Committee on Curriculum Transformation
Minutes, March 13, 2002
Committee members attending Agee, Bolton, Briggs, Brubaker, Gara, Hinckley, Honea, Marzluff (Chair), Paul, Ryan, Trudeau; also attending Almaguer-Bay, Taylor
Agenda items discussed were:
1) Review/approve 3/6/02 minutes
2) Discuss presentation to upper campus colleagues
3) Discuss options/minors
4) Discuss core course structure and content
Minutes of the 3/6/02 meeting were approved with two corrections.
3/8/02 meeting with UW colleagues. The committee discussed the 3/8/02 meeting with UW colleagues and the notes that had been prepared of that meeting. It was agreed that the non-CFR attendees were generally positive about the direction of the proposed curriculum – the basic structure and the four major options -- but that the large number of minors was seen as unwieldy and confusing. It was also agreed that much of the discussion focused on the logistics of implementation and not on substantive content. It was agreed that useful suggestions for implementation and for defusing concerns about curriculum consolidation were offered at the meeting. It was also noted that it was not surprising that the discussion focused on implementation, given that, in presenting the material, CTRAN members were candid about the fact that alternative models were being discussed by CFR faculty. The diversity of CFR, and its resulting complexity, was notable to UW colleagues. With such wide diversity, disciplinary support necessarily must come not from other CFR faculty but from grad students and external colleagues. CTRAN members agreed that an important challenge is to be both diverse and efficient – can CFR accomplish this?
It was agreed that further input from faculty on how to more efficiently integrate across options should be sought. Although some committee members felt an emphasis on the proposed minors is important as a way to make sure all faculty feel included and as a way to “incubate” new major options, it was generally agreed that the present focus should be on the major options. Marketing will be key in selling the new curriculum – expending energy in marketing minors will dilute energies in marketing the major options. It was pointed out that majors and not minors are what CFR gets credit for by UW administration.
R. Gara once again relayed the concerns of the faculty group working on an alternative “professional” track – that the forestry science option in the ESDM proposal will not produce forest managers and that the desired outcomes should include more than integrative content.
It was agreed to send the proposal, without the minors, to faculty to elicit further input. It was suggested that courses be listed not by course number but by title, so that course content is the critical information being conveyed. Listing course numbers may incorrectly imply that courses will remain the same as currently taught, when in fact extensive redesign may be called for.
Next steps:
ü Send current major options proposal to faculty for comment, with input requested by 4/2/02
ü CTRAN members will work with major option working groups to ensure comprehensive course content listings in each option (Agee, Marzluff -- wildlife ecology option; Gara – forestry science option; Hinckley, Taylor – environmental horticulture and urban forestry option)
The meeting adjourned at 10:30 a.m.
CTRAN curriculum discussion with UW colleagues (3/8/02)
Present: Bruce Bare, George Bridges, Loveday Conquest, Bette Nicotri, Johnny Palka, Craig ZumBrunnen, and CTRAN members Agee, Brubaker, Honea, Marzluff, Ryan, Paul
B. Bare gave an overview of the historical context of curriculum transformation within CFR, citing past information gathering analysis, and reporting efforts (FASAC, Camp Long, Futures Committee, Synthesis Report) culminating in the 12/01 faculty vote to collapse CFR's current seven UG curricula into two: Paper Science and Engineering; and Environmental Science, Design, and Management.
J. Marzluff said CTRAN's objective for this meeting was to gather input from non-CFR faculty and administrators with experience in curriculum design eliciting their thoughts on the proposed curriculum and how it could better serve UW students and enhance integration with other UW programs.
He reviewed the CTRAN proposal to date and welcomed input and questions as he went through the packet of materials prepared for the meeting. He said the proposal under discussion was framed by the unique opportunity of CFR to make available to students a living laboratory spanning a gradient from "windowboxes to wildlands." He further noted that it was being developed by CTRAN in response to the charge given it by Dean Bare, but noted that an alternative curriculum proposal being developed by an ad hoc faculty group
The invited UW colleagues were positive about the new curriculum's learning objectives and the general direction towards integration and efficiency, moving from seven majors to two majors. Specific comments and questions about the CTRAN proposal focused largely on implementation rather than on the specifics of the options and minors being proposed, and included:
· Working out the details of articulation agreements with community colleges will require attention and may present a challenge.
· Close coordination with UW advisors will be essential to the success of any new or revised curricula. It was noted that the UW's Environmental Advisory Group has developed helpful projects (including a brochure) to inform potential students about environmental education at UW. B. Nicotri said that information about the new curricula could be coordinated into a new advising lab in BIOL 101,102. The menu driven web advising/information package envisioned by CTRAN was seen as a key element. G. Bridges noted that an interactive web advising model was currently being tested in the medical school and might be a useful model to look at.
· Marketing the options would be key but should be doableso that visibility of each individual option is maintained.
· Questions about accreditation issues (ABET and SAF) were discussed; would revised programs be able to keep accreditation?
· CTRAN members responded that the forestry option under the current ESDM proposal could maintain SAF accreditation with only minor tweaking. They said that in the current proposal, the status of FEE (which is currently ABET accredited) was unknown, as no proposals from that current curriculum's faculty have emerged. One possibility would be to have civil engineering students take forest engineering as a minor through CFR. It was noted that CoE and CFR are already formally linked through the FEE program, and that the merging of CSS and CoE’s Center for Urban Water Resource Management has recently enhanced this formal linkage.
· It was noted that a constant criticism of broad, integrated programs has been that they are "not rigorous." Developing an explicit statement of learning objectives and outcomes can help combat this criticism, but it will never go away. The statement of learning objectives for the new curriculum was seen as helpful, and the importance of doing a course by course analysis of how content meets learning objectives was noted.
