TY - JOUR
AU - Marshall, Peter
AB - In the United States, forestry accreditation is a nongovernmental, voluntary system of self-examination and peer review that assures the quality of postsecondary educational programs.1 Programs volunteer to undergo this review periodically to determine whether certain criteria are being met. Society of American Foresters (SAF) accreditation provides colleges and universities with a structured mechanism to assess, evaluate, and improve the quality of their educational programs in forestry, urban forestry, forest technology, or natural resources and ecosystem management. In Canada, the Canadian Forestry Accreditation Board/Bureau canadien d'agrément en foresterie (CFAB/BCAF) is responsible for the accreditation of Canadian university forestry programs relative to the academic requirements for professional certification on behalf of the Canadian Federation of Professional Forestry Associations (CFPFA). More broadly, in both the United States and Canada, accreditation does the following: helps students and their parents choose quality college programs; enables employers to recruit graduates they know are well-prepared; and is used by registration, licensure, and certification boards to screen applicants. The purposes of a programmatic accreditation evaluation are to provide public assurance of an institution's effectiveness in delivering an educational program that meets the established criteria of a profession and a stimulus to improve the quality of instruction. The SAF standards require an educational program to demonstrate that it has clarity and purpose with stated educational goals and objectives and that it has a professional curriculum, a functioning organization and administrative structure, procedures to maintain faculty and students, and the physical resources and facilities to carry out the educational objectives. In addition, SAF standards seek to confirm that the parent institution provides the support to allow the program to continue to offer a quality education to the student and, where appropriate, to conduct research, extension, continuing education, and public service functions for the graduate, the profession, and the greater society. The CFAB/BCAF system examines the ability of a program to deliver a series of stipulated competencies, as well as many of the noncurricular attributes examined during a SAF accreditation. In both the SAF and CFAB/BCAF systems, an accreditation evaluation consists of the following: the preparation of a self-evaluation report by the program; a campus visit by a team of educators and practitioners; and a review and analysis of the self-evaluation and visiting team reports by the accreditation committee. For the accreditation theme of the North American Summit on Forest Science Education, we asked two key questions: What is the role of accreditation in forestry education from an administrative, academic, employment, and prospective student perspective? Should accreditation standards for professional degrees continue to emphasize “science” and “skills” equally? These two questions led to the development of several subquestions. Questions and context for the questions were sent to the participating group members in advance of the Summit, and each member was asked to take the lead for “answering” one of the subquestions. The Role of Accreditation Since the inception of the forestry profession in North America, debate regarding the nature of forestry and the purpose of forestry education has been ongoing. Specific inquiry into what constitutes a proper educational program in forestry began in the United States in December 1909 when Gifford Pinchot called the first national conference on forestry education. Another national conference convened in December 1920 at the Yale University School of Forestry. In 1929, SAF began a comprehensive study, funded by a $30,000 grant from the Carnegie Corporation of New York (an amount equivalent to more than $400,000 in 2015) (Dana and Johnson 1963). This study resulted in the 1932 Graves and Guise publication Forest Education (Graves and Guise 1932). In December 1933 the SAF Executive Council decided to proceed with the classification of the institutions offering curricula in professional forestry, and a specific study was undertaken as the basis for their contemplated action in adopting a list of approved schools. (Chapman 1935, p. v) This work launched the program of SAF accreditation, with the approval of 14 schools offering a professional forestry degree and partial approval of 6 others. The CFAB/BCAF accreditation process is of more recent vintage; the Board was established in 1989 and the first accreditation visits took place in 1990. Appropriately for a profession, the discussion and debate did not end with the establishment of an accreditation process. A common thread running through the discussions over time has been that the educational systems must provide an education that meets employment sector needs (Dana and Johnson 1963, Fisher 1996, Brown and Lassoie 1998, Sample et al. 1999, 2015, Bullard et al. 2014). Accreditation developed as a mechanism that could provide structure for what the educational programs should deliver as the profession grew and expanded. Our summit discussion revealed that the definition of a forester—and indeed what the profession is—remains subject to continuous change and