S.11-143
SFU
OFFICE OF THE VICE-PRESIDENT, ACADEMIC AND PROVOST
MEMORANDUM
University Drive, Burnaby, BC
TEL: 778.782.3925
Canada V5A 1S6
FAX: 778.782.5876
ATTENTION
Senate
FROM
Ion Driver, Vice-President, Academic and
DATE
November 16, 2011
PAGES 1/1
Provost, and Chair, SCUP
External Review of the Department of Earth Sciences (SCUP 11-46)
RE:
www.sfu.ca/vpacademic
At its October 26, 2011 meeting SCUP reviewed and approved the Action Plan-fdr the Department of
Earth Sciences that resulted from its External Review.
Motion
That Senate approve the Action Plan for the Department of Earth Sciences that resulted from its External
Review.
end.
c: J. MacEachern
C. Cupples
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
THINKING OF THE WORLD
SCUP 11-46
SFU
OFFICE OF THE ASSOCIATE VICE-PRESIDENT, ACADEMIC AND ASSOCIATE PROVOST
1University Drive, Burnaby, BC
TEL: 778.782.4636
avpcio@sfu.ca
Canada V5A1S6
www.sfu.ca/vpacademic
MEMORANDUM
ATTENTION
Jon Driver, Chair, SCUP
DATE
October
18,
2011
FROM
Bill Krane, Associate Vice-President, Academic
PAGES
1/1
and Associate Provost
DC.
External Review of the Department of Piarth Sciences
Attached are the External Review Report on the Department of Earth Sciences and the Action
Plan endorsed bythe Department and the Dean.
Motion:
That SCUP approve and recommend to Senate the Action Plan for the Department
of Earth Sciences that resulted from its External Review.
Following the site visit, the Report of the External Review Team* for the Department of Earth
Sciences was submitted in April 2011.
After the Report was received, a meeting was held with the Dean, Faculty of Science, Department
Chair, and the Director of Academic Planning and Budgeting (VTA) to consider the
recommendations. The Department then prepared an Action Plan based on the Report and these
discussions. The Action plan was then submitted to the Dean on May 27, 2011. The Dean endorsed
this Action Plan.
The Reviewers concluded that;
'Overall,the Department is doing well and is a credit to the Faculty and University. There are no
major weaknesses. The Department ranks well in comparison to geoscience
departments of similar
size in Canada, and its reputation in environmental geology is one of
the highest in the country. The
interests of the Department are best served by remaining in the Faculty of Science, but there is
much scope for collaborative, respectful ties
with the Faculty of Environment and other
departments in the Faculty of Science in both teaching and research.'
SCUP recommends to Senate that Department of Earth Sciences be advised to pursue the
Action Plan.
Attachments:
1. External Review Report - April, 2011
2. Department of Earth Sciences External Review -Action Plan
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
thinking of the world
* External Review Team;
Robin W. Renaut
(Chair), Professor, Department of Geological Sciences
University
of Saskatchewan
Iain Samson,
Professor and Head, Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences
University of Windsor
Carolyn Eyles,
Professor, School of Geography & Earth Sciences
McMaster University
George Agnes
(Internal) Professor, Department of Chemistry and Associate Dean of Graduate
Studies
CC
Claire Cupples, Dean, Faculty of Science
James MacEachern, Chair, Department of Earth Sciences
Z
External Review Report
Department of Earth Sciences, Simon Fraser University
April 2011
INTRODUCTION
The external review team visited the Department of Earth Sciences from March 9 to 11,2011,
having received the Self Study Report and accompanying documents about a month earlier. The
members consisted of Dr. Carolyn Eyles (McMaster University), Dr. Robin Renaut (University
of Saskatchewan, Chair), and Dr Iain Samson (University of Windsor). Dr. George Agnes
(Department of Chemistry) served as the internal member, providing valuable support to the
committee. The three days were spent interviewing faculty, adjunct and teaching staff, graduate
and undergraduate students, office and technical staff, librarians, and members of senior
administration. A tour of the Department and facilities was also made.
The primary mandate of the committee was to assess the undergraduate and graduate teaching
programs, the quality of faculty research, the degree of participation by Department members in
administration and dissemination of knowledge, the overall 'environment' of the Department,
and the future directions that the Department has planned.
A series of specific questions were also considered, and these are documented later in the report.
UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAMS
The numbers of undergraduate students taught by faculty and instructors in Earth Sciences has
increased considerably since the last departmental review in 2004 (from 578 to 1473). This has
been accomplished largely by the addition of several new large-enrolment, first-year courses
that address the need for Writing, Quantification, Breadth (WQB) courses accessible to all SFU
students. The number of Majors also appears to have increased over the 2004-2010 time period
(from 43 to 81). However, the number of students graduating from the program each year has
stayed fairly consistent at between 12 and 16, with a drop to nine students in 2010 (Appendix I,
p. 3). In addition, the number of students entering the Minor program in Earth Sciences has
dropped dramatically in recent years, with three students registered for the 2009-10 session.
Overall, the standard and quality of teaching in the Department seems to be high; students
interviewed are very satisfied with their program, and enjoy the small class sizes and general
collegiality in the department. There is an expectation of high teaching standards from all
instructors within the Department and a general desire to provide the best educational
experience possible for the students. The students themselves appreciate the many opportunities
provided to them to engage in fieldwork and to apply the knowledge learned to 'realworld'
situations. In the latter context, the Department benefits from the excellent contributions made
by a number
of adjunct faculty from local government agencies, academia, and industry. Most
students in the program are able to acquire summer employment in their field of interest and
employment opportunities after graduation are very good. There does not appear to be any need
for a co-op program in the Department
of Earth Sciences. With current enrolment, the provision
of undergraduate teaching space, though not ideal, is adequate.
r
3
A number of issues need to be addressed regarding the undergraduate programs. These issues
relate to curriculum, student recruitment, and teaching resources.
Curriculum
Major program
The Department currently offers three streams for students to follow as part of the B.Sc. Major
program: Geology, Environmental Geoscience (both of which allow students to satisfy the
academic requirements for professional registration in the Association of Professional Engineers
and Geoscientists of BC: APEGBC) and General Earth Science. However, the curricula
followed by these three streams have not been thoroughly reviewed in terms of overall content,
learning objectives, or pedagogy for some years. Curriculum change has reflected the changing
composition of the faculty rather than the needs of the professional geosciences community or
society. As stated in the departmental self-study report (p. 58): "The undergraduate curriculum
has evolved considerably over the years in order to accommodate the expertise of incoming
faculty." New courses have been added to the curriculum, but the overall structure and content
of the programs have not been addressed.
