Interagency Resource Teams: a Model for Collaborative Approaches to Environmental Education

596

Conservation Biology, Pages 596–602Volume 15, No. 3, June 2001

Interagency Resource Teams: a Model for Collaborative Approaches to Environmental Education

CHRISTINE HANCOCK, ANNALISA STOREY, JAMES DOWNING, AND SUSAN MAY SZEWCZAK*

White Mountain Research Station, University of California, 3000 East Line Street, Bishop, CA 93514, U.S.A.

Abstract:

The Undergraduate Interagency Resource Teams at the White Mountain Research Station of the Uni-versity of California were created in 1994 to support resource-agency mandates and academic research objec-tives by providing qualified students who can learn, apply, and improve research and agency monitoring proto-cols. Drawing from documented elements of other successful internship programs, we identified four basiccomponents that we believe may enhance the potential success of the interns: (1) self-directed learning method-ologies, (2) multidisciplinary approaches to science, (3) reflection on and documentation of intern learning,and (4) principles of a positive work environment, including teamwork, conflict resolution, and effective com-munication. During a 10-week summer session, the Interagency Resource Teams expose approximately 17 stu-dents to the professional worlds of natural resource agencies and research scientists. In this environment, wehave also observed that the internship program not only exposes students to resource management careers butmay also help bridge the gap between resource agency specialists and academic researchers.

Equipos de Recursos Interagenciales: un Modelo para Aproximaciones de Colaboración para la Educación Ambiental

Resumen:

Los grupos de trabajo interagencial de estudiantes de licenciatura de la estación de investigaciónWhite Mountain de la Universidad de California fueron creados en 1994 para apoyar mandatos de las agen-cias de recursos y objetivos de investigación mediante la asignación de estudiantes calificados que puedanaprender, aplicar y mejorar los protocolos de monitoreo de investigación/agencia. Concebido a partir de ele-mentos documentados de otros programas exitosos de internado, identificamos cuatro componentes básicosque creemos pueden mejorar el éxito potencial de los interinos. Estos incluyen: (1) metodologías de auto-aprendizaje, (2) abordaje multidisciplinario de la ciencia, (3) reflexión y documentación del aprendizaje delinternado y (4) los principios de un ambiente de trabajo positivo incluyendo el trabajo en equipo, la resolu-ción de conflictos y la comunicación eficiente. Durante una sesión de verano de 10 semanas, los equipos derecursos interagenciales expusieron a aproximadamente 17 estudiantes a los mundos profesionales de lasagencias de recursos naturales e investigadores científicos. En este ambiente, observamos que el programa deinternado no solo expone a los estudiantes a las carreras de manejo de recursos, sino que también ayuda a

superar las brechas entre los especialistas de las agencias de recursos y los investigadores académicos.

Introduction

The historic roots of the educational system in theUnited States stem from what Donald Schön (1992)called the Veblenian bargain: schools of “higher educa-

tion” produce “systematic, scientific knowledge,” whereasthe “lower schools” produce students who can applythis knowledge in practical situations. This division be-tween theory and practice creates a rift between sci-entists and practitioners in many fields. Students leaveresearch universities with knowledge that is special-ized and inert (Brown 1997; Orr 1999), while managersstruggle to protect landscapes in the face of environ-mental problems, budget cuts, an increasing demand for

*

email [email protected] submitted January 7, 2000; revised manuscript accepted Au-gust 10, 2000.

Conservation BiologyVolume 15, No. 3, June 2001

Hancock et al. Interagency Resource Team Internships

597

science-based decision making, and disjointed relation-ships between potential collaborators (Bessinger 1990;Schön 1995; Meffe 1998).

In an attempt to address some of these concerns,

Con-servation Biology

has published several calls for scien-tific involvement in management activities (Babbitt 1999;Clark 1999). These requests are contemporaneous witha shift in the focus of land management toward increas-ingly complex and multidisciplinary knowledge and theability to reach out to the public for suggestions and sup-port. For example, the director of the U.S. Fish and Wild-life Service has stated that the successful implementa-tion of the new ecosystem approach needs scientists—“with their knowledge and understanding of the big pic-ture—to reach out to land managers and offer to par-ticipate in the decision-making process” (Clark 1999).Although these requests seem fortuitous, they are com-plicated by the fact that the national resource agenciesare becoming increasingly strapped for funds and staffwhile attempting to manage public lands for myriad uses(Thomas & Salwasser 1989; Kessler et al. 1992). As a re-sult, resource specialists have little time to consider re-search collaborations.

