The status and barriers to the implementation and continuation of the school gardening projects in Germany, Nigeria and the United States of America

In drawing a conclusion for this study, care must be taken in generalizing findings since the population of students and teachers investigated were limited to certain levels in the different schools and countries. This study recognized some complexity of the factors underlying the status of school gardening instruction and activities in Germany, Nigeria and the U.S. as inadequate time for decision-making in the process of gardening, motivation of teachers and students. This was seen as the major impediments that influenced the status of gardening in the three countries. However, these factors were considered to have affected students’ mode of participation in the school gardening projects. This research finding suggests that the promotion and encouragement of students in gardening activities will promote vegetable production and increasing the numbers of practical farmers. Gardening has the potential to create opportunities for learning in an environment where children are able to experience nature first hand and to use the shared experience for communication (Bowker & Tearle, 2007). Therefore, the need for students to be encouraged to participate in gardening programs as the benefit will not only reduce the rate of obesity currently spreading among youths, but will contribute to the improve knowledge on science subjects. To build a network between community, parents and schools, a parent’s community approach should be used as the curriculum. The community approach will tighten the link between schools; community members, parents, teachers and students. This will help facilitate a better gardening projects implementation. Through a close collaboration, teachers and students will be able to identify issues affecting communities and undertake action learning in collaboration with community organizations to assess community needs and plan the implementation strategies as parents are part of the community. The sense of efficacy is a central factor in motivational and learning processes that govern educational improvement, standard and performance on complex tasks of both teachers and students. Dedication and willingness are the major stimulator and achievement of a project. Through a stimulator and provision of incentives and facilities, schools can achieve the best in project development. Teachers and principals should be aware that students are the lever for achieving the set goals in schools. Failure to understand what students need will result in achieving zero result. Therefore, it is advised that schools focus more on how to lure students to work through proper collaboration with the parents and community members. Principals and teachers should identify areas where students need to be corrected, helping them to correct the problem will enable them be committed in the schools’ programs.

The social dimension: a neglected policy item in the Bologna Process

Since its beginning in 1999, the Bologna Process has influenced various aspects of higher education in its member countries, e.g., degree structures, mobility, lifelong learning, social dimension and quality assurance. The social dimension creates the focus of this research. The social dimension entered the Bologna Process agenda in 2001. Despite a decade of reforms, it somehow remained as a vague element and received low scholarly attention. This research addresses to this gap. Firstly, different meanings of the social dimension according to the major European policy actors are analysed. Unfolding the understandings of the actors revealed that the social dimension is mostly understood in terms reflecting the diversity of population on the student body accessing to, progressing in and completing higher education, with a special concern on the underrepresented groups. However, it is not possible to observe a similar commonality concerning the actual policy measures to achieve this goal. Divergence occurs with respect to the addressed underrepresented groups, i.e., all underrepresented groups or people without formal qualifications and mature learners, and the values and institutional interests traditionally promoted by these actors. Secondly, the dissertation discusses the reflection of this social dimension understanding at the national level by looking at cases of Finland, Germany and Turkey. The in-depth analyses show an awareness of the social dimension among most of the national Bologna Process actors and a common understanding of the social dimension goals. However, this understanding has not triggered action in any of the countries. The countries acted on areas which they defined problematic before the Bologna Process. Finally, based on these findings the dissertation discusses the social dimension as a policy item that managed to get into the Bologna Process agenda, but neither grew into an implementable policy, nor drop out of it. To this aim, it makes use of the multiple streams framework and explains the low agenda status social dimension with: i. the lack of a pressing problem definition: the lack of clearly defined indicators and a comprehensive monitoring system, ii. the lack of a viable solution alternative: the proposal of developing national strategies and action plans closed the way to develop generic guidelines for the social dimension to be translated into national policy processes, iii. low political perceptivity: the recent trends opt for increasing efficiency, excellence and exclusiveness discourses rather than ensuring equality and inclusiveness iv. high constraints: the social dimension by definition requires more public funding which is less appreciated and strategic constraints of the actors in allocating their resources v. the type of policy entrepreneur: the social dimension is promoted by an international stakeholder, the European Students’ Union, instead of the ministers responsible for higher education The social dimension remains a policy item in the Bologna Process which is noble enough to agree but not urgent enough to act on.

