Computer-Based Biomass Harvesting Guideline Training for Loggers and Natural Resource Managers

My application recognizes the efforts by the University of Minnesota Extension Forestry team, in collaboration with the Minnesota Logger Education Program (MLEP), to develop an online curriculum of Minnesota’s Biomass Harvesting Guidelines for Minnesota’s natural resource professionals and loggers. The team was composed of Diomy Zamora, Charlie Blinn, Eli Sagor, and Larry Coyle from the University of Minnesota Extension and Dave Chura from MLEP.

In response to the increasing interest in local renewable energy sources, the Governor-appointed Minnesota Forest Resource Council (MFRC) approved new Biomass Harvesting Guidelines (BHGs) in 2008. Those guidelines were the result of an interdisciplinary effort (e.g., forestry, wildlife, fisheries, and soils). Training Minnesota’s loggers and natural resource managers quickly on the new guidelines is required to ensure a high level of compliance and to create the capacity needed to support woody biomass market development. However, the cost of the annual face-to-face trainings can be generally high and instructor capacity is limited because of the breadth of disciplines addressed within the guidelines, the limited pool of qualified instructors, and scheduling difficulties. In order to address these issues, the Extension Forestry team developed an alternative approach to reach loggers and natural resource managers through computer-based training. Computer-based training is cost-efficient and can be highly effective as an alternative to classroom and field trainings. Computer-based training is also more flexible, allowing participants to complete the training at their convenience.

Loggers and natural resource managers are widely dispersed in rural areas throughout the forested region of Minnesota. While many natural resource managers use computers on a daily basis, many loggers use computers very little. Shortly after its publication, three four-hour face-to-face workshops were created to present the curriculum to loggers and natural resource managers. That curriculum included live slideshow presentations and small group breakouts. Content addressed the rationale for the development of the guidelines; an overview of the guidelines for wildlife and biodiversity, soil productivity, and water quality and riparian management zones; and approaches for incorporating the guidelines into planning, design, and operational activities. Because of the diversity of topics, five presenters were needed to deliver the curriculum. More than 425 loggers and natural resource managers were introduced to the guidelines through workshops. The large audiences resulted from the need to get the information out quickly so loggers could operate on state timber sales and so that foresters could design timber sales which incorporated the guidelines. During such programming, many participants had to travel an hour or more each way to attend the event, requiring them to take more time away from their normal work routine. The face-to-face workshops were difficult to schedule and expensive to offer because of the conflicting schedules of presenters. While the workshops largely met existing needs, other individuals, including new loggers and natural resource managers, will need this training in the future. Future needs are anticipated to be for smaller audiences who will want access to the training throughout the year.

The project team

Recognizing the limitations of offering the curriculum on a face-to-face basis and the need to continue offering the curriculum on an on-going basis, we assembled a project team to transform the face-to-face curriculum into an online training curriculum. This process required a high level of coordination between the Minnesota Logger Education Program, Extension educators and specialists, and a number of content specialists from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Minnesota Forest Resources Council, and other agencies and organizations. We identified the best individuals and organizations to contribute content and recruited them to join our team.

Curriculum planning

The development of our online curriculum underwent a rigorous process that included planning, developing and testing the curriculum. We assembled a project team to develop the online curriculum. It included three Extension educators, an Extension technology specialist, and MLEP’s Executive Director. The initial project budget was $25,000, with funding from the University of Minnesota Extension and MLEP with additional in-kind contributions provided by project team members. The largest portion of our budget was allocated for contracting with a professional, third-party contractor. The project team met face-to-face several times and used e-mail frequently to discuss hardware and software capabilities and knowledge of our target audience, potential strategies to create and deploy the curriculum (e.g., who would do the development work, how to break the content into manageable units for the learner, which software to use), how to maintain learner interest and engagement, and how to test and evaluate the new curriculum using some learning technology features that support various training methods.

During the initial scoping, the project team identified key features that we thought were necessary to incorporate into our project. With that information, we focused on building the following features into the product.

· Easy to use. We knew that some users have limited computing experience so the curriculum had to be easy to use. That included providing introductory slides about how to move from one screen to the next.

· Get users familiar with where to find the guidelines in the guidebook. After the training, we wanted them to be able to know where to look for the guidelines on their own.

