Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
  • Like
Technology Training in the California Community College System
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Now you can save presentations on your phone or tablet

Available for both IPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Technology Training in the California Community College System

  • 475 views
Published

Currently, @ONE serves approximately 10% of the nearly 85,000 faculty and staff from all 112 community colleges in the system. @ONE’s goal is to provide relevant technology training to faculty and …

Currently, @ONE serves approximately 10% of the nearly 85,000 faculty and staff from all 112 community colleges in the system. @ONE’s goal is to provide relevant technology training to faculty and staff by providing these services at a minimal cost to both individuals and colleges/districts. In an effort to meet this goal, @ONE contracted a team of undergraduate College of Business students at California State University San Marcos to conduct a market study of California Community College faculty and staff regarding their current technology training, their personal preferences, and emerging technology needs and to then provide recommendations based on the data collected from that study.

Published in Education
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
475
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2

Actions

Shares
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. o Technology Training in the California Community College SystemPrepared for: Micah Orloff, Interim Director @ONE Project Prepared by California State University San Marcos students: Ryan Ellerd Kimberly Ellis Leslea Pedersen Anna Stirling
  • 2. TECHNOLOGY TRAINING IN THE CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM | 3 “The California Community College system is the largest system of higher education in the world, with 72 districts, 112 campuses, and 70 educational centers” ~ Governor Brown, 2013 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PROBLEM Currently, @ONE serves approximately 10% of the nearly 85,000 faculty and staff from all 112 community colleges in the system. @ONE’s goal is to provide relevant technology training to faculty and staff by providing these services at a minimal cost to both individuals and colleges/districts. In an effort to meet this goal, @ONE contracted a team of undergraduate College of Business students at California State University San Marcos to conduct a market study of California Community College faculty and staff regarding their current technology training, their personal preferences, and emerging technology needs and to then provide recommendations based on the data collected from that study. STATE OF TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION Before you can comprehend the full impact of the problem, you must first understand the current state of technology in higher education. Technology is infiltrating our society at a rapid pace; however, some higher education institutions have been slow to integrate a variety of these technological tools as part of the teaching and learning process. Technology addresses many of the needs students have such as accessibility and different learning styles. Implementing technology provides students with options beyond the traditional approach to teaching in higher education (via classroom lectures) that encourages more engagement in the learning process. In addition to slow processes, faculty training and development in areas of education technology, and budget constraints, add to the delay of implementation. At this time, all 112 colleges have sovereignty, allowing them to determine and provide technology training based on the needs and wants of their individual communities. In addition to a deficit in policy, recent state budget cuts have targeted existing training and development programs at many institutions. The current California Governor feels so strongly that technology is important in higher education that his proposed budget pushes for extreme advancements to be applied.
  • 3. The Governor’s Proposed Budget Summary explains that the California Community College system will receive “an augmentation of $16.9 million to increase the number of courses available to matriculated undergraduates through the use of technology” (Brown, 2013). APPROACH The team decided on two methodologies to gather the most reliable and current data regarding educational technology training in the California Community College system: (1) a website review of all 112 California Community Colleges and (2) an online survey targeted at faculty and staff of these institutions. During the website review the team looked for three specific criteria: variety of modalities, specific topics of current training, and if @ONE services were included as part of the existing training program. The survey functioned as the main source in collecting primary data and received just over 1,500 responses from faculty, staff and administrators of the California Community College system. The details and results of each methodology are discussed in this report. A summary of the key findings is presented here. KEY FINDINGS  Website Review Findings  The website review showed that 36% of colleges provided some sort of on-site training, 35% provided online training and 29% provided means for off-site training  The team also found that 27% of colleges provided training on topics of pedagogy, 26% on resource links, 30% offered CMS/LMS training, and 14% provided training on software/tools  58% of websites reviewed had no mention of @ONE services  Survey Findings  Faculty and/or staff from 109 of 112 colleges participated in the survey  83% of respondents indicated that their college provides some sort of technology training, 94% indicated this was on-site training, 57% stated they have access to online training and 54% said their college provides one-on-one training  92% of respondents receive information about technology training via college/district email  66% of respondents said they participated in technology training last year  Of the respondents who said they did not participate in training, 24% reported scheduling constraints as the primary reason for not attending any training  90% of respondents prefer to receive communication about training via email
