Curriculum Study

1
Curriculum Study
Next Steps

• Will Focht and Shirley Vincent, OSU Env. Inst.
• CEDD Summer Meeting
• Airlie Conference Center, Warrenton, VA
• July 9, 2004

2
The Problem

• Environmental curricula vary widely
• Potential legitimacy threats
• Collective program and field identity
• Institutional and client support
• Program review and accreditation
• Professional certification
• Student recruitment and employment

3
The Challenge

• Pursuing a core competency prescription while
  being inclusive, respecting institutional
  cultures and limitations, protecting flexibility
  and innovation, and assuring responsiveness to
  changing needs

4
The Central Question

• Can CEDD members and the larger higher ed
  environmental program community reach agreement
  on a set of core competencies, which meets the
  challenge of reducing threats to legitimacy
  within institutional constraints?

5
Brief History

• 2002 Curriculum Committee formed
• Winter 2003 Discussions leading to agreement to
  conduct formal study
• Summer 2003 Presentation of survey and Q study
  results
• Winter 2004 Workshop designed to explore
  consensus
• Summer 2004 Next steps

6
Survey Highlights

• 60 response to online questionnaire
• Consensus on inter/trans/meta disciplinary
  approach
• But dissensus on breadth vs depth
• Dissensus on need for and definition of core
  disciplines and boundaries
• Increasing specificity leads to more disagreement
  (e.g., natural sciences vs toxicology)

7
Other Variabilities

• Internships (1/2 never)
• Specializations (3/4 yes)
• UG prep career v. grad school (1/2 no diff)
• Research requirement (G3/4, U1/4)
• Client involvement (1/2 high importance)
• Need for prof cert accred criteria (1/2 no)
• Institutional setting (age, size, location)

8
Q Highlights

• 40 response to online Q sort
• Consensus
• Env problems are both natural sociopolitical
  (at the interface of society and nature)
• Solutions must transcend traditional disciplinary
  boundaries therefore, broad disciplinary
  exposure is important

9
Three Perspectives

• A Flexible, client-responsive, systems-focused,
  breadth over depth
• 75 doctoral/research institutions
• B Encourage env. responsible action, multiple
  focused paths
• 77 bacc, liberal arts, insts ltstudiesgt
• C Universal core grounded in natural sciences
• 70 masters institutions

10
Workshop Highlights

• Pre-deliberation importance ratings of 12 skills
  areas 14 disciplinary areas
• Breakout sessions based on Q factors to seek
  within-group consensus ratings
• Plenary session to seek consensus on ratings
  across Q-factor groups

11
Workshop Results

• Consensus importance on most skills
• Very high intellectual communication
• High practical (research, lab, field)
• Mod interpersonal/teamwork
• Consensus on some disciplines
• High bio-geo-chemstatpolicyethics
• Lower psychsoc
• Dissensus
• Computational skills
• Math, physics, engr, tox, econ, history

12
Skills Areas
13
Disciplinary Areas
14
Core Conclusions

• Discussion works!!
• Term redefinitions, emphasis on program
  congruence, focus on broad issues, willingness to
  compromise
• Core competency recommendations
• Skillsanalysis-synth-systems-crit think
  communicationresearchexperience
• Disciplines bio-geo-chem stat
  policy-ethics
• Remaining disciplines left to specializations

15
Next Steps?

• Expand study to include more univs, other
  faculty, additional disciplines, UK stds,
  constraints, rxn to our findings, etc.?
• Sponsor a conference to discuss and seek
  consensus and define review criteria?
• Collaborate with PKAL (UG only)?
• Obtain case studies?
• Separate UG from Grad? ESc from ESt?
• Curr comm work w/ strategic opps comm?
• CEDD to endorse a prescription? propose
  implementation strategies?