challenge. The requirements of landowners and others with a stake in forests and forestry continue to evolve, and thus the skills needed to address those requirements must be assessed periodically, e.g., carbon accounting, restoration of forests following hydraulic fracturing for the extraction of natural gas, and the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for resource inventory were not prevalent two decades ago. Similarly, institutions of higher education play a significant role in the future of forest management, not simply through student instruction: university research helps guide the direction of forested lands management; cutting-edge research is introduced directly to students; and research universities produce the academics needed to deliver an academic program (O'Hara 2015). Further, technology will absolutely be changing at a rapid and unpredictable pace, and universities often drive this process. In the second decade of the 21st century, forestry and natural resources management degree programs must produce graduates capable of working and succeeding in a diversity of land conservation and stewardship contexts. The great challenge lies in defining standards for curricula that continue to do the following: provide a scientific foundation; teach critical analysis and problem-solving skills that are applicable to diverse resource management contexts that balance ecological, economic, and social demands; and teach the field skills needed to design and effect resource management actions. Accreditation standards are designed to ensure that educational programs are providing the education appropriate for the contemporary profession. Accreditation is still viewed as an appropriate means for encouraging relevant program improvement and the flow of information and discussion between the employers, the accrediting bodies, and the academies remains critical. Our group's discussion reinforced the concept that accreditation provides the link between the needs of the profession and the programs that provide the professional education, be it at the associate (AAS), baccalaureate (BS), or master's (MF) level. Adding Value to the Academic Endeavor If the role of accreditation is to provide the link between educational programs and the sustainable management of forested landscapes in a contemporary context, it must enhance the academic endeavor, which consists of curricula, faculties, students, a functioning organization and administrative structure, physical resources and facilities, and parent institution support. Our discussions further focused on the value accreditation can have in supporting faculties in the development and delivery of curriculums and in ensuring that educational programs continue to meet employer needs within constraints unavoidably imposed by institutional policies. Faculties The proportion of tenure-track faculty in US higher education has been decreasing overall in recent years, and some institutions are now relying more heavily on interdepartmental delivery of courses or on adjunct instructors (Kezar et al. 2014). SAF accreditation requires a minimum of eight faculty full-time equivalents (FTE) for professional degree programs (SAF 2015a). Technical degree programs must have a minimum of two full-time faculty members plus not more than an overall 20:1 FTE student/faculty ratio (SAF 2015b). CFAB/BCAF standards do not have minimum faculty number requirements; however, they indicate a need for programs to demonstrate that there are enough faculty members to cover the curriculum and ensure appropriate levels of student-faculty interaction and counseling (CFAB/BCAF 2014). In light of the increasing practice of interdepartmental delivery and/or use of adjunct instructors, we discussed whether a requirement for a minimum number of faculty members is outmoded and whether a requirement for a sufficient number of faculty members engaged in developing, reviewing, and delivering the curriculum and engaging in academic counseling contributes substantially to the overall academic quality of the student experience. Our discussion on the minimum number of faculty members revealed an excellent answer to this complex question: it depends! Some of the more obvious factors influencing how many is enough or what is sufficient include the size of the student population, the expertise of individual faculty members, and administrative and advising workloads. Threshold numbers may not be as valuable as a holistic assessment of a particular program, and sensitivity to the types of faculty appointments (research versus teaching focus) should not be ignored. Simply attaining a given level of FTE is not as critical as assessment of other, perhaps subtler, influences. A forestry faculty needs to teach in four capacities: science, technical skills, human dimensions, and values/ethics. The latter is most effectively taught through mentoring and leading by example. Often, individual faculty members must cover more than one capacity. If teaching, administrative, and advising responsibilities are too broad and research and funding responsibilities too intense, provision of the mentoring component may be lost. Further, the breadth of education a student receives is at least as important as the depth of instruction in a given subject area. Breadth is not measured solely by the number of subjects studied. Exposure to