1. 21 st Century Fish and Wildlife Curricula Bjørn Wolter 1 & Kelly Millenbah 2 1 Higher Adult Learning and Education Program 2 Department of Fisheries and Wildlife MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

2. Outline  What are the issues facing F&W programs (and all higher ed. Programs today)?  Agency and student needs  How did F&W at MSU revamp their curriculum to meet the issues of a 21st century F&W program?

3. The Issues Demand for well rounded students by agencies and employers is rising (more than before) Traditionally trained students in the sciences do not meet many of reframed requirements of employers

4. The Issues Students in college today are fundamentally different in many ways from students of the past Increasingly focused nature of professorial research has left many departments with gaps in their abilities to teach fundamental courses

5. How can fish and wildlife departments modify their curricula to be responsive to the evolving demands of employers, students, and professors?

6. Agency Needs Call for graduates who can: Write well Speak effectively in public Work autonomously Problem-solve Aging workforce (1) - Individuals capable of filling upper-echelon positions 1 Renewable Natural Resources Foundation. 2004.

7. Historical Student Model - Anecdotal History of introverts and/or loners in the natural resources Many had poor public speaking and writing aptitude

8. MILLENNIALS Students of the 21st Century Students born after 1992 who now number more than 80 million (1) Characterized by (2) : 1 McGlynn 2005 2 DeBard 2004 Sheltered Special Confident Lax ethics High expectations of rewards Social

9. More characteristics of Millennials (1) More focused on personal achievement than esoteric “learning” Preference for those subjects that are applicable in the real world “What will get me a job that makes lots of money?” Consumer attitude towards higher education As a general rule they are more conformist and less rebellious towards authority 1 Howe and Strauss 2000, Newton 2000, Zemke 2001, Raines 2002, Broido 2004, Wilson 2004, McGlynn 2005, Nathan 2005, Taylor 2005

10. Helicopter Parents Changing the role of the university as in loco parentis (1) Frequently hyper-aggressive in advocating for their children Capitalize on the disorganized structure of institutions of higher education to contact a series of administrators until they achieve a desired result (2) 1 Lum 2006 2 Daniel et al. 2001

11. New challenges 1.Adapting to student needs 2.Meeting agency needs 3.Dealing with a specialized professoriat

12. One example of change… F&W at Michigan State University - External help from HALE Program What drove us? CSREES Review NCA University-wide review Declining enrollment Budgets & justification of existence

13. Current Curriculum – 120 cr Free Electives 25-29 cr., possibly as high as 30-34cr. MSU / College 23 cr. Math and Science 34 -35 cr. FW 34-37 cr. Too Flexible Transfer Friendly 90 credits for degree “One Size Fits All” Underwater basket weaving

14. MSU F&W Timeline for change  Multi-year plan Part A  Environmental scan  Historical scan Part B  Values discussion  Written intended learning outcomes Part C  Identifying strengths and weaknesses  Develop a plan

15. Process  Part A Environmental and historical scan examples

16. Process  Part B Focus groups  Intended learning outcomes Stakeholders and students; Agency needs

17. Intended learning outcomes Guiding Principles  Apply knowledge of complex socio-ecological systems  Communicate with a diversity of audiences  Understand the range of social values and philosophies that can be applied to natural resource management (relevance to policy)  Value science as a basis for problem solving  Think quantitatively and apply quantitative tools  Understand a suite of field, laboratory, and computer-based techniques

18. Process  Part C Identifying strengths and weaknesses Develop a plan

19. Proposed Revised Curriculum (120 cr) Free Electives ~12 – 15 cr MSU / College Requirements 23 cr Core 55 – 61 cr Concentrations ~24 – 31 cr Breadth and Depth Flexible yet provides structure RIGOROUS

20. Side by Side Comparison Free Electives ~12 – 15 cr MSU / College 23 cr Math, Science, Communications Philosophy, Experiential, FW 55 – 61 cr Concentrations ~24 – 31 cr Free Electives 25-29 cr., possibly as high as 30-34cr. MSU / College 23 cr. Math and Science 34 -35 cr. FW Core 34-37 cr. OLDNEW Breadth Depth ∆

21. OK, so we are only a year late! A typical Curriculum meeting!

22. MSU / College Requirements  University Writing 2 Humanities 2 Social Science  College Economics 120 – 23= only 97 cr to work with

23. CORE (55 - 61 cr)  General Biology  General Chemistry  Physical Sciences  Math and Statistics  Communications Writing and Speech  Philosophy  Experiential Learning  FW Core

24. FW Core  Complete ALL of the following (18 cr.) Fundamentals of FW Fundamentals of FW Lab Ecological Problem Solving Population Analysis & Management Human Dimensions Ecology

25. Concentrations  Conservation Biology  Fisheries Biology and Management  Wildlife Biology and Management  Water Sciences  Fish and Wildlife Disease Ecology and Management  Preveterinary  Analytical Foundations in Fisheries and Wildlife Biology

26. Summary There has been a fundamental shift in the demands agencies and students are placing on F&W programs Adapting departmental and program structures to meet these needs is a time consuming process, but worth it to guarantee graduate quality and program durability