THE UNIVERSITY OF REDLANDS AND USDA FOREST SERVICE GRADUATE CERTIFICATE IN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT: A SHIFT FROM TRADITIONAL TRAINING TO HIGHER EDUCATION By: Nan Jenks-Jay, James B. Pick and Teri C. Tompkins Abstract The University of Redlands and the USDA Forest Service cooperatively developed a Graduate Certificate Program in Environmental Management to meet a growing need for "continued education" for Forest Service employees which went beyond their traditional "training". The Program evolved as a result of the Forest Service's investment in GIS and commitment to have it widely utilized within the San Bernardino National Forest which they determined would require additional training for employees and entered into discussions with the University of Redlands. Instead of a offering a typical GIS course, the University and the Forest Service together created an innovative pilot program combining GIS with an integrated program of courses including: systems thinking, organizational learning and environmental decision making. Assessment following the first offering indicated that the information and delivery of the course offerings was the right mix. With a few modifications in the program and the subsequent success from applications that were being implemented within the Forest, the second offering of the program this Spring moved beyond the pilot stage and was expanded to include employees from three National Forests in CA and NM. Introduction Organizations that train their employees to use Geographic Information Systems (GIS) may be disappointed with the results of their training. The thesis of this paper is that training is not sufficient to implement GIS. We contend that education is necessary to connect the tools of GIS to the important strategic decision making that happens in organizations. In this paper, we discuss the evolution of a joint education program developed between the University of Redlands (University) and the United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (Forest Service). Training is an excellent tool to develop technological expertise of GIS, but it is not enough. Training is too narrow in focus because it limits itself to the tool, but not the full use of GIS. Education provides a space to take everything that a person has learned over his or her life's work and push it further. Education takes the best of theory and practice, from academics, and connects that to the best that the adult learner brings to the classroom, e.g., his or her accumulated experience and practice. Together, theory and practice, provide a foundation for the best use of GIS, that is, enhanced decision-making emerging from a broader understanding of data analysis assumptions, history, and organizational systems. The University of Redlands has a long history of "adult education" through its Alfred North Whitehead College for Lifelong Learning. Whitehead College serves adult learners in southern California from a basis of commitment to adult education. The University of Redlands is ranked fourth in private liberal arts colleges in the southwest region (U.S. News and World Reports, 1996, Fall). Its commitment to high quality adult education is paramount to the faculty, and thus is a natural part of Whitehead College's mission to work jointly with industry to develop curriculum that meets industry's needs for new thinking in terms of decision-making and problem solving. The Forest Service has a long history of "training" for its employees enabling them to remain current in their fields by attending classes offered both internally and through outside workshops. One's participation in training sessions is a key element in an employee's routine evaluation. In addition, it is frequently identified as a goal for future growth and development set by the employee and their supervisor. All levels of Forest Service employees have the opportunity to participate in a variety of training sessions during the year. Traditionally training includes a short, two to three day, session that introduces employees to technological advancements, improved practiced or new concepts related the Forest Service's mission. The benefits of training are: its relative low cost, short time required away from the workplace and exposure to new techniques and methodology. The University of Redlands and the Forest Service ventured to combine adult education with training to develop a unique teaching and learning experience. In this paper, we discuss the joint educational certificate program between the Forest Service and the University. First, we describe how the program evolved and was collaboratively developed by the University and the Forest Service. Next we explore the design of integration and the three courses that comprise the Certificate Program: (1) System Thinking and Organizational Learning, (2) Environmental Decision-Making, (3) GIS. Finally, we discuss evaluation, challenges, and success of the program, applications in the field, and we ponder the lessons learned in education. Course and Program Development Collaboratively The certificate program was developed collaboratively between the University and the Forest Service. The initial contact and idea wellspring took place in 1995 between the dean of Whitehead College and the forest supervisor for the San Bernardino National Forest. This was carried to small planning groups in both organizations, culminating in a joint meeting. At the joint meeting, there was a frank expression of expectations and goals. The Forest Service was interested in a certificate containing beginning to intermediate GIS courses, a practical environmental design course that referred to GIS, and a systems thinking course. The latter course was especially sought by the Forest Service, since they perceived that organizational impediments might be an