| Overall Rating | Gold |
|---|---|
| Overall Score | 68.78 |
| Liaison | Kelly Wellman |
| Submission Date | Dec. 20, 2023 |
Texas A&M University
AC-1: Academic Courses
| Status | Score | Responsible Party |
|---|---|---|
|
12.34 / 14.00 |
Ben
Kalscheur Sustainability Assistant Manager Office of Sustainability |
"---"
indicates that no data was submitted for this field
Part 1. Sustainability course offerings
| Undergraduate | Graduate | |
| Total number of courses offered by the institution | 9,020 | 3,311 |
| Number of sustainability-focused courses offered | 692 | 109 |
| Number of sustainability-inclusive courses offered | 1,140 | 158 |
Percentage of courses that are sustainability course offerings:
17.02
Part 2. Sustainability course offerings by department
100
Number of academic departments with sustainability course offerings:
83
Percentage of academic departments with sustainability course offerings:
83
Documentation
Do the figures reported above cover one, two, or three academic years?:
One
A brief description of the methodology used to complete the course inventory :
Our sustainability course/includes inventory examines the courses offered at Texas A&M University – College Station for a one-year period from Summer 2022 through Spring 2023. The data we were able to compile consists of undergraduate and graduate courses that published an electronic syllabus. All undergraduate classes are required to submit an electronic copy of their syllabi for University records each semester; graduate classes are exempt from this protocol. At this time, we do not have the ability to capture data for the graduate classes that do not submit syllabi, so they are not included in our assessment unless a syllabus was submitted.
The Office of Sustainability outlined several parameters to review and code each syllabus in the database. Office of Sustainability staff analyzed all syllabi using the standards outlined by STARS to categorize the courses. The decision was made to code each class as not related, sustainability-focused, or a sustainability-inclusive course. To make the coding process more accessible for analysis, a numeric and color-coding system was created. To ensure that staff was coding the data in a similar manner, numerous meetings were held to clarify how we defined the classes as being focused/inclusive. Spot-checks were conducted by senior sustainability staff members to ensure reliability of the coding process. After all preliminary coding was complete, sustainability staff collectively went through all courses staff members were unsure of and made a final decision as a group. During these sessions, coding decisions were fine-tuned and courses were re-evaluated a final time.
STARS gives the option of either including or excluding duplicate sections from the total course count. We chose to include duplicate sections in our analysis. We removed dually listed courses from our totals. There were 151 Dually Listed Courses for Undergraduate Courses and 20 for Graduate Courses.
After all course information was compiled and analyzed, a new database was created to determine the number of departments on campus that offered a focused/inclusive class during our time period. Our original database classified each course by subject. All of the focused/inclusive subjects were compiled and placed in a list and the same was done for non-related subjects. From these lists, each subject was placed in the proper department. A total of 100 departments were identified and 83 offered at least one sustainability-focused/inclusive class. Some assumptions were made when computing the total number of departments:
1. A number of interdisciplinary programs are offered at TAMU that cannot be classified under one department. We chose to count each interdisciplinary program as a department.
2. Some colleges at TAMU (i.e. The Dwight Look College of Engineering) offer a number of classes that are categorized under the college, not the departments within the college. When this happened, we counted the college as a department.
3. TAMU offers a wide range of first-year seminars categorized as Undergraduate Studies that are not attached to a department. We choose to count Undergraduate Studies as a department in our analysis.
4. TAMU has different institutes (i.e. The English Language Institute) and centers (i.e. The Student Learning Center) that offer a number of classes. We counted these as departments.
Database Process Review:
Our coding process has advantages and disadvantages that must be understood. The biggest advantage of our methodology is the comprehensive nature of our analysis. Aside from a few broken links, we were able to thoroughly analyze every class offered at Texas A&M University – College Station from Summer 2022 to Spring 2023. This offers an advantage over course inventory methodology that gets data about courses directly from departments or professors that may contain inconsistencies or nonresponse. By directly analyzing the syllabi, we were able to pinpoint focused/inclusive sustainability classes that may have been missed by departments or professors who didn’t realize they are actually teaching sustainability concepts.
Database Process Limitations:
As is the case with any data analysis, it is important to keep in mind that our findings are subject to a margin of error. Our margin of error can be attributed to two things:
1. Because sustainability staff was making decisions on courses, some subjectivity is inevitable in the decision-making process. We fine-tuned our methodology and coordinated to be as objective as possible, but all subjectivity cannot be fully eliminated. As a result, classes may have been missed or counted that others may not agree with. While we acknowledge this potential shortcoming, we are confident our process was thorough and uniform.
