STED Meeting Notes from September 23-24, 2004,
Reston, Virginia

Thursday, September 23rd , 2004

Present: Laure Wallace, Alan Ward (OED); Mike Nolan (representing OSW); Steve Sorenson, Francesca Wilde (OWQ), Tom Reilly (OGW), Steve Blanchard (Water Senior Staff representative); Rotational members: John Trommer, Donna Schiffer, Micelis (Clyde) Doyle. By phone: John Terry and Betsy Daniel.

Office of Water Quality representative Steve Sorenson will be retiring next week. Franceska Wilde is his replacement on the committee.

Alternative Course Delivery-Technology Enabled Learning (TEL)

(Alan Ward/ Mike Nolan)

• NTC use declined 15 percent per year since 2000.
• Districts not sending staff to training center
• Important to provide national programs with nationally consistent training, particularly in view of regionalization.
• Many tools used to develop CD-based and/or web-based training (not easily easy to use the software authoring tools). Director, Flash, Dreamweaver
• USGS does not have infrastructure to support specialized course developers
• Cost of just the Rating curve analysis class to develop by contractor is over $200K. Static class, we don't own the material. We are not in this 'league' for training development.
• Current classes that have been developed (Wading measurements, Surface water field methods) are not linked together in any form of Learning Management System (LMS).
• LMS is essentially a large Training database, capable of tracking enrollment, hours, as well as providing on-line training. Some authoring tools will be in the new LMS.
• USGS and DOI will have an LMS sometime next year (GeoLearn)
• Mike Nolan tested Macromedia product 'Breeze,' which converts Power Point files into Flash, efficiently delivers content over the Web. It is very user friendly and uses a Power Point presentation and your notes. ("Mature" Power Point presentation with complete annotation notes for each slide.) The notes associated with each slide make the product 508 compliant .
• Can add narration and video clips if wanted, assessment tests and exercises..
• Took Mike about 3 hours to convert 18 slides, learn Breeze and build the training module.
• Would other people putting training classes on be willing to do this? (Converting their course to this type of product.)
• "Blended" learning, when you have both web-based content and interaction with instructor. (Requires class exercises also.)
• "Breeze Live" allows for instructor to periodically review class exercises with students.
• The new LMS will have the authoring tools to create these on-line courses but the expectation is that it will have a steep learning curve and require a lot of assistance from someone like TJ Lane at NTC to help the Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) to put a course together.
• Converting Breeze modules and training results into the new LMS may require extra steps and additional costs.
• Subject Matter Experts still have a fair amount of responsibility and control even with these on-line courses.
• QWDATA Toolbox course already has PPT presentations on the web. All lectures from the 2-week Field methods (QW) course also are in PPT.
• This would be an excellent tool for review of specific topics also, such as alkalinity titrations.
• Kevin Oberg and ADCP training, use this tool as a precursor to the class that would beheld including field methods.
• TJ Lane (NTC) could be a QA person to work with the instructors/Subject Matter Expert.
• How do we get the SMEs involved and how do we pay for their time? This is more of an issue for District staff than for Technical office staff or NRP.
• Alan thinks we may have 10 courses or so that we would like to see converted to an alternative format. Prioritized list initially from EDNA.
• TJ Lane is working on creating a standard for instructional design.
• Breeze has the advantage of being fairly simple and straightforward to use. We have a better chance of producing several of these on-line courses within a relatively short period of time if we go with this type of user-friendly product, even with the functionality that may be present within the coming LMS.
• LMS is a fairly comprehensive tool, and we are not even sure when we are going to get it.
• We don't even have a Beta module of the web authoring tools within the new LMS to test. We've heard that you need background in Dreamweaver, ColdFusion, and instructional methods to use the LMS tool.
• We should find a tool that would allow us to get 3-4 courses out a year rather than just one with the LMS. Leaning toward Breeze for the alternative course delivery to avoid the bottleneck of LMS authoring tool.
• Estimate 60K to 70K initial cost of Breeze. (Government 'Bundle' for 60K is 25 concurrent users, 3 concurrent authors, can be ramped up as demand increases.) Annual support and maintenance fee is 17-20K. (Technology Enabled Learning)
• Charge a nominal fee for all on-line training? Could fund Subject Matter Experts time and the annual support and maintenance.
• Why Alternative Course Delivery? Because of reduced numbers at NTC, concern that there are too few trainers for the courses we need to teach. Training needs are unequally met because of financial considerations. Assembling a collection of training modules for the most popular courses would make the training available to a much larger audience.
• Making use of this alternative course delivery approach would help ensure consistency of training nationally.
• Options:
• Use Breeze and allow for course instructors/SMEs to get their courses out now.
• Use Breeze with assistance from TJ Lane for course development in Breeze (the disadvantage here is that TJ has other duties and relying too much on her could cause delays)
• Wait for the LMS authoring tool (which from all accounts will not be user friendly)
• Developing a 'training toolbox' consisting of small modules for the most in-demand courses. (The whole course would not need to be converted.)
• WIFM for SMEs: Reducing travel and time to deliver training, publication credit, offering consistency, archiving of training materials, increase number of people able to be trained, allows for others to teach the course, allows for pre-course training.
• Macromedia Breeze is SCORM compliant, so it is transferable to another software package. Thus, when the LMS becomes available we will have a way of porting the work that has been done to date to the new system (for a price of course).