  • 4. TECHNOLOGY TRAINING IN THE CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM | 5  Over 50% of respondents prefer to receive training in face-to-face workshops  51% of respondents are interested in learning more about new trends in distance education and online course delivery  Faculty & staff are willing to travel an average of 20 – 50 miles for technology training  An overwhelming majority of respondents are not willing to pay for technology training  More people reported owning smartphones than any other device  The majority of respondents were between the ages of 51-60 years of age  42% of faculty who currently, or plan to, teach online rate their skill level for creating online video lectures at none or do not use  Over 50% of respondents had no knowledge of @ONE, and only 21% had participated in an @ONE training RECOMMENDATIONS After reviewing the data gathered from both methodologies, the team provided marketing, service, and staffing recommendations to @ONE which they believe will aid in reaching their goal to provide relevant technology training to faculty and staff at an affordable cost to both individuals and colleges/districts. A complete list of recommendations is included in the report; a summary of the key recommendations is presented here. KEY RECOMMENDATIONS  Marketing Recommendations:  @ONE needs broader exposure to its consumers via local email. Consider creating a distribution list of individual college public relations offices to gain access to local email distribution channels.  Repurchase the cccone.org domain name to redirect incorrect links to the current @ONE website.  Service Recommendations  Increase face-to-face training opportunities. Explore regional training where participants can travel under 50 miles to reach the event.  Increase offerings focused on new trends in distance education and online course delivery  Increase training designed for classified staff, specifically IT professionals  Staffing Recommendations  Increase staff to support expansion of @ONE services  Consider training regional experts available for subcontracting
  • 5. TECHNOLOGY TRAINING IN THE CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM | 7 CONTENTS Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................3 Introduction.................................................................................................................................9 The Importance of Technology in Higher Education ............................................................... 9 Challenges Facing the Community College System ..............................................................10 Government Invests in Technology for Higher Education ......................................................11 @ONE Project.......................................................................................................................12 Objective............................................................................................................................13 Understanding of Technology and Training........................................................................13 Services Provided by @ONE .............................................................................................13 Methodology .............................................................................................................................15 Methodology 1: Website Review............................................................................................15 Methodology Results .........................................................................................................15 Limitations..........................................................................................................................16 Methodology 2: Survey..........................................................................................................16 Methodology Results .........................................................................................................17 Topic 1: Current Professional Development/Technology Training...................................17 Topic 2: Personal Preferences .......................................................................................22 Topic 3: Demographics...................................................................................................26 Limitations..........................................................................................................................30 Recommendations....................................................................................................................31 Marketing Recommendations................................................................................................31 Service Recommendations....................................................................................................33 Staffing Recommendations....................................................................................................34 Conclusion................................................................................................................................35 Works Cited ..............................................................................................................................36 Appendix A: Survey Instrument.................................................................................................37 Appendix B: Survey Data ..........................................................................................................51
