(APC Handbook – LINK 2 – Form B)
Academic Planning Council
In-depth Program Review [Form B]
Form B is due on or before October 15.
Please supply the following information
Program
Reclamation, Environment &
Conservation
Department
Agriculture
Current Academic Year
2015-2016
Date of Last In-Depth Review
10 February 2010
Name of Program Contact Person
Yari Johnson
Position of Program Contact Person
Assistant professor and program
director
To be completed by the program/department
1.
In a paragraph, briefly describe your program’s Mission Statement and how it relates to the
University Strategic Mission.
The purpose or mission of the Reclamation, Environment and Conservation (REC)
program is to promote environmental awareness and actions through interdisciplinary
instruction and outreach. Its goal is to help protect, restore, and conserve the environment
for future generations. This will be achieved by combining a solid liberal arts education
with professional curricular and educational opportunities aimed at combining the
important theoretical and practical aspects of restoration, reclamation, environmental
conservation, soil science, engineering and biological sciences with the managerial skills
necessary for preparing students for a successful career in environmental management.
The mission of the REC program relates to the fundamental mission of UW-Platteville and
the entire UW System specifically by:
 Enabling students to broaden their perspective, become intellectually more astute,
ethically more responsible, and to contribute wisely as an accomplished
professional and knowledgeable citizen in a diverse global community;
 Providing baccalaureate degree programs and specialized programs in agriculture;
 Providing an environment to promote scholarly activity that supports the program
and prepares students for their profession;
 Seeking to serve the needs of all students; and by
 Serving as an educational, cultural and economic development resource to
southwestern Wisconsin.
2.
List your program’s long-term (5+ years) goals as reported on at your last APC review and describe
how your program met those goals. If there was a need to modify those goals, briefly explain
why.
The last APC review of the REC program conducted in 2010 did not include any long-term
goals. There was a section on “Future Plans” for the program:
(APC Handbook – LINK 2 – Form B)
“The reclamation program is engaged in ongoing curriculum improvement to
develop a more effective learning experience that increases student learning
opportunities in the different areas while still providing a solid fundamental
knowledge in reclamation. Recent revisions include the incorporation of a natural
resources-related GIS/GPS and Mapping course and absorbing the
Environmental Law course. A planned and necessary improvement is revamping
the physical emphasis. The course listings in the physical emphasis have been
erratic at best. Work will commence to identify new or different course listings in
Civil and Environmental Engineering and Soil Science among others. Course
offering in forestry and wildlife-related aspects of restoration are desirable. We
also can improve in plant identification, construction techniques, and
estimating.”
When I joined the REC program as director in fall 2013, I initiated work to implement the
above plans. First, I applied for a Curriculum Improvement Fund 2014-2015 grant in
December 2013. I received the grant and worked through spring & summer 2014 to assess
the current REC curriculum by surveying current students, industry leaders at a national
conference (American Society of Mining and Reclamation), regional businesses, and
alumni. I also met with the REC Council to get their feedback on the program’s
curriculum. After synthesizing all of the feedback, I created a plan for revamping the REC
programs’ curriculum which includes completely changing the three current emphases
(Biological, Chemical, & Physical). I shared the plan with the REC Council during our
annual meeting and I shared the plan with the University community by presenting at the
UW-Platteville Faculty and Staff Research Day, on September 30, 2014. I have started the
curriculum change process by creating and offering a new course this fall: Wetland
Ecology, Restoration, & Management. The course was so popular that it was waitlisted. I
am currently working together with the REC Council to have the new curriculum approved
and ready to be implemented by the 2017-2018 year. The REC Council has until the end of
2015 to provide feedback on the curriculum changes. I will then bring the finalized
changes to the School of Agriculture Curriculum Committee, the BILSA Curriculum
Committee, and the UUCC starting in spring 2016 in order to have changes ready for the
2017-2018 year.
3.
At this point in your long-range planning, list your program’s most important (5+ years) goals and
briefly describe the resources your program will need to be successful, as well as any concerns or
issues your program is facing. Also briefly address how these goals support your program’s
Mission Statement.
(maximum of three)
Long-term Goal One
Resources Needed
Issues or Concerns
Complete revision of the Reclamation, Environment and
Conservation program’s curriculum.
Time (to complete UUCC program/course change forms
and attend meetings) and feedback from the REC
Council.
Due to faculty retirements and the potential for them to
not be replaced, I am concerned that some of the core
courses (e.g., geology) vital to such an interdisciplinary
program will no longer be offered.
(APC Handbook – LINK 2 – Form B)
How Goal Supports
Program’s Mission Statement
This goal supports the program’s mission by keeping the
curriculum relevant to the field and science which will
lead to better efforts to promote environmental
awareness and actions.
Long-term Goal Two
Create new learning outcomes and complementary
assessment measurement tools.
