CFR Faculty Meeting, February 11. 2003
Notes
Faculty attending: Agee, Bare, Boardman, Bradley, Breitsprecher, Briggs, Brubaker,
Chalker-Scott, Edmonds, Ewing, Ford, Franklin, Fridley, Gara, Greulich, Gustafson,
Harrison, Hinckley, Johnson, Lee, Manuwal, Marzluff, Paun, Reichard, Ryan, Schiess,
Schreuder, Sprugel, Strand, Wagar, West; also attending: Green, Paul, Trudeau
Agenda: (1) Discussion of Ad Hoc Working Group’s proposed motions and vote on
each motion; (2) Report by graduate program review committee
L. Chalker-Scott opened the meeting, noting the agenda’s topics for discussion. She
then turned the meeting over to L. Brubaker, chair of the Ad hoc Working Group on
Curriculum, to explain that committee’s proposed motions.
L. Brubaker reviewed the USDA challenge grant proposal for curriculum development
that had been developed by a group of faculty working in conjunction with the ad hoc
committee. She said that developing the proposal had been a good mechanism to
facilitate discussion among the faculty and to begin development of core courses. She
then referred to the faculty vote of 12/17/02: “The core course requirement shall consist
of 20 credits, covering the following topics – Ecology, Society, Culture,
Environmental/Resource Economics, and Field Analyses – in an integrative, innovative
way.” She said that the two motions being presented at today’s meeting covered the (1)
prerequisite courses and (2) core courses of the “non-PSE” curriculum voted on in the
12/17/02 meeting.
She also explained that the committee had been working on a survey/service course
recommendation that had been forwarded to Dean Bare. “Survey” or “service” courses
are used interchangeably to refer to CFR courses that (1) help satisfy UW matrices of
SCH production and/or (2) provide required courses for other UW programs. She said
that other committee work continued on developing advising mechanisms for the new
curriculum and the capstone course concept.
L. Brubaker then presented the two motions for a vote.
Motion #1: PREREQUISITES AND UW REQUIREMENTS (non-PSE)
The prerequisite and UW requirements for the non-PSE major shall consist of 65-67 credits:
Written Communication (12 credits)
5 Credits of Composition (English 131 or equivalent)
3 Credits of Technical Writing (TC 231 or equivalent)
4 Additional Writing Credits (TC 333 or another W course)
Visual Literary & Performing Arts (10 credits VLPA)
5 Credits COM 220 Public Speaking
5 Credits VLPA (from VLPA list)
Biology & Soils (13-15 credits)
10 Credits Biology 101 and 102
3-5 Credits of either ESC 210, or ESC 311
Chemistry (10 credits)
5 Credits Chemistry 120
5 Credits Chemistry 220
Quantitative & Symbolic Reasoning (20 credits)
10 Credits QSci 291 and 292 or other Calculus Series
5 Credits Statistics (QSci 381 or Stat 220)
5 credits CFR 250 GIS
Individuals & Society (10 credits): core courses will fulfill this requirement.
Motion #2; CORE COURSEWORK REQUIREMENTS
Core coursework requirement for the nonPSE major shall consist of:
CXX 301: Course A: Ecosystem Dynamics: Maintaining Nature in an Urban World
Course Catalog Description: From the small plant or colony of ants at the junction of a sidewalk and a
skyscraper to backyard bird sanctuaries to large, urban green spaces, the preservation, restoration and
management of “nature” in urban environment present unique challenges and opportunities. These are
explored in the context of problem-based learning where teams of students work with stakeholders and
experts to understand patterns, structure, processes and drivers.
CXX 302: Course B: Ecosystem Dynamics: Society at Nature’s Front Door
Course Catalog Description: Increasing land use pressures are rapidly changing the interface between
developed areas and wildlands. Such interfaces are areas of transition, tension and often great conflict.
Much of the tension and conflict revolves around competing demands for the land resource. These are
explored in the context of problem-based learning where teams of students work with stakeholders and
experts to understand patterns, structure, processes and drivers.
CXX 303: Course C: Ecosystem Dynamics: Preservation -- Use from Conservation to Exploitation
Course Catalog Description: The stewardship of comparatively “pristine” terrestrial environments, whether
they are embedded in an urban setting, a military base or a distant wilderness area often involve tradeoffs
and competing demands. Pollution, invasive organisms, mining, burning, grazing, logging, hunting,
skiing, hiking and bird watching are just a sample of the many conflicting and increasing pressures on
land use. These are explored in the context of problem-based learning where teams of students work
with stakeholders and experts to understand patterns, structure, processes and drivers.