  • 6. TECHNOLOGY TRAINING IN THE CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM | 9 INTRODUCTION This report has been prepared by a team of undergraduate students at California State University San Marcos (CSUSM) under supervision from an academic advisor. Students in the College of Business Administration at CSUSM participate in a culminating academic project called Senior Experience. “The Senior Experience Program matches teams of students with projects submitted by local businesses and organizations. Students gain by working as consultants on rigorous, real-world projects that require teamwork and application of classroom knowledge.” (CoBA, 2013) This report analyzes market research for professional development, specifically focusing on technology training, in the California Community College System. THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGY IN HIGHER EDUCATION Technology is infiltrating our society at a rapid pace. However, some higher education institutions have been slow to integrate a variety of these technology tools as part of the teaching and learning process, as a means to enhance student learning, in the classroom. Today’s fast paced world places demands on students’ time and attention that didn’t exist even a decade ago. In many cases, balancing the home/school/work life has forced students to become time jugglers. To meet the demands of this new generation of students and keep education high on the list of priorities, colleges must find a way to compete. Technology can be part of that answer. Technology addresses many of the needs students have such as accessibility and different learning styles. For example, due to a snowstorm that caused Shoreline Community College to close down, Guy Hamilton, a biotechnology professor, used technology to record and post lectures online for his students to access because they were unable to attend class. Hamilton found that those students had exam scores 15-20% above the average as a result of watching the lectures online (Walsh, 2013). Mobile learning, known as m-learning, is another technology that can address accessibility. With mobile devices like smartphones and tablets becoming more popular, educational applications can take advantage of space that used to be reserved for entertainment. In an article from the Computers & Education Journal, Cheon, Lee, Crooks, & Song, write, “Based on the features of m-learning, four types of learning approaches can be supported by mobile devices, including individualized learning, situated
  • 7. learning, collaborative learning, and informal learning” (p. 1054). Being able to reach students outside the traditional classroom can also address different learning styles. There are three main types of cognitive learners: auditory learners, visual learners, and kinesthetic learners (Indiana University - Perdue University Indianapolis, 2010). Technology can implement strategies not only designed specifically for each type of learning style, but can also integrate all three for maximum retention. Implementing technology provides students with options beyond the way higher education has traditionally been taught (via classroom lectures) that encourages more engagement in the learning process. The NMC Horizon Report: 2013 Higher Education Edition, a highly accredited and internationally recognized report in the education industry, explains why technology has not been integrated as it should be despite the needs, wants, and benefits recognized by faculty and staff stating that, “Too often it is education’s own processes and practices that limit broader uptake of new technologies.” (Johnson, 2013). This report shows that slow processes create a problem in the progression of technology implementation in higher education. This is part of the reason why education has not reached its full technology potential, why it lacks the digital aspect and demands to meet the digital skills of the modern students, and how it can hinder their learning as a whole. CHALLENGES FACING THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM In addition to slow processes, faculty training and development in areas of education technology and budget constraints add to the delay of implementation. The Horizon Report concurs by saying, “Despite the widespread agreement on the importance of digital media literacy, training in the supporting skills and techniques is rare in teacher education and non- existent in the preparation of faculty.” (Johnson, 2013) The ability to train faculty and staff on new technology faces additional challenges in the California Community College system. At this time, community colleges are not required to follow a clearly defined set of standards when it comes to each institution’s professional development. All 112 colleges have sovereignty allowing them to determine and provide professional development, including technology training, based on the needs and wants of their individual communities. Micah Orloff, Interim Director for @ONE, points out, “It’s because California’s pretty diverse. It’s kind of like districting in government. There’s different districts that have different needs and so to have one voice try to say well everybody should feel this way, I think that’s where you get a lot of your tension and blowback” (Orloff, 2013). While this provides freedom, it causes a disparity in services provided and the level of professional development Figure 1: CA Community Colleges face challenges related to institution sovereignty and budget cuts
