4
Environmental Programs: Liberal Arts Colleges and Interdisciplinary Education Training students to tackle complex problems transcends traditional academic fields. STEPHANIE PFIRMAN BARNARD COLLEGE, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY SHARON J. HALL COLORADO COLLEGE TOM TIETENBERG COLBY COLLEGE A cross the United States, faculty mem- bers and students at liberal arts col- leges are experimenting with different approaches to educating interdiscipli- nary scholars and environmentally lit- erate citizens of the future. This movement is driven by external factors, for example, the increasing de- mands for interdisciplinary research to support policy decisions, such as how to respond to climate change, as well as by internal factors, such as the need for educators to analyze complex problems whose solutions transcend traditional departmen- tal boundaries. © 2005 American Chemical Society Jill Bubier, an associate professor at Mount Holyoke College, conducts field research with students at a site in New Hampshire. RALPH MORANG MAY 15, 2005 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY 221A

Environmental Programs: Liberal Arts Colleges and Interdisciplinary Education

  • Upload
    tom

  • View
    212

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Environmental Programs: Liberal Arts Colleges and Interdisciplinary Education Training students to tackle complex problems

transcends traditional academic fields.

STEPHANIE PFIRMAN BARNARD COLLEGE,

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITYSHARON J. HALL

COLOR ADO COLLEGETOM TIETENBERG

COLBY COLLEGE

Across the United States, faculty mem-bers and students at liberal arts col-leges are experimenting with different approaches to educating interdiscipli-nary scholars and environmentally lit-

erate citizens of the future. This movement is driven by external factors, for example, the increasing de-mands for interdisciplinary research to support policy decisions, such as how to respond to climate change, as well as by internal factors, such as the need for educators to analyze complex problems whose solutions transcend traditional departmen-tal boundaries.

© 2005 American Chemical Society

Jill Bubier, an associate professor at Mount Holyoke College, conducts field research

with students at a site in New Hampshire.

RA

LPH

MO

RA

NG

MAY 15, 2005 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY ■ 221A

These environmental research and education programs come in all shapes and sizes: new and established, large and small, interdepartmental and single-department, science-based and policy-based, with and without strong administration sup-port, and under one roof and dispersed. What can we learn from this variety?

To try to answer this, we visited 11 liberal arts col-leges that had received funding from the nonprof-it Andrew W. Mellon Foundation (AWMF) for their environmental programs. We were joined by Ken Johnson, professor emeritus at Skidmore College. Between October 2003 and January 2004, our team trekked to the following colleges: Barnard (N.Y.), Bates (Maine), Bowdoin (Maine), Colby (Maine), Col-gate (N.Y.), Colorado College (Colo.), Hobart and Wil-liam Smith (N.Y.), Lewis and Clark (Ore.), Middlebury (Vt.), Mount Holyoke (Mass.), and Whitman (Wash.). We interviewed faculty and students at the schools to learn what worked well and what didn’t, and what opportunities are available for further development. Here, we present a qualitative assessment of the suc-cesses and challenges at these schools. Although we did not investigate universities, many of these find-ings are probably relevant to them as well.

Key findingsEnvironmental programs are filled with vibrant, committed, stretched-to-the-limit faculty. Most faculty members—and their numbers are increas-ing—believe that undergraduate interdisciplin-ary education benefits students and society (1). We found that students are remarkably enthusiastic about their programs and are fully engaged on many levels. These programs face many of the same chal-lenges (2) and are moving in similar directions. Our findings highlight innovative approaches but raise some concerns.

Local environmental engagement. At most of the schools we visited, a component of their program fo-

cuses on the local environment. Examples include students and faculty who are involved in and influ-ence campus and community decisions about new “green” buildings, recycling, and energy use. This local focus creates for students and faculty an in-terdisciplinary sense of place drawn from the natu-ral sciences, social sciences, and humanities. It is also a source of inspiration for creating courses and conceiving student research. In a broader sense, bringing academic resources to bear on community decision making creates a more mutually beneficial engagement with local communities and helps in-stitutions redefine their relationships with local residents. However, community work can distract faculty from advancing their scholarship when their research interests do not coincide with local issues.