CXX 304: Course D: Ecosystem Dynamics: Quantifying and Qualifying
Course Catalog Description: Plants, animals and humans coexist in many environments, interacting in
manifold, complex ways across the landscape. Stewardship of natural resources involves balancing
management of preservation, recreation and modification to the flow of renewable resources within,
around and through society. Understanding this balance demands timely knowledge of the location,
extent and condition of resources in nature. The scientific method, hypothesis testing and monitoring are
key to processing this information. These are explored in the context of problem-based learning where
teams of students work with stakeholders, experts and data to understand monitoring, detecting change
and analyzing, interpreting and using information.
L. Brubaker said that motion #1 on the curriculum prerequisites was very similar to
current CFR curricula prerequisites as well as to prerequisites proposed by the previous
CTRAN and ALTRAN proposals. It was clarified that the 10 INS credits are satisfied by
the new curriculum’s core courses. With no further questions, it was moved and
seconded that the motion be presented for a vote.
Discussion on motion #1 included the following questions and comments:
•
Is STAT 220 rigorous enough? Could something else that is also transfer-friendly
but more rigorous be substituted? An amendment was proposed that the
language “5 Credits Statistics (QSci 381 or Stat 220)” be amended to read “5
Credits Statistics (Q SCI 381 or equivalent.)”
•
The lack of social science (particularly economics and political science)
prerequisites was noted. It was noted that economics would be handled in the
core in an interdisciplinary way. It was suggested that political science also
needed to be worked into the core.
•
It was suggested that the core needed to be discussed in advance of the
prerequisites – students base what they know on previously learned constructs
making it a challenge to work with applied problems. L. Brubaker said that the
core would be constructed so that students view multiple constructs and
understand the tradeoffs involved. She said it was important that the fundamental
concepts taught in the core are visible and transparent, and that a lot of careful
work in designing the courses will be needed to insure this.
•
Will there be a recommended reading list in addition to prerequisite courses? It
was suggested that the intensive advising envisioned by the committee could take
care of this.
•
It was noted that although a TC 231 equivalent is offered at many community
colleges, an equivalent to TC 331 is not and the course is often difficult to get
into. It was suggested that the committee explore additional options that may
have community college equivalents.
•
It was clarified that the proposed core is structured so that prerequisites can be
taken simultaneously to the core.
•
Should CFR 250 (GIS) be a prerequisite? It was suggested that this is essentially
a data management system, the relevance of which might change over time.
And, as a tool, it may not need to be required so early in the curriculum? Several
faculty spoke in favor of this prerequisite, saying it does represent fundamental
knowledge and is sometimes an important reason why our students get hired.
•
Should soils be a prerequisite? It was suggested that geology or some more
fundamental land formation science would be more appropriate. Responses
included the belief that soils is fundamental to the core courses, that soils does
build on geology and parent materials, that it would have to be taught in the core
if it were not a prerequisite.
•
It was clarified that both GIS and soils are offered in many community colleges
and that these are efficiently transfer-friendly prerequisites.
•
It was suggested that for the prerequisites, as for the core, adaptive management
would be needed, with flexibility and responsiveness to continual assessment an
ongoing challenge.
A vote on motion #1 (with amended language “QSCI 381 or equivalent” and committee
investigation of additional options for TC 331) was moved and seconded. The vote
proceeded by a hand count: 22 in favor, 3 opposed, and 3 abstaining.
T. Hinckley presented motion #2. He referred to the faculty vote of 12/17/02: “The core
course requirement shall consist of 20 credits, covering the following topics – Ecology,
Society, Culture, Environmental/Resource Economics, and Field Analyses – in an
integrative, innovative way.” He said the subcommittee working on the USDA challenge
grant had developed six proposed models for the core; the six were then reduced to
three, which were presented to the ad hoc committee. The final proposal that
constitutes motion #2 was chosen by the ad hoc committee because: (1) it provides
significant opportunity for service learning, (2) all stakeholders are present, (3) it
provides the most even coverage of biophysical, social and business content, (4) the
content of individual courses would be readily perceived as having curricular value and,
therefore, be utilized by other programs on campus, (5) it builds on college strengths in
interdisciplinary inquiry, hands-on learning with an innovative, non-traditional approach,
(6) it builds on a regional strength of a real world laboratory encompassing the urban to
wildland gradient; and (7) the general course approach and content have been tested
in a number of different formats.
Discussion on motion #2 included the following questions and comments:
•
It was suggested that courses A and B contained some redundancy of content
and could be combined: it was suggested that the four proposed core courses be
reduced to three, combining A&B into one, and changing the core courses into
three two-sequence units with three credits in each sequence. Several faculty
responded that A and B were actually very distinct and the core would suffer if
they were combined. It was also pointed out that the motion’s credit sequence of
5-5-5-5 was better for developing content and for scheduling.
•
Several faculty noted that the phrase “ecosystem dynamics” in the course titles
was not appropriate and did not convey the social science content of the courses.