issue for GIS implementation. This expanded approach to education desired by the Forest Service for their employees was a deliberate move from their existing emphasis on traditional training to a higher level of learning. Therefore, there was consensus that the certificate should be at the graduate level and provide university course credits. As a result of that initial meeting, a questionnaire was administered to a cross section of about 20 Forest Service employees, asking for details on their computing and GIS backgrounds, course preferences, and delivery options. Results indicated that they had moderate GIS/computer skills, and had great interest in areas of GIS, systems thinking/organizational learning and environmental decision making. The University and Forest Service subsequently agreed to the certificate program designed in response to input from the meetings and feedback from the questionnaire. However, the delivery format of offering still had to be determined, with the options of weeknights for 12 weeks, three intensive weekends with homework in between, or pre-work following by a two week, on-campus, intensive session. The Forest Service selected the latter format since it felt that its employees would be better able to concentrate away from the distractions of their daily work during an extended two week period on campus. The collaborative design has continued in the second year of the program. In this entire process of certificate design and improvements, there has been constant consultation between the University and Forest Service to design and refine the certificate program. We ascribe a great deal of the success of the program to this collaborative development environment keyed to the learners. The Forest Service described to the faculty what they desired to include as content and learning goals. The faculty refined and developed those concepts into courses. In the second offering, the program was modified based on feedback from learners who participated in the first courses. The intent is to continue the collaborative development of the certificate for future offerings as well. This element is important since the course subjects are dynamic and changing, and at the same time the Forest Service is an agency which has new and changing directives and goals. Description of Integration Integration of the three courses was planned at a number of levels. First, due to the intensity of homework required, the three courses needed to coordinate the amount and type of pre-course homework required. Second, the instructors needed to integrate topics and assignments during the course. The three primary instructors met for several months prior to the beginning of the course to develop syllabi that met the hoped for outcomes of the Forest Service and the University's faculty. Once the course began, the instructors met several times during the first of two weeks to evaluate the students learning and to modify the courses as needed. The program culminated in an integrated, capstone final project that was jointly designed by the three instructors and by the learners to apply techniques and methods from the courses to real issues and topics relevant to the Forest Service. The capstone group projects, incorporated aspects drawn from all three of the courses, is a method of evaluating participants learning at the end of the program. System Thinking and Organizational Learning New avenues for individual and for collective learning in organizations are opened with system thinking. Using the work of Peter Senge (1990, 1992, 1994) and ideas from other thinkers, the course engaged a system approach to problem identification, problem solving, and organizational learning. Beginning with one's experience as an individual, learners in this course considered a world that is relational and interdependent rather than fragmented into parts. Our actions and their effects are collective and the potential for learning and doing more exists when we identify and work at the interrelationships that form systems. The course included the practice of system thinking, identifying mental models, inquiring, advocating, dialoging and reflecting. The thrust of this course was to move theory to practice in ways that value critique and collaborative learning. Learning was demonstrated by writing, case analysis, and participation in class exercises. The course began with an overview of organizational learning and how individuals in groups and in leadership can improve it. The argument was made that individuals must work within teams, groups, and systems to accomplish work. If the individuals in this course could improve their ability to work in these systems, and use some of the tools of organizational learning, then organizational performance might be improved. Discussion and dialogue tools were introduced such as, the ability to advocate ones position using examples and data, and the ability to inquire into others position using open-ended, non-threatening questions. Practice using coaches and discussion circles helped cement the theoretical concepts. System thinking as theory and as practice is best understood within a context. The context in this course included the Forest Service and the industries related to environmental management. We reviewed the video "The Gods Must Be Crazy" to introduce the concept of paradigms for thinking and learning that embraced some of the notions of the movie. We briefly overviewed various system paradigms: classical, dynamic, communication, field, and evolutionary. Students then explored their own world views through a class exercise. Causal systems modeling and system archetypes were thoroughly explored through lecture, discussion, application, and practice. Environmental Decision Making The goal of the Environmental Decision Making course is to assist learners in developing