· Support multimedia integration as the target audience generally prefers visuals to text. This included audio, video, slides, and animation.

· Implement the design in software which would make it possible to modify the curriculum when the guidelines are revised. Also, the software had to allow users to access the curriculum without the need for a password.

· Allow the user to work at their own pace so that they can complete individual modules within the curriculum, exit, and return later without the need to go back through the entire curriculum again.

· Keep the overall number and the file size of the curriculum to a minimum as some users are likely to have low-bandwidth connections.

· Create modules which roughly paralleled the face-to-face modules to keep the content length focused and concise.

· Incorporate “check your knowledge” questions at the end of appropriate modules to reinforce key content and to provide some assurance that the learner was retaining the most important content. While no score was registered, participants would be required to answer each question correctly before proceeding to the next module.

· Create a unique code which could be reported elsewhere to demonstrate completion of the entire curriculum. We wanted a unique code to make sure that one person in an office or business didn’t complete the curriculum and then photocopy the code for others to verify completion.

· Narrate the curriculum using a professional voice. While interim products were narrated by the contractor, we felt that a professional narrator would help maintain participant interest and attention throughout the curriculum.

After determining the content and scope for the online curriculum, a request for proposals was developed to solicit bids from third-party contractors. While we reviewed bids from seven contractors with bids ranging from $45,000-$70,000, our budget was insufficient to hire a professional content developer. This led us to in-house staff. A contract was developed with a research and outreach professional who had a high level of familiarity with the content, a variety of instructional technologies and our target audience. That individual brought unique skills in the subject matter (e.g., ability to add content, find relevant visuals, create transitions).

Online curriculum development

With our supervision and guidance, our contract developer modified the face-to-face curriculum into six modules. Prior to creating all of the online modules, the developer first drafted an online version of one module for critique by us. Review of that module focused on whether the key learning features we identified were achieved. The first module was revised based on project team feedback and development proceeded on the remaining modules. Check your knowledge questions were added at the end of four of the six modules and specific locations in the curriculum were identified where the user was directed to look-up information in the printed guidelines to help ensure a linkage between the training and the printed materials.

Usability testing

To assess whether the key learning features were achieved, we invited twelve selected members of the target audience to participate in on-site usability testing of the six draft modules. Prior to that testing, the project team created a structured process to conduct the assessment at a computer lab. During the usability testing, each reviewer evaluated two assigned modules. The project team observed their interaction with the curriculum, noting areas of confusion and other opportunities to improve the learner’s experience. Reviewers also completed a written evaluation form and oral comments were solicited. Once the final curriculum was completed, several project team members reviewed the written narration prior to hiring a professional narrator. That narrator was identified after listening to sample narrations from previous work.

Publication and Evaluation

After final revisions, the online training was published online and is hosted on a University of Minnesota computer server. The curriculum is available at http://www.mlep.org/onlinebiomassintro.htm. The same content is also available on DVD for those with no (or slow) bandwith connection. The DVD includes a unique code at the end of the last module that learners need to provide to demonstrate completion of the curriculum.

An internet-based approach with a DVD option to delivering the BHG curriculum accomplished our goal of providing a quality on-demand educational product which minimizes the cost and time associated with face-to-face delivery of information. It has eliminated the need for future face-to-face training on the biomass harvesting guidelines. Over 120 natural resource professionals and loggers took the online training within the first year of making the curriculum available. Further, at least 30 copies of the DVD have been requested by loggers with slow (or no) internet access. While user feedback is limited because the training is not conducted face-to-face, MLEP reports having received unsolicited positive feedback on the training from several loggers.

Success of the BHG curriculum among users and educators led to the development of a new initiative to convert all of Minnesota’s forest management guidelines and make them available online. This new initiative will replace a two day face-to-face training program. In support of this initiative, over $48,600 of funds were received from AgStar, the Minnesota Forest Resources Council, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and the University of Minnesota Extension. In addition, MLEP provided $10,000 of in-kind support.

Hence, it is with pride that we submit our application for the ANREP Outstanding Team award category for our work to reach more loggers and natural resource professionals on the Minnesota Biomass Harvesting Guidelines.

Files

BHG Online Training Screen Shot

Screen shot of the first page of the online training module where names of project team is listed.

BHG Module 1 screenshot

Screenshot of the first page of BHG module 1