APEGBC has recently (2011) changed the requirements for professional registration to align
with the Geoscientists Canada knowledge requirements
(http://www.apeg.bc.ca/reg/geosyllabi.html) and the Department now needs to undertake a full
and comprehensive review of the undergraduate curriculum. A thorough curriculum review will
allow the identification of courses that need to be maintained, courses that are no longer
required by graduating students, and new courses that should be considered for inclusion in the
curriculum (e.g., metamorphic petrology, biogeochemistry, geostatistics, geographic
information systems (GIS)). In this context, course offerings in other departments that may
enrich the Earth Sciences programs should be explored (e.g., environmental chemistry, ecology,
and toxicology courses). This type of curriculum review will ensure that the program content is
kept up-to-date and relevant, and provides the appropriate amount of flexibility and choice for
students. Regardless of external (APEGBC registration) requirements, the curriculum planning
process should be strategic and should consider the knowledge base, skills, and experiences of
faculty. The organization of a series of off-campus retreats, facilitated by members of Teaching
and Learning Centre, should be considered when planning the curriculum revision process.
A revised, more flexible and streamlined program may attract additional students into the
Majors streams and may also remove scheduling issues that students have experienced (and
complained about). The review of individual courses and course content may also allow the
consolidation and amalgamation of courses and (or) their scheduling in alternate years. The
Department currently offers a total of 41 undergraduate courses, many of which are upper-level
courses with low enrolments. The creation of fewer, more relevant, and better-populated courses
is desirable. Tracking of skills development (discipline-based skills and transferable skills)
through the curriculum, and careful examination of the prerequisite structure for upper level
courses, should also be included in the curriculum review process. Attention also needs to be
given to the scheduling of courses. To provide the full suite of courses that students need to
graduate, the Department should ensure that 'core'(required) courses are consistently offered,
and take priority over the scheduling of optional courses. Fourth-year field courses that involve
expensive (international) travel should be optional and not required by the Major program.
Students should be given plenty of notice of these field courses to allow financial planning. A
y
thorough curriculum review is also essential to provide the framework for the proposed plan to
change the three streams of the existing Major program into separate degree programs (p. 65 of
the Department's self-study document), although the committee feels that few (if any)
advantages may be gained by having more, but smaller Earth Sciences programs.
Minor program
The curriculum review process should also include examination of the structure and content of
the Minor program in earth sciences that is attracting very few students. This review should
identify discipline areas in which a Minor in earth sciences would complement the Major
curriculum and would be attractive to students. There seems to be an untapped opportunity to
create a
Minor in earth sciences that would complement environment programs.
Opportunities for collaboration
There appear to be many opportunities for collaboration with other units within the university
that would strengthen the undergraduate programs of the Department
of Earth Sciences. In
particular, development of a collegial dialogue with the Department of Geography must be
pursued urgently. Collaboration between the departments of Geography and Earth Sciences
could allow the development of enhanced environmental (geo)science programming that would
benefit the university as a whole. Incorporating a range of courses from each department into
both Earth Sciences and Environmental Science curricula (e.g. GIS, Remote Sensing,
Geochemistry), and the provision of consistent student access to these courses, would
significantly enhance the quality
of both programs. Dialogue between the two departments
would also allow the content of some courses to be enhanced and better aligned to meet the
needs of a more diverse student audience.
Student recruitment
In order to inform prospective students of the opportunities for study in the Earth Sciences,
undergraduate programs offered by the Department
of Earth Sciences need to be given much
greater visibility on the university website (e.g., 'Areas of Study' page). In addition, as most
recruitment into undergraduate programs in Earth Sciences occurs within the university, the
Department should work with the Dean to explore ways of enhancing the visibility of EASC
101 to science majors as a course option. The Faculty of Science should also consider making
EASC 101 a requirement for students in the General Sciences program. Faculty members from
the Department
of Earth Sciences should be fully engaged in discussions regarding the
restructuring of the General Science program. The Department could also enhance outreach
activities to local high schools by engaging members of the Undergraduate Earth Sciences
Student Union.
Teaching resources and quality of teaching
The overall quality of teaching in the Department is high. The only issue raised by students was
that some instructors should be encouraged to give more detailed feedback on submitted work
that extends beyond the single mark. The most effective teachers in the Department should be
consistently assigned to teach
EASC 101 because this is an important recruitment course. The
Department is encouraged to nominate effective instructors for appropriate teaching awards.
Efforts should also be made to give instructors and teaching assistants sufficient advance notice
of teaching assignments, and to assign teaching duties according to the background, skills and
abilities of the instructors and TAs. The introduction of more team-taught or shared courses
would enhance flexibility of teaching schedules and could provide more effective scheduling of
vacation time for teaching faculty. In comparison to other universities, TA provision is
exceptionally high and very healthy, although the number of hours of work required from a TA
is more than at other institutions.
However, the teaching load and scheduling of courses is an issue for teaching staff, who have
insufficient time between teaching assignments for reflection and preparation. Teaching staff
also require more stability in their teaching assignments as these are often not determined
sufficiently far in advance to allow proper preparation. Teaching faculty could be more
effectively utilized in the Department through greater involvement in curriculum planning and
dissemination of information about pedagogical approaches and techniques. Teaching
evaluation tools are not always appropriate for teaching faculty and a purpose-designed
evaluation form is needed for the laboratory instructor.
Students gain access to course materials in a variety of ways via the departmental website. The
Department is encouraged to establish a
single
web location for class notes and other materials
that is hosted on a campus source server rather than the Department server. Instructors should
investigate ways to more effectively use tools on the learning management system (WebCT) to
collate grades, post notices, accept assignments, etc. Students should also be encouraged to
consult the Departmental website more frequently for information about departmental events
such as seminars.
The undergraduate teaching space available to the Department of Earth Sciences is adequate
given current enrolments. However, discussion should take place with the Dean of Science
regarding reallocation of Room 7000.1, TASCI, which appears to be underused at present, to
Earth Sciences. Reallocation of this room would provide more effective and flexible use of
teaching space in TASCI. Lecturing in laboratory classrooms does occur at present but should
not be continued if additional laboratory classes/sections are scheduled to accommodate future
higher enrolments.
RESEARCH
The quality of research is high in all of areas in the Department. It is in a strong position in that
every one of the non-teaching faculty members is active in research, publishing in peer-
reviewed journals, and the majority has the solid foundation of an NSERC Discovery Grant.
This is supplemented to varying degrees by funding from a number of sources, including
government agencies and private industry. The latter will almost certainly have to be pursued
more vigorously in the future as the success rate for NSERC Discovery Grants decreases, and as
NSERC puts increasingly more emphasis on other grant programs (such as CRDs).
