The Google Earth Pro Pilot

This ePub documents an integrative model that Extension professionals can use to restructure existing curriculum or create new curriculum using Geographic information system (GIS) Google Earth Pro (GEP) to create land management plans that are technologically innovative and can serve audiences online, face to face, or in a format that combines virtual and in-person learning.

The Google Earth Pro Pilot

A Model for Creating Innovative Extension Curriculum

By: Dr. Sergio Arispe, Associate Professor, Livestock & Rangeland Field Faculty, Malheur County, Oregon State University Photo provided by: Sergio Arispe, PhD, Oregon State University

A T T R I B U T I ON

The Google Earth Pro Pilot: A Model for Creating Innovative Extension Curriculum

Copyright © Arispe, S., 2021, Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). Published by Extension Foundation.

e-pub: 978-1-955687-06-5

Publish Date: 9/21/2021

Citations for this publication may be made using the following:

Arispe, S. (2021). The Google Earth Pro Pilot: A Model for Creating Innovative Extension Curriculum

(1 st ed). Kansas City: Extension Foundation. ISBN: 978-1-955687-06-5

Producer: Ashley S. Griffin

Peer Review Coordinator: Rose Hayden-Smith

Editorial Assistants: Rose Hayden-Smith and Heather Martin

Technical Implementer: Rose Hayden-Smith

Welcome to The Google Earth Pro Pilot: A Model for Creating Innovative Extension Curriculum, a resource created for the Cooperative Extension Service and published by the Extension Foundation. We welcome feedback and suggested resources for this publication, which could be included in any subsequent versions. This work is supported by New Technologies for Agriculture Extension grant no. 2020-41595-30123 from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

For more information please contact:

Extension c/o Bryan Cave LLP One Kansas City Place

1200 Main Street, Suite 3800 Kansas City, MO 64105-2122 https://impact.extension.org/

2

T A B L E O F CON T E N T S

Attribution ............................................................................................................................................. 2

Meet the Author..................................................................................................................................... 4

Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................................. 5

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ 5

Part 1: Introduction........................................................................................................................ 6

Innovating Extension Curriculum ....................................................................................................................6

Google Earth Pro Pilot History.........................................................................................................................7

Rationale to Remake the GEP Course as Innovative Online Curriculum ........................................................8

Part 2: Innovating the GEP Online Extension Curriculum ................................................................. 9

The Process of Innovation ...............................................................................................................................9

Tools to Create Innovative Content for the GEP Online Extension Course ..................................................11

The Phases Leading to Our Innovative GEP Online Extension Course ..........................................................14

Part 3: Partners and Leadership Development .............................................................................. 15

Partners .........................................................................................................................................................15

Leadership Development ..............................................................................................................................16

Part 4: Impact and Reflection ....................................................................................................... 16

Results and Outcomes Related to the GEP Online Extension Course...........................................................17

Lessons Learned ............................................................................................................................................17

Assumptions Going into the GEP Online Extension Curriculum Project .......................................................18

Important Things to Know Before You Begin................................................................................................18

Part 4: Next Steps......................................................................................................................... 19

3

M E E T TH E AU THO R

Sergio Arispe

Sergio Arispe is an Associate Professor in the Department of Animal & Rangeland Sciences at Oregon State University. He is a Livestock & Rangeland Field Faculty with an Extension Service appointment in the high desert of Malheur County. Sergio integrates land manager needs with the most appropriate technologies supporting functionally health sagebrush ecosystems on public and private lands. He prioritizes building transdisciplinary partnerships that includes bringing together land managers, academics, researchers, policymakers, and the general public to solve complex ecosystem challenges for rural and urban centers. Sergio Arispe, Ph.D., PAS, (he, him, his) Associate Professor Department of Animal & Rangeland Sciences OSU Extension Service — Malheur County | Livestock and Rangeland Oregon State University (541) 881-1417

4

A C K NOWL E D GM E N T S

Our thanks to the many individuals for input that guided our thinking, and for supporting our efforts throughout the course of this project, including the following Extension professionals who contributed to the development of the course described in this ePublication:

