CHI TIẾT NGHIÊN CỨU …

Tiêu đề

US higher education environmental program managers' perspectives on curriculum design and core competencies: Implications for sustainability as a guiding framework

Tác giả

Vincent S.; Focht W.

Năm xuất bản

2009

Source title

International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education

Số trích dẫn

DOI

10.1108/14676370910945963

Liên kết

https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-69649107570&doi=10.1108%2f14676370910945963&partnerID=40&md5=7079fd2bcfaebc33ee6a1752f6c367ac

Tóm tắt

Purpose: This study is the first of a five-phase research project sponsored by the Council of Environmental Deans and Directors (CEDD), an organization of environmental program managers operating under the umbrella of the National Council for Science and the Environment. The purpose of the project is to determine if a consensus on core competencies for environmental program graduates is achievable, and if so, to make recommendations for consideration by program managers. Design/methodology/approach: Q methodology was used to discern the perspectives of program managers at 42 CEDD member institutions on environmental curriculum design. An online survey preceded the Q sort exercise to elicit managers' curricular views and program characteristics. Survey responses were analyzed to select statements for the Q-sorting exercise and categorized according to emergent themes. Multiple regression analysis was used to explore the relationship between perspectives (factor loadings) and host institution Carnegie classifications. Findings: Three distinct, but not opposing, perspectives were identified from the initial Q-factor rotation, which suggests the possibility of agreement on core competencies. The perspectives differ in their views of: curriculum orientation (professional training versus liberal arts), curriculum breadth versus depth, and flexible versus fixed core competencies. Host institution classification (Carnegie) is a small but significant predictor for two of the three perspectives. A second Q-factor rotation reveals a consensus perspective that accommodates most respondents and aligns well with principles of sustainability, thus suggesting that sustainability may serve as a guiding paradigm for defining areas of core competence.Originality/value: No national study of program managers' views of curriculum design and the identification of core competencies has been conducted in the USA. © Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Từ khóa

Competencies; Curriculum development; Education; Environmental management; Higher education; Sustainability development; United States of America