· Discussion of the proposed minors elicited concerns that there were too many choices, which could make the program confusing and hard to sell and administer. UW colleagues found the large number of minors confusing and expressed a feeling that welikely needed to reduce the number offered
· The importance of integrating the expertise and/or skills of all faculty members into any new curricular design was noted.
· This might range from contribution to content areas, core courses, or the broader learning goals and objectives of the curriculum. Bridges said that CFR was a unit with a very wide range of disciplinary content and thus, more complex than many other UW units. It was suggested that the School of Fisheries had developed a matrix of learning objectives that attempted to integrate content areas and learning objectives.
· It was suggested that PoE could provide models of truly team-taught interdisciplinary courses. ENV 201, 202, as currently taught, might fulfill the needs of the social science sophomore core course as presently proposed by CTRAN.
J. Marzluff and B. Bare thanked the invited UW colleagues for attending the meeting and providing input.
Committee on Curriculum Transformation
Minutes, March 6, 2002
Committee members attending Agee, Bolton, Briggs, Brubaker, Gara, Hinckley, Honea, Marzluff (Chair), Paul, Ryan, Trudeau; also attending Almaguer-Bay, Taylor
Agenda items discussed were:
· Review/approve 2/27/02 minutes
· Option/minor structure and credits (Marzluff/Trudeau)
· Other curriculum models
· Sophomore core courses – course outlines (Brubaker/Hinckley/Ryan)
· Environmental measurements and monitoring course (Briggs)
· Capstone learning/skill objectives (Agee/Hinckley)
· Presentation to upper campus colleagues (scheduled for 3/8/02)
Minutes of the 2/27/02 meeting were approved
Option/minor structure. The committee reviewed the proposed option and minor structure. It was suggested that it would be essential for all CFR faculty to review the proposed option and minor structure with an eye to consolidating for efficiency and increased integration. The committee discussed whether minors should be required to take some or all of the core courses. It was agreed that minors should take at least 2 of the 3 sophomore level core courses, but no more than 15 credits of 100-200-level CFR courses. In discussing minors, the committee reiterated that the advantage of minors is that they are fairly straightforward to create and to drop if they don’t attract sufficient enrollment. However, the problem of having courses on the books that are never taught will need to be rigorously monitored so that this source of student complaints is minimized. It was also agreed that the number of minors on the books should be subject to periodic review.
Other curriculum models. It was noted that a group of faculty were initiating work on a major that would comprise FE, EHUF, PSE, and possibly a version of FM. R. Gara said that he had been meeting with this group, which was looking for commonalties. It was reconfirmed that UW requirements for a major require that options within the major have at least 50 percent of courses in common. These courses do not have to exist at the core, but can be “merged” at an upper level. The difficulty of achieving majors with at least 50 percent of courses in common among options in the major, especially when PSE is thrown into the mix, was noted, but it was agreed that the faculty involved should be encouraged to come up with a working proposal.
Sophomore core course content. The committee noted once again the absence of soils content from the sophomore core, questioning whether this was an oversight or a deliberate decision on the part of those constructing the core.
Natural Science Core Course: L. Brubaker reported little feedback on the request for core course key concepts. She presented a proposed outline, which assumed a baseline understanding (from BIOL101,102 and ESC 110) of several key concepts: plant growth, structure, and function; plant reproduction; population genetics and natural variation; evolution; basic concepts of population, community, ecosystem, and landscape ecology; and biogeochemical cycles. The course goal would be to apply basic earth science and biological principles to understand controls of PNW natural and human impacted environments. Emphasis would be on biotic and physical environment of urban to wildland gradient with comparisons and contrasts between human-altered variables and natural biophysical variables and key management issues along the gradient. Principles the course would address include: biotic fluxes; material cycling; energy fluxes; change and stability; and management principles. A suggestion by A. Wagar that add-on 2-credit classes might supplement this core course with more disciplinary content was noted.
Social Science Core Course: C. Ryan said that as she worked to developed a course outline for this course, it began to look very much like existing PoE courses, especially ENVIR 201,202. She said she had a list of topics that she could work from or CTRAN could suggest or recommend using one of the PoE courses in the ESDM core. It was noted that PoE topics vary, depending on who is teaching the courses – however, it was suggested that CFR might provide input to PoE re: topics that CFR would like to see covered. C. Ryan agreed to prepare a proposed outline of the natural science core course for the meeting with UW colleagues scheduled for 3/8/02.
Environmental measurements and monitoring. The committee discussed the environmental measurements and monitoring course. It was pointed out that, as currently structured, there was no monitoring component to the course. D. Briggs said that the monitoring portion of the proposed course was still under development. He agreed to prepare a proposed outline for the 3/8/02 meeting.
Junior core course. It was agreed that at the junior core level, students would choose between a 3-credit conflict management or a 3-credit professional ethics course. It was suggested that specific course-related ethics be built into courses where appropriate. It was agreed that an enrollment lid on the conflict management course would be appropriate. C. Ryan and S. Bolton agreed to prepare proposed outlines for the 3/8/02 meeting.
Meeting with UW colleagues. It was agreed that at the scheduled 3/8/02 meeting, the proposal under discussion would be framed as a CTRAN proposal and it would be noted that other faculty groups in CFR have other proposals under development.
Next steps:
ü Request faculty review of proposed minor structure for new efficiencies and novel ways to combine restricted electives
ü Prepare 2 page course outlines for all core courses
The meeting adjourned at 10:30 a.m.