In addition, the very researchers who could reach outto these land managers are pressed for time as a result ofsimply fulfilling their traditional obligations for research,publication, and teaching (Pister 1999). For academicconservation biologists, involvement with managers “hasbeen a struggle against the traditional disciplinary orien-tation of the universities . . . a tenure system that under-values service and favors . . . specialization, and a sci-ence-funding infrastructure that has no home for what[applied scientists] do” (Blockstein 1999). Furthermore,many academic scientists do not have the time or re-sources to become involved with land-management agen-cies and are not trained in the interdisciplinary processof providing science upon which to base policy or man-agement decisions (Meffe 1998).

For students learning to be functional in this dichoto-mous culture of agency versus science, this situation isno less frustrating. Like other university-sponsored workexperience and community service programs, traditionalnatural resource internships often provide the internswith a window into professions that exist outside theirclassrooms. These programs expose students to careeropportunities, teach them to be accountable and profes-sional, and provide a forum in which they can apply andexpand their academic knowledge in real situations (Pa-taniczek & Johansen 1983; Harcharik 1993). Althoughthey provide excellent experiences for some students,these programs vary in quality and effectiveness becausethe student is often a passive observer in the internshipprocess. Many students are asked to perform mundanetasks that are not particularly challenging, educational,or effective (Wagner 1983; Akeyo 1993; Schön 1995;Scribner & Wakelyn 1998; Bourland-Davis et al. 1997)

because all parties involved—interns, researchers, andagency specialists—tend to be less than fully engaged.Agency specialists and researchers have little time tomentor students given their often overwhelming respon-sibilities for managing and researching natural resources.Furthermore, professionals believe that they must putmore effort into educating interns than they receiveback in results. In this environment, it is easier for men-tors to have interns focus on mundane tasks such as fil-ing of papers or repeating the same protocol over andover without a larger understanding of the project. Fur-thermore, mentors seldom encourage the interns to sharetheir insights and experiences. This has often resulted ina lack of enthusiasm on the part of the interns. On theother hand, we have also found that when given thechance to work with specialists, interns may not under-stand the value of the work they are doing. From theiracademic perspective, agency work may seem unorga-nized, unfocused, or even inappropriate. As a result, in-terns too often end up isolating themselves from muchof the professional culture around them.

Therefore, before we attempt to place students intointernships that go beyond their classroom learning, weneed to determine how best to encourage student en-gagement in these experiences. This becomes especiallycritical when mentors have limited time and negative ex-pectations of student performance. One means to pro-mote engagement is to encourage students to take re-sponsibility for their own learning as well as the overalloutcome of the projects (Heinemann et al. 1992). There-fore, the goal of our internship program is to producestudents who can learn, apply, and improve agency andresearch protocols in a manner that is of value to agencyspecialists and researchers. With this goal, we hope stu-dents gain significant access to the cultures of natural re-source agencies and research, thereby exposing stu-dents to experiences that could potentially help bridgethe gap between academia and resource management.

To explore how we would engage students in naturalresource management issues, in 1994 we developed asummer internship program, known as the InteragencyResource Teams (IRT). This program has placed approx-imately 17 students per summer (84 over 5 years) withthree to five federal, state, county, and city resource-agency specialists per summer and two to six studentsper summer with consulting or academic researchers.Interns range from freshman to senior undergraduates,with the majority of the students entering their junioryear. Over the last 5 years, the IRT has evolved into a 10-week, full-time, resident program. The IRT interns rotatebetween weekly and biweekly projects spanning a rangeof disciplines. Researchers and agency specialists designprojects, and the internship staff provides support forstudent activities. This includes the logistics of vehicles,maps, computers, and field equipment and the schedul-ing of discussions. Interns who demonstrate exceptional

598

Interagency Resource Team Internships Hancock et al.


leadership skills subsequently return as field supervisorsto oversee intern activity in the field.

