Throughout the years, higher education scholars have discussed what should be the purpose and ideal structure, content, and rigor of higher education in the United States
(mostly while discussing general education), resulting in numerous changes in content, process, quantity, and quality of the core curriculum, and in institutional reorganizations. Figure 3 summarizes the rationale behind some of these changes.
Change in the undergraduate curriculum
Specialization
Departmental and elective courses
Generalization General education and core curriculum
Content Process
Sophists – Commercial needs Intellectual needs – Philosophers
Vocational Scientific
Humanistic
Effect of change in available knowledge, information, and technology Effect of societal transformation, globalization, and changes in needs
Updating information, internationalization, transformation of educational content and process…
Change in instructional methods and available tools
Figure 3. Rationales behind the transformation in the undergraduate curriculum.
2.1.1. The transformation of the undergraduate agricultural curriculum Mirroring (with delay) what has been happening with general education, the nature and purpose of the undergraduate agricultural curriculum has also experienced many changes influenced by major social, cultural, technological, and globalization forces. According to Kunkel, Maw, and Skaggs (1996):
The purpose of higher education in agriculture is to provide for the needs of society and industry in a changing world, to produce graduates with flexibility, diversity, perspectives, and values. The students needed are those most likely to think
globally, to act creatively, to value diversity, to behave responsible, to respond flexibly, and to interact cooperatively in college and upon graduation. (p. 4) Professional practice "increasingly demands adaptability to newer areas of technology and research, skills in communication and persuasion, ability to lead and work effectively as a member of a team and understanding of the socio-economic forces" (Vyas & Neelakantan, 2000). In other words, “instead of narrowly-trained graduates, our students must be educated to function as problem solvers not only in their professions in food, agriculture, and natural resources, but also in their roles and responsibilities as citizens” (Lunde, 1995c, p. 2; see also Faustman, Riesen, Suter, & Vietor, 1996).
Numerous surveys confirm what these authors signal and indicate that managers are more interested in their employees' personal attributes and behavioral abilities rather than cognitive skills, and value more communication, analytical, problem solving, and interpersonal skills than academic performance or technical knowledge (Boland & Akridge, 2003; Harvey, Moon, & Geall, 1997; Hayes, 1995b, Kranz, 1995; Moy, 2000; National Agribusiness Education Commission Report [NAECR], 1989, as cited by Schneider & Suter, 1989; National Association of Colleges and Employers [NACE], 2000 as cited by Ricketts & Rudd, 2002; Townsend & Kunkel, 1996). Interestingly, Johnson, von Bargen, and Schinstock (1995) reported that the results of a Delphi study to teaching faculty, students, and external partners indicated that the "respondents regarded the current undergraduate program [in agriculture] deficient in all areas [behavioral abilities] except for its ability to develop students' professional and technical competence." Other authors report similar situations: “Members of the business
community criticized colleges and universities for graduating students with poor problem solving skills and deficiencies in basic subject areas” (Kranz, 1995, p. 5; see also
University of Exeter, 1994). Contradictory situations and gaps between what higher education in agriculture provided to its students and what the employers wanted was not a new situation of the 1990’s, when the reports from Jonhson et al (1995) and Kranz (1995) were written. Calls for reform in agricultural colleges were also strong in the 1980’s, with, for example, two reports from the North Central Region Curricular
for 2005: Planning for the Future of our Food and Agricultural Sciences (1987) and Educating for a Global Perspective: International Agricultural Curricula for 2005 (1989),
and the USDA-National Research Council 1992 book, Agriculture and the
Undergraduate.
In answer to all these publications, educators in agriculture have often indicated that "Change is imperative [in colleges of agriculture]. . . . The traditional approaches can no longer suffice" (Kunkel, Maw, & Skaggs, 1996, p. 3), or, as Ratcliff, Johnson, La Nasa, and Gaff (2001, p. 17) put it, "for the curriculum to be alive and engaging, it must be dynamic and resonate to the needs and interests of current constituents, while fulfilling its perennial obligations of providing students with essential content, skills, and personal qualities."
2.1.2. Challenges to the transformation of the undergraduate agricultural curriculum
"Higher education and its faculty . . . [are] notoriously resistant to change," (Lunde, 1995c, p. 1) and, in consequence, the transformation of the curriculum has often found strong opposition, and will continue to find opposition. According to Hershley (1986, as cited in Singha, Skaggs, & Nelson, 1996), there are three categories of factors that impede curricular change, and that “should be evaluated at each institution prior to embarking on curricular change” (p. 114):
(1) Individual personal behavior (including fear, self-centeredness, narrow vision), (2) organizational and environmental factors (organizational structure, availability of information, institutional direction), and (3) constituencies (administration, curriculum committees, faculty, students, accreditation agencies, practitioners, the media). (p. 114)
All these indicate that the “process will be fraught with [opposition,] problems, pain, contradictions, and new challenges” (Nelson, 1996, p. 112). In consequence, scholars have inquired about the best processes to follow and implement curricular revitalization, and both radical and incremental transformations have been proposed, with no general consensus. When discussing change in colleges of agriculture, Faustman, Riesen,
Suter, and Vietor proposed that "given the merits of colleges of agriculture and their limited resources, incremental changes may be thought the most prudent and feasible option” (1996, p. 82).