Committee on Curriculum Transformation
Minutes, February 27, 2002
Committee members attending Agee, Bolton, Brubaker, Gara, Hinckley, Honea, Marzluff (Chair), Paul, Ryan, Trudeau; also attending Almaguer-Bay, Taylor; absent: Briggs
Agenda items discussed were:
· Review/approve minutes of 2/20/02 meeting
· Defining the generalist (environmental science) option
· Implementing minors and options
· Task group report/sophomore core content
· More thoughts on junior core courses
Minutes of the 2/20/02 meeting were approved with one correction.
J. Marzluff said that he had received some response to (1) email sent to faculty re: key specific knowledge areas for sophomore core courses and (2) email requesting input from faculty developing vocational track curriculum. He said it was important to remind everyone that all faculty can and should be involved in informing what the freshman-sophomore core content consists of and how it will help provide basic prerequisites to upper level courses.
Implementing minors and options. The committee discussed how minors and options should be implemented. It was agreed that for purposes of attracting and retaining students the structure should be as simple and as less cumbersome as possible. Questions and comments included:
· Should minors and options be kept distinct, or could there be a minor as well as an option in, e.g., sustainable forest science or wildlife ecology? (It was agreed that this had to be considered from two points of view, that of a CFR major and that of students from outside CFR interested in picking up minors.)
· The committee agreed that for purposes of keeping things simple and marketable
(1) for students who are CFR majors, options should be kept distinct from minors. The two CFR curricula (ESDM and PSE (or the broader vocational curriculum, if developed)) would offer a limited number of options, e.g., generalist Environmental Science, Sustainable Forest Science, Wildlife Ecology, Environmental Horticulture and Urban Forestry, Paper Science and Engineering). Also available to CFR would be the existing minors in streamside studies and international forestry, as well as new minors developed in areas that have been suggested by faculty groups, e.g., soils, business, urban ecology, restoration, measuring/monitoring, etc.
(2) for non-CFR students who want to pick up a CFR minor, all CFR options and minors would be available, subject to UW guidelines for minors.
· Minors, as previously discussed, could function as "seed beds" to test future options, as well as important recruiting/service course tools.
· It was agreed that J. Marzluff and M. Trudeau would meet to work out a proposed structure for options and minors, taking into account overlap that is allowed or "forced" by the structure
Defining the generalist (environmental science) option. It was agreed that this option should be kept as simple as possible and should require, in addition to the core courses, a defined number of courses chosen freely by the student from among other upper-division CFR courses.
Task group report/sophomore core content. It was recapped, from the previous week's meeting, that the committee had decided to shape the sophomore core around a disciplinary framework (rather than the scale-based, integrated framework that had been proposed earlier). This had been decided for pragmatic concerns, particularly being able to move ahead in the discussion.
L. Brubaker, T. Hinckley, and C. Ryan provided perspectives on the sophomore core courses currently being proposed: (1) social/economic/political principles of sustainable management (ESDM 202) and (2) ecological principles of sustainable management (ESDM 201). T. Hinckley gave the committee syllabus materials from ESC 110 and 322 and EHUF 201 and chapter headings from an ecology textbook, all of which might be used as a starting point for thinking about ESDM 201. General questions and comments included:
· Is it reasonable to collapse "social/economic/political" disciplinary material into one course? Discussion ensued on whether "ecological" principles are less or as difficult to collapse into one course. There was no general agreement. It was suggested that this is a sophomore course and comprehensive disciplinary coverage of all the disciplines inherent or possible in the two courses (e.g., sociology, economics, political science, biology, genetics, etc.) may not be the point here. It might be better to rename the courses "social/economic/political dimensions" and "ecological dimensions" of sustainable management.
Specific discussion of ESDM 202 included:
· How could economics become part of curricula at the undergraduate level -- not currently a part. It was suggested that there are CFR faculty who could contribute to this part of the proposed core.
· Using case studies could provide a useful mechanism for this course -- perhaps even using the same studies in 201, but from an ecological perspective. The pros and cons of using the same case studies for both courses were discussed, in terms of redundancy vs. potential for integration.
Specific discussion of ESDM 201 included:
· It was suggested that the current EHUF 201 comes closest of any existing CFR course in fulfilling the function of the proposed ESDM 201 -- it covers the urban to wildland gradient and incorporates observational learning and project-based learning.
· Although the outline from the ecology textbook is useful place to start in developing ESDM 201, the book's focus is on mammals.
· Autecology is missing in preliminary proposal materials (currently not included in EHUF 210, ESC 322) -- how to get this in?
· Could CFR input to BIOL 101-102-103 help ensure that CFR students get needed key principles? It was agreed that it would be useful to identify key concepts that students could be expected to get from the BIOL series, as well as from ESC 110.
It was agreed that prerequisites, free electives, and careful advising would need to be highly coordinated to ensure that the cores and the options function well together. C. Ryan, L. Brubaker and T. Hinckley agreed to continue working on the sophomore core and prepare outlines of proposed ESDM 201 and 202. S. Bolton said that she would provide committee members with a list she had prepared for the sophomore core task group on other UW courses that might have similar intent/syllabi to proposed ESDM 201-202.
Junior core? The committee briefly discussed the usefulness of a core course at the junior level, as suggested from previous input to the committee. The discussion centered on the possibility of offering some kind of conflict management and/or professional/environmental ethics coursework. C. Ryan, who currently teaches conflict management (required in a number of current CFR curricula) said more resources/faculty would be necessary to expand this as a core offering. Professional/environmental ethics, not currently taught in CFR, could be taught again by any faculty member. It might provide a useful seminar setting in which to identify ethical problems and discuss tools to solve them. Another suggestion was a weeklong field trip with a diversity of students that might focus on a conflict or ethics perspective.