RECOMMENDATION:

• Support OED purchase of Breeze license and present initiative to the Water Senior Staff at October meeting.

ACTIONS:

• Alan will work with Macromedia to develop options for more developmental licenses and concurrent users.
• STED will continue to work on options to pay developer time.

Description of the New Learning Management System (LMS)

(Laure Wallace)

• Puts a lot of elements into one system.
• Workforce Planning
• Database of skills for every occupation, identify skill gaps and courses needed, which leads you to link and register for courses, does a needs assessment if specific courses are not available
• Takes over the old TMS functions of registration for courses and tracking training.
• Links to on-line courses and allows the user to take courses. Course performance results are stored in the LMS. Each individual has a profile.
• Competency management, including 360 degree evaluation.
• Trials going on across DOI including our NTC courses. The LMS will be Department wide, not just USGS.
• GeoLearn is the software. Expect licenses in another 30 days, option for full use next October, will start testing sometime in February.
• GeoLearn has a package like Breeze within it. It is complex and has steep learning curve.
• Employee Development/Training must be promoted emphasized at uppermost management levels (Director) to 'make it happen'
• There is an E-commerce piece that can be applied to Macromedia Breeze that could enable charging for the on-line courses.

Graduate School Replacement Program-
Advanced Technical Training Program

(Donna Schiffer and Laure Wallace)

Selling this to Senior staff-need to build a good business case. Differentiate between the need for 'Operational' training and strategic scientific training.

• Mission of the STED committee is to promote scientific excellence through employee development.

• Proposal: One pot of funds, but two options. Providing District matching funds would make the proposal more attractive for funding (seed money), but all proposals would be evaluated based on consistent criteria:

• Linkage to critical needs in science directions nationally

• Applicant characteristics/qualifications

• Cost/benefit evaluation by the selection committee.

• Request $300,000 total funding, distributed between the two options depending on the proposals received. Proposals would be accepted with and without District matching funds.

RECOMMENDATION:

• Request a slot in January on the Water Senior staff meeting agenda and present options at that time. Program should be equivalent to one-full year of academic training, not just a few courses. Set initial program cost at $300,000.

ACTIONS:

• Donna and Laure will develop list of hours by semester/trimester, that are equal to one year of training.

• Develop examples of the range of costs for proposals that might be expected.

• Discuss with Tammy Bagley (RMO, Western Region) issue raised by Bob Hirsch re: District overhead funds and how this would be accommodated in the 'matching' option of this program.

• Donna will poll some District chiefs about this idea, particularly former recipients of the graduate school program benefits. (Jim Nicholas, Bob Holmes, others?) Possibly address WR District Chiefs (OWLS), who are meeting in Sacramento in November (Mike Nolan has a time slot in that meeting)

Development of a Survey for District Chiefs (Laure Wallace)

Laure proposed submitting a questionnaire to District chiefs to ask for input on training, cancellation of NTC courses, etc.; and report on response to Listserver memo (Laure)

• Suggested sending the questionnaire to the 4 Chairs of the Regional District chiefs' (Brian Mrazik, John Terry, Mike Shulters, SE?) who could provide some feedback before distribution.

RECOMMENDATION:

• Develop a survey for distribution.

• ACTION: Laure will work with Francesca to refine questions and send back to the committee for review and comment.

