for goods and services. In each country, a more productive economy has resulted. FIPSE has supported NAFTA initiatives through university programs that increase the productivity of human resources, integrate knowledge, and promote understanding through curricula enrichment and the exchange of students, faculty and knowledge.
Unfortunately, many rural constituents have not embraced NAFTA. And participation in FIPSE North American programs has been low among our agriculture students. Strong elements of protectionism exist in rural United States, Canada and Mexico. As protectionist policies are overturned, apprehension and opposition increases. Protectionist policy often has political roots with broad support in the desire to help the family farm and the rural poor.
Our program seeks to develop a new agricultural leadership with knowledge and vision that support a North American perspective and that understands and appreciates what each country and culture can contribute. We will accomplish this through short and long term stays-- providing the pre-departure, in-country, and post-return guidance, preparation and support needed for positive student experiences. Academic advisors, student services offices, international agricultural program offices, and language programs will all be recruited to support this activity. We will accomplish a new student leadership through faculty efforts on curriculum modifications so that non-mobile as well as mobile students will gain a stronger North American perspective. One vehicle for faculty involvement is through their participation and leadership on the short- term study-travel programs. International symposia and professional meetings offer other opportunities. (The MIAC International Symposium of Food Safety to be held in Mexico offers one example). However, the limited available resources make it imperative that our consortium place high priority on faculty involvement strategies during year 1 meetings.
It is important that this program have campus visibility and support if it is to attract the student participation and institutional changes of our objectives. This is accomplished by emphasis on critical masses. These take two forms: 1) formation of two consortium sub groups; and 2) selection of unifying themes tied to specific academic programs. The unifying themes are animal science and extension/communication.
In each of our states, livestock constitutes a major economic activity. NAFTA supported policy shifts have impacted the production, regulatory standards, transportation and trade of livestock. Unfortunately, implications of the shifts and trends have not been widely integrated into our curricula. As a result of September 11, the threat of agroterrorism has gripped our nations. The potential for devastation is especially great with livestock-especially given our porous national borders. Our livestock industry is under pressure to minimize detrimental environmental consequences to air and water quality.
We cannot predetermine the specific results of curricula modification that faculty will choose to implement through our proposal. However, initial discussions indicate that gaps such as indicated above are prime candidates. Each constitutes a significant national issue with important broader North American ramifications. They are among many promising topics that can benefit from broadly based North American experience and information. We propose innovative modes of delivery to accomplish this--emphasizing distance education models. Non-mobile students will be major beneficiaries of the curriculum modifications of our proposal.
The FIPSE program is not a research support program. However, integration of North American themes into undergraduate theses, course case studies and graduate theses can broaden faculty interest while supporting our goal of creating new student leadership in agriculture. Themes related to our livestock and extension areas that plead for study transcending national borders include sustainable agriculture; community/regional development impacts; trade; integration of cattle/hog production and manure injection technology; water management policies; dairy industry marketing and pricing policies. Many of these themes for graduate and undergraduate special study require interdisciplinary and group research efforts.
Finally, dramatic demographic shifts in our states include rural out-migration in Mexico and high in-migration of Mexican workers (especially in agriculture related industries) in the U.S. and Canada. These demographic changes offer challenges to educational programs seeking to service these populations. Our approach offers to support such activity
Few U.S. and Canada extension workers have the cultural and Spanish language capability to develop materials and effectively deliver programs to Spanish-speaking populations. The meaningful rural extension and community experience programs for students can start to address these deficiencies. Students in all three countries will have the opportunity to work with new information delivery methodologies in new settings to help them become leaders in the extension field. At the same time, the community experience affords a deeper cultural understanding and appreciation across our borders
Students provide a vehicle to institutionalize curriculum modifications and exchanges into our university structures. But to provide exciting new opportunities to students, our faculty must be drawn together across national boundaries. At each university, claims against faculty time tend to be severe. While faculty support will be forthcoming from those who share a view of the worth of this initiative, even they will lose interest if communications and red-tape difficulties absorb time and frustrate tangible accomplishments.
The electronic communication linkages we will establish will greatly assist communications and support sustainable relationships--leading to broader collaborative possibilities in research and teaching. MIAC structure has an especially important role to play. Overall project coordination is provided by MIAC. Under its Mexico program, MIAC has gained extensive experience in providing solutions to the communications, cultural, and logistical difficulties that will be encountered during the FIPSE program. MIAC's principal partners in Mexico represent national networks of universities, producers associations, and research institutions. The MIAC structure has demonstrated its sustainability over the last six years. It has not been dependent on outside funding. The close relationship between the MIAC representative in Mexico, AMEAS, and the MIAC Executive Director provide a level of trust and comfort giving Mexican, U.S. and Canadian faculty and staff a "safety valve" to resolve misunderstandings before they become confrontational.