2.1.3. Internationalization of the curriculum as the priority of the internationalization process
As indicated in previous sections, the internationalization of higher education is a process that involves the research, service, and education components of the
institutions. However, many authors contend that the curriculum is the most important component in an internationalization program (ACE, 2002b; Ellingboe, 1997a, 1997b; Fortin, 2001; Groennings & Wiley, 1990; Klasek, 1992a; Knight, 1997a; Lambert, 1989; Liverpool, 1995; Mestenhauser, 1998; Tonkin & Edwards, 1981).
As Harari (1989) put it in his report on the Internationalization of higher education: "The heart of the internationalization of an institution is, and will always remain, its curriculum precisely because the acquisition of knowledge . . . is what a university is all about" (p. 3).
In a report analyzing internationalization strategies in Canadian universities, Fortin (2001) found that “teaching was the priority of internationalization” (Fortin, 2001, p. 4). Likewise, in a study conducted among the private, government and education sectors Jane Knight (1997a) found that the three sectors ranked the curriculum as the most important element of internationalization. Similar conclusions can be drawn when reviewing efforts in universities and colleges in the U.S. For example, P. R. Liverpool, vice-president for international outreach and international programs at Virginia Tech University, indicated (1995):
As we discuss the process of internationalization, it is imperative that we maintain our focus on one of the fundamental rationales for international activities. And that is the total education of our students. And at the core of the educational process is the strength of our curricula. (p. 2)
In summary, there is a generalized trend to identify internationalization of higher education institutions with the internationalization of the curriculum, and it has become
very common for some administrators, practitioners, and researchers to concentrate only on the internationalization of the undergraduate curriculum when discussing, planning, funding, evaluating, justifying, and quantifying the internationalization of their institutions.
2.1.4. A country's concern: A national call for internationalization
The concept of the internationalization of the curriculum is not new, “but neither has it been sufficiently addressed at most universities” (Etling, 2001, p. 4; see also Ellingboe, 1997a; Heijmans, 1996). In the U.S., several widely circulated national reports have advised of the importance of the internationalization of the curriculum and have alerted about the potential danger we face if the current situation continues unchanged. Some of these reports “resemble wake-up calls urging immediate action for improving the international knowledge base of our nation’s students” (Ellingboe, 1997a, p. 4), and they are addressed to the nation’s leaders, higher education administrators and educators, employers, and even individuals.
Some of these reports include:
• Strength through wisdom – A critique of U.S. capability by the President’s Commission on Foreign Languages and International Studies (1979);
• Integrity in the curriculum by the Association of American Colleges (AAC) (1985); • Educating for global competence, by the Council on International Educational
Exchange (CIEE) (1988);
• National task force report, by CIEE, the Association of International Educators (NAFSA), and the Institute of International Education (IEE) (1990);
• Guidelines for international education at U.S. colleges and universities, by the Association of International Education Administrators (AIEA) (1995b);
• Educating Americans for a world in flux: Ten ground rules for internationalizing
higher education, by ACE (1996).
After these reports indicated that it was the duty of higher education to address better internationalization needs, there has been an important and strong
internationalization movement to close the “gap between where we are and where we’d like to be” (Goolrick, 1995): Politicians got involved, university leadership addressed international issues in their institution’s mission statements, departments and colleges created new courses and changed existing programs, student mobility numbers doubled, if not tripled. . . . However, if one looks at what has been done, it seems that there is not much consensus exactly on why to do it, when to do it, where to do it, how to do it, and who should do it, as well as to whom efforts should be addressed. It is argued that we still have a long distance to cover, that efforts are not balanced, not concentrated in the areas of interest, unrelated to each other, and in some cases, that we are losing the point of what internationalization is all about. In consequence, new conferences, books, and reports, and monographs continue to voice that it is still the duty of the higher education community to address better internationalization needs (Hawkins, Haro, Kazanjian, Merkx, & Wiley, 1998; Mestenhauser & Ellingboe, 1998). As Emory University President William M. Chase put it: “We have come a long way very quickly. But Emory, I believe, still has a very long way to go before it feels fully connected to the parts of the world that are going to make the most difference to its graduates” (Goolrick, 1995, p. 1).
The calls for reform and internationalization in agricultural colleges also abound. Many indicate that companies employing agriculture graduates "are increasingly looking for employees with a global outlook" (UGA-OIA, 1997),and that “to prepare the next generation of food, agricultural and natural resource professionals . . . their educational experience must embrace more international content than heretofore,” (Thompson, 1995) which makes necessary “a radical rethinking of the mission, need, and approach to the undergraduate curriculum in agriculture” (Kunkel, 1992, p. 4; see also Acker, 1999; Acker & Scanes, 1998; Etling, 2001; Kunkel, Maw & Skaggs, 1996; Jischke, Topel & Acker, 1999; Schuh, 1989).