Dustin Johnson, Professor of Practice, Rangeland Outreach Specialist, Eastern Oregon Agricultural Research Center-Burns, Oregon State University

Vanessa Schroeder, Faculty Research Assistant, Eastern Oregon Agricultural Research Center-Burns, Oregon State University

Ian McGregor, Assistant Professor of Practice, Livestock & Irrigation Field Faculty — Klamath County, Klamath Basin Research and Extension Center, Oregon State University

Dr. Christy Tanner, Assistant Professor of Practice, Field Crops Field Faculty — Linn, Benton, Land Counties, Oregon State University

Dr. April Hulet, Assistant Professor, Extension Rangeland Specialist, University of Idaho

Chris Schachtschneider, Assistant Professor of Practice, Livestock & Rangeland Field Faculty — Umatilla and Morrow Counties, Oregon State University

E X E CU T I V E S UMMA R Y

This ePublication, The Google Earth Pro Pilot: A Model for Creating Innovative Extension Curriculum, provides an integrative model that Extension professionals can use to restructure existing curriculum or create new curriculum that is technologically innovative and can serve audiences online, face to face (FTF), or in a format that combines virtual and in-person learning.

5

Part 1: Introduction

In this part , we’ll explore the project’s history , goals, and rationale.

Innovating Extension Curr iculum

The primary goal of our project was to restructure an existing Extension curriculum for teaching land managers to use the geographic information system (GIS) Google Earth Pro (GEP) to create land management plans. We wanted to create a technologically innovative, non-credit course that could reach a broad and diverse audience. We also wanted to create a course that we could deliver online, in person, or in a format that combines virtual and F2F learning. Our project had several needs and challenges: a natural resource need, a technology opportunity (for online instruction), the potential to reach a wider audience than a traditional delivery method might allow, the constraints of the COVID- 19 global pandemic, and the public’s desire for information that is trustworthy and easy to understand.

The COVID-19 pandemic created challenges but also provided opportunities for Extension professionals to develop new strategies by using new tools to adapt existing F2F curriculum.

In March 2020, many public institutions adopted a remote work policy that halted traditional, F2F Extension programming. These bastions of science-based information were tasked with modeling precaution and mitigating a public health crisis. No one could have predicted how long the distancing policies would last. Over the last year, Extension professionals have had countless opportunities to learn about alternatives to traditional F2F programming. Many of them became proficient at using videoconferencing platforms, such as WebEx and Zoom. Some universities adopted integrated communication platforms, such as Microsoft Teams to enable university personnel to collaborate and communicate with ease. Professional associations and non- profit entities, such as the Extension Foundation, purposefully provided opportunities to help Extension personnel gain the vision, skills, and momentum to innovatively adapt F2F Extension curriculum.

Our account is only one of countless stories across the Extension Service that demonstrates our commitment to serve the public with high-quality, science-based instruction.

In this ePublication, we review how our multi-state team used technology to adapt existing curriculum for online delivery. We augmented previously available content by using 360-degree images, with high-quality video and audio, moving from PowerPoints to predominantly narrated presentations featuring dynamic images and videos. We learned many things, including that collaborating with a fun, interdisciplinary group of committed colleagues through the New Technologies in Agricultural Extension Fellowship produced a unique experience and maximized impact for broader Extension programming. We hope that others can learn from our experience.

6

Google Earth Pro Pi lot History

We use maps every day. We use them to get directions, visualize predicted rainfall, and even follow temperature gradients across a region to anticipate a spike or drop in temperature. Ultimately, maps equip us to make efficient and important decisions. The public has access to a wealth of freely available information and online platforms, such as GEP (an online GIS software), that enable them to create aesthetically appealing and useful maps.