a broad based, integrated approach to improved decision making. The environment is a dynamic and complex body of interrelated systems including biological, physical, cultural and socio/economic elements. Nothing poses a greater challenge to natural resource managers then planning for and maintaining the integrity of the environment. A broad scope of analytical tools and models are currently used in response to federal and state legislation that mandates environmental assessment and evaluation as part of the decision making processes. Conventional programs exist to evaluate impacts and risk. However, as the Forest Service moves towards its new mandate for "ecosystems management" there exists an increasing need for a more comprehensive and integrated approach to environmental decision making. Issues and consequences can no longer be viewed in a monodisciplinary framework due to the complexity of the systems and the multiplicity and the diversity of the players involved in sorting out the best management directions. With the integration of systems thinking, organizational management, GIS with broad based environmental considerations has vastly improved the decision making processes as they evolve. The course starts with an historical overview of the Forest Service to create perspective regarding how its directives have changed over time in relation to where the agency is currently heading. Values and ethics of society and individuals are discussed in conjunction with a discussion about shifts in populations and changing demographics. Both are increasing use of and pressure on the Forests from a new profile of users who have differing cultural and personal values that are no longer rural in nature. In conjunction with these changing trends in users, the Forest Service is undergoing its own internal shift in paradigm which becomes the next focus of the course. One Example is a move towards sustaining ecosystems from sustainable yield (Forest Service Report - R5-EM-TP-001, 1995). Another is a growing recognition that Forest Service employees have gradually become more diverse and that the majority think of themselves as "environmentalists" (USDA Forest Service Report NC-172, 1994). New tools and strategies for data base standardization, modeling, monitoring impacts and assessment are introduced to develop an improved decision support system. Techniques to improve communications and relationships are discussed due to the expanding need for the Forest Service to look beyond its borders and to build bridges outside the Forest Service in addition to developing consensus and establishing partnerships (Kohm and Franklin, 1997). A specialist in conflict resolution and consensus building joins the class for a day to demonstrate and role play new ways to move beyond barriers and achieve better collective decisions. The course draws to a close around the topic and issues included in ecosystems management. In addition to readings, lectures, discussions and assignments, students are required to work on in-class exercises in groups to begin developing effective methods to solve environmental problems. The culminating capstone project also requires the learners to work collaboratively as teams to solve environmental problems by drawing from material in all three classes in the program . GIS The GIS course attempts to blend a foundation of GIS concepts and theory with hands on learning of basic skills in the ArcView software. The course must offer enough to appeal to a range of student computing and GIS backgrounds ranging from near beginner to expert. The foundation GIS concepts covered include introduction to GIS, maps and map analysis, computers for GIS, spatial topology, sampling the world with GIS, global positioning systems, environmental and socioeconomic applications, systems development using GIS, and GIS as an integrative tool. Parts of this course content were based on the NCGIA Curriculum of 1990 (Goodchild and Kemp, 1990), while other parts refer more closely to the course textbook (Huxhold, 1991). In general, this course content introduces GIS at a number of different conceptual perspectives, including spatial-conceptual, applications-practical, technological, computing hands-on, organizational, and systems development. Since the students enter the course with many different backgrounds and strengths, the conceptual levels may be more or less difficult to grasp for different students. This is only a partial subset of the full content of the GIS subject, but there are inherent limitations in a 2 unit course that also has a laboratory segment. The labs cover practice with the fundamental features and functions of ArcView through a tutorial and series of four gradated labs. The first three labs are fairly structured and even "cookbook" in nature. The final lab is a group decision-making problem on the earthquake risk to the city of Redlands. It is based on Esri's Redlands demo coverage. Running through this course is the need continually to relate the GIS concepts and applications to Forest Service real world needs and problems. Discussions are geared often to asking what are the implications of GIS topics for the USFS. The classroom modes of the course are varied, and include lab, lecture, discussion, videos, and guest speakers. This varied mode is often recommended in the literature for teaching adults (Houle, 1992). Another approach recommended from the adult education literature is to encourage discussion-based teaching and drawing on experience. This is done through open discussions on a number of topics including computing technology and GPS, as well as drawing on students experiences in GIS and spatial analysis in the USFS. The GIS course has been evaluated extensively and the Forest Service students made the following recommendations, among others: lengthening the labs more, inclusion