diverse perspectives, opinions, and experiences is an important part of providing breadth in a professional education. Having only a few faculty members involved in developing and delivering a curriculum decreases the diversity of thought to which students are exposed. Not all faculty members need to be traditional foresters; there are many who are actively engaged in forest science but are not foresters per se. Many forestry academics have not sought forestry credentials, even though they may have a strong background in forestry. Not all faculty members need to have practiced forestry, but it would be troubling if none of the forestry faculty at an institution had practiced forestry. In addition, some important forestry faculty may not be housed in forestry departments—or even at the institution housing the accredited degree program. For example, a particular forestry academic unit may not have a forest geneticist, but given modern technology, a forest geneticist at another university might deliver a genetics course or coteach a forest ecology course. The contribution of these educational methods to the breadth and depth of the curriculums and to the students' academic experience should not be discounted. Overall agreement on what threshold numbers are important or how the numbers should be counted was not achieved. Two faculty members for a forest technology program may not be enough, although use of guest lecturers and adjunct faculty members can help deliver a core piece of the diversity of perspective that is vital. Eight faculty members in a baccalaureate program might be enough, but only if they have the diversity of backgrounds necessary to provide broad expertise and perspective. However, holistic assessment of the quality of instruction and whether or not the key component of mentoring is present is crucial, regardless of how faculty numbers are assessed. Whether it is an actual number or a requirement that the fulltime faculty be of sufficient size, the participants agreed that such an accreditation standard can help to maintain the number of faculty members needed to provide the depth and breadth necessary for a professional education. Forestry Education from a Distance Because it is relevant to the role of accreditation in setting curriculum standards and competencies needed in the profession, our discussion addressed the increasing trend toward distance learning and requirements that institutions and programs accept “transfer” credit from online courses, including massive open online courses (MOOCs), as well as offering experiential credit for time spent in the workplace before matriculation. We wondered whether these trends pose a potential problem for academic quality (in general education requirements or professional coursework requirements) and whether or not accreditation standards can (or need to) help alleviate pressures to accept these types of transfer credits. Generally, it appears that the further-reaching results from acceptance of MOOC or experiential learning credits are not yet apparent in forestry and natural resources management educational programs. However, distance learning is a reality that presents both opportunities and challenges. The group agreed that there is potential for both efficiency and for broadening education by incorporating online learning, particularly with some general education requirements. However, since the profession still requires practitioners who can physically go into the forest for a variety of reasons, field laboratories remain a vital part of the professional education. In addition, entry-level field-based courses are often the ones that attract students to the forestry and natural resource management majors in the first place. Traditional approaches can be enhanced with online education without dropping field learning, e.g., hybrid or blended courses that incorporate online options for attending lectures, but require the student to be physically present in the laboratories. Online learning also provides options for students who would not otherwise be able to go to a campus (Standiford 2015). However, a college education is more than the curriculum, and an academic program is more than the simple sum of all of the courses that comprise the program. The essence of what it means to be at a university or college may be lost when classes are online. Human interactions are viewed as critical skills for forestry professionals (Bullard et al. 2014, Bullard 2015, Sample et al. 2015), but our group wondered how can these be fostered with online classes? Accreditation standards must recognize and incorporate this increasingly common and potentially valuable pedagogical format. However, the group agreed that experiential learning is still a necessary component of the professional education and professed concerns that many elements of field skills may be difficult to teach and learn online. A continued emphasis on assessment of learning outcomes, as opposed to delivery mechanism, is appropriate, although assessment of distance learning courses may require a different approach than that for traditional lecture/laboratory/field courses. Emphasizing Sciences versus Field Skills versus Social Skills Mandated credit hour limits, pressure to increase 4-year graduation rates, and the necessity to reduce the cost of education have reduced the scope of technical and professional