In 2016, Oregon State University began developing a F2F and an online-F2F hybrid course to teach land managers how to use GEP to map land. The need for this course came — as traditional Extension programming typically does — began with a critical problem from a concerned group. In 2015, the United States Fish & Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) consideration to list the greater sage-grouse as a threatened or endangered

The greater sage-grouse

species, created a challenge for land managers in Oregon, Idaho, and other western states. Since the mid-20th century, the habitat for greater sage-grouse has decreased by nearly 50%, due to increased surface disturbance and landscape fragmentation (Crawford et al. 2004). Public and private rangeland managers in the region began inquiring if lands they managed were considered greater sage-grouse habitat, which could have potential regulatory implications. In response to a need for maps and land management planning, two Oregon State University Extension Service personnel conceived the idea of developing a F2F and a hybrid GEP course incorporating synchronous and asynchronous learning. The initial endeavor received $20,000 of funding for curriculum development and hardware for rangeland monitoring kits. From 2016 through 2019, our team strategically expanded to include personnel from Oregon State University and the University of Idaho Extension services. During that GEP pilot, our team consisted of four county-based faculty and one Extension specialist. Pilot impacts included the following:

one Extension course consisting of eight modules with supporting handouts, videos, and presentations

11 hybrid Extension courses

7

the participation of 33 private land managers and public natural resource professionals in Oregon and Idaho, who collectively managed 721,000 acres of private land and 432,060 acres of public lands

50,000 acres of public and private lands improved with course concepts

15,000 acres with land management plans developed after the course

While participants valued accessing information to create maps and land management plans directly related to their goals and objectives, we discussed the possibility of gaining broader impact by converting the F2F and hybrid curriculum to online, asynchronous curriculum. By the beginning of 2020, our multi-state team grew to include five county-based Extension personnel, two Extension specialists, an evaluator, a project director, and an instructional designer.

Rationale to Remake the GEP Course as Innovative Onl ine Curr iculum

While the GEP pilot course was well received, our team realized that we could reach a broader land manager target audience by incorporating innovative technologies and curriculum development tools. For example, we had collected hundreds of short video clips, referred to as b-roll, highlighting general themes within rangeland management. We also acquired the hardware and skills to virtually immerse a course participant in a rangeland ecosystem and explore the site using 360-degree images. We were familiar with using storyboarding as a tool to develop curriculum. Ultimately, we believed that our team could strategically integrate all these resources and skills. We were encouraged that both public and private land managers were empowered by science-based information and a new skill set gained from our course. Our team wanted to produce an innovative online course that would rival the quality of either a F2F or hybrid experience.

Beginning in 2016, our team began to assemble an extensive video repository for rangeland curriculum. We organized the images and short b-roll clips into folders with the intent of incorporating them into more updated

B-roll of invasive annual grasses

VIDEO

modules. For example, one simple b-roll clip — shown above — includes invasive annual grasses blowing in the wind on the sagebrush steppe of southeastern Oregon. We envisioned these videos enhancing traditional narrated PowerPoint presentations. We had the equipment and skills to generate 360-degree images and panning videos that could be integrated into our course. The traditional and hybrid GEP Extension courses provided high-quality images highlighting ecological threats, but we were at a point where we could virtually place land managers at a rangeland site so they could recognize either the presence or absence of important plant functional groups.

8

The 360-degree images were created by proprietary software overlaying and stitching approximately thirty images together into one equirectangular panorama. Here is an example of a 360- degree image that places individuals in an ecological state within the sagebrush steppe of southeastern Oregon. Storyboarding was a process we learned early in the development of traditional and hybrid GEP Extension courses. We believed that adding existing content to the pilot GEP Extension course could be accomplished with the assistance of an instructional designer using the storyboarding process.

360-degree image used in the GEP course

Part 2: Innovating the GEP Online Extension Curriculum

The Process of Innovation

By 2020, our team was complete, and we were committed to updating and expanding the pilot curriculum. We began making improvements based on participant feedback. New team members brought different skills and additional content. We agreed upon seven modules that would walk land managers through the land management planning process. Because many private rangeland managers also manage irrigated pastures, two of our new team members developed an irrigation module. Our team also contracted with Oregon State University’s Professional and Continuing Education (PACE) within the Division of Extension & Engagement. This enabled us to access the skills of an instructional designer. The project lead maintained and communicated the broad project vision with the instructional designer. Team leaders for each module were given the autonomy to create content that reflected their expertise. The module themes, leadership, and collaboration are illustrated in Table 1.