Next steps:
ü Agee/Hinckley -- capstone learning/skill objectives
ü Marzluff/Trudeau -- minor/option structure
ü Sophomore task group -- work on proposed course outlines for ESDM 201-201
ü C. Paul -- schedule meeting with upper-campus administrators
ü All -- identify key concepts we can expect from BIOL series or which might be added to ESC 110
The meeting adjourned at 10:30 a.m.
Committee on Curriculum Transformation
Minutes, February 20, 2002
Committee members attending Agee, Briggs, Brubaker, Gara, Hinckley, Honea, Marzluff (Chair), Paul, Ryan, Trudeau; also attending M. Almaguer-Bay; J. Taylor, absent: Bolton
Agenda items discussed were:
· Review/approve minutes of 2/13/02 meeting
· Review/recap 2/15 meeting w/focus group panel, faculty, and students
Sophomore core sequence/organized around discipline or scale?
Vocational/professional track?
Core course at junior level?
Measurements/monitoring class
· Presentation to upper-campus administrators/colleagues
Minutes of the 2/13/02 meeting were approved.
Review/recap 2/15/02 meeting. The committee discussed feedback gained at the 2/15 meeting from focus group panel and faculty and students. The feedback was seen as valuable and productive, with many new voices participating. Several members found the employer input at the 2/15 meeting helpful and supportive of the integrated curriculum CTRAN has developed thus far with faculty input. It was cautioned that sometimes employers say one thing and do another when it comes to actually hiring graduates. However, UW conservation biology program demonstrates that this program has taken away students from CFR and produces students hired by Weyerhaeuser and other traditional CFR-graduate employers. The committee discussed the direction/common goal of CFR and its undergraduate curricula and the historical challenges in CFR faculty agreeing on common goals. It was suggested that there now exists the opportunity for CFR to take the UW lead in providing an environmental science degree -- is this and should this now be our common goal?
The discussion of the meeting input then coalesced around three main topics:
· Should CFR develop a vocational track curriculum in addition to the integrated ESDM curriculum under development? It was suggested that the term "professional" as applied to current CFR curricula has differing meanings -- it could be argued that all/none/some of current CFR curricula produce "professionals" according to unclear and variable uses of that term. However, the underlying concept here is to provide a vocational track that gives undergraduates employment upon graduation. Suggestions at the 2/15 meeting indicated that some EHUF and FE faculty and students are in favor of exploring this possibility and have included PSE faculty in their discussions. If a vocational track that comprised PSE, EHUF, FEE could be developed it would help accomplish two major goals of the faculty vote on curriculum: (1) collapse current CFR curricula from seven to two; and (2) seek ways to more fully integrate PSE into CFR. It was agreed that faculty exploring this option should be encouraged to do so, working within the UW requirements of providing options within a common major. It was also suggested that more discussions at the small group level among faculty and CTRAN members might be helpful.
· Should there be an ESDM core course at the junior level? The committee agreed that a number of voices at the 2/15 meeting spoke up for continued core involvement at the junior level. The idea of the measurements/monitoring course being offered at junior instead of/or in addition to the sophomore level was still under discussion. In addition, core coursework in such topics as library skills, teamwork, conflict management, project management, and communication, were seen as potentially important to cover in an integrated way with junior majors in the core, perhaps as a 2-3 credit offering. This would have the advantage of providing continuity for the cohort of majors. It was suggested that a course that already is on the books, e.g., C. Ryan's conflict management course, might be a good place to start. The task group working on the sophomore core sequence agreed to provide suggestions on what this junior level core course might consist of.
· Should the sophomore core sequence be organized around discipline or scale? The committee agreed that a number of voices at the 2/15 meeting spoke up in favor of both options, some expressing the need for more disciplinary depth, while others encouraging the more integrated, scale-based approach. Clearly one advantage (or disadvantage, depending upon your point of view) of the more disciplinary approach is that it will not require faculty to completely rethink the way they teach. This represents savings in both course development time and funding. It was agreed that in the beginning stages of the new curriculum this pragmatic concern might outweigh the advantages of developing a completely new approach. The committee agreed that it would begin developing the disciplinary approach, with one course based around biological principles and the second based around social principles. A task of the group (Bolton, Brubaker, Hinckley, Ryan) working on the sophomore core would be to make sure that basic principles, prerequisite to upper level courses, were covered. Identifying approximately five key concepts around which to organize the biologically oriented class was also suggested as a good place to start. It was agreed that the committee would email faculty requesting a list of such fundamentals principles and concepts.
Measurements/monitoring course. D. Briggs provided an update on the proposed 5-credit measurements/monitoring course. He said the group of faculty involved in the project was growing, but that he hoped to get even more faculty involved -- the social sciences especially need to be represented to give the course an appropriate balance. He said he felt the feedback from the 2/15 meeting had been positive, where discussion still seemed to be open on whether the course should be offered at the sophomore or junior level. It was agreed to recommend that the course stay at the sophomore level, unless problems with offering it at that level emerge as course development continues.
Capstone learning skill objectives: J. Agee and T. Hinckley agreed to provide a list of such objectives for the next meeting.
Honors option. The committee briefly discussed the honors option and the several ways such an option could be incorporated into the curriculum at several levels, including a 1-2 credit seminar to accompany core courses, the honor's thesis, use of honors sections, etc. Members agreed that having an honors option would be a good recruitment tool and would provide distinction to the College.
Meeting with upper-campus administrators. The committee agreed that this meeting should take place early in March after additional curriculum development work.
Next steps:
ü J. Marzluff email encouraging faculty developing vocational track
ü Sophomore task group email soliciting key principles/concepts from faculty
ü J.Agee/T.Hinckley work on list of capstone learning/skill objectives
ü C. Paul schedule meeting with upper-campus administrators
ü M. Trudeau will research 110 equivalency issues
The meeting adjourned at 10:30 a.m.