forestry education in the United States in recent decades. Similar trends have not yet been seen in Canada but may be seen in the future. When programs have to reduce the number of credit hours required for graduation, hard decisions have to be made about what to cut and where. These credit hour reductions may make it increasingly difficult to provide “adequate” science instruction and laboratory/field experiences as well as development of “adequate” social skills within a baccalaureate or master's program.2 Our discussion on the role of accreditation was concurrent with the curriculum theme group's discussion, which included a similar topic of developing and designing forestry curricula for the 21st century (Bullard 2015). Access to facilities and requiring “summer camp” are increasingly expensive for programs and students. Forestry and natural resources professionals are increasingly relied on for modeling, data analysis, stakeholder engagement, and collaboration in the workplace. Yet, the abilities to go out physically into the environment, measure things, collect accurate data, observe, and find your way home are still integral to any land management endeavor. Whereas the Pinchot Institute survey investigated the extent to which forestry degree programs at US universities and colleges are providing students with the knowledge and skills needed for contemporary professional practice in forestry (Sample et al. 2015), our group conversed about the appropriate balance for the modern world, the needs of the profession/employers/society 10–20 years from now, and the following question: if the role of accreditation is to set the educational competencies demanded by the profession, but institutional policies limit the total amount of instruction a student can receive, should science or technical or social competencies be sacrificed? Quantifying a balance between science, social skills, and technical field skills remains as difficult today as it was in the early decades of the 20th century. Numerous studies, essays, and opinion pieces have debated these questions (Bullard et al. 2014, Bullard 2015). Recognition that the ability to communicate effectively is a critical professional skill is not new. Assessments of how well degree programs are educating students for the contemporary workplace continue to find that employers still expect new hires to be well-grounded in the relevant sciences and core technical skills (Sample et al. 1999, 2015, Bullard et al. 2014). Our group agreed that forestry graduates continue to need understanding of both the how and the why. Baccalaureate and master's degree programs may focus more on the why than do associate's degree programs; however, it is nevertheless important that students in forest technology degree programs achieve an understanding of why certain techniques and treatments are used in certain situations, how data are analyzed, and how the results are applied, even if the technician will not be conducting the analysis or interpreting the results. We believe it is also appropriate that basic skills related to being competent in the woods be incorporated into all levels of forestry education, including for those graduates who find employment and career paths that are in predominately policy, modeling, or analysis roles. Decisions regarding the sustainable management and use of natural resources of any kind for the betterment of the human condition are not best left to those who have never experienced firsthand the land beneath their feet and the challenges that nature poses. Technical competencies in field skills may be incorporated into contemporary education in a number of ways: through routine field courses/laboratories or through concentrated, weeks-long units, or even through novel means of achieving such competencies via distance learning (Standiford 2015). Accreditation standards must be flexible enough to accommodate contemporary pedagogies. Lack of skill in communications, teamwork, conflict management, and stakeholder analysis continues to be identified as a failing of graduates from both associate and baccalaureate degree programs in forestry (Bullard et al. 2014, Bullard 2015, Sample et al. 2015). We questioned whether this is a particular “failing” of forestry education or simply the reality of early 20-somethings entering the professional workforce coupled with a contemporary business expectation that entry-level employees routinely possess skills beyond those for which they are hired. Although employers identify these as essential skills, most also agree that they are not expected to be fully developed until mid- or late-career (Sample et al. 1999, 2015). While there are some professional master's degree programs in the United States and Canada that are accredited or candidates for accreditation, agreement that MF degrees should be the entry requirement for professional foresters has never been reached. Such programs do produce more mature graduates, many of whom have had the benefit of a liberal arts undergraduate education before beginning their professional technical coursework (Innes 2015). Most SAF or CFAB/BCAF accredited programs already incorporate written and oral communications skills throughout the curriculum. The group agreed that online delivery or other creative pedagogics may offer opportunities for workshops or certificate courses, which can help in the