OED Overview (Laure Wallace)

Responsible for administration of NTC and Regional courses (that are announced through NTC)

• NTC-only 30 to 35 percent usage of the facility by WRD. Declining numbers since 2000.
• Admin training is a big part of OED responsibilities. Skills assessment/gaps of admin staff recently completed.
• Information Resources Management: IRM, Includes IT, 508 compliance.
• Expert Witness Training
• Joint Fact-Finding course taught in September (JFF), looking toward future integrated science.
• Supervisory Challenge course (Betsy): 2001 started the course, taught 4 times each year. Provides a comprehensive course on human resources management, ethics, leadership, OAS survey and how to respond, Personnel, EEO issues. When possible, course attendees make contact with the Associate Directors, or Regional Executive during the course. New supervisors are required to receive 80 hours training (40 first year, 40 second year).
• There is a need to develop courses on interpersonal communications skills, especially for supervisors. There are 3 courses that have been deployed this year. (One in each region).
• Mentoring program (Kim Miller, W. VA, new Mentoring Program coordinator)
• Leadership, Supervisory training, mentoring programs are all subsidized by Bureau funding, as well as the infrastructure and staff for the NTC in support of Science and Tech training. .
• No technical training is subsidized by the Bureau-probably because technical training is Discipline specific, and OED serves all USGS and base funds are focused on cross-bureau training initiatives.
• Upgrades at NTC: SmartBoards, new chairs. Alan is primary contact for NTC. NTC no longer has a 'director'. Dianne Jeffries is the chief of the center and the rest of OED operations.
• OED manages the Training Management System.
• TMS + EDNA together will be replaced by the new LMS
• Core competency Model for Managers and Supervisors-USGS is developing a model for the USGS and our work is the first being done at Interior for managers and supervisors.

EDNA (Betsy Daniel)

What we might do in the future

• Participation: 2000 (98%); 2001 (100%); 2003 (50%)
• Possible discussion at WR District chiefs meeting in November: How would you like to see the data collected on training needs? Some District offices have Access databases, but these are in the Districts and not accessible to the Regions or nationally.
• Bill Sexton (Western Region Executive for Water) wants the Needs assessment to be linked to actual courses taken so that he can evaluate what we said we need with what actions we have taken. (Based on discussions that Laure and Alan had with Bill Sexton this week.)
• Steve Blanchard indicated that 90 percent of the technical training needs are assessed through the Discipline office technical reviews (16 Districts reviewed per year).
• Alan thinks when the new LMS is up and running, it may be possible to capture training needs twice annually.
• Based on the use of the EDNA data by Districts and the poor linkage between EDNA input and actual NTC training course attendance, the STED will recommend to Bob Hirsch that we not populate the EDNA database next year. IDPs will still be part of annual performance reviews though.

Future Topics for Committee

• How are we providing foundational training for Hydrologists and Hydrologic Technicians in those key areas that once were covered by Level I and Level II training courses? The committee could discuss what courses should be part of every WRD Hydrologist and Hydrologic Technician's background and then discuss ways in which this training could be provided for the least cost.
• Laure noted that this topic ties in with Workforce planning and the discussion of core competencies in these job series. This training would ensure staff have these 'core competencies.' As a minimum, some guidance could come out for District supervisors and District Chiefs.
• Friday, September 24th , 2004
• Presentations to Bob Hirsch on STED activities, primarily on Alternative Training Delivery (web-based) and the Advanced Technical Training Program (replacing the Graduate School program)
• The mission of the STED is to ensure the scientific excellence of water resources programs within the USGS, and meet the challenges of new science directions. We see this as addressing two areas of concern:
1. operational needs
2. strategic training for future science directions

Technology Enabled Training (delivery of courses through the web, addressing operational needs) addresses the operational needs of the WRD.

(Presentation by Mike Nolan)

• Alternative Course Delivery: Presentation of the course he has developed on Records computation using Macromedia Breeze.
• Many opportunities to produce training modules on short topics that would not justify sending people to training center (eg., current meter care)

Advanced Technical Training Program (Presentation by Donna Schiffer)

Will be proposed to Water Senior Staff at next meeting (January)

• One pool of funds-requesting $300,000
• Two primary options: full funding or matched with District
• Selection committee comprised of national, regional, and District representatives
• Flexible program allows for individuals to design their own program of study
• No relocation requirement
• Consistent criteria for selection.
• Bob indicated that using the term training refers to preparing for specific tasks, whereas education is more broad, so he recommended changing the name of the program to include education rather than training. Advanced Scientific Education Program?
• Recommendation from Bob Hirsch: Add an NWIS representative to this committee.
• Question from Bob Hirsch: How would District overhead be handled for candidates in the Advanced Education Program if they were to use District matching funds? (Donna will follow up with Tammy Bagley, WR RMO about this.)
• Bob Hirsch asked for more data for the January presentation of the Advanced Education Program. That is, provide some examples of the costs of different types of proposals, to evaluate how much the program might cost. (Consider range of costs and number of potential candidates who could be funded.)
• Discussed courses for technicians to become hydrologists, however, often Districts pay for the few courses that typically are required (math, physics, chemistry).
• Other comments from Bob:
• In response to suggestion of Level I and Level II training replacement:

Concerned about how we provide for our employees recognition that we are part of a national organization.

How do we maintain the integrity of national programs - this type of training would address part of that need.