9

Table 1: GEP Online Content Cohort Involvement

Module

Module Lead

Module Members

Basics of GEP, GIS, and Land Management Planning Introduction to Threat-Based Land Management of Sagebrush Rangelands Applying Threat-Based Land Management within GEP and on Rangelands

Sergio Arispe & Dustin Johnson

April Hulet

Dustin Johnson

Vanessa Schroeder

Dustin Johnson

Vanessa Schroeder

Overview of Irrigated Forage Production Practices

Christy Tanner

Ian McGregor

Using GIS Tools on Public and Private Lands

Sergio Arispe

Importing and Mapping GIS Data

Sergio Arispe

Chris Schachtschneider & Ian McGregor

Developing a Land Management Plan

April Hulet

Our team members met for approximately 30 minutes every other week to move the project forward. We found that accountability for commitments made in the previous meeting and setting new goals helped maintain the project’s momentum. The course evolved. For example, Module 1: Basics of GEP, GIS, and Land Management Planning — originally included narrated PowerPoints to introduce GIS theory into the process to develop a land management plan. The module lead decided to keep the land management planning presentation but added more GIS theory and storyboarded a narrated presentation, with images and videos, that was a dialog between two module members. Likewise, the same lead and team members for Modules 2 and 3 decided to remake and reteach the original content. In particular, they had recently published a new ecological framework, The Threat-Based Land Management Tool: A Manager’s Guide, which they would use when teaching participants. They also created the Threat-Based Land Management in the Northern Great Basin: A Field Guide, which can further participants’ knowled ge and understanding within the sagebrush steppe. The module members created a system that enabled land managers to diagnose an ecological state by identifying either the absence or presence of plant functional groups. This provided a science-based framework and language to equip individuals who may have not previously have had language to describe an ecological state. We used b-roll to accompany the narrated presentations. The module members worked together to recreate a dynamic presentation, walking participants, step-by-step, through a new Module 3: Applying Threat-Based Land Management within GEP and on Rangelands. The course lead recruited two new team members to build Module 4: Overview of Irrigated Forage Production Practices. The team members in this module storyboarded the entire module and shared the goal, learning objectives, and content with the course lead. Because it was an irrigation module within a

10

rangeland-centric course, the module members started the content by highlighting the similarities and differences between rangelands and irrigated pastures. They then moved forward with the theoretical framework and practical application for the rest of the module. Modules 5 and 6 remained the same with one addition. Both modules received a video introduction. The introduction provided participants with information about the technologies needed to record and download GIS data.

Finally, Module 7 was recreated to provide examples of land management plans. The module team developed plans for small, medium, and large pastures.

Ultimately, it was clear and frequent communication between module leads and members with the course lead that allowed us to innovate the new curriculum.

Tools to Create Innovative Content for the GEP Onl ine Extension Co urse

Once our team members communicated how modules would evolve, we strategically used tools to help us innovate the new curriculum. For example, we storyboarded the content within each module, which helped us create a clear narrative for each module. We also used Final Cut Pro X, a software package with the ability to produce high-quality videos. Finally, we used a panorama kit that, when combined with a Nikon DSLR camera, could produce images that could be stitched together to produce 360-images.

Storyboarding

Storyboarding was critical to creating innovative content for the online course. Specifically, the storyboarding process helped the module team and course lead keep content within the course scope and vision. Most important, storyboarding enabled us to create a product that module leads were able to send to the instructional designer. The instructional designer built the course content within Canvas, the learning management system used by OSU for credit and non-credit instruction.

Figure 1: Storyboard template

The storyboarding process is powerful because it organizes presentation content by placing visual content next to the narrated content. Storyboarding enabled the team lead and the module team to communicate with the instructional designer.

In addition to finding free storyboarding templates online, readers can access this storyboard template in Google Docs.