Resources Needed
Guidance from the REC Council and Nettie Daniels
Issues or Concerns
How Goal Supports
Program’s Mission Statement
Long-term Goal Three
Resources Needed
Issues or Concerns
How Goal Supports
Program’s Mission Statement
4.
The current student learning outcomes are difficult to
measure, they do not readily align with the assessment
tools, and thus it is challenging to determine whether or
not students are mastering the learning outcomes via the
current assessments. I plan to create new SLOs that are
SMART and use the ABCD method (see
https://www.uwplatt.edu/files/student-affairs/CoCurricularAssessment/assessmentframework_outcomes.pdf for
more details), which aligns with how I was taught to
create SLOs and assessments during my professor
training at North Carolina State University.
This goal supports the program’s mission by keeping the
curriculum relevant to the field and science which will
lead to better efforts to promote environmental
awareness and actions.
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
If your program was reviewed by any outside accrediting bodies since the last APC review, please
identify the review body and briefly summarize the results in 1-2 paragraphs. N/A
Information Required by the Assessment Oversight Committee
5. Please provide the following information.
A. Program Assessment Plan
i. List your program’s learning outcomes.
SLO 1: describe land management and reclamation/restoration activities and
outcomes and explain their importance to a wide range of audiences.
SLO 2: characterize and apply interdisciplinary knowledge, skills, and ethics
necessary to restore and manage cultural and natural landscapes.
(APC Handbook – LINK 2 – Form B)
SLO 3: apply site analyses techniques to predict and assess difficulties and challenges
unique to a given reclamation/restoration site.
SLO 4: compare and evaluate the roles and responsibilities of stakeholders such as
agencies, groups, and organizations engaged in land management and
reclamation/restoration.
SLO 5: apply the skills to plan, design and construct a reclamation/restoration
project.
SLO 6: analyze and evaluate the reclamation/restoration results and the efficacy of
methods and materials used in reclamation project management.
SLO 7: demonstrate knowledge and perform administrative tasks of reclamation
project management.
a. Indicate when the last time each learning outcome was assessed.
Each learning outcome was assessed during spring 2015 by 16 REC students
participating in RECLAM 4940 Reclamation Project Management. Students in
this capstone course worked on four reclamation/restoration projects. Two of
which were service learning projects with community partners (UW-Platteville
Grounds Department and the City of Platteville). All students passed the course
with a grade higher than C +. The syllabus for RECLAM 4940 is attached as
Appendix A.
These SLOs were also assessed via some of the Assessment Measurement Tools
(see Table 1).
ii. List your program’s assessment tools. For each assessment tool,
a. Identify what is considered a “successful” result.
b. Indicate when the last time each assessment tool was administered.
c. Provide the most recent result.
d. For each result, identify what conclusions were drawn.
See Table 1 below for answers/results.
iii. What changes to the program (if any) were made in response to the program assessment
results and how have you assessed the effectiveness of those changes?
The overall conclusion from all of the assessments is that my program needs to have
more emphasis on plant identification skills and a new wetland ecology/restoration
course needs to be offered. I am in the process of changing the curriculum to include
more plant ID and I have already offered a new wetland course starting this fall
(2015). The course was so popular that it was waitlisted.
Most of these current assessment tools are used to evaluate the REC program’s
curriculum to ensure that our students have the skills, tools, and knowledge to
succeed as professionals in the Reclamation/Restoration field. As a result, they do
not directly measure the student learning outcomes. I inherited these assessment
measurement tools and student learning outcomes when I become program director
in fall 2013. I realize based on the current APC/AOC rubrics, that not all of these
assessment tools serve their functions (i.e., to measure the SLOs). For a copy of the
current assessment plan as laid out to APC in 2010 see page three of Appendix C. I
will work over the coming years to change the assessment tools in order to rectify this
and realign them with the SLOs. This will involve creating new measureable SLOs as
mentioned in part 3 above.
(APC Handbook – LINK 2 – Form B)
iv. Provide copies of your assessment tools.
See attached Appendices B1-B6.
v. Provide a schedule for the administration of program assessment tools for the next 5 years.
The schedule is yet to be determined based on what new SLOs and assessment tools
are created for the program. However, in the meantime, I do plan to continue
collecting the following annually: senior exit surveys, summer internship selfevaluation surveys, summer internship employer evaluations, and student course
evaluation summaries.
B. General Education Assessment [Not applicable to the REC program since no Gen Ed classes
are offered by the program]
i. List each UUCC-approved general equation courses within the program/department.
ii. Provide a chart indicating which general education learning outcomes each of these courses
covers.
C. Progress – Describe program changes that were recommended in past assessment and program
reviews (at both the institutional and accrediting body level) and describe what
progress/changes have been made since those recommendations.
I am not aware of any recommended changes. I have reached out to both the APC and
AOC to learn about past recommended changes and none were found. See my response
to 6A below on the current changes that I am implementing based on the results of my
CIF grant.
