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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

86 Natural Resources and Environmental Issues Volume VII or reduce the offerings of just about any particular subject area offered. As a faculty, we need to carefully review these findings, adding them to at least three other assessment mechanisms: On-going faculty-led assessments of program structure and content; course and program evaluations from current students; and surveys from employers. All these efforts require time, energy, and financial resources. Given the rapidly changing higher education and employment environments, time may be the most scarce of these requirements, especially given the needs for program delivery and the pattern of the academic calendar (e.g., nine month contracts for many faculty) that greatly reduce the amount of time available for faculty to work on curriculum reform. But failure to undertake such activities courts disaster to the extent that current practices no longer fit student and greater societal needs. LITERATURE CITED Fox, Bruce E., Thomas E. Kolb, and Ernest A. Kurmes. 1996a. “Benefits and costs of an integrated forestry curriculum: The Northern Arizona University experience.” In: Proceedings First Biennial Conference on University Education in Natural Resources. College of Agricultural Sciences, The Pennsylvania State University. Fox, Bruce E., Thomas E. Kolb, and Ernest A. Kurmes. 1996b. “An integrated forestry curriculum: The Northern Arizona University experience.” Journal of Forestry. 24. 94(3):16-22. Souder, Jon A. 1998. “Writing across the curriculum efforts at Northern Arizona University.” In: Proceedings Second Biennial Conference on University Education in Natural Resources. Department of Forest Resources, Utah State University.
A GRAPHICAL SURFACE-VEGETATION-ATMOSPHERE TRANSFER (SVAT) MODEL AS A PEDAGOGICAL AND RESEARCH TOOL Robert R. Gillies 1 , Toby N. Carlson 2 , and David A. J. Ripley 3 1 Assistant Professor, Dept. of Plants, Soils, and Biometeorology and Dept. of Geography and Earth Resources; Room 138, Dept. of Plants, Soils, and Biometeorology, Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322-4820; phone (435)797-2664; FAX (435)797-2117; e-mail rgillies@nr.usu.edu 2 Professor, Dept. of Meteorology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, State College, PA 16801 3 Research Assistant, Dept. of Meteorology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, State College, PA ABSTRACT: This paper considers, by example, the use of a Surface-Atmosphere-Vegetation-Transfer (SVAT), Atmospheric Boundary Layer (ABL) model designed as a pedagogical tool. The goal of the computer software and the approach is to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of communicating often complex and mathematical based disciplines (e.g., micrometeorology, land surface processes) to the non-specialist interested in studying problems involving interactions between vegetation and the atmosphere and, in the nature of interactions rather than a description of the components. Topics are addressed within a Socratic framework using a scenario system based approach: As an example of this, the interactions between a vegetation canopy and a carbon dioxide rich (2 times ambient CO 2 ) atmosphere, are presented. This will illustrate such nonlinear interactions between the physical components and in system behavior that would not be intuitively obvious to the student or, would be to complicated to be insightful. This type of approach is another careful, critical way of thinking fostered by interactions with a computer model. The student instead of taking things apart, is looking at them as wholes and is encouraged to make new and important distinctions. INTRODUCTION The power of computer software tools to engage learners in intrinsically motivating, experimental learning may be their greatest potential. However, computer programs cannot anticipate every need that a user might have and so, some form of collaborative support is essential. Pedagogical models embody such ideas as two or more learners working together to provide cognitive and affective support or, have a learner work with written scenarios that coach the learner to a level of understanding. Embedded within such a process in the idea of higher order learning to encourage the student to Frame and resolve problems Exhibit intellectual curiosity Strive for life-long learning In the scenario context, we further pose partnerships (between individuals and computers) for problem-solving, teams for project-based learning, structured controversy, peer teaching and review. This has far reaching implications as it eschews individual differences (e.g., prior knowledge, tolerance for ambiguity, culture, gender, age, etc.) that might prevent effective learning. Moreover, instructors’ roles are radically shifted from the traditional norms – the instructors become mentors, coaches, and co-learners. Faculty are challenged to shift from being a “sages on the stage” to “guides on the side.” They facilitate learning, not deliver information, they support collaboration, not foster false competition and they assess development rather than test. What follows is an example of what we term the scenario approach. The example scenario is a final one in a series which comprises a course in Land Surface Processes. In the course we use a SVAT (Soil-Vegetation-Atmosphere-Transfer) computer model as a cognitive tool to help build a systematic understanding of what are complex interactions in a system – the land / atmosphere. We are interested in the nature of interactions rather than a description of its components. To gain an initial understanding of the resultant behavior of a system we avoid confusing details and concentrate on the resultant effects. The course is designed to prove useful to the nonspecialist and, more precisely, to those who are interested in studying problems involving interactions between the vegetation and the atmosphere. Teaching and learning are difficult, but the scenario approach, coupled to a cognitive tool such as a SVAT, can help us overcome the problems of learning complicated systems that are intrinsically inter-disciplinary. It uses the computer as a medium of intellectual curiosity rather than as some might argue, a wasteland for mindless entertainment.
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: 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 93 and 94: ASSESSING A FORESTRY EDUCATION: THE
Page 97: 1998 University Education in Natura
Page 111 and 112: NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT - THE C
Page 135 and 136: EDUCATION’S ROLE IN SUSTAINABLE D
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?