Committee on Curriculum Transformation
Minutes, February 13, 2002
Committee members attending: Bolton, Briggs, Gara, Honea, Marzluff (Chair), Paul, Trudeau; also attending M. Almaguer-Bay; absent: Agee, Brubaker, Hinckley, Ryan
Agenda items discussed were:
· Review/approve minutes of 2/06/02 meeting
· Curriculum name (ESM vs. ESDM, others?)
· Measurements class (name, topics, structure)
· ESC 110 (require or not, alternatives)
· Capstone class (credits, paths, expectations)
· Options and minors
· Focus group meeting
· Funding the transformation
The minutes of the 2/06/02 meeting were approved.
The committee discussed the curriculum name. It agreed, that in soliciting feedback at the 2/15/02 meeting, a short history of the changes the name has undergone and a direct question relating to the importance of the major name to alumni and prospective employers, would be appropriate.
Measurements/monitoring course. D. Briggs provided an update on the proposed 5-credit measurements course. He said that approximately 10 faculty were participating in the course development and additional faculty have been asked to participate. The course is still being discussed and he will have a summary for the next CTRAN meeting. Comments and questions re: the measurements course included:
· The committee agreed that the course name should be "Environmental Measurements and Monitoring" rather than "Natural Resource Measurements."
· Problem sets will be key, as they need to expose students to the diversity of situations encountered at multiple scales from urban to wildland.
· The course would make use of labs (e.g. 3-credit, with 2-credit lab structure) and field trips (including possible use of Pack Forest).
· Important to incorporate the urban to wildland, multiple scale perspective being developed for the curriculum core as a whole.
ESC 110. The committee discussed whether ESC 110 should be a core requirement (recent input from some faculty, including some on the committee, has suggested that it not be required) and what, if any alternative, might be appropriate. Comments and questions re: ESC 110 included:
· It was clarified that most majors will come into CFR already having fulfilled equivalent ESC 110 requirement.
· It was suggested that for those who do not, ESC 110 might be a powerful recruiting tool, both with regard to its content and to the fact that completing it would, if it is required, already give a student five credits toward the major.
· An alternative, previously discussed by the committee, is to develop a freshman interest group (FIG) structure for those incoming freshman who are already sure of their career/disciplinary interests. This could be developed as an honors track and would link up with the senior capstone.
· The relationship between ESC 110 and CFR 101 as an introductory survey course was discussed. It was pointed out that neither course offers a comprehensive introduction to the complete range of CFR subject matters; could one course effectively do this? Does CFR need more than one introductory survey course to serve recruitment/service function? CFR 101 might continue to be taught in the curriculum transition period, or even beyond if faculty could justify allocating resources there, given core curriculum priorities; however resource allocation will require some things to be dropped in order to do new things. It was pointed out that the sophomore integrated series may also serve as an important recruitment/service tool.
· The committee agreed that incoming freshman majors, as part of core requirements, would take either ESC 110 or a FIG option that links to the senior capstone, understanding that most transfer students and other upper-level incoming students would satisfy the requirement with some other previous coursework. M. Trudeau agreed to provide some resource material on the UW FIG structure and how CFR can use/modify it.
Capstone class. The committee briefly discussed credits, options, and skill expectations for the senior capstone. Faculty input (including that from some members of the committee) suggest that existing capstone models (e.g., restoration ecology, urban ecology, wildlife science) continue, with others developing. How many models might exist would be a function of student numbers and appropriately identified problems to serve as the capstone basis. The option for an honors thesis alternative continued to be supported by committee members. J. Marzluff said he would request J. Agee and T. Hinckley to continue developing a list of capstone skill expectations.
Options and minors. The committee discussed the proposed disciplinary specialties received to date from faculty and how they might function as options, or in some cases, as minors. The committee discussed whether minors could successfully serve as testing grounds for development of formal options. J. Marzluff proposed that we start with three formal options -- Sustainable Forestry Science, Wildlife Ecology, Environmental Horticulture -- that already serve as well-recognized disciplinary paths by prospective students and employers and add one new option -- Environmental Science -- that would be a general major with required courses from a menu of other options and minors. He said that faculty had provided proposals for sustainable forestry science and for wildlife ecology but that that an environmental horticulture/urban forestry proposal was still forthcoming. He said the remaining proposals received from faculty -- Public Horticulture, Environmental Monitoring and Modeling, Restoration Ecology, Urban Ecology, Soils and the Environment, Business and Economics -- might better serve as minors (with the possibility of future development into formal options if demand warrants) and added to the two already existing CFR minors, streamside studies and international forestry. Comments and questions on options/minors included:
· A brief, general discussion on whether CFR was indeed proposing to change its focus away from traditional forestry degree toward a broader-based environmental science degree ensued. It was pointed out that this has, in effect, gradually been happening over the years, but without a clear statement of intent, and that input from prospective employers over the years has indicated a need for graduates with greatly improved communication, teamwork, integration, analysis, problem-solving skills rather than specific technical skills. Although the ideal would be to have both, the constraint is that an undergraduate program which many students enter as transfers, has a limited amount of time for educating/training; establishing priorities for using that time is thus essential.
· There was general agreement that the proposed structure would be useful to present at the 2/15/02 focus group meeting.
· A suggestion was received in writing from T. Hinckley (not present at the meeting) that the proposed structure would be acceptable if (1) ESC 110 were not a core requirement and (2) the 200-integrated series were more disciplinarily oriented.