The Department of Earth Sciences at SFU is not unique in being very diverse in the research
expertise of its faculty members. This is a necessity to be able to provide a comprehensive
undergraduate program, but leads to challenges. The Department has self-organized into a series
of 'researchgroups',which is how the site visit discussions were structured. This approach has
distinct advantages for some people, and for the Department as a whole. It provides identity to
those with similar interests and provides for increased communication and interaction between
subsets
of graduate students on a semi-formal basis. It also helps in attracting funding. However,
some
of the 'groups'comprise single faculty members and their graduate students, and in some
to
cases post-docs. This is almost inevitable in any earth sciences department organized along
these lines. The potential disadvantage of this approach is isolation and lack of communication
between groups. Our impression is that more interaction between groups, and indeed among the
Department as a whole, is needed and should be encouraged. One mechanism for this is the
departmental seminar series, and the attendance of the majority of faculty and graduate students
on a regular basis. A suitable seminar room closer to the Department would help in this regard,
but is not a significant hindrance. In addition, and related to this, is the lack of suitable common
space for the graduate students to interact amongst themselves and with faculty. We understand
the space limitations, but the university needs to consider how to accommodate these needs to
help fertilize this growing and successful graduate and research program.
Ultimately, a university department tends to succeed when the members are a coherent group
having a clear vision (even if broad), and fail when 'fractionation'occurs. We got the
impression that everyone in the Department gets on well and are collegial, but regular
gatherings
of faculty, graduate students, and senior undergraduates around interesting research
discussions would help to gel the Department as a whole and perhaps give it more internal
identity (see also comments about departmental meetings in this regard).
By its very nature, earth sciences as a discipline is very broad in that it studies all aspects of the
Earth, from a multitude of perspectives, and using knowledge and techniques from all the other
branches of science and mathematics. The terms of reference ask us to consider new or
emerging areas that could be pursued, and possibilities for partnerships with other departments
or universities. As noted above, the SFU department reflects much
of the breadth of earth and
environmental science, but there are many possible new directions that the Department could
consider as they evolve. It would be presumptuous of us to identify or recommend any one or
two areas for growth, as such decisions have to be made in the context of strategic planning that
includes all aspects of a department's activities, and in the context of the areas affected by
retirements. In the absence of a strategic plan and of information on imminent retirements, we
cannot make specific recommendations. Having said that, we will point out that there is a
growing need to embrace other disciplines and to develop research programs that lie at the
interface between the traditional disciplines. Thus, exciting opportunities lie in collaborating
with chemists, biologists, physicists, etc., and the Department should consider such areas as it
moves forward in developing strategic plans. An excellent example is geomicrobiology-
biogeochemistry, which is a growing field that is breaking new ground in understanding a
myriad of earth environments and can contribute to teaching and research programs in
mineralogy, geochemistry, soil science, microbiology, among others. At the same time, the
University has to recognize innovation in this regard and foster and reward such
interdisciplinary initiatives from the point of view of administrative barriers and turf protection
in traditional disciplines.
THE GRADUATE PROGRAM
The small size of some research groups and the breadth of the Department have also led to
issues around graduate course offerings. Not surprisingly, the perspective from different groups
was different — some thought that graduate course offerings were fine, others did not. Most
courses are very specialized, and most have had small numbers of students enrolled. Some
students had difficulty in meeting their course requirements due to the small number of relevant
courses that were available to them. Again, this is not a unique situation in
many departments.
-7
Access to courses through the Western Dean's agreement is working well, with most courses
having been taken at UBC, albeit not very many. Developing more jointly taught courses with
UBC might be possible and should be considered. This exposes students to a broader academic
environment but obviously has logistical limitations.
A large number of courses are listed in the calendar (26 by our count, excluding special topics),
and 36 different courses were offered in the seven years between 2004 and 2010. We
recommend that the Department consider rationalizing these and developing some graduate
courses that would interest a broader cross-section of students. These could be team-taught and
offered on a more regular basis than the more specialized courses. This would provide
efficiency (larger classes), more regular offerings for students, and more interaction between
students from different groups (cf. comments above about the research environment). As an
example, in a broad-based course in recent advances in geochemistry, students with a common
background or interest in geochemistry could discuss topical issues in geochemistry as applied
to a variety of processes or environments, which could range from the mantle to groundwater.
This kind of cross-fertilization and exposure can be very beneficial to graduate students (and
faculty); it is too easy to become myopic about our own little corner
of earth science. Guidance
on proposal writing was requested by the students, and we suggest it could be incorporated into
a revised and updated version of EASC 600-0 (Introduction to Graduate Studies).
Some faculty members and groups have good linkages with the external communities, including
resource companies, academia, and government, most notably the Geological Survey
of Canada.
As part of this, the Department has an excellent active Adjunct Professor component, which
provides some important contributions to graduate teaching and research expertise, and offers
graduate students the opportunity for valuable interaction with the broader earth science
community. This should be fostered, and where possible, expanded and broadened.
The graduate program has seen steady growth that reflects the recent increase in the
Department'sfaculty complement, and the high quality of its research. The PhD program is new
and is likely only
just getting to a steady state. Both the MSc and PhD programs now have very
healthy enrolments with a good balance between the two. Times to completion for MSc students
are close to three years (8.6 semesters), and could be reduced.
Funding levels for graduate students are equitable across the Department, and although
adequate, are probably low for someone living in Vancouver. This is certainly a concern for the
gradate students.
The minimum guaranteed amounts are comparable to, or lower than, other
departments that are located in places with lower costs
of living. This decreases the
competitiveness of the SFU faculty in attracting graduate students. The Department, in
partnership with the university administration, should consider increasing the minimum stipend.
Although this would allow support
of fewer students, it would make them more competitive,
and provide levels
of funding that are commensurate with living in Vancouver. Ideally, this
would be achieved through a combination of increased TA funding, graduate scholarships
(tuition?), and from research grants. Another option would be to consider fewer instruction
hours for the same money, unless such issues are constrained by collective agreements. Such an
adjustment may also help in completion times, as students would theoretically be spending more
time on their research.
Overall, the gradate students are content with how the Department is run and the way they are
treated. The graduate secretary is held in high regard, and has a good relationship with the
j6<
students. However, the graduate student body expressed concerns about the flow of information
from the Department, through the Graduate Chair, to the students. In general, it should be easy
for graduate students to get the information and advice that they need to successfully complete
their degrees in a timely manner, but it appears that this is not always the case. This includes
transparency in the communication of information regarding criteria for awarding graduate
scholarships and about course offerings. Anotherissue is in the annual student reviews, where
there is concern about the uniformity of what is expected (standards) and how the reviews are
conducted. Related to this, the graduate section of the website is focused on recruitment, and
does not appear to be designed to provide information for current students. A separate section on
the website along these lines would be helpful, including, for example, an FAQ page, and clear
statements about criteria for graduate scholarships and the procedures for annual reviews. Some
graduate students expressed a desire for more opportunity to interact with other departments,
including being able to TA, if qualified. To foster this, one approach would be to collaborate
with other units to bring in seminar speakers in areas of mutual interest. This comment extends
to collaboration with UBC and the University of Victoria to share the costs of bringing speakers
to southwestern BC.