11

Figure 2: Completed storyboard

Video

Narrated b-roll of methods for improving degraded sagebrush steppe rangelands

https://media.oregonstate.edu/media/t/1_wma dt9u0

VIDEO

High-quality video production was foundational to creating innovative content, and we were able to create a lot of that content within Final Cut Pro X. In addition to having a repository of thousands of rangeland video clips on the sagebrush steppe, we had hardware, software, and video production skill to make both b-roll clips to enhance the presentations. For example, in Module 2, the team created a narrative around improving degraded sagebrush steppe rangelands using methods like grazing, seeding, and using herbicide treatments. The b-roll created reflected those treatments and showed the vast and rough terrain of the region; see the video above.

12

Video production was also used to create instructional videos that we storyboarded. View the video below — “ Why Monitor Rangeland Health? ”— and compare it to the storyboarded product previously highlighted.

Instructional video: “Why Monitor Rangeland Health?”

https://youtu.be/FsiBXdUfYPw

VIDEO

360-Degree Imagery

Our team also created innovative curriculum by immersing participants in a virtual sagebrush steppe location using 360-degree images. Each team member had the equipment necessary to capture 360-degree of rangeland landscapes. These served as virtual experiences in Modules 2 and 3. The hardware equipment used to capture images included a Nikon D810 DSLR camera with a Nikon AF- NIKKOR 20mm lens that sat on a Nodal Ninja Ultimate M2 Panoramic Head with RD8-II Rotator. The camera, with lens, and panoramic head sat on a light yet sturdy tripod (we used a Manfrotto tripod). Once the camera was set up and calibrated on the tripod, we collected 30 high-quality images to process on the computer.

Creating a 360-degree image using PTGui software

Once images were on the computer, we used a proprietary software — PTGui — to stitch the pictures together to make an equirectangular that would work with software to convert it to a virtual experience. We even incorporated these 360-images into educational videos highlighting ecological threats.

13

Educational video about ecological threats

https://media.oregonstate.edu/media/t/1_mxdxlf0 m

VIDEO

Every module team storyboarded the content and integrated images, videos, 360-degree images, or any of those combinations to hand over to the instructional designer, who developed the final product.

The Phases Leading to Our Innovative GEP Onl ine Extension Course

Our team moved through several phases during this project. As we move forward, we’ll enter additional phases of project work. All are described below.

Phase 1: Issue Identification

Phase 2: Building the Project Team

Phase 3: Course Design

Phase 4: Development

Phase 5: Implementation

Phase 6: Monitoring

Phase 7: Evaluation

Phase 1: Issue Identification

The origin of the GEP course occurred in 2015, when a county-based livestock and rangeland Extension field faculty noticed private land managers uneasy with the pending USFWS decision related to whether the greater sage-grouse should be listed as a threatened or endangered species and protected by the Endangered Species Act. During that era, private and public land managers wanted to know if sage-grouse habitat was identified on land that they either managed or used for their rangeland-based businesses. Federal, state, and local agencies partnered to produce maps to inform the public about sage-grouse habitat. Generating and obtaining maps was important and many land managers valued having visual resources that they could access and use. The problem went beyond the benefit of one southeastern Oregon county and benefited from the involvement of other Extension Service personnel.

14

Phase 2: Building the Project Team

The second phase of the project was to recruit and build an interdisciplinary team to create the GEP course. The individual who conceived the course selected individuals that represented a combination of Extension specialists, county-based Extension educators, and a faculty research assistant. In particular, individuals were selected based on their depth of knowledge, as well as their positive workplace attitudes and affinity for having creative fun. During Phase 2, we also recruited an Extension evaluation specialist, an instructional designer, and a project manager to upload the course to a learning management system.

Phase 3: Course Design

Phase 3 focused on designing the GEP course. The team lead worked with team members to identify modules consistent with areas of expertise. Team members worked on the modules while the team lead worked with the instructional designer and project manager to ensure content flowed between modules. An important concept during Phase 3 was to maintain the overall project narrative and momentum. Even though team members worked on different modules, team members knew their trajectory, which led to the next phase.

