University Education in Natural Resources - CNR Home - Utah State ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

190 Natural Resources and Environmental Issues Volume VII DEVELOPMENT OF A COOPERATIVE DEGREE The following steps have been used in the development of a model degree program with eight different Idaho and Utah institutions. While telecommunications equipment analysis is still ongoing, the projected start date for this degree program will be fall semester 1998. Individuals Involved • Faculty Each institution provided one faculty member representing the degree discipline. The charge to these faculty was to develop a common set of courses needed for the particular degree program. They determined subject matter content and sequenced the courses. • Continuing Education Directors The continuing education deans or directors developed a finance model to ensure success of the program. Continuing Education Units needed to be involved because they generally have discretionary income through tuition and fees to finance degree programs, particularly if there is an off-campus clientele. • Institution Technology Representative The institution technology representatives determine common technology within the participating institutions and the feasibility of scheduling and using these technologies. Once the curriculum has been determined, sequenced, and technology scheduled, marketing and persuading students to receive their education through this non-traditional medium becomes critical. It is important that a brochure be developed which outlines the positive nature of receiving a degree from academics specializing in a particular component of the curriculum. Marketing the program to the entire department faculty is also critical. Cooperative degrees tend to threaten faculty if they think they will lose their “pet courses;”therefore, they must be reassured that no student credit hours will be lost to the department and there will be more time that can be devoted to research and Extension activities. Since interstate cooperative degree programs are still relatively new, it may be advantageous for only two or three institutions to work on a cooperative degree at a time. It will be less complicated and lessons learned can guide the formulation of more complicated future cooperative degree programs. Recently continuing education deans and directors from 10 institutions met and discussed the development of cooperative degrees. Their list of potential degrees include: Pharmacy MBA/Prerequisite Courses MS Engineering Management MS Technical Management P.D./EdD P.D./EdD Leadership of Higher Education MS School Psychology MS Assistive Technology MS/BS Environmental Science MS/BS Special Education BS/MS Speech and Hearing Communicative Disorders BS/MS Computer Science MS Instructional Technology MPA, BS Nursing MS Food Services and Dietetics JD National American Law Library Studies MS Journalism MS/P.d. Adult Education BS/MS Criminal Justice MS Applied Math MS Physics BS Secondary Education MS Non-thesis Chemistry The development of the list of the degrees is an important first step. The most important second step is to meet with faculty and telecommunications/system directors to determine the feasibility of the joint degree programs. We must be pro-active and have the courage to investigate new methodologies and approaches to delivery of higher education programs. If we fail to do so, there are many other institutions waiting in the wings to fill the void.
WRITING ACROSS THE CURRICULUM EFFORTS AT NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY’S SCHOOL OF FORESTRY Jon A. Souder 1 Assistant professor of policy and economics, School of Forestry, Box 15018, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ 86011 e-mail Jon.Souder@nau.edu. ABSTRACT: The objective of Writing across the Curriculum (WAC) in the School of Forestry is to build critical thinking and writing skills throughout the duration of a student’s program. The program, as it has evolved over the last four years, has resulted in more writing assignments in classes where previously little had been required, a movement from descriptive to analytical writing by the students, and finally, a demonstrable improvement in student writing abilities. Success has been due primarily to four key features: (1) a revision of the Forestry Professional Program prerequisites, (2) revising the Forestry curriculum both to increase the amount of writing required as well as a logical progression in the types of assignments, (3) faculty development seminars and assistance provided by the English Department’s Composition program, including tutoring students and providing them workshops, and (4) an assessment of faculty and student attitudes towards writing. Student and faculty attitudes towards writing and opinions about effective strategies to improve writing were assessed through the use of surveys. The results showed that while there was broad support for writing among faculty and students, the amount of writing assigned was fairly minimal (particularly in the lower-division courses), and that while students, on average, felt their writing was successful, faculty though that it was not. The two strategies that were considered most effective were student revision after faculty comment and peer revision among students. Because evaluating and grading was viewed by the faculty as the primary factor limiting their assignment of writing, a standardized grading score sheet (“rubric”) was developed. The net result of the writing across the curriculum program in the School of Forestry is that faculty are assigning more writing, providing opportunities for revision after their comments, and standardizing evaluation and grading criteria. Our strongest partner in this effort has been the English Department and its Composition program in particular. The results of our collaboration have demonstrated—albeit not statistically significant—an improvement in our students’ writing abilities. INTRODUCTION Writing is rated by employers, faculty, and even students, as one of the most important skills needed for effective natural resource managers. In the Fall of 1993 it became apparent that many of our students were ill-prepared after completing the professional program. At the same time faculty began to recognize that students’ writing abilities were hampering our teaching capabilities. Experience with Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) over the last thirty years has shown that students learn to write best when writing is (1) introduced as part of the academic discipline, and (2) used as an essential learning tool (Spagna, 1997). The objective of Writing across the Curriculum in the School of Forestry is to build critical thinking and writing skills throughout the duration of a student’s program. The program, as it has evolved over the last four years, has resulted in more writing assignments in classes and a demonstrable improvement in student writing abilities. The success of the WAC program is due primarily to the dedication of the faculty, but four key features supplied the support which enabled the faculty to be successful. These are: (1) a revision of the Forestry Professional Program prerequisites, (2) revising the Forestry curriculum both to increase the amount of writing required as well as a logical progression in the types of assignments, (3) faculty development seminars and assistance provided by the English Department’s Composition Program, including tutoring students and providing them workshops, and (4) an assessment of faculty and student attitudes towards writing. The way in which these four components acted to support faculty efforts to improve writing will be discussed after the professional forestry program is described.
Page 1 and 2:
University Education in Natural Res
Page 3 and 4:
Acknowledgments This publication re
Page 5 and 6:
INDEX BY SESSION Sunday, March 8, P
Page 7 and 8:
Teaching Methods: Collaborative Lea
Page 9 and 10:
The Upper Midwest Regional Capstone
Page 11 and 12:
INDEX BY AUTHOR if first author, pa
Page 13 and 14:
INTEGRATED NATURAL RESOURCE PLANNIN
Page 15 and 16:
1998 University Education in Natura
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
TEACHING CORE VALUES: SOME QUESTION
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
WRITING AND FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
THE INTERDISCIPLINARY NATURAL RESOU
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
NEW IDEAS FOR TEACHING NATURAL RESO
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
ASSESSING A FORESTRY EDUCATION: THE
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
A GRAPHICAL SURFACE-VEGETATION-ATMO
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT - THE C
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
EDUCATION’S ROLE IN SUSTAINABLE D
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152: 1998 University Education in Natura
Page 153 and 154: AN ETHICS PRIMER FOR UNIVERSITY STU
Page 159 and 160: THE KENYA MODEL: DEVELOPMENT AND IM
Page 167 and 168: STUDENT AUTHORING, EDITING AND ELEC
Page 179 and 180: NATURAL RESOURCE EDUCATION: GETTING
Page 195 and 196: AUDIO TAPES VS. INTERACTIVE COMPUTE
Page 201: 1998 University Education in Natura
Page 233 and 234: TEACHING AQUATIC ECOLOGY WITHIN ECO
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255 and 256:
Page 257 and 258:
Page 259 and 260:
Page 261 and 262:
Page 263 and 264:
show all

University Education in Natural Resources - CNR Home - Utah State ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?