Our team building strategy is supported by an innovative organizational structure (see Figure 1, appendix) with clear lines of responsibility. If one institution encounters unanticipated difficulty in attaining a particular project objective, other members can be quickly called on for support to assure local and overall project success.
It must be emphasized that the coordination capacity that supports this structure is on-going and has been amply tested over six years of MIAC/Mexico collaboration. We have extensive experience with the hard-to-avoid technological, cultural, and communication difficulties that can diminish effectiveness. Special confidence and trust have been built between MIAC, AMEAS and various universities. We provide a buffer between institutions to help keep activity on track and avoid misinterpretation, direct confrontation, and frustration. The Canadian consortium universities fit easily into this structure. This may be expanded through Laval leadership to a French speaking e-learning consortium now in formation.
Our consortium universities already have in place diverse MOU's, working contacts, and modest activity with partners. (The appendix presents brief descriptions of examples of these relationships.) FIPSE funding will precipitate a rapid and major impact by enriching the set of institutions working together and significantly facilitating expanded activity. We believe our innovative structure can become a model for future consortia configurations emphasizing other academic areas of agriculture and rural development.
While MIAC can coordinate and facilitate communications, actual communication must come directly from the faculty and staff at our universities. Face-to-face initial contact must occur, but thereafter, other rapid, efficient, and inexpensive means must be found. Our strategy will emphasize web-based and distance education communications including email list serves, chat rooms, videoconferencing, and special web-page development. Our support from ADEC (American Distance Education Consortium) will be key in developing this strategy.
A Trilateral Structural Organizational Sub-strategy
A strength of the consortium size is the expansive and diverse institutional representation that is joined together and the mutual support possibilities. The chance for more extensive sharing of ideas and experience offers a vital catalyst for change. In addition, frustrations or limitations encountered by one member can be diminished through the shared interest in helping each to succeed. "My students' positive experience at your campus is interdependent with the success of your program!"
On the other hand, when one moves to implementation of specific program action and decisions, the consortium size can be unwieldy in energy and effort requirements. An organizational sub-strategy of our program involves two closely-knit sub-groups (yet to be named). One group includes Laval, Nebraska and Chapingo, and the other Manitoba, Oklahoma, and Chihuahua. (The logic for this grouping is based on previous relationships and special shared interests.). Long-term sustainable institutional linkages are easier when a critical mass of shared experiences is accumulated. This grouping does not preclude cross-group collaboration and the need for consortium wide sharing and concerted effort. But, strong affinity is developed when faculty and students share and retell stories involving similar references, contacts and settings.
Diverse forms of curricula modification and development are expected to result from first year (and subsequent) joint planning sessions. Our immediate strategy emphasizes the development by all members of modules to be inserted into existing courses through distance education and internet delivery models.
A Distance Education and Internet Course Module Sub-Strategy
Each member is committed to develop two types of one-lecture modules. The first is a mutually agreed upon "custom" lecture to be provided to a partner university. For example, Laval might view Chapingo existing course content and decide: "we would like something like that!" The two would agree on specifics and the receiving professor at Laval would translate and edit the module for class use and modification.
The second category of module development agreed upon by each member is a single lecture for "home use". This would typically emphasize information or understanding gained through faculty visits and supported by subsequent faculty-to-faculty communication during the year. For example, a professor at Oklahoma might want to include work at Chihuahua on triticale for forage under extreme drought conditions rather than triticale for grain. He would develop a module for internet delivery to his class using visuals, research data, faculty and graduate student interviews, etc. from the Chihuahua site.
Livestock issues, extension and communication/information delivery are unifying themes, but the modules (and exchange students) will not be limited to these areas. Annual consortium meetings will be used to discuss and exchange ideas at the level of broad interests. These will be followed by smaller group sessions to decide specific details on module agreements.
The goal of each module is "what we can provide our own students to enhance their understanding of, and interest in, our North American neighbors." All modules will be made available to all partners. In addition, the materials may be made available to our broader consortia base if intellectual property rights are not at issue. These materials will be of great importance to gain student interest and will support our student recruitment needs.
A Practicum/Village "Laboratory" Course Sub-Strategy
Just as teachers need to gain classroom-teaching experience as part of their training, we want agriculture students gain village and family work experience as part of their training. This approach will provide a more profound cultural experience in each country. It will provide the special interest materials for presentations back home to on- and off-campus groups that can help break down isolationist tendencies. Course requirements are expected to include student reports that will be shared with other groups back home.
The village strategy requires the bringing together three key groups: 1) instructors, advisors and student support staff to adequately prepare students and to define expectations and requirements for academic credit; 2) local counterpart students; and 3) community support organizations to oversee the program, legitimize with rural residents, and assure positive contributions and experiences for the students and community families.