Phase 4: Development

Phase 4 took considerable effort and time. Our team wanted to develop innovative curriculum using our technological skills and disciplinary expertise. Those skills included building video content through the storyboard process and incorporating 360-degree images into the course. The phase also included modifying curriculum to support the overall goal of equipping participants with the knowledge and skills needed to develop a land management plan.

Additional Phases

There are several additional phases consistent with curriculum development. Phase 5 is course implementation. Once the course is implemented, our team will monitor course feedback, which is Phase 6. We worked with an Extension evaluation specialist for Phase 7, Evaluation. The evaluator is documenting short-, medium-, and long-term impact. Ultimately, this data will be used to review course content and allow us to adjust accordingly.

Part 3: Partners and Leadership Development

Partners

A key partner in the project was OSU’s PACE unit, which provided an inst ructional designer to support our work. Their team is dedicated to working with OSU faculty to develop hybrid or online non-credit instruction.

Agency partners who provided content-area resources included the following:

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (This work ties back to the original challenge of assessing, improving, and conserving sage grouse habitat.)

USFWS (particularly its work in sagebrush habitat)

15

USDA’s Agricultural Research Service (USDA -ARS), which shares a cooperative and administrative responsibility at the Eastern Oregon Agricultural Research Center-Burns, an OSU Experiment Station (They are original partners of the science-based framework that served as the basis for the threat- based land management tool.) The Nature Conservancy played an important role in the project. They contracted an incredible artist who rendered the drawings and animation that serve as the visual ecological foundation within the TBLM tool. Our project demonstrated aligned goals among all the partners and served as a framework for furthering our partnerships with these agencies and organizations. The result will be a tool that can be used to help develop land management plans for the purpose of improving and maintaining sage-grouse habitat.

Leadership Development

One of the greatest challenges facing Extension educators is balancing the task at hand with other job responsibilities as they arise.

To promote transparency and accountability, GEP our team leaders followed recommended practices promoted in the book “The Four Disciplines of Execution,” by Sean Covey. As suggested by Covey, the team met every other week for 30 minutes to review what they committed to the group and to identify what each team member planned to do for the following two weeks. The accountability provided encouragement for other team members since we were all working together on deliverables. There was transparency because we all identified what we were committing to for upcoming weeks, and we reflected on whether we fulfilled that commitment to the team. Reflection also played an important role in this project. Our reflection process began when we were paired with the instructional designer provided by PACE. One of our greatest challenges developing the Extension curriculum was that we did not have a clear and conventional system to save new documents, images, and videos. Since the inception of the course in 2016, OSU has gone through multiple cloud services. During our NTAE project, OSU provided access to a proprietary business communication platform and all of our content was saved in a central location. Once we connected with an instructional designer, we were able to build a more solid workflow and the framework we needed to bring all the content together. The instructional designer and the backward planning process guided by our team’s catalyst proved pivotal to our project. Each provided a framework that set us on a trajectory to accomplish what we wanted to do.

Part 4: Impact and Reflection

In this section of the e Publication we’ll share results and outcomes related to the course, lessons learned, our assumptions going into the project, and important things others should consider if they plan to innovate curriculum.

16

Results and Outcomes Related to the GEP Onl ine Extension Course

The curriculum we developed is a non-credit instruction program incorporating seven modules. It can be offered online and in a hybrid format for those who can come to a physical location for in-person instruction. In-person instruction is free, but the online format has a small cost associated with use. Some of the revenue collected for online instruction will flow back to this Extension program to help with capacity and improvement of the program materials.

The project provides a model for a multi-state collaboration in course development.

The GEP Course has embedded surveys to document impact throughout the course. Participants have access to pre- and post-tests directly related to learning objectives for each of the seven modules. The surveys are appropriate for all three teaching modalities — F2F, hybrid, and online. The Extension evaluation specialist on our team developed the survey using Qualtrics, a cloud-based platform, commonly used to compile participants’ responses. Our team will follow up with the part icipants six months after participants enroll in the course to gain a better understanding of the number of public and private acres they have mapped.

