CEDD Curriculum Study: Core Competencies

1
CEDD Curriculum StudyCore Competencies

• Will Focht and Shirley Vincent
• Oklahoma State University
• February 5, 2005

2
Acknowledgements

• Research funded by
• Council of Environmental Deans and Directors
• National Council for Science and the Environment
• Project Kaleidoscope (NSF)
• OSU Environmental Institute
• Career information provided by
• Kevin Doyle (Environmental Careers Organization)
• John Esson (Environmental Careers Center)
• Analytic assistance provided by
• Claire Christian (NCSE)
• CEDD survey and workshop participants

3
The Problem Context

• Environmental curricula vary widely, which poses
  potential threats to legitimacy
• Collective program and field identity
• Program review and accreditation
• Professional certification
• Student recruitment and employment
• Institutional and client support

4
The Solution Challenge

• Improve legitimacy through prescription of core
  competencies, but
• remain inclusive
• respect institutional cultures and constraints
• protect flexibility and innovation
• ensure responsiveness to changing needs

5
Influences on Curriculum Change

• Environmental social movements
• Environmental career opportunities
• Environmental programs

6
Environmental Movements

• 1850s-1890s Preservation
• national parks, wild lands, etc. (man out of
  nature)
• 1890s-1950s Conservation
• natural resource management (man manages
  nature)
• 1950s-1970s Ecological
• scientific understanding (man understands
  nature)
• 1970s-1990s Regulatory
• pollution control (man controls impacts on
  nature)
• 1990s-present Sustainability
• integration of ecosystem conservation, economic
  security, and social justice (man as part of
  nature)
• - Adapted from Sherburne Abbott (cited in ECO
  2004)

7
Environmental Careers

• 1970s
• Rapid growth
• Compliance sanitary engineers conservation
  scientists (foresters, fish and wildlife
  biologists)
• 1980s
• Continued rapid growth
• More compliance site remediation waste managers
• 1990s
• Slow growth
• Pollution prevention and green business

8
Environmental Careers

• Early 2000s
• Negative growth but very recent return to rapid
  growth (primarily in private sector)
• Economy, market, and political pressures
• Integrated regional planning sustainability
  smart growth
• Changes due to industry maturation, technology
  cycles, declining government employment,
  retirements

9
Environmental Careers

• Future Trends
• Green Business
• Renewable energy, energy conservation, green
  building, eco-friendly consumer goods,
  ecotourism, eco-investing, green certifications
• Land Use
• Smart growth planning
• Habitat restoration
• Reconciliation ecology (built and natural
  environments)
• Environmental Management Systems
• Fastest growth in foreign countries

10
Environmental Programs Evolution

• Late 1960s
• First free-standing programs
• First scholarly article on environmental
  education
• Curricula were multidisciplinary
• Emphasis on natural resource management
• 1970s
• Rapid growth in number of programs (total to 500)
• 2/3 of growth were undergraduate studies
  programs
• Curricula emphasized sociopolitical aspects

11
Environmental Programs

• 1980s
• No net growth in number of programs
• New programs focused more on science technology
• 1990s
• Return to rapid growth (total to 900)
• Shift back towards sociopolitical, with new focus
  on scale (spatial and temporal) and complex
  systems
• Early 2000s
• Accelerated growth (total rose to 1300)
• Sustainability serving as an organizing principle

12
Background of Study
13
Study History

• Winter 2002 CEDD formed
• Summer 2002 Curriculum Committee formed
• Winter 2003 Discussions lead to agreement to
  conduct a formal study
• Summer 2003 Presentation of survey and Q study
  results
• Winter 2004 Workshop designed to explore
  consensus on skills and content
• Summer 2004 Discussion of next steps
• Winter 2005 Discussion of findings

14
Study Design

• Phase I On-line survey
• Program and institutional characteristics
• Curriculum design views
• Phase II On-line Q sorts
• Perspectives on curricula
• Conflict assessment to characterize nature of
  debate
• Identity number and polarity perspectives
• Identify areas of consensus
• Phase III Workshop
• Explore consensus on core competencies