Information Required by the Academic Standards Committee
6.
Briefly describe how your program is engaged in reviewing its own internal academic standards.
In particular:
A.
What does your program do to ensure that courses, major options, minor options, etc. are
current and relevant? Give examples of two changes that were implemented over the past
5 years in response to these efforts.
(1) After taking over the REC program in fall 2013, I created new curriculum for all of
the core REC courses (RECLAM 1010, RECLAM 3010, RECLAM 3900, RECLAM
3940, RECLAM 4940, etc) in the program.
(2) Through a Curriculum Improvement Fund (CIF) grant, I spent spring & summer
2014 comparing the REC curriculum to 16 difference comparable programs across
the US and Canada. I also gathered feedback from industry leaders and program
alumni. I am in the process of implementing a major curriculum overhaul based on
the findings (the final CIF report is available upon request). The first step has been
to create new courses. I am offering a new Wetland Ecology, Restoration and
Management course this fall (2015). I will offer a new version of RECLAM 3010
Current Topics in Reclamation this spring (2016) that focuses on the latest science,
practice and technology in the REC field. The second step will be implementation of
two new emphases to replace the three current, outdated emphases. These
programmatic changes will be the first major ones for the REC program since 1996.
B.
How does your program monitor consistency in course content, course standards, and
grading from semester to semester and instructor to instructor?
In particular, explain what group or individual are tasked with this effort and outline the
expected course of action that is to be followed if an inconsistency is discovered.
There is only one instructor in the REC program. As the sole instructor of the
program, I monitor all of the classes that I teach to insure that test & essay grades are
consistent year-to-year. I have not had statistically significant differences in test
(APC Handbook – LINK 2 – Form B)
C.
D.
scores across my classes over the past two years since I joined the program. I am
trying to test out different teaching methods in order to effect a statistically
significant increase in scores. If I were to find a statistically significant drop in scores
across different years, I would check my notes and teaching methods in order
identify potential sources or causes of the drop and I would work to rectify the
matter.
Does your program offer any courses in multiple formats (such as traditional on campus,
streaming video, winterim, fully or hybrid online, etc.)? No.
If your answer to (c) was yes, what are the two most important differences between the
formats from the standpoint of the faculty? What are the two most important differences
from the standpoint of the students? Explain what measures are taken to mitigate the
differences.
Once completed, please send Form B electronically to Lisa Merkes-Kress at merkesl@uwplatt.edu.
Form B is due on or before October 15.
(APC Handbook – LINK 2 – Form B)
Table 1. Answers to 5A.ii.a-d
Assessment
SLO(s)
Measurement Tool
addressed
1. Instructor evaluation of (a)
oral and (b) written reports
and (c) student internship
experiences
2. Evaluation summaries of
service learning projects by
professionals, practitioners,
clients, and students
3. Survey data from
employers of summer interns
and COOP students
Success
criteria
Last used
(a) 1
(b) 1
(c) 1
(a) 16/20 score
(b) 16/20 score
(c) 32/40 score
(a) 18.6/20
(b) 18.6/20
(c) 38/40
Students have good oral and written
skills.
1-7
Clients feel that
student work is
professional and
useful
Overall average
score of 4
(Above
Average) on a 1
to 5 scale with 5
being
Outstanding
More than 25%
of current
students
respond to
survey
Average
response of
“Agree” or
higher on
questions 1-16
Alumni and
employers
provide input
(a) & (b)
Spring 2015;
(c) Summer
2015
Spring 2015
Both service learning
project clients were happy
with projects
This is an indirect measure of student
SLOs. Keep up the good work.
Summer 2015
Average score over the past
2 years = 4.75
REC program is producing students
that exceed employer expectations.
25% of employers wrote
that more plant ID training
would benefit students
New proposed REC curriculum will
have a greater emphasis on plant ID.
Spring 2014
37% response rate;
students recommended more
plant ID and a wetland
ecology/restoration course.
New wetlands course was offered Fall
2015. Plant ID changes are in the
works.
Spring 2014
Average response was 1.34
(“Agree” = 1 and “Strongly
Agree” = 2)
Students feel that they are achieving the
SLOs
(a) Summer
2014
Alumni recommended
incorporating wetland
ecology/restoration course
into curriculum
(a) New wetlands course was offered
Fall 2015; (b) Employer survey will be
created as part of REC program’s long
term goal to develop new SLOs and
assessment tools.
Initial reception of program changes is
positive but have to wait until REC
Council has had more time for a full
review.
N/A
4. Evaluation summaries of
REC courses by students
N/A
5. Exit Interview data from
graduating seniors
1-7
6. Survey data from program
(a) alumni and (b) employers
N/A
7. Program assessment and
continuous input by the
Reclamation Council
N/A
REC Council
provides input
(b) not yet
surveyed
Fall 2015
Result(s)
REC Council will provide
suggestions by Dec 2015.
Conclusion