of more Forest Service data and applications, thinking from the start about the uses of GIS in the USFS. In the certificate program for 1997, a difference is that the program capstone exercise blends the subject matter from all three disciplines. The integration of GIS with the other disciplines is a more beneficial step in learning, since GIS relates so closely to the organizational behavior and structure and to environmental applications. Evaluation and Success; The faculty requested extensive evaluation after the first certificate offering in spring of 1996. Those results pointed to a number of areas for further development of the certificate. This was further supplemented by an evaluation meeting with key graduates and leaders from the USFS in fall of 1996. Among the recommendations included the following: increase the practical Forest Service applications for the GIS and environmental courses, increase course cross referencing and integration, organize and coordinate the pre-work more coherently between the three courses, improve certain facilities, try to give pre-training in ArcView software, and try to utilize FS GIS coverages and data in the labs. While all certificates might not be graduate level, this one was intentionally designed in this way, and faculty designers worked a level we found to be intellectually challenging. Since we were clear on the graduate nature of the certificate, we had to contend with how to include the graduate level quality and stringency into an intensive length, especially the intensive part. The certificate scheduling combines home pre-study with on-campus classes. The courses were scheduled with three months of independent academic work that culminated in two weeks on campus intensive study. This led us to place most of the homework in the pre-campus-intensive phase. This may have relied a lot on the students to be self-motivated at the beginning and able to be patient about some unresolved learning until the on-campus intensive segment. In the second certificate offering in spring of 1997, all of the Forest Service recommendations were attempted to be followed. However, two of them, a pre-workshop in ArcView skills and the USFS providing GIS teaching data, were not practical for the 1997 certificate. They will both be considered again for the future. Other student evaluation results confirmed the faculties sense of a greater need for course integration. The four key faculty involved in teaching the certificate program in its two offerings so far were full-time and drawn from two colleges of the university and four disciplines (information systems, environmental studies, organizational behavior, and management theory). Although the faculty had worked together administratively and as colleagues for years, they entered the certificate design and offering with very limited knowledge of each other's discipline perspective and certificate course content and goals. Unfortunately, the great opportunity to gain this knowledge during the certificate design phase and course implementation phase was not realized. We did not hear enough about each other's course content, teaching dilemmas, nor visit each other enough during the certificate offerings. The reason was time constraints both in design and during the on-campus intensive. The few times in which we were able to visit each others' class, the benefits and insights were enormous. For instance, we could then synchronize our class content and in-class exercises to be both complementary and non-duplicative. Likewise, we were able to learn from each other and gain knowledgeable insights. The second time the course was taught, this synchronization improved immeasurably. It is important to point out that a strength of our certificate approach is that it broadens the scope of the ordinary GIS certificate to include an application area i.e. environment and the organizational elements. This broader scope is beneficial practically, since GIS is always applied in an organizational context and since the application must be well understood to be successful. On the other hand, the broader certificate is more difficult to synthesize across disciplines. Yet, GIS is inherently a synthesizing systems approach that should foster interdisciplinary/multidisciplinary collaboration. Our recommendations for this type of certificate is for the collaborating faculty to pay close attention to each others goals and course design, going as far as doing some of the readings and assignments for the other courses and certainly sitting in for most of the other courses, at least the first time the program is taught. Lessons Learned in Education Adult learning involves three key components, (1) self-assessment, (2) reflection, and (3) action. The first component is self-assessment, which means identifying what each learner needs to learn in the course. We learned that in the beginning of the certificate program in both years students saw themselves as standing alone confronting or going along with a large bureaucracy that often overwhelmed them. They wanted common values and commitment to change from their fellow workers. They discovered that others wanted the same thing. The learners wanted to improve their personal mastery of organizational learning tools (dialogue, system thinking, archetypes), GIS tools (maps, topology, sampling, application), and decision-making tools (values, history, context). The second key component is reflection, which involves the adult learner becoming conscious of himself or herself as a thinker and as an actor in the world. We learned that learners assumptions about themselves and others changed over the two weeks. Journals, as well as pre- and post- assessment tools demonstrated that students understanding of course concepts deepened and could be applied to their work lives. The third component