15
Respondent Sample

• Self-selected (not random) from CEDD members in
  2003
• National population 1061 CEDD population
  103 Sample 61 respondents from 58 institutions
• Sample representativeness determined against CEDD
  national (Romero Jones 2003) populations
• Both the sample and CEDD are over-represented by
  undergrad liberal arts and large doctoral
  institutions and under-represented by masters
  institutions
• Both the sample and CEDD are over-represented by
  Southern, and under-represented by Midwestern,
  institutions
• Sample undergrad programs are about 33 smaller
  than those in the CEDD but same as those in the
  national population
• Sample programs are about 25 younger than both
  populations
• Thus, some results may not be generalizable to
  the U.S.

16
Study Findings
17
Consensus Assessment

• Consensus
• Support for development of an interdisciplinary
  core curriculum that emphasizes problem-solving
  skills
• Focus on human-nature interactions
• Dissensus
• Breadth versus depth
• Need for and definition of universal core
  disciplines and field/curriculum boundaries
• Undergrad tracking and emphasis on career
  preparation
• Professional certification and program
  accreditation

18
Correlations

• Grad programs at masters institutions are in
  depts
• Dedicated faculty occur at
• older and larger undergrad programs
• grad programs in private institutions
• undergrad programs in undergrad masters
  institutions
• Internships are required by grad programs at
  private institutions
• Studies programs are located at private
  institutions science programs are located at
  public institutions
• Doctoral insts have more non-degree options

19
Other Findings

• Required internships (1/4)
• Specializations (3/4)
• Professional certification accreditation
  criteria (1/2 no)
• UG tracking career v. grad school (1/2 no
  difference)
• Research requirement (G3/4, U1/4)
• Client involvement (1/2 high importance)
• Institutional location
• Departments/Units U 1/6, G 1/4
• Colleges/Schools U 2/3 G 1/2
• Institutional U 1/6, G 1/4

20
Analysisof Perspectives
21
Q Sort Instruction

• What is your view of how environmental program
  curricula should be designed?

22
Q Factor Analysis 1

• Q sorts of 47 statements
• Principal components extraction
• Varimax rotation
• 40 of 44 sorts represented by 3 factors
• Significance defined at plt0.001, CV 0.451
• 5 confounded (4 on AB, 1 on AC)
• Correlations
• AB 0.66, AC 0.41, BC 0.42
• No bipolar factors found

23
PerspectivesEnvironmental CitizenEnvironmental
Problem SolverEnvironmental Scientist
24
A Environmental Citizen

• Orientation
• Increase environmental awareness and scientific
  literacy regardless of career choice
• Favors
• Inclusion of social science, humanities, and
  skills courses along with natural science into a
  transdisciplinary curriculum
• Flexibility and tailoring to institutional
  strengths
• Disfavors
• Professional orientation, certifications,
  undergrad tracking, boundaries, individualized
  curricula, and client involvement
• Dominant view among undergraduate liberal arts
  institutions with environmental studies programs

25
B Environmental Problem Solver

• Orientation
• Systems-focused training, complex
  problem-solving, and professional development
• Favors
• Breadth over depth, institutionally tailored
  cores, program flexibility to deal with changing
  needs, internships, and client responsiveness
• Disfavors
• Deep disciplinary strength, boundaries, universal
  core
• Doctoral/research institutions dominate this
  perspective

26
C Environmental Scientist

• Orientation
• Anchor in a natural science discipline (more
  likely to be housed in departments)
• Favors
• Universal core grounded in natural sciences and
  engineering, boundaries, certification,
  accreditation
• Disfavors
• Breadth over depth, emphasis in social science/
  humanities, accommodation of all students
• Dominant view among masters institutions

27
Consensus Areas

• Pragmatic Realism
• Environmental problems are both natural
  sociopolitical (at interface of society nature)
• Solutions require transdisciplinary approaches
  within fuzzy boundaries
• Tailoring to institutional strengths is necessary
• Science and technology are not panaceas