OFFICE AND TECHNICAL STAFF
The office and technical staff work efficiently and effectively in support of the Department. A
collegial atmosphere is evident and positive comments were received from students and faculty
alike. The staff members are mutually supportive, assisting each other in times of need or
absence, and all make major contributions to the smooth running of the Department. The present
number of staff appears to be appropriate.
RESOURCES AND SPACE
Library
The faculty and graduate students are generally content with the resources and operation of the
Library. Most are satisfied with the selection of core geoscience journals that are currently
received and the effectiveness
of the interlibrary loan service. Some concerns were raised about
online access to specific journals, and to older runs of journals. However, in some cases,
holdings of those journals are present as hard copy in the Library. The librarians will try to
address specific requests
if possible.
Space
In common with many departments, space allocation is a recurrent issue. As already noted, the
existing space is adequate but not ideal. If the Department increases enrolment significantly or
any new large equipment is acquired, space will become a more pressing concern. A planning
process on how to cope with future potential space issues should be undertaken well in advance.
Specific space issues include those related to teaching, graduate student accommodation, and
places for interaction between faculty, staff and students.
Teaching related space
Many faculty members commented on the limited teaching space available in the Department.
At times, finding a free room to hold a class or an unscheduled meeting is difficult. The
seminar/conference room is used frequently for graduate classes (for which it is poorly suited)
and unscheduled discussions, and at times, this room is unavailable. Apart from first-year
courses, most lecture classes are held in the laboratory classrooms in the TASCI building and
the other laboratories assigned to Earth Sciences in neighbouring campus buildings. The use of
laboratory space for lectures has advantages — if, for example, hand specimens are shown—but
this limits access for undergraduate students who wish to complete laboratory assignments
during daytime work hours. Moving some courses out of the Department into general lecture
rooms that might be available elsewhere on campus would relieve pressure on some of these
heavily used teaching laboratories. More flexibility in classroom usage is desirable.
Graduate student accommodation
Graduate students are housed in offices or in laboratories linked to their supervisors. Some find
this acceptable; others find it less than ideal, particularly if instruments or procedures in that
laboratory (or an adjacent one) generate a lot of noise, dirt or dust. The present situation is
manageable, but graduate space will quickly become a problem if graduate enrolment increases.
Need for more communal space
The Department has few communal areas where faculty, staff and students can meet informally.
The 'coffee room' is little more than a kitchen. Informal discussions in the Department occur
within groups rather than between groups. Graduate students and postdoctoral fellows, in
particular, do not mix among themselves easily, so chances for interchange of ideas are limited.
The only open space suitable for partitioning (e.g. glass screens) to form an open lounge seems
to be outside the General Office, but undergraduate students often use this area between classes.
The committee feels that communication among all parties would improve if such a communal
area could be found and was used regularly for discussion and coffee.
Access to other space in TASCI
Departmental seminars take place several minutes walk from the Department and this has an
impact on attendance both by faculty and students. It would be beneficial
if a suitable room
were found nearer to the Department. We encourage the Department to explore the possibility of
sharing a nearby AV-equipped room with Computer Science and (or) be more flexible with
timing
of seminars.
Equipment
Department bus
Several faculty members consider replacement of the departmental bus a priority. Students were
unanimous in enthusiastically endorsing the experiential learning opportunities that the
Department offers through its varied field trips.
Few Canadian geoscience departments own buses. The bus is used for student field trips of
variable duration, and several faculty and staff have the necessary driver's license. Usage is high
at specific times, but the bus is parked for extended periods. If funding were available,
replacement of the bus might be justified — it is highly beneficial for geoscience students to see
a wide range of geological and geomorphological features in the field.
Alternative options for replacing the bus should be investigated. These include:
sr
10
1. Sharing the cost of purchase and maintenance of a bus with other science departments
(e.g., Biology). The downsides to this model are the shared responsibility for cleaning and
upkeep, and common demand at peak periods.
2. Rental of buses from commercial operators (typical for many other departments).
3. Usage of minivans. A disadvantage is the increased risk when using several vehicles and
the need for more safe drivers.
4. Seeking sponsorship from the resource industry or other potential donors for a
replacement vehicle. In return, donor companies could display their logo(s) prominently
on the bus. Undergraduate students should be involved in the fund seeking effort because
they would be the primary beneficiaries. The review committee favours this as the first
option to investigate.
Microscopes
The case for acquisition of six new teaching microscopes is strong, and would increase if
undergraduate enrolment rises. In the short term, however, the Department should consider
moving some lecture classes out
of TASCI to improve microscope access for undergraduate
students, and increasing the number of laboratory sections.
ADMINISTRATION
The administrative structure of the Department is formalized in the Departmental Constitution.
Revisions to the constitution were initiated following the last departmental review in 2004
allowing some changes to be approved by the Department early in 2006. However, the full
constitution document was not revised at this time and there is some concern that the rules and
procedures outlined therein may not be appropriate for the effective administration of the
Department in its present form. Changes to the constitution document have been recommended
by the Chair but have not yet been given departmental approval. Although formal procedures
are in place, aspects of departmental governance and administration appear to be fairly lax. Few
departmental meetings are held and not all faculty are present or required to be present. Some
notices are sent by e-mail, but not always read. Some information is put on the departmental
website, but many faculty and students admit that they rarely consult it. This in turn can lead to
misunderstandings, suspicion, confusion, differing expectations, and injection of opinions of
entitlement. More efficiency in communication and discussion is very desirable.
The Department should be strongly encouraged to adhere to the processes and policies outlined
in the existing constitution regarding the convening of at least one or two departmental meetings
each term where all faculty can raise issues and hold discussion. When major issues are
discussed (e.g. curriculum
or program changes), attendance should be mandatory. If a meeting is
related to teaching, the teaching staff or a representative should be invited to attend and to
contribute their ideas. There may be cases when office and technical staff and students should
also be invited to attend departmental meetings.
We recommend that the Department conduct a formal review and revision of the Department
Constitution to ensure that this document is an appropriate guide for effective and collegial
administration and decision-making processes.
ITEMISED TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR REVIEW COMMITTEE
1.
Should the Faculty of Science include Earth Sciences courses as required components of
other Science programs, as recommended by Senate? What impact might this have on numbers
of majors and minors in Earth Sciences?