The IRT was first formulated while S.M.S. was a fac-ulty member at Deep Springs College. Located in a re-mote valley in eastern California, Deep Springs is both atwo-year liberal arts college and a cattle ranch. The col-lege was founded on a philosophy that students them-selves are responsible for their own educational outcomes(Townsend et al. 1992), which provides an excellentplatform for the development of an internship programthat encourages students to take an active role in thesuccess of the program. By first collaborating with andthen moving the program to White Mountains ResearchStation (WMRS) in 1997, we combined the philosophi-cal underpinnings of the Deep Springs program with theacademic resources of a University of California multi-research unit and field station. In this environment, in-terns and staff at WMRS and local resource specialistsfrom Inyo National Forest, Bureau of Land ManagementBishop Field Office, and California Department of Fish andGame Eastern Sierra Inland Desert Region have workedclosely together to explore what components were ef-fective in supporting the success of the students. This in-cluded extensive readings in the fields of cooperativeand experiential learning.

From this experience, we have identified four basiccomponents that we believe are valuable to interns asthey effectively learn, apply, and improve agency and re-search protocols. We describe these components andprovide documentation of the overall success of the pro-gram in engaging students in scientific work outside ofthe classroom. Although current data do not allow us toestablish a causal relationship between these principlesand intern success, they do demonstrate the success ofthe current program.

Learning Components of the WMRS Internship Program

Self-Directed Learning and Student Responsibility for Outcomes

First recognized by Dewey (1916) as the key to an edu-cated public, self-directed learning has become a focusof many internship programs (Heinemann et al. 1992).In the IRT, not only are students encouraged to focustheir own interests, they are also asked to take respon-sibility for the projects and activities they choose topursue in accordance with these interests. Because stu-dents come from a variety of backgrounds, the IRT beginswith an orientation week to set the stage for such self-directed learning. This ensures that everyone has been ex-posed to the practical skills necessary to work safely andproductively in the unique and rugged environment ofthe Eastern Sierra. Because intern safety is of primary im-

portance, critical components of the orientation includetraining in first-aid techniques (taught with a wildernessapproach), radio use and etiquette, and use of heavyequipment such as four-wheel-drive vehicles. This train-ing reinforces a culture of safety that becomes a sourceof pride for the interns and the affiliated resource-agencyspecialists. Orienteering is taught even though internsfrequently use global positioning system units for docu-mentation of site locations. Orienteering enhances im-portant map-reading skills and fosters in students anawareness of the wild lands around them. Combinedwith a general introduction to the natural, geologic, andpolitical history of the area, the navigation skills groundthe students in their new environment and improvetheir ability to concentrate on research and monitoringtasks.

During orientation week, students are introduced tolearning theories that facilitate their transition from thetraditional classroom environment (other-directed learn-ing) to the desired work-based approach of self-directedlearning (Heinemann et al. 1992). The learning theoriesof A. L. Brown and Campione (1996) and Heinemann etal. (1992) are excellent introductions for the students.Throughout the summer, we build on these readingswith current theories that describe how individual per-ceptions can change (Hays 1993; Wills 1995). Thesereadings and discussions provide students with a seriesof metacognitive frameworks that can be used to ex-plore the personal and interpersonal challenges of theirresource-monitoring and research projects.

Multidisciplinary Approaches to Science

The broad range of monitoring and research projects inthe IRT exposes students to a variety of disciplines andrequires them to integrate many types of knowledge tocomplete their work satisfactorily. This type of learninghas been widely cited as the cornerstone of effective ed-ucation (Pataniczek & Johansen 1983; Heinemann et al.1992; Schön 1992; A. L. Brown & Campione 1996), in-cluding environmental education (Hufford 1990; Pister1992; Orr 1993; Meffe 1998). It requires effective collab-oration between students and agency staff, the applica-tion of previously inaccessible knowledge (D. A. Brown1997), and the fostering of multiple intelligences (Gard-ner 1983). Paralleling the educational readings, studentsexplore various models of the scientific process (Kuhn1962; Platt 1964; Peters 1991) and environmental ethics(Pister 1979, 1992; Brown 1987). These readings chal-lenge students to consider the way in which experimen-tal designs are generally constructed and the values be-hind such designs (Platt 1964).