2. We made the assumption that syllabi accurately reflected what was taught in the course during our coding process.
The Office of Sustainability outlined several parameters to review and code each syllabus in the database. Office of Sustainability staff analyzed all syllabi using the standards outlined by STARS to categorize the courses. The decision was made to code each class as not related, sustainability-focused, or a sustainability-inclusive course. To make the coding process more accessible for analysis, a numeric and color-coding system was created. To ensure that staff was coding the data in a similar manner, numerous meetings were held to clarify how we defined the classes as being focused/inclusive. Spot-checks were conducted by senior sustainability staff members to ensure reliability of the coding process. After all preliminary coding was complete, sustainability staff collectively went through all courses staff members were unsure of and made a final decision as a group. During these sessions, coding decisions were fine-tuned and courses were re-evaluated a final time.
STARS gives the option of either including or excluding duplicate sections from the total course count. We chose to include duplicate sections in our analysis. We removed dually listed courses from our totals. There were 151 Dually Listed Courses for Undergraduate Courses and 20 for Graduate Courses.
After all course information was compiled and analyzed, a new database was created to determine the number of departments on campus that offered a focused/inclusive class during our time period. Our original database classified each course by subject. All of the focused/inclusive subjects were compiled and placed in a list and the same was done for non-related subjects. From these lists, each subject was placed in the proper department. A total of 100 departments were identified and 83 offered at least one sustainability-focused/inclusive class. Some assumptions were made when computing the total number of departments:
1. A number of interdisciplinary programs are offered at TAMU that cannot be classified under one department. We chose to count each interdisciplinary program as a department.
2. Some colleges at TAMU (i.e. The Dwight Look College of Engineering) offer a number of classes that are categorized under the college, not the departments within the college. When this happened, we counted the college as a department.
3. TAMU offers a wide range of first-year seminars categorized as Undergraduate Studies that are not attached to a department. We choose to count Undergraduate Studies as a department in our analysis.
4. TAMU has different institutes (i.e. The English Language Institute) and centers (i.e. The Student Learning Center) that offer a number of classes. We counted these as departments.
Database Process Review:
Our coding process has advantages and disadvantages that must be understood. The biggest advantage of our methodology is the comprehensive nature of our analysis. Aside from a few broken links, we were able to thoroughly analyze every class offered at Texas A&M University – College Station from Summer 2022 to Spring 2023. This offers an advantage over course inventory methodology that gets data about courses directly from departments or professors that may contain inconsistencies or nonresponse. By directly analyzing the syllabi, we were able to pinpoint focused/inclusive sustainability classes that may have been missed by departments or professors who didn’t realize they are actually teaching sustainability concepts.
Database Process Limitations:
As is the case with any data analysis, it is important to keep in mind that our findings are subject to a margin of error. Our margin of error can be attributed to two things:
1. Because sustainability staff was making decisions on courses, some subjectivity is inevitable in the decision-making process. We fine-tuned our methodology and coordinated to be as objective as possible, but all subjectivity cannot be fully eliminated. As a result, classes may have been missed or counted that others may not agree with. While we acknowledge this potential shortcoming, we are confident our process was thorough and uniform.
2. We made the assumption that syllabi accurately reflected what was taught in the course during our coding process.
How were courses with multiple offerings or sections counted for the figures reported above?:
Each offering or section of a course was counted as an individual course
A brief description of how courses with multiple offerings or sections were counted:
Dually listed courses in different departments were only counted once. We had 171 such courses that were removed from our totals. Duplicate sections were counted as individual courses.
Optional Fields
Additional documentation to support the submission:
---
Data source(s) and notes about the submission:
The number of official departments at TAMU-College Station is different from what is reported here because the additional "departments" have been coded as equivalents. These "departments" include, Interdisciplinary/Interdepartmental Degree Programs, Colleges, and Institutes that offer courses not tied to one of the official departments recognized at Texas A&M University.
Any discrepancies between course count reported in the inventory and what is reported here in the STARS credit is due to the decision to catalog duplicate sections in one column. Also, the total number of courses is determined by all of the courses offered during the timeframe. We excluded courses from previous inventories that we know do not teach sustainable courses in this current inventory to help with readability. Those excluded courses are still reported in the STARS credit to ensure accurate reporting.
https://sustainability.tamu.edu/our-partners/academics.html
Any discrepancies between course count reported in the inventory and what is reported here in the STARS credit is due to the decision to catalog duplicate sections in one column. Also, the total number of courses is determined by all of the courses offered during the timeframe. We excluded courses from previous inventories that we know do not teach sustainable courses in this current inventory to help with readability. Those excluded courses are still reported in the STARS credit to ensure accurate reporting.
https://sustainability.tamu.edu/our-partners/academics.html
The information presented here is self-reported. While AASHE staff review portions of all STARS reports and institutions are welcome to seek additional forms of review, the data in STARS reports are not verified by AASHE. If you believe any of this information is erroneous or inconsistent with credit criteria, please review the process for inquiring about the information reported by an institution or simply email your inquiry to stars@aashe.org.