CFR Faculty Meeting, February 1, 2002
Faculty Attending: Agee, Allan, Bare, Bolton, Breitsprecher, Bradley, Briggs, Brubaker, Eastin,
Edmonds, Ford, Franklin, Greulich, Gustafson, Hanley, Harrison, Hinckley, Humann, Johnson,
Kearney, Lippke, Manuwal, Marzluff, McKean, Northey, Perez-Garcia, Reichard, Ryan, Schiess,
Schreuder, Turnblom, Vogt, K., Wagar, West, Wott
Others attending: Corboy, Green, Honea, Kaye, Marra, Paul, Trudeau, Wall
Agenda topic: curriculum reform
G. Bradley welcomed faculty and others to the meeting, jointly sponsored by CPC/EFC to facilitate
discussion of curriculum reform. B. Bare spoke briefly, saying it was his first faculty meeting as
"dean" rather than "acting dean." A highly held personal value, he said, was maintaining trust and an
open mind and that he welcomed input at any time. He reiterated his goals of developing strategic
thinking at all levels of CFR, particularly for the timely issues of curriculum, funding, and
development, and of transforming CFR's organizational culture. Other goals include the
development of a leadership team and implementation of performance/accountability criteria. He
then turned the meeting over to J. Marzluff, chair of the ad hoc Committee on Curriculum
Transformation (CTRAN).
J. Marzluff introduced CTRAN members. He said that the committee's charge, following the 11/7/01
faculty vote on integrating the undergraduate curriculum, had been to develop the structure for such
a program. He said in the meeting today CTRAN would explain its ideas and solicit both general
and specific comments for input on modifying its draft proposals. He said the proposal would then
be presented to focus groups of students, employers, and alumni, revised based on their comments,
presented to upper campus administrators, revised based on that input, and then presented to
faculty again for discussion/approval. Once a basic structure is approved, the proposal would be
handed off to the ad hoc Curriculum Implementation Committee, chaired by L. Brubaker.
He said CTRAN had developed a set of learning objectives for the new curriculum based on input
from past surveys and workshops and from faculty input. Overarching principles of the proposal, he
said were (1) developing a truly integrative curriculum; (2) covering the window box to wildlands
gradient; (3) maintaining a high "freedom index," and (4) attracting students. He said the proposal
was structured around a set of courses taken by CFR majors in the curriculum at various levels:
freshman: ESC 110 (5 credits); plus an option 5-credit FIG connecting with senior capstone
sophomore: option #1 -an integrated series of three 5-credit courses
option #2 - an integrated series of two 5-credit courses
junior/sophomore: Natural Resource Measurements (5 credits)
junior: disciplinary options (requirements/restricted electives) (option #1=30 credits; option #2=35
credits, depending on whether sophomore series is two- or three- course series)
senior: capstone (10 credits)
T. Hinckley presented the CTRAN proposal for an integrated series of 5-credit courses at the
sophomore level. The 15-credit, 3-course version would include:
9
Sustainable Ecosystems: a multiscale approach -- with the goal of understanding
processes (including, e.g., change and stability, energy cycling, material fluxes, feedbacks)
affecting physical, biotic, and human systems across multiple scales. Organized around
key processes and around scales and scaling, crosscutting systems. Uses case studies
and field trips.
9
Human-Nature Interactions -- with the goal of understanding the array of interactions
between humans and nature. Explores case studies from contrasting cultural, political, and
environmental systems. Framework enables exploration of perceptions, environmental
ethics and approaches for mitigation in context of specific biotic and physical systems.
9
Pacific Northwest Environmental Problems -- with the goal of applying investigation and
problem-solving skills to case studies of environmental problems. Evaluates ongoing or
emerging environmental issues across window box to wildland continuum. interdisciplinary
teams describe problems, identify conflicts, and apply information sources and assessment
(design, management, planning, and science paradigms).
He said the concerns about this series were loss of disciplinary approach, coordination within and
among courses in the series, and up front investment in time and money.
D. Briggs presented the proposal for a 5-credit natural resource measurements course at the
sophomore or junior level. Exposing students to scientific method and experimentation, the course
would foster interdisciplinary understanding/communication, and examine, by use of disciplinary
case studies, the whats, hows, and whys of measurement. Topics could include sampling design
(plots, transects, stratification); scale, pools and fluxes; chemical environment, expressing chemical
content; forest products measurements; wildlife measurement; socio/economic measurement
principles; GIS, map scale, and units; computer application efficiency; and urban forestry
measurements.
J. Marzluff said CTRAN was seeking input on whether the sophomore integrated series should be a
two- or three-course series (allowing 30 or 35 credits for the disciplinary options) and where the
measurements course would fit into curriculum. He said that in both options the total required
credits would be 65, maintaining inderdisciplinarity and flexibility, while allowing students to develop
disciplinary specialization. The 65 required CFR credits would be in addition to 57 credits of UW BS
requirements and would allow for 58 free elective credits (total = 180 credits).
J. Marzluff briefly summarized the proposed disciplinary options received by CTRAN. He said
structural possibilities might be: (1) a web-based menu system so students can design courses of
study match their desires for disciplinary emphasis and career path; (2) faculty-driven options (which
would include a general environmental science degree with students choosing one class from each
option; (3) some combination of (1) and (2). Option proposals received to date were: business and
economics; wildlife ecology; soils and the environment; urban ecology; and sustainable forestry
science). Each option received proposed a wide variety of courses from within and outside of CFR
to round out their 30 credits. He said that a brief review of these proposed options (some received
just prior to the meeting) showed some possibilities for further consolidation among the various
options' required courses. CTRAN has suggested that course proliferation be combated by a
requirement that at least 10 students must register for a class to keep it viable.