To apply these concepts, the interns complete differ-ent monitoring and research projects, proposed and de-signed by agency specialists or research scientists workingat WMRS. Examples of past projects include prehistoric



599

archaeological inventories (U.S. Forest Service, Bureauof Land Management), surveys of Mono Lake wetlands(Los Angeles Department of Water and Power), monitor-ing of the Northern Goshawk (

Accipiter gentilis

) (U.S.Forest Service), surveys of sensitive plants (U.S. ForestService), restoration of native plants (Bureau of LandManagement, U.S. Forest Service), amphibian surveys (U.S.Forest Service, California Department of Fish and Game),stream restoration (U.S. Forest Service), invertebrate mon-itoring (Environmental Protection Agency, University ofCalifornia, Santa Barbara), studies of high-elevation pho-tosynthetic plants (University of California, Los Angles),surveys of bighorn sheep (

Ovis canadensis

) (Universityof California, WMRS), studies of the distribution and mi-crohabitat needs of California bats (University of Califor-nia, WMRS), and speciation in columbine plants (

Aquilegiaformosa, A. pubescens

, University of California, Santa Bar-bara). In these projects, students are asked to help de-fine monitoring and research questions and devise multi-ple hypotheses to explain the phenomena they haveobserved. Subsequently, they examine the experimentaldesign of their project, suggest alternate ways in whichthe experiment could have been constructed, and judgethe effectiveness of their work. The resulting discus-sions invariably challenge students to critically examinethe work they are doing instead of just mindlessly fol-lowing the assigned procedure day after day. As docu-mented in their daily writings, students achieve the uniqueposition of being able to test their own knowledge andabilities while observing and emulating a professional inaction. As experiential educators have asserted for de-cades, this opportunity for “action research”—learningby applying knowledge and observing others who applyit—is essential in bridging the gap between theory andpractice (Schön 1995).

Reflection and Assessment of Work

In his paper on multiple hypotheses, Platt (1964) pro-posed the use of daily reflection on one’s researchquestion(s) to support the rapid development of criti-cal knowledge. This reflection is also the heart of manycooperative learning methodologies (Heinemann et al.1992; Schön 1992; Eyler 1993; Harcharik 1993; Orr1993; Wills 1995; A. L. Brown & Campione 1996). In theIRT, reflection is encouraged in several ways. Weeklydiscussions of multidisciplinary readings provide a fo-rum for students to examine the program’s purpose,goals, and limitations as well as how these goals relate totheir individual monitoring and research projects. Stu-dents are required to complete daily logs in which theydiscuss events and problems that arise in interpersonalrelationships within the teams, observations about themonitoring and its effectiveness, hypotheses, conclu-sions, and any other relevant comments. Students andtheir project mentors also complete weekly evaluations

of data collection and team dynamics. These daily logsand evaluations are used, along with relevant readingsand discussion notes, to write a synopsis of the week’sresearch and events. This encourages students to reflecton and document their own learning (Pataniczek & Jo-hansen 1983) and establishes the criteria for good work(Heinemann et al. 1992). The resulting intern portfoliosare then used for overall assessment of student perfor-mance.

Positive Work Environment

The IRT recruits projects in which students are “en-gaged in productive work assignments useful to the or-ganization” as a means to create an atmosphere of in-quiry and excitement (Heinemann et al. 1992). Based onour experiences, however, apparently productive workassignments do not always produce adequate studentengagement. Therefore, the IRT builds on the conceptsof cooperative education and self-directed learning to in-clude team-building activities during the work week andduring group excursions on weekends. These activitiesare an “important investment in creating the social con-text necessary for teams to maximize their potential”(Kagan & Kagan 1994) and help engender a sense ofcommunity that is maintained throughout the entiresummer and beyond. One of the most effective team-building exercises was first-aid and wilderness rescuetraining, both of which involve a great deal of collabora-tive problem solving to successfully pass the tests, not tomention good humor.