Service learning. Another key trend was that all of the programs are moving into hands-on activities, in-cluding service learning, which takes students out of the classroom. Service learning engages students in-tellectually and socially in tangible issues and allows them to experience the complexity of challenges as well as pride in making a difference (3). It is also at the forefront of pedagogy: Cognitive research shows that meaningful learning, as well as intellectual and social maturity, is stimulated when students learn in groups; actively build, apply, and share their own knowledge; encounter diverse perspectives that challenge their assumptions; negotiate and build consensus; and re-flect on implications (4). Indeed, our interviews with students revealed that “practical” and problem-solv-ing activities are among the most empowering expe-riences in college.

Incorporating a service-learning component into courses is one way to create synergy between com-munity issues and traditional faculty roles. At every college we visited, we saw interest in this pedagogi-cal technique. Where this approach had been imple-mented, students and residents in the surrounding communities rated the experience as spectacularly successful. Colby’s lakes investigations are only one example. Each year, the students in this course com-bine their analysis of water quality, land-use patterns, and regulations affecting a particular lake in the re-gion to brief the town and lake associations interested in that lake about their findings and recommenda-tions. A detailed written report follows this presen-tation (5).

Initiating, implementing, and maintaining these programs require faculty to spend a lot of time to prepare, mentor, and follow up. Hence, environmen-tal programs are trying to find ways to meet objec-tives without sacrificing other educational priorities or overloading faculty. Some programs are bringing local experts to the campus as adjunct or visiting faculty. Practitioners advising students and teaching courses such as sustainable agriculture or city plan-ning are innovative ways to expand student experi-ence and strengthen community relationships (3).

Interdisciplinary student research. Environ-mental programs also provide nontraditional ways to advance student research in applied areas (1). Tra-ditionally, guided student research is a required, or at least encouraged, component of the “liberal arts

DIA

NE

DIT

TRIC

K

A student records measurements along the Hudson River.

222A ■ ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / MAY 15, 2005

experience”. Environmental students usually place high value on their experience, but maintaining enough mentors for them can be difficult. Mentor-ing students in areas outside of one’s expertise may be necessary to satisfy student interest, but it does not enhance one’s research portfolio—an issue es-pecially important for junior faculty.

Some programs set up student internships with organizations in the community to accommodate the interests of students and the time and exper-tise limits of the college’s faculty. Providing exter-nal mentors small stipends in recognition of their contributions increases the likelihood that they will take students again in the future. Many institutions used AWMF funding to cover summer student re-search, including stipends, supplies, and travel to facilitate student presentations at meetings.

Even when faculty members mentor students con-ducting research within their own area, faculty often need extensive time to train students. To maximize faculty efficiency with mentoring undergraduates, associate professor Jill Bubier at Mount Holyoke Col-lege recommends a strategy analogous to that of grad-uate research groups: Get the students into the lab early—between first and second, or second and third years—and then create a “cascade” mentoring system of apprentices so that the students continuously learn from each other. We found that faculty who seek out the undergraduate students with whom they want to work seem more satisfied with their experience than those who post openings and take whoever applies.

Support for faculty who mentored interdisciplin-ary student research also seemed to be effective. We found that most faculty preferred course reduction versus a stipend, because time is generally the lim-iting factor. Such support encourages social science and humanities faculty to become involved in en-vironmental research and lightens the load of the young, junior faculty who mentor students interest-ed in research outside the professor’s own projects.

Strategies for building community. Environmen-tal students feel that they are part of a strong, inclusive community when their programs include elements such as a common physical location; a seminar series; field trips; involvement in campus sustainability is-sues; and first-year and/or senior-year, or “capstone”, courses. On all of the campuses that we visited, physi-cal spaces—existing or planned—dedicated to envi-ronmental programs are providing a place to literally come together. Programs that lacked common space or had only cramped quarters found that they had to fight hard to create a sense of community among faculty residing in different departments and among students taking courses all over campus.