  • 8. TECHNOLOGY TRAINING IN THE CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM | 11 to be drastically different from institution to institution. One institution may have a well- developed professional development website and training program, while another institution may have minimal or insufficient professional development resources available to their faculty and staff. While there are currently no policies in place which require community colleges to meet or provide minimal professional development offerings across the state, the Student Success Task Force Recommendations Report recognized that a need exists stating: Ongoing professional development is a fundamental component of supporting the systemic change that will improve student success. Without a sustained and focused approach to professional development, individual institutions, let alone an entire educational system, cannot expect to change attitudes, help faculty and staff rethink how their colleges approach the issue of student success, and implement a continuous assessment process that brings about iterative improvement. The Board of Governors and the Chancellor’s Office should embrace a statewide, highly visible leadership role related to professional development. (2012) In addition to a deficit in policy, recent state budget cuts have targeted existing training and development programs at many institutions. Many colleges try to provide training programs using general funds, but due to the fiscal climate in California, this has proven impossible in recent years. To supplement the loss of general funds, schools have turned to outside grants and the Basic Skills Initiative as sources of funding for professional development. Unfortunately, these have proven to be insufficient to provide more than short-term programs or one-time workshops. The task force acknowledged that providing sustained engagement activities will provide a better chance to bring about the change needed to increase student success saying, “Faculty, staff, and administrators need consistent, thoughtful, and productive professional development activities that are linked to a state agenda for student success.” Recommending that, “The Board of Governors and the Chancellor’s Office should embrace a statewide, highly visible leadership role related to professional development.” (Student Succes Task Force, 2012) This could potentially shift some of the financial responsibility from the individual institutions to the Chancellor’s Office. GOVERNMENT INVESTS IN TECHNOLOGY FOR HIGHER EDUCATION Many debates have taken place as to the role technology will play in higher education within the UC, CSU, and Community College systems. However, community colleges have become the primary focus of the California state government because it educates about 2.4
  • 9. million students every year. Edmund G. Brown, the Governor of California, points out, “The California Community College system is the largest system of higher education in the world, with 72 districts, 112 campuses, and 70 educational centers” (Brown, 2013). Because the California Community College system educates more students than any other system of higher education in the world, it is paramount to find ways to increase the number of students served while maintaining or keeping costs low. Governor Brown, in the Governor’s Proposed Budget Summary 2013-2014 report, includes technology as part of the solution: Community colleges funding will also increase by 5 percent in 2013‑14. It is expected that community colleges funding will grow significantly over the next several years. All institutions will be expected to use these increases to implement reforms that will make available the courses students need and help them progress through college efficiently, using technology to deliver quality education to greater numbers of students in high‑demand courses, improving course management and planning, using faculty more effectively, and increasing use of summer sessions(page 6). The Governor feels so strongly that technology is a large piece of the solution that, if enacted, the proposed budget pushes for extreme advancements in technology being implemented into the traditional learning environment of higher education. The Governor’s Proposed Budget Summary explains that the California Community College system will receive “an augmentation of $16.9 million to increase the number of courses available to matriculated undergraduates through the use of technology” (Brown, 2013).1 @ONE PROJECT @ONE is one of three major non-profit projects funded by the California Community College Chancellor’s Office under the Telecommunication and Technology Infrastructure Program (TTIP) to address technology and professional development in the California Community College System. In California there are two TTIP programs geographically separated into the North and South regions of California. @ONE is part of the TTIP south program (commonly referred to as “T Tip South” or TTIPS). @ONE provides technology training services to all community college faculty and staff for the entire state of California. 1 The information stated here is from the Proposed Governor’s Budget Summary report and may vary. The Governor’s Revised Budget report will be available in Mid-May 2013 and the final Enacted Budget will be available Summer 2013. You can find updated information by going to http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/.
  • 10. TECHNOLOGY TRAINING IN THE CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM | 13 OBJECTIVE Currently, @ONE serves approximately 8,500 of the nearly 85,000 faculty and staff from all 112 community colleges in the system, which is only about 10% of the population. @ONE aspires to increase the percentage of the population they are currently serving and would like to increase awareness about the training opportunities they provide either free or for a minimal cost. In an effort to reach these goals, @ONE would like to learn about faculty and staff’s current practices and preferences. First, what modalities do faculty and staff currently use to receive technology training and which modalities do they most prefer. Second, what technologies are faculty and staff receiving training on and which of those do they most prefer. This may include topics such as: Course Management Systems/Learning Management Systems (CMS/LMS), software/tools (Microsoft, Adobe), resource links (exterior tutorials), and pedagogy specific training. UNDERSTANDING OF TECHNOLOGY AND TRAINING Technology implementation and integration has been @ONE’s focus since its inception. @ONE understands the importance of technology in higher education institutions, and how important quality training is to successfully integrate technology into the classroom and workspace. @ONE helps faculty and staff who want or need to learn a wide range of technology skills, tools, or best practices by providing various options for training. @ONE understands that technology changes on a constant basis and makes every effort to ensure all their resources, instructional materials and methods are updated to reflect the most current advances in technology. This includes staying at the forefront of evolving trends in distance education, technology in the classroom, and updates to productivity software and information systems to meet the demands of all California Community College faculty and staff. SERVICES PROVIDED BY @ONE @ONE provides single topic technology training, an Online Teaching Certification Program, professional development event coordination, and co-hosts the annual Online Teaching Conference. @ONE currently provides training via three modalities: webinars, online courses, and traditional face-to-face workshops.  