development of writing, speaking, or leadership skills without adding to credit hour requirements. Many curricula also require capstone projects, which are intended to emphasize the integration of skills from multiple courses, and we agreed that accreditation review should place more scrutiny and analysis on these integrations, as well as on the ability of students to apply their forestry skills in wider social contexts than may be typical. Additional attention might also be paid consistently to outcomes assessment of less tangible skills, particularly those involving values/ethics and professional behavior. Interestingly, we discerned that care should be taken not to overemphasize the “how” (i.e., vocational) part of forestry education at the expense of the “why,” since graduates often get retrained to do things differently, particularly as technologies develop. In considering an appropriate balance between science and skills for the contemporary world, as well as whether or not all that is needed can actually be delivered in 2 or 4 years, all educational programs in forestry and natural resources management need to set an expectation that learning is a life-long pursuit. It may be that in the 21st century, we need to embrace the concept that less can sometimes be more. Dichotomous keys empower graduates to work anywhere so learning the methods to identify a plant species may be the more appropriate competency, for example, than learning the identifying characteristics of scores of species. In particular, students need to be equipped to adjust to rapidly changing technologies, just as well as they are to environmental changes and the effects those changes may have on forested ecosystems. Students need to learn how to learn effectively in a future in which information will be developed differently and more rapidly and although accreditation standards should continue to encompass traditional science and field skills competencies, equally important is the need to incorporate learning skills competencies. Conclusions and Recommendations Recognition that forestry education is an integral part of the stewardship and conservation of forest resources in North America can be traced to the inception of the profession. Accreditation of forestry programs in the United States has its foundations in the 1930s. In the ensuing eight decades, the role that educational institutions, employers, and professional societies play has been an appropriate, ongoing subject of debate and discussion. Forests are a fundamental source of global health and human welfare. Society will continue to need educated individuals who can manage forested landscapes to remain healthy and productive for all the products and ecosystem services they provide. Whereas programmatic accreditation sometimes may be viewed by college and university administrators as a hindrance, most acknowledge that it nonetheless continues to add value to the academic endeavor in support of the profession. A program's self-evaluation report is similar to strategic planning, which is then subject to third-party review. One may not literally pull the plan off the shelf every day, but the process of thinking critically about a program and its direction is invaluable, and the third-party validation is important in demonstrating the quality of a program to the public. At the SAF annual meeting in Milwaukee in 1933, a conference on the education of foresters noted that the profession demands individuals who eschew both physical and mental laziness, who know the importance of accuracy, and who can express themselves clearly either in written reports or orally. It was also noted that learning how to think is what really constitutes an education—quality, not quantity, is what is needed (Hosmer 1934). The face of forestry education has changed considerably since then, but the need for educational programs to teach learning skills has not. In its 1934 report, the SAF Committee on Specialization in Forest Education quoted a member of the committee: The fundamental training of the forester is something which I feel we never will quite satisfactorily determine. If we are to make the most progress, we must continuously be on the frontier in education. (Bryant et al. 1934, p. 35) Conversations regarding the nature of forestry and the purpose of forestry education should remain a topic of discussion in the profession as we continue to redefine our role in the society in which we work. Students of today will be the driving force of the profession in 20 years and thus accreditation standards must continually evolve. It is time for professional forestry societies to build on the findings of the Berkeley Summit and continue the conversation. This involves addressing the ways in which accreditation can continue to add value to the academic endeavor, as well as examining more comprehensively how all elements of the themes of the Summit contribute to successful conservation and stewardship of forests. In addition to the improvements noted above, such a conversation might include the following: clarifying the appropriate “roles” in our 21st century profession for each level of education, AAS/Diploma, BS, and MF, and how accreditation can support that; greater emphasis on the role and importance of accredited degree programs for prospective students; inclusion of forest science education in policy efforts so