Across Canada, earth science receives little exposure in high schools. Consequently, incoming
students are often ignorant of the subject, its place among more familiar sciences, and how it
differs from geography. Few students appreciate its interdisciplinary nature in blending physics,
chemistry, biology and environmental science, and that it is a quantitative discipline. We
strongly support the integration of earth science courses as required components in other
Science programs. In British Columbia,more than many other provinces, earth science plays a
central role in the environment (e.g., earthquakes, landslides, tsunamis) and the economy (e.g.,
fossil fuels, mineral deposits). Several faculty members in the Department of Earth Sciences are
recognised nationally and internationally for demonstrating the relevance of earth science to
society, and full advantage of such strengths should be taken.
Enrolment would almost certainly increase if earth science courses became required components
in other Science programs, but that alone should not be the primary reason for including these
courses as required components. All science students should be exposed to the many
possibilities for future research and exploration that the earth sciences can provide, particularly
in British Columbia. Many students enter undergraduate science programs limited by their high
school science experiences and unaware of the opportunities in the earth sciences. Exposing
freshmen students to the possibility of study in the earth sciences could more equitably
distribute undergraduate student numbers between departments in the Faculty
of Science and
reduce the pressure on overprescribed programs that are viewed as the sole route to medical
school. The Major and Minor programs in the Department of Earth Sciences would certainly
benefit from the inclusion of earth science courses as required components in other Science
programs, and the Faculty would benefit from more evenly distributed student enrolments and
students who are more satisfied with their program choices.
2.
Should the Department considerforging stronger linkages and developing joint programming
initiatives with other Faculties at SFU? Advise on a preferred strategy to strengthen linkages
with other BC and Canadian institutions.
We agree with most of the faculty that the Department of Earth Sciences should remain in the
Faculty of Science. We see no advantages for Earth Sciences moving to the Faculty of the
Environment, where it would lose some of its identity, independence and potentially funding.
Had the new model included the Biology Department, a key contributor to the field of
environmental science, the case for joining the new Faculty might have been stronger.
Given the inherently interdisciplinary nature of earth sciences there are many opportunities for
collaboration with other units and Faculties at SFU. Linkages are currently being developed
with the Department of Chemistry with respect to a proposed joint Major degree focusing on
geochemistry. Earth Sciences, in conjunction with Geography, led the development of the Water
Science stream within the Environmental Science program and has contributed to the program
for a number of years. Unfortunately, interdepartmental barriers that exist between the
Department of Earth Sciences and the Department of Geography block the most productive
\7-
potential collaborations. These barriers are particularly strong and limit effective curriculum
design, scheduling and student access to courses. Both departments should aim to reduce
overlap in course content, identify gaps in knowledge and skills development, and recognize
that they do their students a disservice by limiting access to each other's courses. All
departments need to appreciate and mutually respect the contributions that different discipline
areas can provide in comprehensive disciplinary and interdisciplinary programs.
3.
Evaluate the Graduate Program and advise whether existing and!or newpartnerships with
other universities should be pursued. Should the Department consider developingjoint graduate
programming with other SFU departments? Should a course-based or co-op Master's degree be
considered?
The graduate program is reviewed above. Overall it is a high-quality program that has grown
substantially over the past seven years. Recommended refinements include a rationalization of
graduate course offerings with the development of some broader-themed courses, increased
levels of funding for students, improved communication of information about some
departmental procedures and decisions via the Graduate Chair, and a modified web page.
Strong links already exist in some areas between the Department and UBC in graduate level
teaching and research (shared analytical facilities). Although SFU students commonly attend
courses at UBC, the reverse is not the case. The Department might consider developing formal
joint graduate courses with UBC, especially in areas where expertise is unavailable at UBC.
The possibility exists for the Department to become involved at the graduate level in joint
initiatives with the Faculty of Environment. Respectful discussion between the various parties is
needed during planning. The possibility
of joint graduate courses with (physical) Geography
exists if the existing barriers to collaboration and turf protection can be overcome. Such courses
would increase efficiency (larger classes), interaction and idea exchange between students, and
both departments would benefit.
A course-based Master's program is an option that merits discussion. Possibilities exist for
offering courses in the resource and geo-engineering sectors for students planning careers in
those areas, and for professionals in those sectors who wish to upgrade their qualifications and
update their knowledge in those fields. However, the existing programs are successful, and still
growing and stabilizing, such that developing a course-based degree (or co-op program) should
not be a high priority due to the many employment opportunities available to students.
4.
Evaluate the Department's performance in building relationships and engaging with the
external community,particularly the private sector. Suggestfuture priorities and an
implementation strategy
for acquiring additional financial support and developing research
partnerships.
The Department already has very good relationships with the private sector and engagement
with the external community, much of it brought about through the external activities of the
research chairs. There is strong input to the Department by adjunct faculty associated with the
Geological Survey of Canada.
In some areas, the Department is in competition with UBC for external financial support,
particularly from traditional mineral resource companies, some of which have long-established
is
relationships with UBC. Nevertheless, there are many opportunities to obtain such funding at
the present time, especially through NSERC-CRD grants. There is an even greater chance of
success in those areas where the Department is not in such direct competition, such as in the
fields of petroleum geology, environmental geology, and hydrogeology.
Regarding contracts with industry, concern was expressed about high overhead on student
salaries, which makes SFU faculty less competitive with UBC. The University is encouraged to
review this issue. The breadth of the Department means that applications for support are more
likely to succeed when approaches made by individual research groups rather than by
Department as a whole.
5.
To what extent could the Department grow within its current resources and space? Assess the
impact of faculty retirements on the mission of the Department and advise on the best approach
for makingfaculty renewal decisions.
This is addressed in the next section. There is some capacity for growth (20-25%?) in
undergraduate enrolment, but only if plans are in place to accommodate this growth. The
potential for growth in the graduate program is limited both by funding and available space to
house more graduate students.
Assessing the impact of faculty retirements on the mission of the Department requires in depth
discussion and creation
of a strategic plan. There is some departmental interest in hiring a
metamorphic penologist as a replacement for a recent retirement (Peter Mustard) to introduce a
new course in this area. However, the identification
of specific areas of expertise for future hires
cannot be conducted without a full curriculum review and the creation of a strategic plan, within
which the rationale for areas for growth and development are clearly articulated. The curriculum
review process may allow consolidation of teaching duties from existing faculty and provide
opportunities for the identification and development
of more innovative areas for future hires.