To some, “humans” are included in “ecosystems,” but this may not be the
generally understood use of the word. Several amended titles were offered,
including “ecosystem and social dynamics,” and “humans and natural resources.”
A motion was carried to amend the course titles by deleting the words “ecosystem
dynamics.”
•
Several faculty also noted other specific language that needed to be “tweaked.” It
was noted that catalog course descriptions inevitably suffer from enforced brevity,
and that adaptive management will be important here to come up with the words
that best convey course content and attract students.
•
Concern was expressed about a fundamental assumption present in the
proposed core: that team learning is effective. It was proposed that it might be
more appropriate at a higher, capstone level. It was also suggested that team
learning could be destructive, with the “strong carrying the weak.” Additionally, the
need for higher enrollment in CFR classes will make the ideal faculty/student ratio
for team learning difficult to achieve. What evidence is there that team learning
actually works? Several faculty said they had very positive experiences with both
team teaching and team learning. It was suggested that UW’s CIDR will offer
ongoing assistance in developing this aspect of the core, and that it will be very
important to make creative use of faculty groups, stakeholders, and other
resources to do team teaching/learning effectively.
K. Ewing then presented the following statement: it was requested that the statement
be inserted in the meeting notes:
“The EHUF faculty [subsequently clarified as “L. Chalker-Scott, K. Ewing, S. Reichard, and J. Wott”] is not
opposed to the development of a new curriculum; in fact, some members have worked hard to further
define the curriculum and develop core courses. Our position has been supportive of curricular reform
but not at the expense of our growing EHUF program. Therefore, we cannot vote for this motion and will
instead abstain for the following reasons:
9
[L. Chalker-Scott, K. Ewing, S. Reichard, and J. Wott] voted against the proposed curriculum last
December, as they do not agree that eliminating healthy unique programs such as EHUF is
necessary or reasonable in developing new curricula.
9
The proposed curriculum does not address the academic needs of our students in environmental
horticulture, public horticulture, and urban forestry.
9
The proposed curriculum does not address the career needs of the majority of our students, who
do not plan on attending graduate school and would be penalized by being forced to spend
additional quarters in school taking newly required courses outside horticulture.
9
It is unlikely that the new curricular structure will allow us to continue teaching many of the
horticulture classes, since our major numbers will plummet as students go elsewhere for
horticulture. This weakens our ability to offer the necessary horticultural tools for such programs
as restoration ecology.
9
Although Centers no longer have academic programs assigned to them, it was the association
with research and teaching that allowed Harold Tukey to raise $12 million in private funds to
support CUH and its associated academic programs 20 years ago, and it continues to convince
recent donors like the Soests to give nearly $2 million. Elimination of a curriculum in horticulture is
not what the horticultural community intended when it built the Center, nor is it what they expect to
see now.
Remarks in response to this statement included:
•
An expression of sympathy for those supporting the statement, but a realization
that CFR is being forced to look at program efficiency and a suggestion that
EHUF look at an MFR program
•
A comment that CFR has not always been rational in moving resources from
areas of declining enrollment to growth areas
•
Viewpoints that (1) no matter how much individual CFR curricula may be growing,
they all still look very “under-enrolled” to upper campus administrators viewing our
college: this is what we are faced with and we must respond; (2) the basic
principle of the core curriculum is sound – we have to integrate to be effective in
teaching our students; and (3) the USDA proposal is stronger and better because
of the diversity of input.
A vote on motion #2 (with amended language striking “ecosystem dynamics” from core
course titles) was moved and seconded. The vote proceeded by a hand count: 21 in
favor, 1 opposed, and 6 abstaining.
D. Paun presented the report of the Graduate Program Review Committee. She
explained it was a volunteer group working with the ad hoc curriculum committee.
Members are faculty Agee, Briggs, Ewing, Halpern, Lee, Northey, Paun, Reichard,
Zabowski and graduate students Johnson, Shebitz, and Web.
She said items discussed by the group included:
•
Suggest how to increase graduate program efficiencies:
•
consolidate graduate programs
•
identify common course requirements
•
establish minimum number of students per graduate program and per 500+
level course
•
Identify potential professional degrees
•
Explore how graduate program can best enhance undergraduate education and
teaching effectiveness.
Progress to date included developing a committee philosophy (“to gather information for
ad hoc committee”); working on MFR program in forestry with extensive faculty input;
and requesting feedback from graduate program leaders on possible consolidation and
increased efficiency of program areas.
She said feedback has been received from five graduate program leaders, with
responses ranging from consolidating to one to consolidating to seven program areas.
Other feedback included suggestions on specific common courses (QSCI 482/483,
research methods, broad forestry class or basic discipline overview, life cycle analysis,
advanced math, experimental design, biosocial, current topics) and suggestions for
eliminating small courses (drop courses with <8 enrollment, offer courses every other
year).
The meeting adjourned at approximately 5 p.m.