28
Varimax Rotation Plot (AB)
29
Q Factor Analysis 2

• Judgmental rotation performed to
• Explore potential consensus (middle view as
  opposed to end views)
• Explore confounded perspectives (AB only)
• Reduce the number of consensus items shared by
  AB perspectives (to tease apart these two views)
• Add to our understanding of perspectives
• Rotation angle 44

30
Judgmental Rotation Plot (A' B')
31
PerspectivesEnvironmental VisionaryResponsive
ProfessionalScience Literate
32
A' Environmental Visionary

• Orientation
• Synthesis of natural social sciences and
  humanities is important to understanding
  human-nature interactions
• Favors
• Breadth over depth, institutionally tailored
  cores, uncertainty measurement and reporting
• Disfavors
• Undergrad tracking, universal core, certification
  guidelines
• Dominant among both undergraduate and doctoral
  institutions

33
B' Responsive Professional vsScience Literate

• Bipolar Perspective!
• Orientation
• RP broad preparation for varied changing
  professional demands but with program structure
  (boundaries, universal core, certification and
  accreditation), client involvement
• SL students should have a strong natural science
  foundation but tailored to institutional
  constraints and individual student needs
• Disagreements
• Breadth versus depth, program structuring, client
  involvement

34
Return of Stonehenge
35
Perspective Groups

• Monoliths Environmental Scientist (C)
• Universal science core
• Columnists Science Literate (B'-)
• Flexible science core
• Spanners Environmental Visionary (A')
• Environmental Citizen (A)
• Awareness and responsible action
• Environmental Problem Solver (B)
• Applied systems focus
• Responsive Professional (B')
• Structured programs and professional orientation

36
Exploration of Consensus on aCore Curriculum
37
Workshop

• Goal Explore potential for consensus on core
  competencies
• Survey Importance ratings of 12 skills areas and
  14 disciplinary areas
• Breakout Sessions Based on Q factors, to seek
  within-perspective consensus ratings
• Plenary Session Seek consensus on ratings across
  perspectives

38
Skills Areas
39
Disciplinary Areas
40
Workshop Findings

• Consensus importance on most skills
• Very high intellectual communication
• High research (literature, lab, field)
• Mod personal (management, teamwork)
• Consensus on some disciplines
• High natural science stat policy ethics
• Lower behavioral sciences
• Dissensus
• Computational skills (moderate to high)
• Math, physics, engineering, toxicology,
  economics, history

41
Workshop Outcomes

• Q works!
• Distinguishes individual perspectives and thereby
  clarifies similarities and differences,
  facilitated intra-group consensus (shared
  identity)
• Discussion works!
• Focus on broad issues, clarify terms, encourage
  compromise
• Core competency recommendations
• Skills intellectual communication research
• Disciplines natural science stat policy
  ethics
• Remaining disciplines left to specializations

42
Next Steps
43
Four Phases

• Revise and extend survey to 600 environmental
  programs
• Evaluate 24 model programs varying across
  institutional structure, program curricular
  design elements, and geographic location
• Conduct historical study of mature programs for
  evolution of curricula reasons for change
• Convene national conference to present results
  and formulate recommendations

44
Discussion

• 1. Which programs should be considered
  environmental programs?
• 2. Should community colleges and those that
  offer only non-degree certificates be included?
• 3. How should model programs be identified?
• 4. What is meant by multi, inter, trans, and
  meta disciplinarity? How can these be achieved?
• 5. When are vertical and horizontal designs most
  appropriate?
• 6. Should three cores be developed to match the
  three perspectives? Should sustainability shape
  core design?

45
Disciplinary Constructions
46
Vertical vs Horizontal Curricula

• Vertical designs are those that include multi- or
  inter-disciplinary coursework and emphasize depth
  over breadth (tree metaphor) best for
  foundational or advanced curriculum?
• Horizontal designs are those that include trans-
  or meta-disciplinary coursework and emphasize
  breadth over depth (venn diagram metaphor) best
  for foundational or advanced curriculum?
• Horizontal does not mean lack of focus!
• Watershed management, sustainable agriculture,
  environmental management systems, human ecology,
  energy management, natural resource mgt., etc.