Throughout the summer, team building continueswithin the crews of four to five students, led by a return-ing student field supervisor. As the summer progresses,responsibility for the implementation of the projectsshifts from the field supervisors to the interns. TheseIRT crews work directly with agency specialists and re-searchers or independently, following training in theirmonitoring protocols. Because individual crew member-ship changes weekly, it becomes important for all partic-ipants to deal with conflict in a constructive fashion. Tosupport this approach, students are introduced to basicprinciples of conflict resolution, effective listening, andleadership skills (Gordon 1974; Wheatley 1992; Heifetz1994; May & November 1996). As an important compo-nent of the program, students are asked to take a leader-ship role in the creation of each internship experience.During the summer, the students begin to realize howmuch influence they have over the level of engagementof agency specialists and researchers in any given proj-ect. In this environment, it is not necessary for studentsto be constantly supervised, evaluated, and disciplinedto maintain their level of motivation. They become, overthe course of the summer, self-motivated problem seek-ers with the tools to solve problems effectively in a vari-ety of ways.

600



Internship Results

The IRT is evaluated by both formative and summativeevaluations. Weekly, interns and mentors complete for-mative evaluations that detail how well the group workedas a team, conducted the research, and processed thedata. This information is shared in weekly debriefings inpreparation for the coming week’s project. Final summa-tive evaluations qualitatively detail the most and leastvaluable components of the internship and allow the stu-dents to evaluate the support staff. These evaluations areused to remind all program participants of the range ofimportant elements in a successful project and to help di-rect IRT planning for the next year.

In addition to providing a framework for discussingstudent progress during the summer, these evaluationscan also be used to document the interns’ engagementin the program and their ability to learn, apply, and im-prove agency and research protocols. Sixteen intern self-assessment evaluations from 1998–1999 provide detailedinsight into how the students view their work (Table 1).The interns were asked 10 questions about the perfor-mance of the research or monitoring teams for the week.Interns responded on a scale of 1 (did not meet the proj-ect needs) to 4 (exceeded expectations of the projectneeds). A score of 3 reflected a belief that the team metall of the project needs satisfactorily and the project wassuccessful. On all 10 questions the students averageda mean of 3.0 or better, and the students expressed amean of 3.5

�

/

�

0.7 SD for all the questions combined.The scores at the beginning of the summer had a greaterrange than those from later in the program, suggestingthat the interns felt their performance improved and sta-bilized during the course of the summer. This indicatesthat from the students’ perspective they were able towork successfully as a team, engage the mentors, andcarry out the research and monitoring protocols overthe course of the program.

In addition to the students’ satisfaction with theirwork, we have also investigated mentor responses tostudent results. Throughout the last 6 years, we have es-tablished close relationships not only with the visitingscientists at WMRS but also with local resource special-ists. From direct conversations with mentors, as well astheir continuing requests for interns each summer, it isapparent that interns were able to work successfully inthe program. To better document the mentors’ experi-ences with the students, in 1999 we developed a spe-cific project evaluation form (Table 2). This evaluationwas developed on the same 1–4 scale as the intern self-evaluation, but with slightly different questions. Althoughthe current results of the survey are limited to 1 year,they indicate that from the mentors’ perspectives, thestudents were able to meet all of the project needs satis-factorily (mean values ranged from 3.0

�

0.6 to 3.7

�

0.8 for the nine questions). If these results indicate satis-

factory student performance and engagement, then wehave met the primary goal of the internship to supportinterns as they effectively learn, apply, and improveagency and research protocols.

Based on these results, we asked what elements of theprogram where most valuable to the interns. Using for-mative evaluations collected from 17 interns from 1997to 1999, we compiled the outgoing interns’ responses re-garding what aspect of the internship was most valuableto them. We developed six different categories to detaildifferent elements of the program. “Working closely withprofessionals” and “communication skills” were the mostmentioned elements (5 students each). This was followedby “hands-on research/monitoring” (4 students), “team-work” (4 students), “overall learning environment” (2 stu-dents), and “practical skill building” (2 students).