THE NEED FOR A STRATEGIC PLAN
The Three-Year Plan (2010-13 - Appendix B) outlines the position of the Department at the
time
of writing (2009), but does not discuss in detail many of the important issues that the
Department will face in the near future. One impression that the committee reached is that the
Department has long been deferring discussion
of some possibly contentious matters. A lack of
open debate, in turn, has led to some loss of direction with respect to programs and curricula,
faculty renewal, and other issues such as space allocation. There is an urgent need for the
Department collectively to address a number of issues including:
1. What is the optimum size of the undergraduate program? What is a realistic enrolment
target? Growth is emphasized throughout the Self Study Report, but growth also
increases the demands on faculty and teaching staff and their time, space, and other
resources. Is growth without additional resources going to benefit the Department or
introduce more problems? How many more students can the Department accept if new
resources are not forthcoming? How will growth affect student education and
experience?
2. The curriculum at both undergraduate and graduate levels should be re-examined. As
noted, the undergraduate program is missing important courses (e.g., GIS) that are
standard in many other earth science other programs, and commonly in demand by
employers. The new requirements of the APEGBC should also be taken into account.
3. The Department wishes to maintain its independence, but at the same time is not taking
full advantage of possible links with other departments on campus. The Water Science
initiative is an exception. Discussions with Chemistry have also been productive. The
Department should consider strengthening links with the other science departments,
especially in interdisciplinary areas of growth such us biogeochemistry. Opportunities
also exist for closer collaboration with Biology and Geography. The Department needs
to be forward thinking and take a leadership role in program development within the
Faculty of Science (for both graduate and undergraduate programs).
4. No faculty retirements are immediately imminent, but it is not too early to discuss the
possible research areas of faculty replacements. Will the Department stay with its
present research strengths, expand in other research areas, or move into completely new,
perhaps interdisciplinary, areas? Should the Department take on any new faculty who
cannot teach part of the core program? Any identification of specific areas of hiring (e.g.
metamorphic petrology) is premature without a well thought out strategic plan that fits
with the broader plans of the Faculty of Science and the University. However, a much
stronger case for future (new) hiring and replacement of retiring faculty will be made if a
clear, longer term strategic plan for the Department is in place.
LIST OF MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS
Undergraduate program
1. The Department should conduct a comprehensive undergraduate curriculum review as
soon as possible.
2. The Department should enhance collaborations with other units on campus.
3. The University and Department should discuss how to make the simple modifications to
the design of the university website that would increase the visibility of Earth Sciences
undergraduate courses and programs.
4. The Faculty of Science should consider making EASC 101 a requirement for all students
in the General Sciences program.
5. Teaching assignments for all Departmental instructors should be stabilized with the most
effective instructors assigned to EASC 101. Under normal circumstances, all faculty and
teaching staff should be given ample notice of their assignments (consult university
policy).
6. The use of a single web site/WebCT for all course materials should be considered.
VS
Research
1. The Department should explore ways to enhance interaction between the different
research groups, by encouraging better attendance at seminar series, and by working with
the University to locate a suitable common space for graduate students.
2. The University and Department should encourage and enable more interaction in
collaborative research with faculty from other departments. This is already happening
(e.g., Water Science), but other opportunities may exist.
Graduate program
1. Rationalize graduate course offerings and develop some broader-themed courses that are
offered on a regular basis.
2. Discuss how to increase levels
of funding for graduate students.
3. Improve communication about departmental procedures and decisions via the Graduate
Chair and modify the departmental web page to make it more useful for enrolled graduate
students.
Space and resources
1.
Discussions should be held at the Decanal or higher level over the use of Room 7001,
TASCI, currently assigned to Computer Science but apparently little used. Transfer of the
room would probably have little impact on Computer Science, but would significantly
improve space problems in Earth Sciences (e.g., as a small classroom or laboratory, or
common room for graduate students).
2. The Department should review the current use of the laboratories used for teaching most
upper level (200-400 level) classes, and determine if some could be taught nearby
elsewhere on campus.
3.
The Department should undertake a cost-benefit analysis of the various options for
replacing (or not replacing) the bus. If the bus is to be replaced, seeking external funding
should be the first approach.
Administration
1. The Department should conduct a formal review and revision of the Department
Constitution to ensure that this document is an appropriate guide for effective and
collegial administration and decision-making processes.
2. The Department should adhere to the processes and policies outlined in the existing
constitution regarding the convening of at least one or two departmental meetings each
term, to provide for more regular discussions about strategic issues and for flow
of
information.
lb
SUMMARY COMMENTS
Overall, the Department is doing well and is a credit to the Faculty and University. There are no
major weaknesses. The Department ranks well in comparison to geoscience departments of
similar size in Canada, and its reputation in environmental geology is one
of the highest in the
country. The interests of the Department are best served by remaining in the Faculty of Science,
but there is much scope for collaborative, respectful ties with the Faculty of Environment and
other departments in the Faculty of Science in both teaching and research. It may take direction
from senior administration to break down existing barriers and turf protection (e.g. unnecessary
prerequisites that exclude students from courses), but the students will certainly benefit if this
happens, and the scope for innovative attractive programs will increase.
The undergraduate program has expanded and the students are generally satisfied with their
education. Most students choosing to pursue careers in geoscience are finding employment soon
after graduation. The graduate program is maturing, but problems of space, funding levels and
course offerings need to be addressed. Equal standards need to be ensured in supervision
of
graduate students and in preparation of their annual reports. The research profile and research
productivity are generally high, competitive with geoscience departments of similar size, and
most faculty members receive respectable levels of external funding. Some faculty members are
leaders in their fields.
Several issues, nonetheless, need to be addressed. Existing programs and curricula need review
and revision. While traditional courses remain relevant, the expertise in the Department could be
used to develop novel streams or programs (like the Water Science model) that would appeal to
students. Introductory GIS and remote sensing courses should be incorporated in the Earth
Sciences undergraduate program. Many improvements depend on better collaboration with other
departments (notably Geography). We do not see much merit in splitting the existing streams
within the earth science degree into separate degree programs. Rather, changes to the University
website would more easily enhance the desired visibility for the Earth Science program.
Current space is adequate but the Department cannot be expected to accept too many more
undergraduate Majors and Minors without further provision of resources. Space rather than
faculty and current teaching complement is the main limit to expansion.
We strongly recommend that the Department should hold a series of meetings or a retreat,
attended by
all
faculty members and representatives of other groups (teaching staff and students
should attend all discussions on curriculum and program development) during the next year to
address these and other issues. The Department needs to demonstrate that it knows where it is
heading, both in the short (next five years) and longer (five to ten years) term before it can
reasonably expect to gain support from senior administration for any new initiatives, including
replacement of retirees and new faculty hirings.
n
RECEIVED
SEP ojlHL
EXTERNAL REVIEW - ACTION PLAN
PE/^resetpfaciion 1 - To be completed by the Responsible Unit Person e.g. Chair or Director
itfFlCE
(it under review
Date of Review Site visit
Responsible Unit
person,
Faculty Dean
cx>
Department of Earth Sciences
March 9-11, 2011
James MacEachern, Chair
Claire Cupples
Note:
It is
not
expected that every recommendation made by the Review Team be covered by this Action Plan. The major thrusts of the Report should be
identified and
some consolidation of the recommendations may be possible while other recommendations of lesser importance may be excluded.
