Program: Natural Resources & Environmental Mgt (PhD)
Degree: Doctorate
Date: Fri Oct 09, 2015 - 2:54:11 pm
1) Below are your program's student learning outcomes (SLOs). Please update as needed.
1. Students demonstrate knowledge of social and ecological principles, and interdisciplinary aspects of natural resource and environmental management issues
2. Students can analyze and address natural resource and environmental management problems by using appropriate methods from social and/or natural science disciplines
3. Students communicate effectively, both orally and in writing, to diverse audiences including professionals, resource managers, local communities and policy makers
4. Students can
a. Conduct original, independent scientific research of professional quality in their specialization area (Ph.D.)
5. Students can function as professionals in their specialization area by demonstrating responsible and ethical conduct, effective collaboration, informed decision making, and life-long learning
1) Institutional Learning Objectives (ILOs) and Program Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs)
2) Your program's SLOs are published as follows. Please update as needed.
![](images/checkbox.png)
![](images/checkbox_empty.png)
![](images/checkbox_empty.png)
![](images/checkbox_empty.png)
![](images/checkbox.png)
![](images/checkbox_empty.png)
![](images/checkbox_empty.png)
3) Please review, add, replace, or delete the existing curriculum map.
- File (03/16/2020)
4) For your program, the percentage of courses that have course SLOs explicitly stated on the syllabus, a website, or other publicly available document is as follows. Please update as needed.
![](images/radio_empty.png)
![](images/radio_empty.png)
![](images/radio_empty.png)
![](images/radio.png)
![](images/radio_empty.png)
5) Did your program engage in any program learning assessment activities between June 1, 2014 and September 30, 2015?
![](images/radio.png)
![](images/radio_empty.png)
6) What best describes the program-level learning assessment activities that took place for the period June 1, 2014 to September 30, 2015? (Check all that apply.)
![](images/checkbox_empty.png)
![](images/checkbox_empty.png)
![](images/checkbox_empty.png)
![](images/checkbox.png)
![](images/checkbox.png)
![](images/checkbox_empty.png)
![](images/checkbox_empty.png)
7) Briefly explain the assessment activities that took place in the last 18 months.
In recent years, the NREM curriculum committee worked to develop a new, required MS core course that meets departmental SLOs, including the possibility of requiring the same core course to Ph.D. In this assessment period, follow up activities have taken steps to finalize the course concepts and transfer the responsibility for implementation to the instructors. A pilot course will be taught in Spring 2016.
A final workshop was held as part of the NREM Departmental retreat on August 21, 2014. The goal of this workshop was to prioritize topics within each reorganized focal area. This goal emerged from past feedback raising the concern that trying to cover too much in the core course would compromise depth and student’s ability to learn from the class. Honed topics for each focal area emerging from a prior workshop (May 8, 2014) were printed in large font, and taped to poster papers posted around the meeting. Each faculty member and department staff were given sticker dots and asked to vote for the most important 3-5 topics (varied depending on the number of choices) within each focal area. Cross cutting themes also received prioritization votes. Participants were not allowed to use all of their dots on one focal area or on one topic, in order to minimize voting for their personal area of research or specialty. Rather, the desired outcome was to have participants make decisions about what they felt were important disciplines outside their own. Votes were recorded and topics within each focal area were ranked.
The workshop ended with a short exercise in which faculty members and staff formed teams to work on an assigned course them applied to a project of their choice. They were asked to brainstorm project sites, potential stakeholders and partners, project outcomes, and final products while also considering which topics could be covered with different focal areas through the projects.
8) What types of evidence did the program use as part of the assessment activities checked in question 6? (Check all that apply.)
Direct evidence of student learning (student work products)
![](images/checkbox_empty.png)
![](images/checkbox_empty.png)
![](images/checkbox_empty.png)
![](images/checkbox_empty.png)
![](images/checkbox_empty.png)
![](images/checkbox_empty.png)
![](images/checkbox.png)
![](images/checkbox_empty.png)
![](images/checkbox_empty.png)
![](images/checkbox_empty.png)
![](images/checkbox_empty.png)
![](images/checkbox.png)
![](images/checkbox_empty.png)
![](images/checkbox_empty.png)
Indirect evidence of student learning
![](images/checkbox_empty.png)
![](images/checkbox_empty.png)
![](images/checkbox_empty.png)
![](images/checkbox_empty.png)
![](images/checkbox_empty.png)
![](images/checkbox_empty.png)
![](images/checkbox_empty.png)
Program evidence related to learning and assessment
(more applicable when the program focused on the use of results or assessment procedure/tools in this reporting period instead of data collection)
![](images/checkbox_empty.png)
![](images/checkbox_empty.png)
![](images/checkbox_empty.png)
![](images/checkbox_empty.png)
9) State the number of students (or persons) who submitted evidence that was evaluated. If applicable, please include the sampling technique used.
Student input was sought primarily on the prioritized topics developed at the August 21, 2014 NREM faculty retreat (see #7 above). The goal of this exercise was to prioritize topics within each reorganized focal area from the students’ perspective. With student leadership, the same exercise as described above for faculty was conducted with currently enrolled graduate students.
10) Who interpreted or analyzed the evidence that was collected? (Check all that apply.)
![](images/checkbox_empty.png)
![](images/checkbox.png)
![](images/checkbox_empty.png)
![](images/checkbox_empty.png)
![](images/checkbox_empty.png)
![](images/checkbox_empty.png)
![](images/checkbox_empty.png)
![](images/checkbox_empty.png)
![](images/checkbox_empty.png)
![](images/checkbox_empty.png)
11) How did they evaluate, analyze, or interpret the evidence? (Check all that apply.)
![](images/checkbox_empty.png)
![](images/checkbox_empty.png)
![](images/checkbox.png)
![](images/checkbox_empty.png)
![](images/checkbox_empty.png)
![](images/checkbox_empty.png)
![](images/checkbox.png)
12) Summarize the results of the assessment activities checked in question 6. For example, report the percent of students who achieved each SLO.
After the October 10, 2014 NREM department meeting and vote, revision of the PhD program core has been placed on hold status.
13) What best describes how the program used the results? (Check all that apply.)
![](images/checkbox.png)
![](images/checkbox_empty.png)
![](images/checkbox_empty.png)
![](images/checkbox_empty.png)
![](images/checkbox_empty.png)
![](images/checkbox_empty.png)
![](images/checkbox_empty.png)
![](images/checkbox_empty.png)
![](images/checkbox_empty.png)
14) Please briefly describe how the program used the results.
After the October 10, 2014 NREM department meeting and vote, revision of the PhD program core has been placed on hold status.
15) Beyond the results, were there additional conclusions or discoveries? This can include insights about assessment procedures, teaching and learning, and great achievements regarding program assessment in this reporting period.
Planning and progress will be made to determine how to assess SLOs in the future. Ideas include developing a rubric for assessing the departmental-level SLOs for each program to be filled out by advisor following defense of capstone/thesis in order to provide assessment of student learning outcomes. Further, Drs. Oleson and Crow will need to develop a rubric for the revamped course to provide assessment in the intermediate term. This rubric for the MS degree programs will be a first step in devising a rubric for the revised PhD core.