Committee on Curriculum Transformation

Minutes, April 3, 2002

Committee members attending: Agee, Briggs, Gara, Honea, Marzluff  (chair), Paul, Ryan, Trudeau; absent: Brubaker, Hinckley; also attending: Almaguer-Bay, Taylor

Agenda items discussed included:

·         Review/approve 3/13/02 minutes

·         Revised options (wildlife ecology, forestry science)

·         Reconsidering the environmental science option (comments from D. Zabowski)

·         Interfacing with PSE (comments from R. Gustafson)

·         Reconsidering the sophomore core social/policy course (develop within CFR, using case study approach?)

·         Expanding the curriculum learning objectives (comments from J. Fridley; how to ensure objectives are incorporated as courses are developed and/or revised)

·         Minors

·         4/5/02 all-College faculty meeting

·          Next steps

The minutes of the 3/13/02 meeting were approved,

Options: The committee reviewed the most recent revisions of the wildlife ecology and forestry science options. J. Marzluff said that the wildlife ecology option's list of restricted electives had been streamlined and that the courses were not either quantitative or taxonomic.  He said that although the previous WS curriculum was designed to prepare students for a graduate program, the new wildlife ecology proposal provides an identified mechanism to allow students a choice of pathways: an honors track for those wanting an advanced degree and another track for those whose goal is a BS.  A further change is that only honors students will be able to choose an individual thesis; others will participate in the senior capstone.

R. Gara discussed the changes proposed in the forestry science option.  He said the electives had been grouped into SAF categories so that students could have a mechanism to easily identify the courses they should take to be SAF certified.  The four groupings are measurements; policy/administration; forest ecology and biology; and management of forest resources.  In addition, he said it was likely that a 4-credit course in soils would be added to the required course list.  He pointed out that some members of the faculty group working on the proposal also felt that a non-academic field experience (internship) should probably be made part of the option.

The committee discussed input from D. Zabowski suggesting that the environmental science option, as currently proposed, is too unfocused.  A more structured junior core for this option could be developed that would give students a solid environmental science degree, rather than allowing students in the option to pick among any CFR upper division courses. The committee agreed that this was a good approach and that the suggestion should be developed further.

Interface with PSE: A handout from R. Gustafson was included in agenda materials that suggested mechanisms for increased interaction between PSE students and other CFR programs.  Specific suggestions included: (1) PSE students would be required to take the professional ethics core course;  (2) PSE students could have the option to take approved capstone with ESDM majors; (3) require (or have on a short electives list) a sophomore course that deals with social/political aspects of environmental issues, preferably with a case study format.

Sophomore social/policy core course: Item (3) of the PSE interface memo led to a discussion of the sophomore social/policy core course.  Should CFR develop internally a case study course for this part of the core, or use existing PoE courses as had been earlier proposed.  Tradeoffs discussed included: PoE courses would be more integrated because they are team taught by faculty from different units, whereas a CFR-developed course would likely be taught by one faculty member.  The possibility of using the current FM 271 (taught by R. Lee) as a prototype was discussed, increasing the credits from 3 to 5.  This course might also be attractive as a service course and perhaps outside lecturers or CFR affiliate faculty could assist with teaching. policy/planning course that would take the place of two currently separates courses.  The committee agreed to recommend that the sophomore policy core course be developed within CFR.

 Curriculum learning objectives: The committee discussed input from J. Fridley concerning the objectives.  It was agreed that his suggestions for three additional objectives should be included in the proposal.  Under knowledge sets the objective "Understand the processes of science, design, and management; the process models used to describe and communicate them; and their role in contemporary environmental issues" would be added.  Under skill sets the objective "Effectively be able to do at least one of: devise and conduct a scientifically sound inquiry; design an environmental system or a component of an environmental system; or devise a rational management plan, including plans for its implementation" would be added.  Under developing comprehension, integration, and meaning the objective "Understand the expected consequences of implementing a research, design, or management plan and be able to explain them" would be added.

The committee also discussed how to ensure that these objectives will be met by options and by individual courses.  It was agreed that (1) each option will need to show how it meets ALL objectives; (2) each course will need to show WHAT objectives it meets; and (3) a monitoring plan based on PSE's ABET accreditation monitoring should be implemented.

Minors: The committee agreed that the presentation focus at the Friday faculty meeting should be the four major options, and that minors and their number and structure should be discussed more fully by the committee.

Next steps:

ü      J. Marzluff to work with D. Zabowski on development of more structured environmental science option

ü      C. Paul to prepare handouts for 4/05/02 faculty meeting

ü      Continue work on options, minors, core