Department of Forest and Natural Resources Management
Syracuse and Wanakena Campuses
Annual Report 2008-2009
Student Learning Outcomes Assessment
The FNRM Department has long been aware of the need to assess the effectiveness of our
curriculum in meeting the needs of our students and meeting the objectives that we have laid out
for each of our majors. For that reason, we instituted a formal review process that forces us to
examine each of our majors on a 3-year revolving basis. In 2007-2008, we examined the Natural
Resources Management. This effort led to a major restructuring of the major in which we
dropped the 3 areas of emphasis (Watershed Hydrology, Recreation, and Natural Resource
Management), broadened the required courses in the program (including attendance at the
summer program), and increased the number of free electives. With these changes, we felt that
students would be able to broaden their expertise to better meet the objectives of the major,
deepen their specific knowledge by being able to incorporate minors into their program of study,
and have an easier time transferring into the program. The increase in NRM students this coming
year is an indication of the success of this strategy.
This past year, an ad hoc committee chaired by Rene Germain examined the Forest Resource
Management program. This assessment was done in the context of our initial attempts of
defining a formal assessment process that is only now being implemented. The committee did a
significant modification of the major, changing some of the pre-professional requirements,
adding some new professional requirements, and increasing the number of free electives. Again,
with these changes we feel that students would be able to deepen their expertise to better meet
the objectives of the major, deepen their specific knowledge by being able to incorporate minors
into their program of study, and have an easier time transferring into the program.
This coming year, we will form another ad hoc committee to evaluate the Forest Ecosystem
Science major.
Very little formal data collection has occurred as part of the assessment of our programs. One of
our primary means for evaluation the success of the program is through the evaluation of
capstone projects for our two large majors. This course, FOR 490, was split for the first time this
year into FRM and NRM courses. Table 12 shows student responses to a series of questions
based on our program’s objectives since 2006 (the survey was not given in 2008). In general, the
students feel reasonably confident in the skills that they have developed, except for their
statistical abilities, growth and yield projection skills, finance abilities, and their knowledge of
policy.
An informal evaluation that we utilized this spring was to perform an SII (Strengths, Areas of
Improvement, Insights) analysis of the learning outcomes for our students in FOR 490. These
were performed by the two instructors for the course (Dr. Nowak for the NRM course and Dr.
Germain for the FRM course. The results of this analysis were as follows: For the NRM students,
the following results were found (relative to the degree objectives):



Strengths: Students have ability to plan, conduct and analyze natural areas inventories
(2c-Measuring), Good communication skills (6), Good problem solving skills (8);
Areas of Improvement: Identification of major species of flora in an area (2a-Measuring),
Knowledge of / implementation capacity for alternative ways to manage natural resources
(3a-Manipulating; 4c-Managing), Understanding of contemporary management issues –
biodiversity, non-native invasives, hazard/danger trees, Ability to do library research and
correct citation of literature;
Insights: Reliance of students on the web as a primary source of information, Our
program works – students are ready to enter society as professional natural resources
For the FRM section of the course, the following SII were obtained:
 Strengths: Writing, Map making skills, generally capable of pulling together a nice plan,
Forest inventory planning skills, Good public presentation skills, Ability to respond to
questions without getting defensive, Ability to think on their feet in the field;
 Areas of Improvement: • Knowledge of herbaceous plants and shrubs, Not equipped to
address wildlife management, Timber volumes and quality (come with experience),
Maintain professional demeanor in field – avoid getting too informal
 Insights: • Students need more practice interpreting field situations, Need to reinforce
plant and shrub ID, Gap in wildlife management knowledge, Generally, students are in a
good position to learn and grow as foresters
Table 12: FOR 490 - End of Course Supplemental Survey
As a graduating senior, I feel confident in my
abilities to:
1.
2.
Communicate relationships between flora and fauna in a forest setting.
Describe alternative ways to change or maintain forest and stand structure
3.
Prescribe, justify, and implement forest and stand level treatments in accord
with owner objectives.
Correctly identify the number of major species of flora in a given area.
Plan, conduct, and analyze forest inventories including biological, physical,
and social.
Describe and apply different statistical sampling methods.
Project stand and forest development. Possess knowledge, and use, of
computer growth and yield projection models.
Evaluate tradeoffs among biological sustainability, economic feasibility,
and social acceptability.
To describe and apply different economic and related decision techniques
including investment analyses, to evaluate alternative stand and forest
management practices.
Specify and implement management practices appropriate to owner
objectives.
Explain how forest policy at the national, state, and local levels affect forest
management.
Describe technical forestry and natural resources management terms to
many different audiences.
To function as an effective team member.
Feel qualified to pursue a career in forestry.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
2006
2007
2009
4.2
4.3
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.4
4.3
4.4
4
4.5
4.4
4.4
4.4
3.8
4.3
3.8
4.3
3.9
3.7
3.7
3.5
4.4
4.4
4.1
4
4
3.9
4.5
4.4
4.4
4.1
4.3
3.6
4.4
4.9
4.4
4.8
4.4
4.8
4.5
As stated above, we have only begun the process of formally collecting data to assess student
outcomes. This coming year, we will be implementing the plan that we submitted to the provost
and will have clearer indications of the effectiveness of our programs.