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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

224 Natural Resources and Environmental Issues Volume VII A cooperative team approach was adopted to design and produce the series of TV spots. Each team included media specialists and forest scientists from the College of Forestry, public opinion researchers, mass media experts, and OFRI personnel. Ideas leading to the content of the television spots came primarily from information collected from public opinion polls and focus groups. The design team used this information to identify areas of forest management of greatest concern to the public, and to generate key messages. Scientists whose research was germane to these key messages were identified and invited to help get the word out to the public. A flexible “give and take” between the media specialists and scientists led to the creation of a visual story and “television friendly” script. It was decided early on that the look and feel of the TV spots should be one of real scientists in the field telling their stories in simple but information-rich presentations. The decision to use non-professional talent was a conscious one; what these scientists lacked in sophisticated on-camera delivery, they made up for in credibility with the viewers. Both formative and summative reviews were an integral part of the production process. Draft videos were reviewed by panels of content specialists, other media producers, OFRI staff and board members, mass media specialists, and select members of the target audience. In addition, an electronic Perception Analyzer¬ session was used to glean information about moment-tomoment audience reactions to the first three television spots. Use of such group response measuring systems are common in marketing research. From 1994 to 1997, seven television spots were produced and broadcast during prime time. Air-time was purchased separately for each spot, usually in two-week increments, with approximately six months between each spot. Each program was broadcast repeatedly and on multiple channels throughout the state during its “life.” As a result, each spot had the potential to be viewed tens of millions of times, a term referred to in the broadcast industry as “gross impressions”. In 1996 alone, gross impressions for two of the forestry spots totaled over 19 million. While we know the tremendous potential of these educational messages, assessing their actual impact is much more difficult. It is very different from evaluating classroom instruction. For example, we could not pre- and post-test the viewing public to see what they knew about forestry issues before and after viewing the TV spots. Nor could we contact specific viewers to see what they thought about specific messages. However, a compelling amount of anecdotal and some quantitative evidence arose indicating that these spots had captured the attention of the public, the industry, and the forestry community. This evidence included comments collected from focus groups, interviews with stakeholders, letters from the public, and even monetary gifts to the College in support of further TV spot development. Perhaps the highest form of flattery was (and continues to be) the use of our “scientist in the forest” approach by numerous television spots produced by the forest industry. Although our primary motive was educational, there is also evidence that the TV spots left the public with a more positive perception of forestry. After broadcast of the first three television spots, phone survey data from 650 randomly selected Oregonians revealed an increase of 15 % (±4%) in the approval rating for forest management activities in Oregon and a 7% (±4%) increase in those who believed that forest industry was doing “an excellent or above-average job learning from science to manage forests better.” While we cannot presume that the TV spots were solely responsible for positively “moving the needle” on public opinion, the proximity of the ad campaign to this data suggest that the spots played a significant part. We’ve learned a number of valuable lessons from this television-based education campaign: It IS possible to deliver important educational messages in 60 seconds, but it takes a great deal of thought and effort. It IS possible to capture the attention of television viewers with short natural resource-related messages, but it must be done during prime time-and that’s expensive. The cost of broadcasting the messages will far exceed the cost of producing them. Television viewers WILL respond positively to information-rich, science-based television spots. They want to know facts about resource issues, and they look to the scientific community for unbiased information. University faculty are well positioned to provide natural resource information to television viewers, and they may well be the most effective spokespersons for their positions-but they need assistance in identifying key messages, in crafting concise “TV-friendly” statements, and in illustrating their points effectively. Formative evaluation (continual review from the widest possible variety of sources) is key to producing effective messages. Efforts to educate and influence public opinion on natural resource issues will benefit from teamwork among public agencies, university communication specialists, public opinion specialists, scientists, and mass media experts.
1998 University Education in Natural Resources 225 INTEGRATING THE UWSP NATURAL RESOURCES CURRICULUM John E. Houghton 1 and Steven J. Levine 2 1 Associate Professor, Forestry, College of Natural Resources, University of Wisconsin - Stevens Point, Stevens Point, WI 54481. 2 Associate Professor, Soil Science, College of Natural Resources, University of Wisconsin - Stevens Point, Stevens Point, WI 54481. ABSTRACT: Following an intensive five-year program of curriculum review and strategic planning, the College of Natural Resources (CNR) at the University of Wisconsin - Stevens Point (UWSP) has initiated a planned six-year revision of its undergraduate curricula in natural resource management. It is our belief that such revision is necessary for our graduates to have the attributes and capabilities necessary to meet the future challenges of long-term, landscape scale, ecosystem management planning. To meet these challenges, significant change is needed in the pedagogical and technological infrastructure of undergraduate natural resource education. The goal of this revision is to develop programs that will prepare young professionals to comprehend and apply sound interdisciplinary approaches to solving resource management problems, now and in the future, while at the same time providing the technical competencies required by the vast array of employers of our graduates. The first phase of the six-year revision (years one to three) will focus on the development and implementation of a revised interdisciplinary introductory core curriculum. This curriculum will focus on 1) the need for an ecological basis as a unifying framework, 2) the need for more integration of the various resource management disciplines, 3) the need for a better understanding of human dimensions in resource management, and 4) the need for improved communications skills for resource management professionals. The objectives of this phase are 1) to collaborate with educational experts to define a long-term strategy for undergraduate education; 2) to provide faculty training and develop the technological and pedagogical infrastructure to support these programs; 3) to implement and evaluate the interdisciplinary core curriculum and new instructional approaches, including applications of educational technologies; and 4) to develop a plan for the second phase of the revision project (years four to six). The second phase of this project will focus on the revision of the CNR’s required field studies program and the expansion of the integration of the CNR’s upper division curricula in Forestry, Resource Management, Soils, Water, and Wildlife. The goals of this effort are the same as phase one, with specific objectives to be defined by the phase one process.
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:
Page 153 and 154:
AN ETHICS PRIMER FOR UNIVERSITY STU
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
THE KENYA MODEL: DEVELOPMENT AND IM
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
STUDENT AUTHORING, EDITING AND ELEC
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
NATURAL RESOURCE EDUCATION: GETTING
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186: 1998 University Education in Natura
Page 195 and 196: AUDIO TAPES VS. INTERACTIVE COMPUTE
Page 203 and 204: WRITING ACROSS THE CURRICULUM EFFOR
Page 233 and 234: TEACHING AQUATIC ECOLOGY WITHIN ECO
Page 235: 1998 University Education in Natura
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?