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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

80 Natural Resources and Environmental Issues Volume VII Johnson, D. W., R. T. Johnson, and K. A. Smith. 1991b. Active learning: cooperation in the college classroom. Interaction Book Co., Edina, MN. Kennedy, J. J. 1986. Early career development of Forest Service fisheries managers. Fisheries 11:8-13. Krueger, C. K., and D. D. Decker. 1993. The process of fisheries management. Pages 55-77 in C. C. Kohler and W. A. Hubert (eds). Inland fisheries management in North America. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. Mears, P. (1994) Healthcare teams: building continuous quality improvement. St. Lucie Press, Boca Raton, FL. Miller, J. E., J. Trimbur, and J. M. Wilkes. 1994. Group dynamics: understanding group success and failure in collaborative learning. Pages 33-44 in K. Bosworth and S. J. Hamilton (eds.). Collaborative learning: underlying processes and effective techniques. New Directions for Teaching and Learning no. 59. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, CA. Shissler, B. 1997. An evaluation of the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Reosurces, Bureau of Forestry Districts 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, and 16 under the Scientific Certification Systems Forest Conservation Program. A final report to the Bureau of Forestry. Taylor, W. W., C. P. Ferreri, F. L. Poston, and J. M. Robertson. 1995. Educating fisheries professionals using a watershed approach to emphasize the ecosystem paradigm. Fisheries 20:6-8. United States Environmental Protection Agency. June 1996. Watershed Approach Framework. United States General Accounting Office. August 1994. Ecosystem Management: Additional Actions Needed to Adequately Test a Promising Approach. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. May 1995. Wisconsin’s Biodiversity as a Management Issue: A Report to Department of Natural Resources Managers. Yamane, D. 1996. Collaboration and its discontents: steps toward overcoming barriers to successful group projects. Teaching Sociology 24:378-383.
ASSESSING A FORESTRY EDUCATION: THE NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY EXPERIENCE B.E. Fox, L.E. DeWald, T.E. Kolb, M.E. Lee, and D.B. Wood Associate professor, assistant professor, associate professor, associate professor, and professor, respectively, School of Forestry. PO Box 15018 Northern Arizona University Flagstaff, AZ 86011-5018 e-mail Bruce.Fox@nau.edu ABSTRACT: In an attempt to provide students with a strong generalist education, the faculty at Northern Arizona University’s School of Forestry has presented its undergraduate forestry education in a unique, integrated, team-taught approach for over 20 years. Over this same period of time, higher education has experienced profound changes. Within the discipline, the technical knowledge expected of undergraduates has expanded greatly. Simultaneously the demand for accountability in higher education has increased. Students, parents, state legislators, governing boards, and taxpayers alike have questioned the importance, relevance, and value of higher education. The so-called “student-as-consumer” model in higher education is but one manifestation of this increased demand for accountability. A fundamental question arises: How well does the forestry program at NAU prepare students educationally as foresters? Assessing student academic achievement with respect to educational outcomes provides one way of answering this question. Such a process can help determine how well students master a set of defined skills, knowledges, and competencies. Such an approach requires a defined set of desired educational outcomes. The faculty at the NAU School of Forestry have been engaged in this process for over three years. Although not complete, we have begun to identify both desired educational outcomes and means for assessing their achievement. This effort has involved a variety of approaches, including a comprehensive survey of School of Forestry alumni. This work reports on the results of this latest effort, the alumni survey. INTRODUCTION The operational environment for higher education has experienced profound changes recently. Both student populations and demographics have changed, with a smaller proportion of “traditional students” in a four-year degree completion cycle coming to universities directly from high school graduation. Students have different expectations about the value of higher education. Such changing expectations include both the content of higher education and the form of delivery. Coupled with changing expectations about the higher education process, is an increasing complexity and volatility of employment. The massive mergers, acquisitions, and downsizings in the private sector during the 1980s and 1990s have fundamentally altered employment relationships. Public sector employment, especially in natural resource agencies at the Federal level, has experienced similar downsizing changes. Such changes have placed a premium on individuals with marketable skills, while the increasing rate of technological change results in the rapid obsolescence of such skills. Higher educational institutions, and their governing boards, have altered their outlooks and operations in response to these changes in expectations, employment relationships, and technological volatility. For example, the growing interest in posttenure review may be viewed as a response demanding greater accountability on the part of faculty members. Some colleges and universities have increased the flexibility of degree programs, especially in terms of delivery venue (e.g., web and web-based courses, the growth in distance education, and the move toward the “virtual university”) in response to the demands of students. In addition, accreditation bodies have put increased emphasis on assessing student academic achievement as part of the accreditation criteria for member institutions. Assessing student academic achievement focuses on a set of three key educational issues: 1. What are the core knowledges, skills, and attitudes that students should have upon graduation, or “What should students know and know how to do”?
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: 1998 University Education in Natura
Page 49 and 50: TEACHING CORE VALUES: SOME QUESTION
Page 55 and 56: WRITING AND FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE
Page 69 and 70: THE INTERDISCIPLINARY NATURAL RESOU
Page 77 and 78: NEW IDEAS FOR TEACHING NATURAL RESO
Page 91: 1998 University Education in Natura
Page 99 and 100: A GRAPHICAL SURFACE-VEGETATION-ATMO
Page 111 and 112: NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT - THE C
Page 135 and 136: EDUCATION’S ROLE IN SUSTAINABLE D
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 ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?