Most environmental programs plan and imple-ment campus events not only to bring environmen-tal faculty and students together but also to involve the broader student body. To promote a stronger sense of the content and career tracks for environ-mental majors, some programs run field- or service-learning programs during new-student orientation or during their first year.

First- or second-year student research stipends have been used as recruiting tools at some schools.

Other possibilities are holding open houses that inform students about career and financial op-tions and facilitating student visits to potential employers to explore various career paths. These extra efforts resulted in students reporting to us that environmental faculty are more “accessible”, “involved”, and “engaged” than faculty in other de-partments. These perceptions are good, but also raise some concerns.

Staffing shortages for interdisciplinary cours-es. Not surprisingly, given the time-consuming na-ture of the previously described activities, staffing is the chief concern of environmental programs we visited—even where administrations are general-ly supportive of interdisciplinary endeavors. Core environmental faculty (either joint appointments or those solely within the environment program or department) are central to the sustainability of en-vironmental programs. But the cooperation of oth-er departments is necessary to staff the full suite of classes—including classes with one or more instruc-tors—ranging from introductory through electives to the senior capstone experience (1). Students and environmental directors need assurance that cours-es will be offered regularly, even in the face of sab-baticals and retirements.

Some schools have found that f lexibility can make these arrangements easier to sustain. For example, a department could commit to teaching four courses over the next three years without spec-ifying which instructor and which semester in ad-vance. Many colleges have recognized the value of co-teaching and extensive faculty involvement by awarding full “class credit” for all faculty partici-pants in key courses.

Some environmental programs that originally grew from the natural sciences have hired or are planning to hire tenure-track faculty in the social sciences, public health/toxicology, environmental justice, or the humanities. These new faculty will bring nontraditional, social, and aesthetic points of view and economic and policy components to the curricula. Furthermore, the public health and toxi-cology positions will attract premed students and establish links with biology departments.

But each of these joint activities requires nego-tiation, and environmental faculty run the risk of burning out. They must assemble start-up packages for joint hires, work with other departments to fill courses during leaves of absence, plan construc-tion of new buildings, line up internships, mentor research outside their areas of expertise, testify be-fore local zoning boards, run field trips, set up their own labs, and use and learn new technologies—all while conducting their own research and teaching.

Support staff. Are environmental programs and their new directions being supported by their ad-ministrations? Despite the fact that most colleges currently have tight budgets, many provosts and deans that we interviewed were determined to somehow find the resources necessary to continue these interdisciplinary initiatives. Strong adminis-trative support often follows student interest, but we found that programs particularly thrive when

MAY 15, 2005 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY ■ 223A

initiatives are integrated into institutional strategic plans or when interdisciplinary programs are a cen-tral part of the academic structure. Where available, compensation or release time for interdisciplinary teaching or research has improved the morale and productivity of environmental faculty.

But our review leads us to conclude that adminis-trations should go further. Would a theater program not put on a performance? Facilities and subsidies for public performances are built into the budgets of theater, music, and dance programs. Given the ben-efits that community-based programming brings to students and colleges (3), the infrastructure to im-plement these initiatives should be a standard part of environmental program budgets.

Administrations at some of the schools we visited have recognized these institutional values in an in-novative way by hiring a full-time environmental program manager—at least for the duration of their AWMF grant. These managers enhance faculty pro-ductivity and college–community interactions and are central to the success of the environmental pro-grams. The manager’s duties may include coordi-nating constituencies often not centrally located; supporting hands-on learning by setting up field trips, internships, and service-learning ventures; facilitating newsletters; arranging for speakers; pro-viding a career center and alumni liaison; and main-taining program webpages.