J. Marzluff said that CTRAN was just beginning to discuss the senior capstone structure. Two
proposed models under consideration were:
9
All in major go through same format of problem formulation, interdisciplinary team
research/design that reinforces the window box to wildland gradient, formal presentation at
all-College meeting, and a variety of sections in any given year (e.g., restoration, urban
ecology, others)
9
Some in major go through individual research thesis, allowing preparation for graduate
work and seamless interface with 3:2 program if this is developed, also with a variety of
sections
He asked for faculty comment on these two models.
The floor was opened to general discussion. Comments and questions about the proposal
included:
•
A number of favorable comments re: the proposed structure, with the caveat that actually
accomplishing it will be a major challenge of commitment and coordination
•
A number of comments dealing with developing disciplinary expertise and rigor -- how would
students meet professional requirements and certification and how would it meet external
concerns about maintaining academic rigor. It was pointed out that it is difficult to arrive at a
commonly-held definition of "professional." It was also pointed out that "disciplinary expertise"
and "rigor" are two distinct concepts that should not be conflated. The tradeoffs between rigor
and reasonable expectations were something CTRAN had discussed and considered. It was
suggested that the CFR major is a BS, with the scientific rigor distinguishing it, for example, from
PoE, which is a BA. It was also suggested that some options might choose to require more
rigorous prerequisites, e.g. BIOL 201-202 rather than 101-102.
•
It was questioned when would students declare a major under this proposal (typically this
happens when a student reaches 90 credits)
•
The question of community college transfers was discussed -- the CTRAN proposal would allow
for these students to opt out of ESC110 if they have some equivalent preparation. Also the
flexibility of the sophomore integrated series, because it can be taken in any order, and because
although prerequisite to other courses in the major could be taken concurrently with those
courses, would make it easier for transfer students to fulfill requirements
•
The question of whether to design CFR “W” courses or expect students to get writing
requirements outside of CFR was discussed. Concerns were expressed about the tremendous
investment in time to design in-house “W” courses, as well as the fact that writing experts might
well be the best source of instruction for these courses. The possibility of partnering with outside
writing expertise was suggested. Although “W” courses require review of drafts by a writing
instructor, it was suggested that peer review of writing can be useful as well.
•
The natural resources measurements course was seen by some as more beneficial in the
sophomore year (the earlier students are introduced to thinking quantitatively, the better) and
others as more beneficial at the junior level (could be more in-depth). It might be possible to
offer two integrated measurements course, one at sophomore and one at junior level. It was
also suggested that any integrated measurements course should include the concept of
monitoring which is inextricably bound up with relevant considerations of scale, economics,
policy decisions, etc. In addition, perhaps QSCI could develop courses that fit more closely with
CFR courses, even though the QSCI student population has change over recent years and is no
longer dominated by forestry/fisheries majors.
•
Re: the question of whether the integrated sophomore series should be two or three courses,
some favored the three-course sequence (more truly integrative) and others favored the twocourse sequence (an adaptive management approach presenting a less monumental task to
develop)
•
The case for environmental horticulture as a stand-alone curriculum was introduced – why is
PSE continuing to remain stand-alone and not others? It was suggested that all CFR current
programs, with the exception of PSE, have a commonality in being based on living
organisms/biology. Other current curricula could and have made an argument for being standalong; if this argument were accepted, it would take CFR back to the current and demonstrably
inefficient model of seven UG curricula.
•
Re: the senior capstone, some felt that capstones should serve the needs of various specialty
disciplines and should include a thesis option, while others felt it was a final opportunity for
integration at an advanced level. Capstone courses, all agreed, must be very carefully designed
to be successful and represent an enormous time commitment and a shift away from the way
most courses in CFR are taught. However, it was pointed out that the senior level capstone will
have underpinnings in the sophomore integrate series – students will have been introduced to
thinking and working on interdisciplinary problems and in teams.
•
Re: the proposed disciplinary options, it was agreed that the term “option” was preferable as
options can be added or dropped without HEC Board approval. Also, the term “minor” is
generally reserved for the ability of students outside of a unit to get a minor in that unit.
•
Some questioned why the 15-credit limit on the disciplinary option core – J. Marzluff said that, in
effect, it was partly an effort to get people to think creatively and integratively and partly in
support of the key concept of flexibility. He said that, in fact, the 15-credit option core can be
augmented by the 15-credit restricted electives, the integrated sophomore series, the
measurement course, the capstone, and free electives, so that designers of disciplinary options
have a lot of leeway.
Voiced consensus at the faculty meeting seemed to be general approval of the curriculum
proposal along the following structure:
9
required at sophomore level -- a 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
9
required at senior level – a more flexible capstone option, with possibility of retaining some
existing capstones and providing a thesis alternative
9
allowing for as much flexibility as possible, within overarching constraints, in designing options
J. Marzluff said the curriculum proposal, as further refined, would be presented to focus groups of
students, employers, and alumni and then to others at the UW for comment. The date of the focus
group meeting, he said, was scheduled for 2/15/02. He thanked all present for their valuable input
and said CTRAN would continue to frequently solicit input as it refined and revised its proposal.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 3:30 p.m.