Given that “working closely with professionals” and“improved communication skills” were important ele-ments in the internship, a key question remains as towhether the internship can enhance a student’s abilityto bridge the gap between the agency and academicworlds and improve their skills for effective professionalengagement of both cultures. Although university fieldstations have traditionally provided students with accessto researchers, the WMRS Internship Program also pro-vides students simultaneous access to federal, state, andcounty agency resource specialists and managers. In thisenvironment, we have observed that students can be-come informal liaisons between these groups. With theIRT’s emphasis on self-directed learning, the interns arechallenged to connect with their mentors. When suc-cessful connections have been made, mentors have be-come more open to student questions and ideas. Andwhen this is combined with thoughtful discussions onthe value and process of research and resource manage-ment, all participants appear to engage in interestingand provocative discussions regarding the two cultures.

Table 1. Weekly trip evaluation for interagency resource teams.*

Evaluation category Mean

�

SD

Cooperation within team 3.7

�

0.5Initiative taken by team 3.3

�

0.9Ability to work with agency specialists and

academic researchers 3.3

�

0.9Communication within team 3.3

�

0.7Responsibility of teams for implementation of

project 3.7

�

0.6Adaptability of team members 3.7

�

0.4Innovation demonstrated by team members 3.2

�

0.9Compilation of data by team 3.8

�

0.6Presentation of data by team 3.7

�

0.7Timely submission of data 3.7

�

0.4

*

Participants rate each category on a scale of 1 to 4 and provide anexample to illustrate the rating: 1, did not meet project needs; 2, metsome but not all project needs; 3, met all project needs satisfactorily;4, exceeded expectation of project needs. Data are from 1998–1999surveys of 16 students.



601

Therefore, the internship has encouraged further dia-log between academics and the agency staff by focusingon projects and outcomes of value to the mentors andby improving the ability of the students to engage thementors. The production of valued work by the internsattracts mentors to the program. Once the mentors havebegun to use the interns to support their work, the nextstep is getting the mentors engaged with the students,providing the interns with access to the mentors’ profes-sional worlds. Although this process seems straightfor-ward, it can be challenging in the current professionalenvironment of natural-resource research and manage-ment. For example, a 1999 intern was frustrated overthe lack of focus of a monitoring project and a particularresource specialist’s apparent lack of concern. After anumber of the cooperative learning readings and a par-ticular discussion of a paper by Hays (1993) on institu-tional conflict and change, the student came back aweek later and informed us that she “got it.” The internrealized that in this case the mentor had an extensive un-derstanding of a particular resource issue and that sim-ply learning some of this information would be an in-valuable experience regardless of what data she wouldbe generating. By working with her team and engagingthe resource specialist in her field of expertise, the in-tern was beginning to understand what was happeningin this project: the resource specialist was overwhelmedwith an upcoming regional evaluation. By the end of thisproject, the student had contributed significantly topreparation for the evaluation and reported that she hada completely different understanding of the resourcemanagement world. As she continued to prepare forgraduate school, this intern successfully applied theskills she learned as an intern to a number of resource-agency projects.

Although not all individual projects end up as produc-tive as the one in this example, the team approach andweekly discussion groups in the internship allows stu-dents with different mentors to reflect collaborativelyon what they are learning. As a result, interns benefit

from and contribute to one another’s experiences, gain-ing insight into new professional cultures. The value of ateam approach was noted by Janet Michalski, Director ofthe Center of Internships at the University of Coloradoin a 1997

Los Angeles Times

article about the WMRS In-ternship: “I like the idea of the team effort. . . . Too oftenthe student is

the

intern at an agency—they’re the onlyone and they’re quite isolated. But working in a team sit-uation is a skill that is badly needed in the workplace,and traditional academic education doesn’t give the stu-dent much opportunity to work in a team. . . . It soundscutting edge” (Forstenzer 1997).

Combining the learning references listed in the text aswell as our own experiences with the internship pro-gram over the past 5 years, we have observed that theability of students to produce high-quality work and ef-fectively engage their mentors, especially the resource-agency staff, seems to improve with a greater awarenessof the four identified elements of the WMRS internshipprogram. These include student self-responsibility forlearning, multidisciplinary approaches to science, theability to reflect upon and alter one’s own responses andbehaviors, and a challenging, collaborative work envi-ronment. This combination of productive work and theability of the intern to engage mentors is critical if weare to create a potential for dialog that can provide stu-dents with a glimpse into the unique professional envi-ronments of the academic researcher and the resourceagency specialist.