Should an additional responsefrom be warranted it should be
attached as a separate document.
1. PROGRAMMING
1.1 Action/s (description what is going to be done):
1.1.1 Undergraduate:
•
Curriculum.
The Review Team noted that, despite our general success at undergraduate education and high student satisfaction,
our curriculum has recently become slightly out-of-date with reference to the educational requirements of APEGBC, the
Provincial authority that governs the practice of engineering and geoscience in British Columbia. Specifically, the Provincial
educational requirements have recently been modified to achieve alignment with the new National syllabus. The Review Team
suggested that Earth Sciences undertake a complete review of its curriculum, from course content to scheduling and frequency of
course offerings.
The Department of Earth Sciences agrees with the comments ofthe Review Team and will embark on a
comprehensive review of the undergraduate program. We will redesign our curriculum to meet the new academic
requirements and provide students with a solid foundation coupled with breadth and flexibility. Consideration of course
scheduling and availability will be integrated with the new academic program. The educational requirements for both the
Geology and Environmental Geoscience registration options of APEGBC will be mirrored by two of our academic Streams.
Converting these Streams to Majors, as approved by the Department in 2010, will not be pursued without a thorough
evaluation.
•
Collaboration with otheracademic units.
The Review Team expressed strong interest in seeing the Department of Earth Sciences
develop stronger programming ties with other academic units. It applauded our participation in the new Water Science program
in the Faculty of Environment and recent progress toward a Joint Major with the Department of Chemistry. The Review Team
noted that further collaborations are desirable, particularly with the Department of Geography.
The Department of Earth
Sciences, in partnership with the Department of Chemistry, expects to seek University and Provincial approval for a Joint
Major in
the immediate future. The Department of Earth Sciences will continue to hold discussions with the Department of
Geography on the subject of mutually beneficial curricular arrangements, and will explore the potential for joint programming
with other academic units.
IS
X
•
Student recruitment
The Review Team noted that undergraduate enrollment in the Department of Earth Sciences is growing, but
is still at modest levels. It suggested that the Department continue its outreach effort, and work with the Faculty and the
University to enhance the visibility of Earth Science programming to attract additional students. In particular, it recommended
that Earth Sciences 101 become a required component of the General Science degree program.
The Department will work with
the Faculty and the University to raise the level of awareness of Earth Science programs, and will continue its outreach and
recruitment activities. The Department recently voted to change the titles of its two most fundamental courses in order to
attract greater numbers of students (pending approval, EASC101 will change from
Physical Geology
to
Dynamic Earth and
EASC 210 will change from
Historical Geology
to
Evolving Earth.
The issue of converting program Streams to Majors will be
examined in the context of program visibility and student recruitment (see information on
Curriculum,
above).
1.1.2 Graduate:
•
Course work.
The Review Team recognized that graduate education in the Department is progressing well, and appreciated the
challenge of providing graduate students with courses that are relevant, sufficiently specific and well populated. To address what
it perceived as a tendency toward highly specific course topics and an absence of courses with broader applicability, the Review
Team recommended that the Department consider mounting some team-taught courses with general topics such as
"geochemistry/'
The Department will consider developing courses along the lines envisaged by the Review Team, i.e., "courses
that would interest a broader cross-section of students."
•
Funding.
The Review Team noted the high cost of living in Metro Vancouver and suggested that the Department endeavour to
raise the minimum yearly student earnings, possibly by paying graduate students a higher salary for work as Teaching Assistants,
or by reducing the number of students it takes on.
The Department recognizes the challenge of providing adequate graduate
student funding, which is derived from scholarships, teaching assistantships and faculty research (mainly NSERC) grants. Rates
of pay for TAships are governed by a collective agreement over which the department has no control. Reducing the number of
graduate students in Earth Sciences, in order to provide more TA opportunities for fewer students, is theoretically possible but
is contrary to the expressed desire by the University to increase graduate enrollment, the increasing pressure from NSERC on
faculty to develop larger graduate student research groups, and the NSERC-defined limits on the size of stipends payable from
NSERC grants. In summary, action to increase student stipends will be discussed but may not be possible without additional
investment in graduate student funding from the Faculty, University or Province. It should be noted that the Department's
guaranteed levels of student support currently equal or exceed the maximum levels specified by NSERC.
•
Student environment and interaction.
The Review Team noted that some aspects of the overall student experience could be
improved, including communication of administrative information and student supervision. It suggested greater flow of
information, more consistent standards regarding annual evaluations, and enhanced interaction with guest speakers.
The
Department will review its practices to ensure that the graduate environment is administratively fair and transparent. The
criteria for scholarships are already widely disseminated; however, the department will create a section on the web-site for
current students where all key information can be easily located. The guest seminar series will be maintained as a vehicle for
IS
student interaction, knowledge enhancement and professional growth.
1.2 Resource implications (if any):
The Department has limited financial resources to bring in guest lecturers and fund graduate students. Ifeither of these areas
becomes significantly expanded, funds will need to be diverted from our modest operating budget, or additional funds will need
to be provided.
1.3 Expected completion date/s:
The Department of Earth Sciences expects all ofthe action items to be complete or well advanced by May, 2012. Outgrowths from
some action items (for example the mounting of new undergraduate or graduate student courses) may require additional time to
complete, and will be contingent on approval at higher administrative levels.
2. RESEARCH
2.1 Action/s (what is going to be done):
•
Enhancedinteraction.
The Review Team noted that many of our faculty cooperate in research, but suggested that more
interaction would be beneficial, especially for some of the smaller research groups. The reviewers also note that opportunities
for collaboration with faculty in other departments and externally should be considered, and that research at the margins of
existing disciplines as well as across disciplines is potentially beneficial.
The Department appreciates the comments of the
Review Team and expects that Earth Sciences faculty will consider strengthening research ties with faculty in other
academic units and with personnel in other universities and outside agencies.
2.2 Resource implications (if any):
Additional research space will be required to permit Departmental growth, regardless of the areas of research.
2.3 Expected completion date/s:
The Department of Earth Sciences expects all ofthe action items to be complete or well advanced by May, 2012.
3
20
>^
3. ADMINISTRATION
3.1 Action/s (what is going to be done):
•
Constitution.