Local student counterparts are critical to our success. The language competency and cultural understanding will not be adequate for students to work effectively in villages alone. They need companion student mentors to work with them and help interpret and appreciate the differences that are encountered. Student counterparts will help instill awareness and appreciation of culture and language differences. As the peer students learn together inside and outside the university, conditions are provided that foster long-term friendships. The appeal of this kind of in-depth experience can also assist recruitment efforts with some students.
Programs differ across the consortium, but all have access to village level educational and support programs. Our universities have important on-going collaborative relationships with NGO's, government agencies, and extension and outreach programs. MIAC is positioned to help draw private sector and government support to our rural communities in Mexico.
Initial consortium discussions indicate we have excellent faculty with special interest in this kind of program. Nonetheless, our annual meetings will seek to strengthen the recognition of, and support to, these faculty. Our meetings will also explore diverse ways to assure academic credit for completion of these community based programs.
A continued topic at our consortia meetings is expected to be "what can we do to better recruit students?" Members will need to develop different diverse strategies to address this problem. For now, we offer the following as initial strategies to enhance student recruitment:
The first "probationary" year and subsequent years will involve fine-tuning expected results and incorporation of new possibilities. At this stage all consortium member agree on:
Development and Dissemination of North American Based Curriculum.
Activities supporting the development of a North American based curriculum are presented in the section titled "Strategy for a North American Curricula Modification and Enrichment. Module dissemination will be to all partners. We also intend to make these available to the broader consortia that we represent including 5 MIAC and 72 AMEAS higher education institutions.
Organizational Framework for Student Mobility
Evaluation Plan
All partners must commit to an evaluation plan during the probationary first year. Important elements of that plan are contained in our Planning Chart of Goals and Outcomes by Project Year (see appendix). Our project evaluation plan will be built on: 1) independent evaluator selection; 2) evaluation criteria; 3) gathering of needed data; 4) judgment; and 5) guidance.
Selection of independent evaluators: We will propose evaluators for each country with the strong experience with our institutional framework needed to give judgment and provide us with guidance. Commitments will depend on the level of detail and time requirements of the consortium plan, but the following experts have been approached:
United States: Dr. Roger Mitchell, retired. Former Dean of Agriculture, University of
Missouri and Former Chair, MIAC Board of Directors.
Mexico: Dr. Juan Mathieu Veillard, retired. Former Rector, ITESM Agriculture
Campus, Cd. Obregon, Sonora, and Former Chair, AMEAS Board of Directors
Canada: Dr. Gaston St. Laurent, retired. Former Assoc. Dean, Faculty of Agricultural and
Food Sciences and professor of Animal Sciences, Laval University
Sustainability Plan
Formal agreement on financial sustainability must be achieved during the first year. Our internet and distance education approach will greatly reduce costs of collaboration. Partners will share information on professional meetings and events that facilitate meeting together. MIAC has approached the Confederation of Producer Foundations, one of its main Mexico partners, for support of the rural community experience program. MIAC can help seek additional support from the private sector, NGO's, government and other agencies in Mexico.
DAVID E. HANSEN
Employment Relevant to FIPSE Program:
| MidAmerica International Agricultural Consortium (MIAC) Executive Director | July, 1997-present | |
| Iowa State University Coordinator, International Agr Programs--Latin America | 1990-92, 1996-1997 | |
| Principal Investigator, USIA/Uzbekistan Student Exchange Project | Mar-Oct, 1996 | |
| In-Country Coordinator, USIA/Ukraine Linkage Project, National Agr. Univ. | May-Sept, 1996 | |
| Chief-of-Party and Campus Coordinator, USAID/Panama Economic | June 1992- Feb. 1996 | |
| Policy Development/Training Project | ||
| MIAC/Iowa State University Chief-of-Party, USAID/Peru, Human Resource Development | 1985-88 | |
| Component of Agricultural Policy and Institutional Development Project | ||
| Visiting Professor of Economics, National Agrarian University. Lima, Peru | 1985-88 | |
| University of California-Davis Assistant/Associate Professor of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural Economist in the Experiment Station. Head, Executive Committee Chair, and Graduate Faculty Advisor in International Agricultural Development | 1969-87 | |
| Intl. Center for Improvement of Wheat and Corn (CIMMYT) Associate Scientist. Mexico | 1979-80 | |
| Other: Research Associate, Ford Foundation/Iowa State University - Graduate Economics | 1967-69 | |
| Program Formation. National Agricultural University,Chapingo, Mexico Director, Rural Community Development Project, Amer. Friends Service Committee in San Francisco Tepeyecac, and Chiconcuac, Mexico | 1961-63 | |
Student and Faculty Mobility Programs: For 14 years organized and led 3 credit (Univ. of California-Davis) Mexico Field Study course including surface travel from Davis to Sinaloa, Mexico. Currently organizing and will lead Iowa State Univ. academic study program to Mexico with broad faculty participation. As MIAC Executive Director, organized and led four faculty development and extension field study programs to Mexico.