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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

48 Natural Resources and Environmental Issues Volume VII Even more importantly, many FW 100 students reported that they were most engaged in learning when participating in the field journal or other writing assignments. Most students noted that the writing experiences were new, although several also noted that they had already done some of the discipline-specific writing (abstracts or resumes). FW 100 students had the following comments: “I feel that the writing assignments were a good part of this course. I felt that they were applicable to FW coursework and to prepare for FW careers. The field journal was a great experience, to practice a different style of writing while enjoying the outdoors!” “I gained quite a bit from these writing experiences. They were varied, especially the abstract. It was hard to write about something scientific like that, but it was also fun. I learned there is more to FW than just the animals and their habitat.” “These writings did affect my learning. The writings made me think in a whole new way. It is a lot different than just writing an essay. It was good for me to have that change and make myself think differently. In general, I gained a lot from the writing experiences. I will be able to tackle future writing assignments with a lot broader base and be able to incorporate different writing styles.” Although not all comments were as positive as the comments above, some of the critical comments suggested ways of improving the writing assignments in the future. (For example, one person remarked “I don’t think the limited field experience and abstract can really be considered scientific. However I think it’s a good idea to be approached…in a 3-credit course.”) How did FW 100 students react (in writing) to their readings? The highest proportion of students reported that Leopold’s A Sand County Almanac, and Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring were the most informative readings. Several students commented that they were previously unaware of the connection of Carson’s writings to early research at MSU regarding the impact of pesticides on songbirds; one student wrote “I was fascinated that this all started here at MSU.” Another said “I found MSU’s involvement in the 1950s with the robin counts very informative and exciting….I had never really realized what implications pesticides could have.” Some students specifically commented on other short articles about Michigan’s conservation history (e.g., a magazine article about the passenger pigeon in Michigan). Regarding Leopold and overall learning in FW 100, students wrote these passages: This “really showed me how differently people looked at wildlife management in the past…it also showed me how far we..have come in regulating wildlife. I think we are headed in the right direction.” “The most fascinating part of the book was the section on the land ethic and how we (the public) have to evolve ecologically or suffer the consequences.” “I learned that the history of conservation is as important as the future when making decisions on management now.” Another astutely noted that she learned from Leopold that “you have to live the work you do.” What lies ahead in this cross-disciplinary collaboration? In the future, we plan to work together to: • Continue to build upon our cross-disciplinary model designed to help freshmen, and to integrate content and teaching strategies across FW 100 and ATL 150. Our model serves to personalize learning for students, and to expand their thinking, reading and writing abilities related to fisheries and wildlife subject matter—no matter the ultimate career choice of the student. Furthermore, our model provides first-year students the opportunity to integrate Internet research, reading, and publishing—critical technological skills which will be needed in the future by all professionals. • Advise more students to cross-enroll in FW 100 and ATL 150, and continue to provide joint experiential enrichment activities (e.g., field trips, guest presentations) outside of classes. • Redesign FW 100 as a 3-credit course offered both fall and spring semesters. This will enable us to intertwine FW 100 more thoroughly with ATL 150. FW 100 students and faculty will now be able to use a discussion section (with only about 25 students) to explore readings in greater depth. Future cross-disciplinary collaboration will have many longterm benefits. The cross-disciplinary dialogue we have begun should help advance the scholarship of teaching in FW, of teaching in conservation history, and of the writing across the curriculum (WAC) effort within natural resources education. In this spirit, we look forward to future collaborations, and to learning from our students! ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We appreciate the participation of our students in this crossdisciplinary collaboration; copies of students’ written comments and their signed forms granting permission to cite their work may be obtained by contacting the authors. We gratefully acknowledge the advice and enthusiasm of our Michigan State University colleagues who have worked with us in this collaboration and who submitted the original abstract for this paper. Thanks are due to: Laura Julier, Associate Professor in American Thought and Language (ATL), Rique Campa, Associate Professor in Fisheries and Wildlife (FW), and William W. Taylor, Chair of FW. We also appreciate the support