Webinars  Desktop webinars are one hour in length, focus on hot topics in education and/or technology, and are broadcast live usually twice monthly. The webinars are archived so that faculty & staff who are not able to attend the live broadcast can
  • 11. view the information at their convenience. These archived webinars are also valuable to professional development departments or staff to offer as on demand training resources. (@ONE, 2013)  Online Courses  Online courses are offered on a variety of topics including (but not limited to): best practices and pedagogy in online teaching, community & collaboration tools, understanding accessibility standards, designing effective assessments, course/learning management systems, basic and advanced use of technology tools, software applications, and information technology. Each course has a set start and end date, is four to five weeks long, requires approximately 10 hours of asynchronous engagement by the participant and is facilitated by expert faculty from the California Community College system. Self-paced courses are also offered for participants that are interested in exploring the information on their schedule. (@ONE, 2013)  Face-to-Face Workshops  Face-to-Face workshops, what many would consider “traditional” training, is offered to faculty and staff by @ONE either on-site or off-site. On-site workshops are designed for a specific college or district and are held for only the faculty and staff of that institution at one of their facilities. Off-site training is provided as either a one or two day conference at a location chosen by @ONE. These conference events are open to all California Community College faculty and staff. Technology training can be expensive. The Chancellor’s Office recognizes this and has made an effort to subsidize the cost of this training by funding the @ONE project. Currently @ONE provides its desktop webinars free of charge, online courses for $65 a course, and conference registrations for under $150 per participant2 (@ONE, 2013). @ONE’s goal is to continue providing relevant affordable technology training to faculty and staff by providing these services at a minimal cost to both individuals and colleges/districts. In an effort to meet this goal, @ONE contracted the team to conduct a market study of California Community College faculty and staff regarding their current technology training, their personal preferences, emerging technology needs and provide recommendations based on the data collected from that study. 2 On-site training fees vary depending on type and length of training. For more information visit @ONE Trainers Bureau website at http://onefortraining.org/bureau.
  • 12. TECHNOLOGY TRAINING IN THE CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM | 15 METHODOLOGY The team decided on two methodologies to gather the most reliable and current data regarding educational technology training in the California Community College system. First, the team conducted a website review of all 112 California Community Colleges. Second, they conducted an online survey targeted at faculty and staff at these institutions. Each approach required an extensive amount of research in order to understand the relevance of technology training at the community college level. During the website review the team looked for three specific criteria: variety of modalities in technology training, specific topics of current training being offered, and if @ONE services were mentioned. The survey functioned as the main source in collecting primary data and was presented in three categories: current professional development and technology training activities, personal preferences, and demographic information. The details of each methodology are addressed in the sections below. METHODOLOGY 1: WEBSITE REVIEW METHODOLOGY RESULTS The team reviewed all 112 California Community College websites to gain a foundational understanding of what types of technology training are currently being provided and how that training is being delivered. To address the “how,” the team specifically looked for information presented in three modalities: online training (e.g. webinars, courses, video tutorials, and how- to documents); on-site training: (e.g. workshops, academies, and one-on-one consulting); and off-site training: (e.g. conferences, third party, and reimbursement/offer to pay). To analyze the “types” of training, the team examined four topics: course/learning management systems (CMS/LMS); software/tools; resource links; and pedagogy. By surveying these specific types and modalities of training, it allowed the team to complete an accurate comparison between the colleges. It also provided the team with knowledge about training that would later be used to develop survey questions for methodology two, discussed in the next section of the report. The team found through this research that 49 out of 112 websites provided some variety of on-site training, 50 out of 112 websites listed a form of online training, and 41 offered means for off-site training. Figure 2: Topics listed on college websites