Lessons Learned

There were many lessons learned during this project.

We learned that the curriculum we create within the Extension Service must address a grassroots issue. The initial reason we developed the curriculum was to equip rangeland managers with the tools and skills needed to identify sage-grouse habitat and then either maintain or improve that area with the principles taught in our course. Design a course with the help of an instructional designer. While they may not be an expert in the content area, they do have educational training and a keen sense of overall flow and aesthetics. Very few extension professionals have formal educational training prior to their Extension position, and an instructional designer can help ensure the content flows well for participants. Storyboarding can be a valuable tool in curriculum development. Storyboarding helped our team by providing a process that guided curriculum development from beginning to end. Our team obtained a storyboarding template, which allowed team members to modify curriculum before it was implemented by the instructional designer. Reflection is an important part of any project. Our team developed a backward plan that helped us with reflection. Regular meetings also helped us reflect on progress and each individual’s important role in the overall effort.

If our team could redo things, there are a couple things that we would do differently.

First, we would identify and begin with an instructional designer. That individual is key to not only building the course but ensuring there is flow and an overarching theme in the course. In addition, the instructional designer can help identify the structure by which images, videos, storyboards, and any other files are to be organized.

17

We would have contracted a videographer to blend b-roll together and complete the final videos. Video production is time-consuming. Contracting this work out can free up capacity for Extension experts to focus on their content while the videographer produces necessary video for the project.

Assumptions Going into the GEP Onl ine Extension Curr iculum Project

Our assumption was that an instructional designer would have contextual understanding of the content and might be able to enhance the content beyond what we imagined. We thought that an instructional designer could take our basic thoughts and recreate an elaborate and incredible video course worthy of Pixar Studios. The reality is that our curriculum may be addressing a topic or issue that the instructional designer has little or no familiarity with. Instructional designers have strengths and niches, but content-area expertise may not be something that the instructional designer can contribute. Understanding an instructional designer’s strength from the beginning of the project — and working with that strength — is critical .

Important Things to Know Before You Begin

Prior to beginning this kind of project, Extension Service professionals should consider and answer the following:

Does your Extension appointment include creating innovative and online curriculum?

Does your institution have a learning management system, such as Canvas, to host a course? If so, does the university provide Extension Service personnel with technical assistance, including instructional design?

If the university provides instructional design services, it will be important to learn about that in dividual’s strengths and weaknesses and try to play to their strengths.

What is your timeframe? Innovating curriculum with team members tends to take longer to develop that traditional curriculum. Allow time for the process of experimenting, sharing, consolidating, and testing. Furthermore, consider whether your project can be expanded to include Extension colleagues from other states. With the reality of limited Extension funding, expanding our work may enable us to bring more resources to bear on a particular issue. We can work collaboratively across broad regions among states to develop and share Extension course impacts. We can also use this model to reach broader and perhaps more diverse audiences. Consider revenue generation. You may want to consider structuring your course in a way that any revenue generated can go back to support the program. At OSU, we have a profit-sharing program, 70/30 split, between the Extension Service and PACE. Any funds generated can continue to sustain additional course development. Consider how to frame the value of online programming for marketing, which may be able to help with program participation and access. We can’t always offer workshops throughout the year for many reasons: seasonal demands; the schedule of Extension personnel. Online programming may make it possible for individuals to access the knowledge sooner.

18

Part 4: Next Steps

The next step for our team is multifaceted and looks to expand regional impact. For example, our team members will use the curriculum to teach it across all three modalities: F2F, hybrid, and online. Soon, the F2F and hybrid GEP course will be distributed across eastern Oregon, southern Idaho, and northern Nevada. Meanwhile, the asynchronous online course will be available to everyone. During this phase, we will continue to assess impacts for use and gather feedback. Next, we will revise the course based upon the feedback received. We hope to expand to another ecological region with new Extension partners. This could be to other regions with different ecological threats in Utah, Wyoming, California, or any other region willing to modify the TBLM tool to fit their system.

19

Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19

impact.extension.org

Powered by