Tài liệu tham khảo

Andersen C.B., Worthen W.B., Polkinghorn B., Humanism in the environmental sciences: A reevaluation, Journal of College Science Teaching, 3, 3, pp. 202-6, (2001); Higher Education Sustainability Office Position and Salary Survey, (2008); Basken P., After escaping the imposition of standardized measures in 2007, colleges begin worrying about 2008, The Chronicle of Higher Education, (2008); Recommendations for Education for a Sustainable and Secure Future, (2003); Bonnett M., Education for sustainable development: A coherent philosophy for environmental education?, Cambridge Journal of Education, 29, 3, pp. 313-24, (1999); Braddock R.D., Fein J., Rickson R., Environmental studies: Managing the disciplinary divide, Environmentalist, 14, 1, pp. 35-46, (1994); Brand R., Karvonen A., The ecosystem of expertise: Complementary knowledges for sustainable development, Sustainability: Science, Practice & Policy, 3, 1, pp. 21-31, (2007); Brown S.R., Political Subjectivity: Applications of Q-Methodology in Political Science, pp. 288-9, (1980); Brown S.R., A primer on Q methodology, Operant Subjectiviy, 16, 3-4, pp. 91-138, (1993); Caldwell L.K., Environmental studies: Discipline or metadiscipline?, The Environmental Professional, 5, pp. 247-59, (1983); Cortese A.D., Education for an environmentally sustainable future, Environmental Science & Technology, 26, 6, pp. 1108-14, (1992); Doyle K., Remake a living: Hire definition, how do we define the green-job economy?, Grist, (2008); Durning D., The transition from traditional to postpositivist policy analysis: A role for Q-methodology, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 18, 3, pp. 389-410, (1999); Eastwood D., Blumhof J., The UK benchmark statement of earth sciences, and environmental sciences, and environmental studies: A critical evaluation and implications for assessing quality curricula, International Journal for Sustainability in Higher Education, 3, 4, pp. 359-70, (2002); EBJ's Executive Review 2007, 21, 3-4, (2008); Fletcher F.W., Education for an environmental job, Environmental Science and Technology, 28, 12, pp. 2340-1, (1992); Focht W., Assessment and management of policy conflict in the illinois river watershed in Oklahoma: An application of Q methodology, International Journal of Public Administration, 25, 11, pp. 1311-49, (2002); Focht W., Interdisciplinary environmental curricula: Laying a conceptual foundation based on sustainability, XVI International Conference of the Society for Human Ecology, pp. 11-13, (2008); Foster J., What price interdisciplinarity? crossing the curriculum in environmental higher education, Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 23, 3, pp. 358-66, (1999); Fridgen C., The current state of environmental education, Environmental Practice, 7, 3, pp. 137-8, (2005); Ginsberg B., Doyle K., Cook J.R., The ECO Guide to Careers that Make a Difference, (2004); Gonzalez C., Neimeier D.A., Navrotsky A., The new generation of American scholars, Academe, pp. 56-60, (2003); Hornig J.F., Environmental studies 2000: An overview of undergraduate, interdisciplinary environmental programs and the careers of their graduates, Environment, 38, 5, pp. 28-31, (1996); Kates R.W., Clark W.C., Corell R., Hall J.M., Jaeger C.C., Lowe I., McCarthy J.J., Schellnhuber J.H., Bolin B., Dickson N.M., Faucheux S., Gallopin G.C., Gruebler A., Huntley B., Jager J., Jodha N.S., Kasperson R.E., Mabogunje A., Matson P., Mooney H., Moore III B., Sustainability Science, Science, 292, pp. 641-2, (2001); Jorgensen U., Lauridsen E.H., Environmental professional competencies: The role of communities of practice and spaces for reflexive learning, Greener Management International, 49, pp. 57-67, (2005); Lemons J., Certification of environmental professionals and accreditation standards for university programs, BioScience, 44, 7, pp. 475-8, (1994); Lozano R., Incorporation and institutionalization of sd into universities: Breaking through barriers to change, Journal of Cleaner Production, 14, 9-11, pp. 787-96, (2006); Lynch D.R., Hutchinson C.E., Environmental education, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 89, pp. 864-7, (1992); McGowan A.H., Challenges for environmental studies, Environment, 46, 2, pp. 10-12, (2004); McKeown B.F., Thomas D.B., Q Methodology, 9, 1, pp. 117-28, (1988); McKeown R., Hopkins C., EE = ESD: defusing the worry, Environmental Education Research, 9, 1, pp. 117-28, (2001); Maniates M.F., Whissel J.C., Environmental studies: The sky is not falling, BioScience, 50, 6, pp. 509-17, (2000); Manning K., The Island press consortium on environmental teaching and learning in higher education: Insights from the 1999 white oak symposium, Center for Resource Economics, (2000); Mihelcic J.R., Crittenden J.C., Small M.J., Shonnard D.R., Hokanson D.R., Zhang Q., Chen H., Sorby S.A., James V.U., Sutherland J.W., Schnoor J.L., Sustainability science and engineering: The emergence of a new metadiscipline, Environmental Science and Technology, 37, 23, pp. 5314-24, (2003); Millett C.M., Payne D.G., Dwyer C.A., Stickler L.M., Alexiou J.J., A Culture of Evidence: An Evidence-Centered Approach to Accountability for Student Learning Outcomes, (2008); Pfirman S.L., Complex Environmental Systems: Synthesis for Earth, Life, and Society in the 21st Century: A Report Summarizing a Ten-Year Outlook in Environmental Research and Education for the National Science Foundation, (2003); Popovich K., Popovich M., Use of Q methodology for hospital strategic planning, Journal of Healthcare Management, 45, 6, pp. 405-15, (2000); O'Reily D., Deegan J., Columbo L., Environmental Studies 2000: An Overview of Undergraduate Interdisciplinary Programs and the Careers of Their Graduates, (1996); Orr D.W., Educating for the environment: Higher education's challenge of the next century, Change, 27, 3, pp. 43-6, (1995); Academic Standards - Earth Sciences, Environmental Sciences and Environmental Studies, (2000); Reid A., Scott W., Researching education and the environment: Retrospect and prospect, Environmental Education Research, 12, 3-4, pp. 571-87, (2006); Rest A., From 'environmental education' to 'education for sustainable development:' The shift of a paradigm, Environmental Policy and Law, 32, 2, pp. 79-85, (2002); Romero A., Quo vadis, environmental studies?, Macalester Environmental Review, (2003); Romero A., Jones C., Not all are created equal: An analysis of the environmental programs/departments in US academic institutions until may 2003, Macalester Environmental Review, (2003); Romero A., Silveri P., Not all are created equal: An analysis of the environmental programs/department in US academic institutions from 1900 until May 2005, Journal of Integrative Biology, 1, 1, pp. 1-15, (2006); Sacks A.B., Davis C.B., Environmental education and the environmental professional, Environmental Professional, 5, pp. 243-6, (1983); Schoenfeld A.C., The university-environmental movement marriage, Journal of Higher Education, 50, 3, pp. 289-309, (1979); Sherren K., Is there a sustainability canon? an exploration and aggregation of expert opinions, Environmentalist, 27, 3, pp. 341-7, (2007); Silverman G.S., Accrediting undergraduate programs in environmental health science and protection, The Environmental Professional, 14, 4, pp. 319-24, (1992); Smyth J.C., Environment and education: A view of a changing scene, Environmental Education Research, 12, 3-4, pp. 247-64, (2006); Soule M.E., Press D.L., What is environmental studies?, BioScience, 48, 5, pp. 397-405, (1998); Steelman T., Maguire L., Understanding participant perspectives: Q-Methodology in national forest management, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 18, 3, pp. 361-88, (1999); Stephenson W., Technique of factor analysis, Nature, 136, 3434, (1935); Strauss B.H., The Class of 2000 Report: Environmental Education, Practices, and Activism on Campus, (2000); Thomas I.G., Integrators: An outcome of environmental education, The Environmentalist, 12, 4, pp. 261-6, (1992); Watts S., Stenner P., Doing Q Methodology: Theory, method and interpretation, Qualitative Research in Psychology, 2, 1, pp. 67-91, (2005); Webler T., Tuler S., Krueger R., What is a good public participation process?, Environmental Management, 27, 3, pp. 435-50, (2001); Weis J.S., The status of undergraduate programs in environmental science, Environmental Science and Technology, 24, 8, pp. 1116-21, (1990); Weis J.S., Undergraduate environmental science report, Environmental Science and Technology, 26, 7, pp. 1296-7, (1992); Wright P.C., Certification practices in north america: Where environmental programs fit, The Environmental Professional, 14, 4, pp. 351-8, (1992)