· Approval/notification requirements differ between formal options and minors; minors (which require 30-35 credits) are more flexible to develop, can be added or dropped easily, and require a less formal procedure of notification/approval than do formal options.
· Minors, if developed creatively and flexibly, could be effective in attracting students from outside CFR, as well as serving an option development function within CFR. Minors would also attract CFR students and many, by taking some of their electives within the college, could easily pick up one or two minors in addition to their major.
· It was agreed that Environmental Science be available as a both a minor and a formal option.
The committee reviewed a written handout prepared by T. Hinckley/C. Ryan (not present at the meeting) proposing an alternative option for both the freshman and sophomore core. The alternative option at the freshman level would drop the requirement for ESC 110. The alternative at the sophomore level would be to organize the 10 integrated credits (currently proposed as wholly integrated along biosocial and multiscale perspectives) along more traditional disciplinary lines). This, in effect, would take the discussion back to the original two alternatives proposed at the beginning of the core curriculum discussion, i.e., whether to organize around scale or to organize around discipline. Advantages proposed in the handout for disciplinary orientation were: cheaper, both in terms of dollars and faculty time; providing better building blocks for more professional programs; disadvantage proposed was: not as creative or integrative. The committee agreed that both approaches should be presented at the 2/15/02 meeting for input.
Focus group meeting. The committee reviewed the list of confirmed participants for the 2/15/02 meeting. It was reported that follow-up emails had been sent to non-respondents, to be followed by phone calls.
Funding the transformation. J. Marzluff reported that he had queried the Dean re: resources for implementing the curriculum transformation and that the Dean had requested a budget proposal for evaluation.
Next steps:
ü D. Briggs will prepare a summary of measurements/monitoring course for next meeting.
ü M. Trudeau agreed to provide some resource material on the UW FIG structure and how CFR can use/modify it.
ü J. Agee and T. Hinckley will bee requested to continue developing a list of capstone skill expectations.
The meeting adjourned at 10:30 a.m.
Committee on Curriculum Transformation
Minutes, February 6, 2002
Committee members attending: Agee, Briggs, Brubaker, Gara, Honea, Paul, Trudeau; absent: Bolton, Hinckley, Marzluff (Chair), Ryan; also attending Mitchell Almaguer-Bay, Josh Taylor
Agenda items discussed included:
· Review/approve 1/30/02 minutes
· Curriculum name
· Review of input at 2/1/02 faculty meeting
· Capstone structure
· Plan task group ("sophomore integrated series" and "measurements course" meetings/work for this week
· Interactive web advising page
· CFR minors
· Continue discussion of options, including new proposed options and other input
· Next steps
J. Agee chaired the meeting in the absence of J. Marzluff. The minutes of the 1/30/02 meeting were approved,
Name of new curriculum. The committee briefly discussed the proposed new undergraduate curriculum name, within the framework of the 11/7/01 faculty vote and the committee charge:
From 11/7/01 faculty meeting minutes: “After lengthy discussion, it was pointed out that the actual name of the curriculum is not now set in stone; it can be amended if needed. The important point is the concept. However, a motion to change "Ecosystem Science and Management" to "Environmental Science and Management was made by R. Harrison and seconded by K. Hodgson. The motion carried by a vote of hands. ... Several faculty suggested that "design" is an element not sufficiently addressed by "science and management. J Fridley moved and S. Bolton seconded that the name be changed to "Environmental Science, Design, and Management. The motion carried by a hand vote.”
From Bare CTRAN charge letter: “The committee's charge is to develop a detailed undergraduate curriculum proposal for consideration and adoption by the faculty. Exact names for each major are to be part of the proposal but need not be exactly as specified above “ (i.e., Environmental Science, Design, and Management; and Paper Science and Engineering)
The committee generally felt the word “environment (al)” was crucial to the major and should be retained. The words “science” and “management” were felt to be appropriately descriptive. Possible proponents of the “design” inclusion were not present and the committee postponed discussion of this until the next meeting for further explanation on why the inclusion of the word “design” is important [A shorter name, if it can be adequately descriptive was seen as preferable by the committee]. The committee agreed that two proposed names -- “Environmental Science and Management” or “Environmental Science, Design, and Management” (or Science, Management, and Design) should be presented to alumni/ employer/student panels. It was suggested that a committee recommendation for the name, obtained by majority vote, be presented.
Review of 2/1/02 faculty meeting (and subsequent email) input. The committee reviewed draft minutes of the meeting [minutes were subsequently emailed to faculty, staff, and students and posted at http://www.cfr.washington.edu/Internal/Organization/minutes/All_College_Faculty_Meetings/index.html]. There was agreement that the voiced consensus at the faculty meeting was general approval of the curriculum proposal along the following structure:
ü required at sophomore level -- the two 5-credit course integrated series that would compress the material in the proposed three 5-credit course series (sustainable ecosystems, a multiscale approach; human-nature interactions; PNW environmental problems) plus a 5-credit integrated natural resource measurements NRM) course
ü required at senior level – a flexible capstone option, with possibility of retaining some existing capstones and providing a thesis alternative
The committee agreed that offering the NRM course to sophomores would enhance the concurrent integrated series, as well as introducing students to quantitative approaches early in their course of studies. It was also agreed that offering NRM at the sophomore level would provide increased flexibility in designing specialized options. The committee agreed that the eventual goal would be to teach the sophomore core courses more than once each year, possible with several sections in a single quarter.
Capstone discussion. The committee discussed the capstone and the alternatives that were presented to the faculty on 2/1/01: (1) there should be one capstone course that everyone takes; (2) there should be specialized capstone experiences available in addition to the single capstone; and (3) in addition, there should be a thesis path restricted to a small population of students. J. Agee agreed to provide a summary of committee discussion, as it appeared that members present did come to some closure on it (although several members were absent). The committee agreed that it would continue discussion of the capstone at the next meeting.