From these observations, we have begun to developnew assessment tools to determine whether causal rela-tionships exist between the four program elements andstudent awareness of the different professional cultures,ability to work with limited mentoring, and applicationof scientific skills. We are drawing from a variety of qual-itative analyses that have been used successfully by anumber of internship programs (Akeyo 1993; Kleinfeld1983; Basow & Byrne 1993; Bourland-Davis et al. 1997)and quantitative analyses that have been used to investi-gate participants, underlying assumptions (Durning &

Table 2. Internship project evaluation for mentors.*

Question Mean

�

SD

Initial contact and scheduling of the project. Was the project scheduled far enough ahead of time, were appropriate measures taken to prepare equipment and make sure interns obtained the correct supplies? 3.0

�

0.6Responsibility of interns for implementation of the project. Did interns take initiative or wait to be directed? 3.6

�

0.5Communication in the field/lab. Did interns ask effective questions, seem enthusiastic, and work well with one another? 3.7

�

0.8Innovation demonstrated by interns. If a problem arose, was it solved effectively? Did interns consider/test out new

methodologies? 3.3

�

0.8Compilation of data. Were data submitted in a usable manner? 3.3

�

0.5Presentation of data. Were data sheets neat and readable? Were there omissions or problems? 3.2

�

0.5Timely submission of data and equipment. Were the data and equipment turned in in a timely fashion? 3.3

�

0.5Maintenance of the monitoring equipment. Was equipment clean and in good working condition when returned? 3.1

�

0.7Overall performance of intern team? 3.4

�

0.5

*

Mentors rate each category on a scale of 1 to 4 and provide an example to illustrate the rating. Ratings as per Table 1. Data are from 1999 sur-vey of seven mentors.

602



Osuna 1994). Furthermore, we will continue to trackthe students over the long term to determine the endur-ing effects of this program on their skills at bridging theagency-academic cultural divide. Over time, it will alsobe interesting to document how the program is affectingagency resource specialists and researchers.

Finally, new ideas and published readings will con-tinue to shape discussions within the IRT. For example,Richter and Redford (1999) recently proposed that suc-cessful conservation and adaptive management hingeson the ability of researchers and resource managers toeffectively discuss “. . . competing individual or societalvalues about resources, negotiations, trade-offs, risks,and payoffs.” The incorporation of new ideas into the in-ternship will provide an ever-evolving platform that canchallenge affiliated students, agency resource specialists,and academic researchers to think about interrelation-ships and conflicts in their work.

Literature Cited

Akeyo, V. T. 1993. Work experience programs: a case-study of one uni-versity program. Journal of Cooperative Education

28(3):

49–58.Babbitt, B. 1999. Noah’s mandate and the birth of urban bioplanning.

Conservation Biology

13:

677–678.Basow, R. R., and M. V. Byrne. 1993. Intern expectations and learning

goals. Journalism Educator

47(4):

48–54.Bessinger, S. R. 1990. On the limits and directions of conservation biol-

ogy. Bioscience

40:

456–457.Blockstein, D. E. 1999. Integrated science for ecosystem management:

an achievable imperative. Conservation Biology

13:

682–685.Bourland-Davis, P. G., B. L. Grahm, and H. W. Fulmer. 1997. Defining a

public relations internship through feedback from the field. Jour-nalism and Mass Communication Educator

52(1):

26–33.Brown, A. L. 1997. Transforming schools into communities of thinking

and learning about serious matters. American Psychologist

52:

339–413.

Brown, A. L., and J. C. Campione. 1996. Psychological learning theoryand the design of innovative learning environments: on proce-dures, principles and systems. Pages 289–325 in L. Schauble and R.Glaser, editors. Contributions of instructional innovation to under-standing learning. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey.

Brown, D. A. 1987. Ethics, science, and environmental regulation. En-vironmental Ethics

9:

331–349.Clark, J.R. 1999. The ecosystem approach from a practical point of

view. Conservation Biology

13:

679–681.Dewey, J. 1916. Democracy and education: an introduction to the phi-

losophy of education. MacMillen, New York.Durning, D., and W. Osuna. 1994. Policy analyst’s roles and value ori-

entation: an empirical investigation using Q methodology. Journalof Policy Analysis and Management

13(4):

629–657.Eyler, J. 1993. Comparing the impact of two internship experiences on

student learning. Journal of Cooperative Education

29(3):

41–52.Forstenzer M. 1997. Outside interns. Los Angeles Times 23 July: B2.Gardner, H. 1983. Frames of mind: the theory of multiple intelli-

gences. Basic Books, New York.Gordon, T. 1974. Teacher effectiveness training. David McKay, New

York.