Similarly, although environmental programs en-gage in laboratory and field teaching and research, they usually have little technical support for complex equipment. The growing use of geographic informa-tion system (GIS) technology is a perfect example. For environmental programs, GIS is an integrating technology that brings the social and natural scienc-es together, allowing departments to communicate on common ground. Local databases should be es-tablished and developed. These provide content for service-based links with the surrounding commu-nity, inform campus and community sustainability issues, archive student contributions, and can be used in various classes. And GIS is a marketable skill for environmental graduates. However, maintain-ing a GIS lab requires sustained technical support personnel who can also train faculty. Chemistry de-partments would not think of running labs without directors who maintain inventory and set up equip-ment. Environmental programs similarly need in-frastructure to function at the highest level.

Aside from the need to rethink and restructure faculty and staff workloads and infrastructure, what else did we see that concerned us?

Diversity. Although this problem extends across the natural sciences, environmental programs at suburban and rural institutions in particular are having difficulty involving underrepresented-mi-nority faculty and students. Rob Figueroa, at Colgate University, told us that Caucasian students are put off by explicit references to race, such as a class ti-tled “Race and the Environment”, while underrep-resented-minority students are disinterested solely by the topic “environment”. Strategies for increas-ing diversity across colleges and universities include

targeted recruitment of underrepresented-minority faculty; course offerings in environmental justice, international sustainable development, and other issues of interest to underrepresented-minority stu-dents; links with ethnic studies programs to increase awareness of race and class issues related to environ-ment; co-sponsorship of events with the multicul-tural affairs community; and support for summer research by underrepresented-minority students.

Women faculty. At a surprising number of environ-mental programs that we visited, we met recently hired, untenured women faculty who are overloaded with interested students and are responsible for oversee-ing a diverse curriculum and suite of initiatives. Some of these women even hold nontenured, indefinite ap-pointments or are the only designated environmental hire at the college. Institutions must create sustainable roles for new faculty in interdisciplinary programs in which they can thrive and be promoted (6).

Final thoughtsEnvironmental programs across the country are now an established component of the academic land-scape; however, they are relying on an unsustain-able infusion of faculty energy and time. Institutions need to set up incentives and rewards for involve-ment in all interdisciplinary program activities that go beyond the classroom and faculty research. In ad-dition, administrations should recognize that inte-grating learning with applied and social experiences, something environmental programs do so well, is important to their students’ intellectual develop-ment (4). To build interdisciplinary capacity in the United States, we must make investments in interdis-ciplinary undergraduate education at colleges and universities, because our students are the research-ers, decision makers, and citizens of the future.

Stephanie Pfirman is a professor of environmental sci-ence at Barnard College, Columbia University, where she has chaired the environmental science department since 1993. Sharon J. Hall is an assistant professor of en-vironmental science at Colorado College. Tom Tieten-berg is a professor of economics at Colby College, and he directed the college’s environmental studies program from 2000 to 2004. Address correspondence about this article to Pfirman at [email protected].

References (1) Weis, J. S. The Status of Undergraduate Programs in Envi-

ronmental Science. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1990, 24, 1116–1121.

(2) Kormondy, E. J.; Corcoran, P. B. Environmental Education: Academia’s Response; North American Association for En-vironmental Education: Troy, OH, 1997.

(3) Acting Locally: Concepts and Models for Service-Learning in Environmental Studies; Ward, H. R., Ed.; American Associ-ation for Higher Education: Washington, DC, 1999.

(4) Baxter Magolda, M. B. Creating Contexts for Learning and Self-Authorship: Constructive-Developmental Pedagogy; Vanderbilt University Press: Nashville, TN, 1999.

(5) Colby College. Problems in Environmental Science: Lakes Investigations, Sept 27, 2004; www.colby.edu/biology/BI493/BI493.html.

(6) Babcock, L.; Laschever, S. Women Don’t Ask: Negotiation and the Gender Divide; Princeton University Press: Prince-ton, NJ, 2003.

224A ■ ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / MAY 15, 2005