that legislators are more aware of these issues, as well as the strengths of forest science education; more prominence for the breadth of forestry education and how this education can qualify graduates not only for more traditional forestry credentials, but for credentials in other related fields, such as wildlife management or urban forestry; and efforts to work with state, provincial, and federal agencies to include requirements for accredited degrees in position qualifications. Further, given that forestry has an increasingly global focus, programs outside Canada and the United States can benefit from an accreditation process for curriculum content and delivery mechanisms. Although the majority of graduates from such programs may not come here to work, a quality forestry education benefits forest stewardship and conservation globally. Thus, CFAB/BCAF and SAF might explore opportunities to cooperate for an accreditation process that could encompass programs beyond Canadian and US borders. Endnotes 1. Forestry accreditation is programmatic accreditation as opposed to institutional accreditation. 2. Even technical degree programs at the associate's level, many of which require a summer term as part of the curriculum, face the problem of incorporating adequate field time into a 2-year course of instruction. Acknowledgments: We thank all participants in the Accreditation Theme discussion at the Summit: Steve Daniels, Plum Creek; Sam Delano, student representative, Oregon State University; Tom DeLuca, University of Washington; Mike Messina, The Pennsylvania State University; Doug Piirto, California Polytechnic University; Al Sample, Pinchot Institute; Ken Ward, Alabama A&M University; and session facilitator Kim Ingram and recorder Rob York of UC Berkeley. We also thank Kevin O'Hara, Steve Daniels, Don Bragg, and Martha Monroe for their review of and helpful suggestions for the improvement of this article. Literature Cited Brown T.L., Lassoie J.P. . 1998. Entry-level competency and skill requirements of foresters: What do employers want? J. For . 96( 2): 8– 14. Bryant R.C., Butler O., Jeffers D.S., Krueger M.S., Kynoch W., Spring S.N. . 1934. Specialization in forest education. Reports of Division of Forest Education Committees. J. For . 34( 3): 347– 351. Bullard S.H. 2015. Forestry curricula for the 21st century—Maintaining rigor, communicating relevance, building relationships. J. For . 113( 6): 552– 556. Bullard S.H., Coble D., Coble T., Darville R., Rogers L., Stephens Williams P. . 2014. Producing ‘society-ready’ foresters: A research-based process to revise the bachelor of science forestry curriculum at Stephen F. Austin State University. Available online at scholarworks.sfasu.edu/atcofa_monograph_series/1/; last accessed July 23, 2015. Canadian Forestry Accreditation Board/Bureau canadien d'agrément en foresterie (CFAB/BCAF). 2014. Elements of accreditation. Available online at www.cfab.ca/English/elements.html; last accessed July 23, 2015. Chapman H.H. 1935. Professional forestry schools report . Society of American Foresters, Washington, DC. 174 p. Dana S.T., Johnson E.W. . 1963. Forestry education in America, today and tomorrow . Society of American Foresters, Washington, DC. 402 p. Fisher R.F. 1996. Broader and deeper: The challenge of forestry education in the late 20th century. J. For . 94( 3): 4– 8. Graves H.S., Guise C.H. . 1932. Forestry education . Yale Univ. Press, New Haven, CT. 421 p. Hosmer R.S. 1934. Conference on the education of foresters. J. For . 32( 2): 371– 375. Innes J.L. 2015. Master's degrees and other postgraduate education options for foresters. J. For . 113( 6): 561– 565. Kezar A., Maxey D., Eaton J. . 2014. An examination of the changing faculty: Ensuring institutional quality and achieving desired student learning outcomes. CHEA Occasional Paper, Council on Higher Education Accreditation, Washington, DC. 29 p. O'Hara K.L., Salwasser H. . 2015. Forest science education in research universities. J. For . 113( 6): 581– 584. Sample V.A., Bixler R.P., McDonough M.H., Bullard S.H., Snieckus M.M. . 2015. The promise and performance of forestry education in the United States: Results of a survey of forestry employers, graduates, and educators. J. For . 113( 6): 528– 537. Sample V.A., Ringgold P.C., Block N.E., Giltmier J.W. . 1999. Forestry education: Adapting to the changing demands on professionals. J. For . 97( 9): 4– 10. Society of American Foresters (SAF). 2015a. Accreditation handbook: Standards, procedures, and guidelines for accrediting educational programs in professional forestry. Available online at www.safnet.org/education/AccHdbk_Dec2014.pdf; last accessed July 23, 2015. Society of American Foresters (SAF). 2015b. Standards, procedures, and guidelines for accrediting educational programs in forest technology. Available online at www.safnet.org/education/TechAccStd_Dec2014.pdf; last accessed July 23, 2015. Standiford R.B. 2015. Distance education and new models for forestry education. J. For . 113( 6): 557– 560. Copyright © 2015 Society of American Foresters
TI - Adding Value to the Profession: The Role of Accreditation
JF - Journal of Forestry
DO - 10.5849/jof.15-028
DA - 2015-11-01
UR - https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/springer-journals/adding-value-to-the-profession-the-role-of-accreditation-4zBTGpL2rr
SP - 566
EP - 570
VL - 113
IS - 6
DP - DeepDyve
ER -