Agee summary of capstone discussion:
ü Credits. There should be a choice of 10-15 credits. Earlier proposal was for 10, but it was suggested there might be some capstone sections off-campus for a quarter (Pack Forest, elsewhere), where 15 credits would better fit. The minimum remains 10.
ü Capstone paths (note -- course numbers are made up and are not real). The committee agreed on a two-path capstone. First, the originally proposed capstone, bringing in students specializing in several curricular options and providing an integrative (biosocial) approach to environmental problem solving. This course could be numbered CFR 491 (variable 10-15 credits by section). Multiple sections could be run each quarter with different focus areas, with students choosing one. None would be exclusive to any student in the major. This would allow existing integrative experiences (like restoration ecology, which seems to meet committee expectations for a capstone) to fit into the program seamlessly. Second, a formal honors path with a thesis. This would be organized individually (or with more than one student) around a research topic, with CFR 494 (5 credits) as the proposal development and CFR 496 (5 credits) as the research report stage. It is anticipated that any track could offer an honors path, but that entry would be restricted (perhaps 10-20% of students maximum). Tracks could require different entry requirements (the wildlife track, for example, has proposed to require QSCI 482-483 plus a minimum GPA), but students would register for the same course sequence.
ü A mini-symposium would be held to present results of the capstone experiences.
Interactive web advising page. Committee members agreed to submit sample questions/ menus re: job and career interests to J. Marzluff who will prepare a mock-up web-driven menu for the 2/15/02 meeting with focus groups. M. Trudeau said she would ask everyone in Student Services to do this as well, as that office has probably heard many of the relevant questions from potential CFR students. The committee also discussed getting some outside expertise to assist with job/career interest questions, e.g. UW’s Center for Career Services.
CFR minors. J. Agee presented a potential structure for CFR minors, which proposed 30 credits to include the proposed 15-credit sophomore core and 15 credits of (1) upper division courses from a CFR disciplinary option or (2) an interdisciplinary field such as international forestry or streamside studies. Another option would be to make the minor requirement 35 credits with the addition of QSCI 381 or equivalent. M. Trudeau said that CFR’s current minor structure is very restrictive and few students from outside CFR take them.
Disciplinary options. Some concern was expressed about the number of tracks proposed to the faculty so far as potentially formal options. Committee members felt that effectively advertising and communicating options in a relatively straightforward message will be important. It was suggested that consideration of minors might be a flexible way to test potential new options prior to formally listing as options. This would allow experimentation with tracks that might in future be a success but are currently under development. The committee agreed that it needs to provide more guidance/criteria on what might constitute a viable option. There was also agreement that input from faculty groups that have not yet contributed proposed options or have expressed concerns about the 30-35 credit limit proposed for option core/restricted electives should be sought.
Implementation vs. curriculum development. The committee discussed the great deal of work to be accomplished in actually developing the proposed core and capstone courses, aside from the “nuts and bolts” question of implementation assigned to the implementation committee.
Next steps:
ü J. Agee: summarize discussions on capstone/options/minors and curricular name.
ü D. Briggs: continue to flesh out measurements course
ü T. Hinckley and C. Ryan: work for next week's meeting on the 10 sophomore integrated credits with assistance from S. Bolton/EHUF faculty). Expectation is that sophomore core will be taught at least twice a year, which means more than one group of faculty may be team-teaching over the course of that year.
ü Marzluff: contact Dean Bare about resources (read $$) to actually transform the curriculum (particularly the sophomore core)
The meeting adjourned at approximately 10:15 a.m.
Committee on Curriculum Transformation
Minutes, January 30, 2002
Committee members attending: Agee, Bolton, Briggs, Brubaker, Gara, Honea, Hinckley, Marzluff (Chair), Paul, Ryan, Trudeau; also attending M. Almaguer-Bay, Josh Taylor
Agenda items discussed were:
· Review/approve minutes of 1/23/02 meeting
· Review basic structure of proposed curriculum
· Report re: basic BS requirements
· Report from sophomore integrated class task group
· Report from measurements/methods class task group
· Proposed curricular specialty options
· Capstone structure
· 2/1/02 all-College faculty meeting
· Proposed focus group lists
J. Marzluff initiated a discussion of his 1/24/02 email to the faculty requesting proposals for disciplinary options and asked again if it fairly summarized the structure developed by the committee. There was agreement on most points of the curriculum description but the use of the word "consensus" to describe CTRAN input to the stated required BS core courses was questioned, since it had not been explicitly discussed in meetings. J. Marzluff said he felt his email fairly represented committee input both during meetings and in response to his email queries. Some disagreement over the exact meaning of "consensus" emerged -- it was felt that the WQC-sponsored discussion on consensus as a decision-making process (currently being scheduled) would be helpful to CFR in achieving a common understanding of this process.
Committee members were asked to review minutes of the previous meeting and report any changes via email.
The committee discussed the basic BS core requirements (science, VLPA, comp and writing, speech). M. Trudeau outlined the various options for fulfilling these requirements. For example, the writing requirement can be fulfilled by designing CFR "W" courses (that would have to adhere to UW guideline for "W" courses) or by having students take writing elsewhere on campus (e.g., technical writing courses or others). It was pointed out that in-house "W" design and delivery can be very time- and labor-consuming. T. Hinckley and L. Brubaker said that in their course a whole TA is devoted to the writing requirement part of the course. No clear agreement emerged as to which option (in-house, integrating writing requirement into course structure vs. having students get writing expertise elsewhere at UW) would be best for CFR. T. Hinckley suggested that maybe a good compromise might be to have students get technical communication expertise elsewhere but that all CFR courses would have high expectations for quality of writing. It was agreed to specifically request input on this during the 2/01/02 faculty meeting. The committee also discussed the BIOL 101-102 requirements and why CFR should not require 201-202. It was suggested that some disciplinary options could opt to require this higher level. The committee also agreed to query the faculty on this point.