Knowledge Building in Landscape Architecture

The objective of this study was to develop an internet-based seminar framework applicable for landscape architecture education. This process was accompanied by various aims. The basic expectation was to keep the main characteristics of landscape architecture education also in the online format. On top of that, four further objectives were anticipated: (1) training of competences for virtual team work, (2) fostering intercultural competence, (3) creation of equal opportunities for education through internet-based open access and (4) synergy effects and learning processes across institutional boundaries. This work started with the hypothesis that these four expected advantages would compensate for additional organisational efforts caused by the online delivery of the seminars and thus lead to a sustainable integration of this new learning mode into landscape architecture curricula. This rationale was followed by a presentation of four areas of knowledge to which the seminar development was directly related (1) landscape architecture as a subject and its pedagogy, (2) general learning theories, (3) developments in the ICT sector and (4) wider societal driving forces such as global citizenship and the increase of open educational resources. The research design took the shape of a pedagogical action research cycle. This approach was constructive: The author herself is teaching international landscape architecture students so that the model could directly be applied in practice. Seven online seminars were implemented in the period from 2008 to 2013 and this experience represents the core of this study. The seminars were conducted with varying themes while its pedagogy, organisation and the technological tools remained widely identical. The research design is further based on three levels of observation: (1) the seminar design on the basis of theory and methods from the learning sciences, in particular educational constructivism, (2) the seminar evaluation and (3) the evaluation of the seminars’ long term impact. The seminar model itself basically consists of four elements: (1) the taxonomy of learning objectives, (2) ICT tools and their application and pedagogy, (3) process models and (4) the case study framework. The seminar framework was followed by the presentation of the evaluation findings. The major findings of this study can be summed up as follows: Implementing online seminars across educational and national boundaries was possible both in term of organisation and technology. In particular, a high level of cultural diversity among the seminar participants has definitively been achieved. However, there were also obvious obstacles. These were primarily competing study commitments and incompatible schedules among the students attending from different academic programmes, partly even in different time zones. Both factors had negative impact on the individual and working group performances. With respect to the technical framework it can be concluded that the majority of the participants were able to use the tools either directly without any problem or after overcoming some smaller problems. Also the seminar wiki was intensively used for completing the seminar assignments. However, too less truly collaborative text production was observed which could be improved by changing the requirements for the collaborative task. Two different process models have been applied for guiding the collaboration of the small groups and both were in general successful. However, it needs to be said that even if the students were able to follow the collaborative task and to co-construct and compare case studies, most of them were not able to synthesize the knowledge they had compiled. This means that the area of consideration often remained on the level of the case and further reflections, generalisations and critique were largely missing. This shows that the seminar model needs to find better ways for triggering knowledge building and critical reflection. It was also suggested to have a more differentiated group building strategy in future seminars. A comparison of pre- and post seminar concept maps showed that an increase of factual and conceptual knowledge on the individual level was widely recognizable. Also the evaluation of the case studies (the major seminar output) revealed that the students have undergone developments of both the factual and the conceptual knowledge domain. Also their self-assessment with respect to individual learning development showed that the highest consensus was achieved in the field of subject-specific knowledge. The participants were much more doubtful with regard to the progress of generic competences such as analysis, communication and organisation. However, 50% of the participants confirmed that they perceived individual development on all competence areas the survey had asked for. Have the additional four targets been met? Concerning the competences for working in a virtual team it can be concluded that the vast majority was able to use the internet-based tools and to work with them in a target-oriented way. However, there were obvious differences regarding the intensity and activity of participation, both because of external and personal factors. A very positive aspect is the achievement of a high cultural diversity supporting the participants’ intercultural competence. Learning from group members was obviously a success factor for the working groups. Regarding the possibilities for better accessibility of educational opportunities it became clear that a significant number of participants were not able to go abroad during their studies because of financial or personal reasons. They confirmed that the online seminar was to some extent a compensation for not having been abroad for studying. Inter-institutional learning and synergy was achieved in so far that many teachers from different countries contributed with individual lectures. However, those teachers hardly ever followed more than one session. Therefore, the learning effect remained largely within the seminar learning group. Looking back at the research design it can be said that the pedagogical action research cycle was an appropriate and valuable approach allowing for strong interaction between theory and practice. However, some more external evaluation from peers in particular regarding the participants’ products would have been valuable.