is action, which draws attention to the learner's behavior. Learners did much soul searching about how their past action (or lack thereof) influenced decision-making. They practiced new ways of acting that might change other's behavior toward them and their functional areas. Self-assessment, reflection, and action are the on-going questions of life-long learners. The course tried to raise many of these questions. Application in the Field Two examples illustrate how the integrated courses directly influenced applications in the field by the San Bernardino National Forest Service following the first offering of the Program in 1996. One involves fire management that is planning a program to develop a forest-wide GIS data base which can be accessed via laptop computers in field vehicles during forest-fire conditions. This access will improve decisions about fire management, for example, by knowing whether to let a certain area burn to benefit specific habitats for rare and endangered species when there is no danger to human life. The shared data base will also assist fire management to prevent against adverse impacts from potentially destructive, fire equipment such as bulldozers in fragile areas such as riparian zones and in areas that contain cultural resources or archeological sites. This example demonstrates how the various entities within the Forest can utilize a shared GIS data base to make decisions that collectively work towards the common good of the system and the Forest Service's goal of ecosystems management. A second example includes the San Bernardino National Forest's - Children's Forest program for youths using Global Positioning Systems (GPS) to map various features within the forest and contribute to the shared GIS data base for the Forest. Grant funding enabled the Children's Forest to create positions and hire two employees with GIS experience in the past year in order to continue the expanding of this program. A partnership evolved with the University, the Forest Service, and 12 local schools to provide 2 teachers per school and their students in the surrounding region with GIS and GPS workshops and support. It is too early to ascertain the success of new innovations, programs and partnerships that will hopefully result from the second course taught this Spring. However, with representation from three National Forests this time, one in New Mexico and two in California, the likelihood is good for joint collaboration among these "southern forests" that share many similar issues. Discussions among the learners certainly sparked several possibilities for future cooperation. Conclusion In designing this certificate program, we could have just provided technical training in GIS and we would have met the surface-level needs of the U.S. Forest Service. But when thinking about data gathering and decision-making of GIS, training does not help make better decisions. We must use education to examine data gathering, assumptions, sense making, and decision-making. This makes the best use of GIS. Just as learning the technical aspects of word processing didn't make people smarter, neither does understanding the technical aspects of GIS. Organizational learning through education connects the new technologies with new ways of thinking about how to make decisions and how to learn something about practice and alter it because of that learning. Companies that need only technological training should go to the marketplace where they can get it cheaper and faster, but companies that want to connect practice and theory, and use that learning to make strategic decisions and energize their businesses should consider education instead. References Goodchild, M.F. and K.K. Kemp. 1990. Introduction to GIS: NCGIA Core Curriculum. 3 vols. University of California, Santa Barbara: National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis. Houle, Cyril O. 1992. The Literature of Adult Education. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Huxhold, William E. 1991. An Introduction to Urban Geographic Information Systems. New York: Oxford University Press. 269 pp. plus appendices. Kohm, K.A. and J.D. Frannklin. 1997. Creating a Forest for the 21st Century: The Science of Ecosystem Management. Washington, DC: Island Press. Senge, P.M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline. NY: Currency-Doubleday. Senge, P.M., and J.D. Sterman. 1992. Systems thinking and organizational learning: Acting locally and thinking globally in the organization of the future. In Transforming Organizations, T.A. Kochan, M. Useem (Eds.). New York: Oxford University Press. Senge, P.M., C. Roberts, R. B. Ross, B. J. Smith, and A. Kleiner. 1994. The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook. NY: Currency-Doubleday. USDA Forest Service. 1994. Change in the USDA Forest Service: Are We Heading in the Right Direction? Technical Report NC-172. Washington, DC. USDA Forest Service. 1995. Sustaining Ecosystems: A Conceptual Framework. Report R5-EM-TP-001. Washington, DC. U.S. News and World Report. 1996. "America's Best Colleges: 1997 Annual Guide." U.S. News and World Report, September 16. Authors Nan Jenks-Jay Director and Hedco Professor Environmental Programs University of Redlands 1200 E. Colton Ave. Redlands, CA 92373 phone- (909) 793-2121 ext. 2926 fax- 909 7932029 e-mail- jenksjay@uor.edu James B. Pick Chairman and Professor Management Business Department Alfred North Whitehead College for Lifelong Learning University of Redlands 1200 E. Colton Ave Redlands, CA 92373 phone- (909) 793-2121 ext. 4147 fax- 909 7932029 e-mail- pick@uor.edu Teri C. Tompkins Asst. Professor Management Business Department Alfred North Whitehead College for Lifelong Learning University of Redlands 1200 E. Colton Ave. Redlands, CA 92373 phone- (909) 7932121 ext. 4168 fax- 909 7932029 e-mail- tompkins@uor.edu