L. Brubaker reported on the sophomore integrated class task group's work to date. She said considerations in designing the sequence included: courses could be taken in any order; series would need coordination within the course set, with ESC 110, and with upper division options; series would need substantial investment and commitment for course development. The three tentative sequence courses proposed were:
Sustainable Ecosystems: a Multiscale Approach (examining processes affecting physical, biotic, and human systems across multiple scales (individuals to regions). The course would be organized around processes (e.g., change and stability, energy capture and expenditure, material fluxes, biotic-abiotic feedbacks) (with examples across scales and systems) or around scales (with examples of similar processes across scales and systems. In either case the course would ask whether each process is equally important across all scales/systems (why or why not) and identify the importance of one scale to the behavior of higher/lower scales (top-down vs. bottom-up controls. Field trips/labs would focus on systems at locations along urban to wildland gradient.
Human-Nature Interactions (providing a theoretical and practical foundation for understanding the array of interactions between humans and nature). The course would illustrate basic principles by using case studies from cultural, political, and environmental systems; case studies would also all students to explore differences in perceptions of negative and positive human-nature interactions and explore approaches for mitigating negative impacts and enhancing positive impacts of such interactions. Topics could be approached from different scales (e.g., individual, group, organization) and bring in theory from psychology, sociology, anthropology, policy, and organizational behavior).
Pacific Northwest Environmental Problems (revolving around one or more major, ongoing environmental issue spanning the urban-wildland continuum in the PNW. Central components of a problem would be learned by finding, assessing, and discussing related information from various sources. Issues would be addressed using various paradigms of scientific method, design methods, and management/planning methods. How information can be used or misused would be discussed. Teams would develop project report describing the problem and identifying areas of conflict (e.g., biological, social, economic, physical). Goal would be to give students skills to find information, assess it, and make decisions they can support and defend.
Committee discussion/questions on the sophomore integrated series report included:
· Some areas of overlap among courses might occur; would have to be carefully developed
· All three courses have substantial recruitment/service course potential
· Series will not provide disciplinary building blocks, with danger of dilution of material
· Series will, however, give relevance to "first principles"
· Human-nature interactions course would provide an innovative first approach to addressing human issues in natural resource arena
· Environmental problems course would start a connection to research at an early stage in student's development
T. Hinckley agreed to present the integrated series proposal to the 2/1/01 faculty meeting.
D. Briggs reported on the methods/measurements task group's work to date. He said that about 10 faculty have participated in this project so far but that perspectives from additional faculty are needed. He said broad objective of course would be to illustrate the full range of measurement issues, including basic measurement principles, the why/where/when of measurements, scales of measurement, dimensional analysis, and, where permitting, an introduction to a very basic set of skills. The course could be taken at sophomore or junior level and could serve as a prerequisite to more discipline-specific techniques taught in upper-division options. Meaningful field trips would provide hands-on experience.
Committee discussion/questions on the methods/measurements class report included:
· If taken at sophomore level could improve summer employment opportunities
· Could have an appeal to other than CFR students (e.g. PoE)
· Should STAT 381 be a prerequisite?
· Might substitute for the PNW Environmental Problems course in the sophomore integrated series -- this would add 5 credits to potential disciplinary options (35 rather than 30)
· Design of the sophomore series and the measurements course will probably co-evolve
D. Briggs agreed to present the proposal at the 2/1/02 faculty meeting. The committee agreed that it would specifically query whether the measurements course should take the place of the environmental problems course in the sophomore series.
The committee discussed disciplinary options developed by faculty groups and provided to the committee in advance of the meeting (including wildlife ecology; business; soils and the environment; urban ecology). Committee discussion/questions included:
· Use of the words "minor/option/track were discussed -- all have specific UW meanings, so we need to be aware of these
· Possible "backsliding" into preserved and defended territories with loss of integrating momentum if too many options emerge
· Possible confusion to students/curriculum reviewers/employers if we have a multitude of options -- how to make the choices clear and meaningful
· The utility of developing a web-based menu driven system that facilitates student choice was discussed as an important tool
Capstone structure was discussed, framed by the question of whether there should be one capstone course taken by all majors, specialized capstone opportunities, or a thesis option.
Some committee members felt that all students should be involved in the same capstone, while others saw the utility of continuing to take advantage of capstones (e.g., restoration ecology, urban ecology) that are already in place. The committee agreed to present models (one capstone for all/one capstone but with thesis option/specialized capstones) to the faculty.
The committee reviewed the list of potential focus group participants and was asked to send additional names via email, so that letters of invitation could be prepared.
Next Steps:
ü J. Marzluff will prepare draft presentation for 2/01/02 meeting for committee review
ü Additional potential focus group participants identified and letters of invitation mailed
The meeting adjourned at 10:30 a.m.
Committee on Curriculum Transformation
Minutes, January 23, 2002
Committee members attending: Agee, Bolton, Briggs, Brubaker, Gara, Honea, Hinckley Marzluff (Chair), Paul, Ryan, Trudeau; also attending M. Almaguer-Bay
Agenda items included:
· Review/approve minutes of 1/16/02 meeting
· Information literacy/integrate into 110, soph/jr, capstone sequence?
· Soph/junior integrated class --class level; general course content; subgroup to outline content for next meeting