The Review Team recommended a review and modernization of the departmental constitution.
The
Department will undertake a review of its constitution and other relevant documents such as tenure and promotion criteria.
•
Policies, procedures, communication.
The Review Team expressed concern that there may not have been enough
departmental meetings and time for discussion over the past several years. It recommends greater participation of faculty at
departmental meetings and stronger adherence to departmental policies and procedures, and respect for the constitution.
The
Department will ensure that there are sufficient department meetings to discuss the many issues defined in the review
document in addition to the normal maintenance and upkeep ofthe Department.
3.2
Resource implications (if any):
None.
3.3
Expected completion date/s:
The Department will revise its constitution by May, 2012, and will encourage discussion and communication on an ongoing basis.
4. WORKING ENVIRONMENT
4.1 Action/s(what is going to be done):
•
Space.
The Review Team noted that with the expected growth of Earth Sciences, instructional space will become an
increasing concern. To alleviate this problem, it suggested that an additional, nearby room be transferred to Earth Sciences. The
Review Team also
recommended that our Department endeavour to share a seminar room with Computing Science. It also
recommended that Earth Sciences procure space for discussion and collaboration among graduate students and faculty.
The
Department of Earth Sciences recognizes that instructional space is fast becoming an issue, and that increased lab sections are
causing congestion in
our labs. A specific, nearby room inTASC-1, which is seldom used by the current occupants, would serve
to alleviate the need currently faced by the department for additional instructional space. Additionally, EASC would benefit
greatly from a formal sharing arrangement of a seminar room in TASC-1 with another department. Procuring a room for coffee
and discussion would also benefit the department, and we suggest that the carpeted foyer that lies between our banks of offices
(adjacent
to our meeting room, 7401), should be enclosed (while preserving public access to the adjoining doorway) and
transferred to Earth Sciences. The Department is willing to work with the Dean of Science and other elements in the university
to bring about changes to its space situation, but realizes that such arrangements would likely need to be implemented at the
level of the Vice Presidents.
Z(
N
N
•
Equipment
The Review Team recognized the Department's need for a new bus and additional petrographic microscopes in
the near future. Both items willcost tens of thousands of dollars; these amounts are presently well beyond the levels of
discretionary spending in the Department'sannual operating budget. The Review Team recognized that private funding may be
obtainable, particularly for the bus.
The Department concurs with the Review Team that a new bus and new microscopes will
soon be needed. The Department will monitor the situation and
place a request for funding with the Dean of Science, hopefully
before the situation becomes critical. The bus is currently in working order but requires repair with increasing frequency. It is
beginning to burn more oil than is generally considered acceptable. The Department will explore the possibility of obtaining
private funding to augment University funding.
4.2
Resource implications (if any):
Additional space will be needed to meet the increasing demands of teaching and research. Replacing the bus and purchasing
new microscopes will cost as much as $200,000.
4.3
Expected completion date/s:
The issues of space and equipment will be reviewed. We will keep the Dean of Science apprised of the bus's condition, our
microscope needs, and the prospect of private donations.
5. Planning Exercises
5.1 Action/s:
• Strategic Plan.
The reviewers identified a need for a strategic plan that would include a discussion of research directions and
future academic hiring.
A departmental Strategic Plan will be developed in concert with three main exercises: revision of the
undergraduate curriculum, enhanced collaboration with other academic units and agencies, and adjustment of the
departmental constitution. The plan will articulate a vision for the next several years and serve as a foundation for the next
departmental three year plan (due in 2012). The Strategic Plan will establish future research directions and hiring priorities.
It will also provide a clear view of how Earth Sciences will continue to serve the needs of students, contribute to the
academy, and link effectively with the broader community.
5.2 Resource implicationsfif any):
Development of the Strategic Plan, and the items from which it derives, will require extensive discussion with the entire
department. The process would be facilitated by a series of half-day or full-day planning events, one or more of which could take
the form of a retreat.
zz
5.3 Expected completion date/s:
The Strategic Plan will be the culmination of discussions and decisions made in the areas of teaching, research and
administration, and will be finalized toward the end of the Action Plan interval. Issues regarding the undergraduate curriculum
will be initially dealt with by the departmental Undergraduate Curriculum Committee in the Fall Semester of 2011, and then
brought to the department for further input. Discussions regarding research directions and hiring priorities will likely commence
at specialdepartmental meetings in the Fall Semester of 2011 and extend into the Spring Semester of 2012. The outputs from
these exercises and other discussions will be shaped into a comprehensive Strategic Plan late in the Spring Semester of 2012.
The above action plan has been considered by the Unit under review and has been discussed and agreed to by the Dean.
Unit Leader (signed) p.
Name
vT
Date
^l^L^JL
"23
Section 2 - Dean's comments and endorsement ofthe Action Plan :
The Department of Earth Sciences is to be congratulated on the very positive nature of the External Reviewand on their well-developed
Action Plan. This process comes at an opportune time since it aligns with many of the planning initiatives
that we are starting to set in
motion in the Faculty of Science, specifically:
examination of curriculum at both the undergraduate and graduate levels;
reassessment of undergraduate degree programs;
development of fiscally-sustainable faculty and staff hiring plans;
development of a workable space plan;
analysis of optimal graduate student numbers (in light of changes at NSERC, the end of BC government build out of graduate
student numbers, and a cost-benefit analysis of TAships);
•
examination of how to preserve, prioritize and augment non-salary operating budgets in the face of anticipated university budget
stasis in the coming decade.
Many of the solutions that we develop as a Faculty will be informed by, and will inform, the Earth Sciences Action Plan outlined here.
However, Irecognize that the Department of Earth Sciences has special needs. In particular, it has the challenge of recruiting
undergraduate students given the lack of exposure to this discipline at the high school level. Iand my staff will be happy to assist the
department in its recruitment and retention efforts.
As acknowledged in the departmental Action Plan, several items will require or will be facilitated by decanal level discussions. I will work
with my colleague in
the Faculty of Environment to encourage productive interactions between Earth Sciences and Geography on the
subject of undergraduate curriculum development and revision. Iwill discuss the space needs of Earth Sciences (specifically TASCl 7000)
with my colleague in Applied Sciences. Ihave already started discussions with the Dean of Graduate Studies on the matter of graduate
student numbers and graduate student funding.
Istrongly endorse the recommendation that the department develop a strategic plan and, indeed, Iwill be expecting the other seven
departments in the faculty to develop their own plans and participate in development of a strategic plan for the Faculty. Allocation of
resources should always be contingent on well-developed plans.
Faculty Dean
Date
<^_
L^^.4^).,
,3...?±fi*r..B.S?..(.!.
jr-
zy