1998 University Education in Natural Resources 49 for this collaboration offered by Douglas Noverr, Chair of ATL. Travel support to present this collaboration was made possible by: Drs. Barbara Steidle and Don Straney from the Provost’s Office at Michigan State University. Portions of the work reported here were rooted in the participation of Dann in The Faculty Writing Project, sponsored by the Writing Center at MSU, and in the Lilly Endowment Teaching Fellows Program, sponsored by the Provost’s Office at MSU. Thanks to Dr. Alan Charnley for presenting the photo lecture for our students, and to many other guest lecturers. Finally, a Career Development Model Grant, provided by MSU’s Career Services and Placement program, assisted in providing students with experiential learning opportunities. Of course, we express our deepest thanks to our students – for their thoughts and for learning with us! LITERATURE CITED The Bear. 1989. Directed by Jean-Jacques Annaud, Claude Berri Producer. TriStar Pictures, Inc.. Blank, Gary. 1996. A Graphic Model for Incorporating Communications Development Within Disciplines. Proceedings of the First Biennial Conference on University Education in Natural Resources. The Pennsylvania State University, School of Forest Resources. Pp. 59-65. Carson, Rachel. 1962. Silent Spring (chapter entitled “And No Birds Sing”). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company. Charnley, Jeffrey. 1988. The Lure. Online Hypertext Essay published at http://www.msu.edu/user/charnle2/lure.html Charnley, Jeffrey, Leonora Smith and William McCall. 1990. Project Write Source Book: Writing Assignments from the Faculty of the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources. East Lansing, MI: College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Michigan State University. Charnley, Jeffrey, Leonora Smith and William McCall. 1993. Project Write Case Report: Writing to Learn in Agriculture and Natural Resources Courses. NACTA Journal [National Association of College Teachers of Agriculture]. Volume XXXVII No. 2 June 1993. Pp. 32-35. Craven, Scott R., Donald H. Rusch, and Carl A. Batha. 1996. Wisconsin student hunter project. Trans. N. Amer. Wildl. and Natural Resources Conf. 61: 395-400. Curwood, James Oliver. 1916. The Grizzly King. New York: Grosset & Dunlap, Publishers and the 1989 edition entitled The Bear: A Novel. 1989. New York: Newmarket Press. Fuller, Iola. 1941. The Loon Feather. New York: Harcourt Brace. Gilligan, Matthew R. 1995. Improving your technical writing. Fisheries 20(5): 36. Herrington, Anne J.. 1981. Writing to Learn: Writing Across the Disciplines. College English. Vol. 48 1981. Pp. 377-387. Jones, Robert and Joseph J. Comprone. 1993. Where Do We Go Next in Writing Across the Curriculum. College Composition and Communication. Vol. 44 Fall 1993. Pp. 59-68. Kirkland, Caroline. 1990. A New Home, Who’ll Follow? or Glimpses of Western Life. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. [The first edition was published in 1839.] Kurtz, William B.. 1996. An Integrated Approach to Teaching Natural Resources Policy in a Writing Intensive Format. Proceedings of the First Biennial Conference on University Education in Natural Resources. The Pennsylvania State University, School of Forest Resources. Pp. 52-58. Leopold, Aldo. 1966. A Sand County Almanac with Essays on Conservation from Round River. New York: Ballantine Books. [Originally published in 1949 by Oxford University Press] Nash, Roderick. 1990. American Environmentalism: Readings in Conservation History. New York: McGraw-Hill, 3rd edition. Tchudi, Stephen. 1986. Teaching Writing in the Content Areas: College Level. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association. Thomas, Sharon. 1995. What we can learn from listening: College students talk about writing. Language Arts Journal of Michigan, Fall 1995, pages 74-79. Thoreau, Henry David. 1948. Walden. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. [First published in 1854.] Turner, Spencer E. 1995. Writing the perfect abstract. Fisheries 20(10): 46.
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 49 and 50: TEACHING CORE VALUES: SOME QUESTION
Page 55 and 56: WRITING AND FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE
Page 59: 1998 University Education in Natura
Page 69 and 70: THE INTERDISCIPLINARY NATURAL RESOU
Page 77 and 78: NEW IDEAS FOR TEACHING NATURAL RESO
Page 93 and 94: ASSESSING A FORESTRY EDUCATION: THE
Page 99 and 100: A GRAPHICAL SURFACE-VEGETATION-ATMO
Page 111 and 112:
NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT - THE C
Page 113 and 114:
1998 University Education in Natura
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:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
AUDIO TAPES VS. INTERACTIVE COMPUTE
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
WRITING ACROSS THE CURRICULUM EFFOR
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
TEACHING AQUATIC ECOLOGY WITHIN ECO
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
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?