Harcharik, K. 1993. Piaget and the university internship experience.Journal of Cooperative Education

29(1):

24–32.Hays, J. M. 1993. Conflict and change in cooperative education. Jour-

nal of Cooperative Education

29(3):

23–43.Heifetz, R. A. 1994. Leadership without easy answers. Belknap Press of

Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Heinemann, H. N., A. DeFalco, and M. Smelkinson. 1992. Work experi-

ence enriched learning. Journal of Cooperative Education

28(1):

17–33.Hufford, T. L. 1990. Educational receptivity before science literacy.

Bioscience

40(1):

44–45.Kagan, S., and M. Kagan. 1994. The structural approach: six keys to co-

operative learning. Pages 115–133 in Handbook of cooperativelearning. Greenwood Press, San Juan Capistrano, California.

Kessler, W. B., H. Salwasser, C. W. Cartwright Jr., and J. A. Caplan.1992. New perspectives for sustainable natural resource manage-ment. Ecological Applications

2:

221–225.Kleinfeld, J. 1983. Practical evaluation for experimental education.

Journal of Experimental Education

6(20):

45–47.Kuhn, T. S. 1962. The structure of scientific revolutions. University of

Chicago Press, Chicago.May, M., and J. November. 1996. The cognitive cycle: a new model for

choice and change. Hearth Press, Jacksonville, Florida.Meffe, G. K. 1998. Conservation scientists and the policy process. Con-

servation Biology

12:

741–742.Orr, D. W. 1993. The problem of disciplines and the discipline of prob-

lems. Conservation Biology

7(1):

10–12.Orr, D. W. 1999. Education, careers, and callings: the practice of con-

servation biology. Conservation Biology

13:

1242–1245.Pataniczek, D., and C. Johansen. 1983. An introduction to internship

education: new roles for students and faculty. Journal of Experien-tial Education

6(2):

15–18.Peters, R. H. 1991. A critique for ecology. Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge, United Kingdom.Pister, E. P. 1979. Endangered species: costs and benefits. Environmen-

tal Ethics

1:

341–352.Pister, E. P. 1992. Ethical considerations in conservation biodiversity.

Transaction of the North American Wildlife and Natural ResourcesConference

57:

355–364.Pister, E. P. 1999. Professional obligations in the conservation of

fishes. Environmental Biology of Fishes

55:

13–20.Platt, J. R. 1964. Strong inference. Science

146:

347–353.Richter, B. D., and K. H. Redford. 1999. The art (and science) of bro-

kering deals between conservation and use. Conservation Biology

13:

1235–1237.Schön, D. A. 1992. The theory of inquiry: Dewey’s legacy to educa-

tion. Curriculum Inquiry

22(2):

119–139.Schön, D. A. 1995. Knowing in action: the new scholarship requires a

new epistemology. Change

27(6):

27–34.Scribner, J. P., and D. Wakelyn. 1998. Youth apprenticeship experi-

ences in Wisconsin: a stakeholder-based evaluation. High SchoolJournal

82(1):

1–24.Thomas, J. W., and H. Salwasser. 1989. Bringing conservation biology

into a position of influence in natural resource management. Con-servation Biology

3:

123–127.Townsend, B. K., et al. 1992. Creating distinctiveness: lessons from un-

common colleges and universities. Report EDO-HE-92-6. ERIC Di-gest, 4 October.

Wagner, J. 1983. Integrating the traditions of experiential learning ininternship education. Journal of Experiential Education

6(2):

7–13.Wheatley, M. J. 1992. Leadership and the new science: discovering or-

der in a chaotic world. Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA.Wills, J. 1995. The post-postmodern university. Change

3(4):

59–62.

Documents

Interagency Resource Teams: a Model for Collaborative Approaches to Environmental Education