  • 13. The team also found that 34 provided training on CMS/LMS, 16 delivered training on software/tools, 29 offered resource links, and 30 included information about pedagogy specific training. In addition to searching for types of training and delivery methods, the team looked for any reference or use of @ONE services on each college website and found that 28 sites had a correct link to @ONE’s website, 66 had no link or mention of @ONE, and 21 had a link to the old @ONE website (cccone.org). LIMITATIONS Due to the sovereignty of each college, the team found that there were no specific guidelines regarding how professional development was represented or advertised to faculty and staff, so there was no consistency among the websites. This produced a level of uncertainty in which areas of the websites to search when researching information on technology training. The team performed an extensive search of each college’s website to learn what, if any, technology training was mentioned or offered. Some websites did not mention any technology training whatsoever. However, it is possible that these colleges used another vehicle, such as email or flyer, to advertise technology training events. Some websites required a personal ID and password to access information regarding professional development, thus the team was unable to learn if any technology training was being offered by those colleges. Colleges that required log-in access were counted as no training in this report. The team also noticed that some of the websites changed or updated the information available after the initial review was performed. The team made an attempt to update their findings as they noticed changes, but without completing a persistent full review of all 112 colleges, the information stated here may be slightly inaccurate at the time of reading. METHODOLOGY 2: SURVEY The purpose of the survey was to gather current and relevant information about California Community College faculty and staff views and preferences regarding technology training at their college/district. Creating and distributing an electronic survey was determined to be the most practical method to accomplishing this. Using the foundational information gathered from the website reviews, the team developed a 25 question survey (an additional three questions were asked to participants who identified their role as faculty). Figure 3: Website review reference to @ONE website
  • 14. TECHNOLOGY TRAINING IN THE CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM | 17 The survey was created using Survey Monkey and tested by faculty and staff at California State University San Marcos, MiraCosta College and Mt. San Jacinto College for question clarity and relevance. After incorporating the feedback provided by the testers, the team sent the survey to TTIPS for distribution. The survey link was distributed from the e-mail address info@onefortraining.org with the subject line “Survey to Enhance Technology Training” to 51,032 unique emails throughout the California Community College system over 7 days on March 26 through April 1, 2013. The survey link remained active for a period of approximately two weeks, closing on April 5, 2013. To view the survey instrument see Appendix A. METHODOLOGY RESULTS Over the two week period (March 25 – April 5, 2013) 1561 faculty and staff responded to the survey, achieving a 3% response rate. The survey was organized into three topics: Current Professional Development/Technology Training Activity, Personal Preference, and Demographic Information. The survey included a variety of different question types; most were multiple choice, some were ratio and interval scale, and there was one open ended response question. The focus of the survey was to gain an understanding of what kind of technology training is currently being offered, the mode in which it is delivered, how often, and what is in demand. Additionally, data was collected on the demographics of the sample set. It was made clear that the survey was completely anonymous, all questions excluding the participant’s primary college were optional3 , and a copy of the results could be distributed at the request of the respondent. The analyzed survey results are listed below. TOPIC 1: CURRENT PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT/TECHNOLOGY TRAINING Question #1: Choose your primary college Of the 112 California Community Colleges, respondents from 109 colleges participated in the survey. Of those 112 schools, the top 5 response rates were from 7 schools: Mt. San Jacinto College (97), Sierra College (67), Pasadena City College & Community College of San Francisco (52), Diablo Community College (42), and Santa Monica 3 Because almost all questions were optional the response rate for each question varies. The number of responses for each question will be included in the results.
  • 15. College & Mt. San Antonio College (39). Three colleges had zero respondents participate in the survey: Feather River College, Los Angeles Southwest College, and West Los Angeles College. It is possible that MSJC had such a high response rate because @ONE has an office located on one of the MSJC campuses and access to distributing the survey via local email. Question #2: Does your college/district participate in the Flex program? In 1981 a change to the California education code allowed community colleges to designate up to 15 days out of the standard 175-instructional calendar days specifically for professional development. Colleges are allowed to structure these days as fixed, flexible, or a combination of the two, thus are referred to as Flex days or Flex Time. While colleges are not required to participate in this flexible calendar scheduling, 96% of colleges do, with an average of 5 days allotted for training, according to the Student Success Task Force Recommendation report. (Student Succes Task Force, 2012) The team wanted to find out if faculty were aware of this potential time to train at their primary college. 1544 respondents answered the question. 69% said that their college does participate in the Flex program, 4% said no, and 26% did not know if their college participated or not. Question #3: Does your college/district have a Professional Development Committee? Question #4: Does your college/district have a Professional Development Center, Staff Development Center, Faculty Resource Center, or something similar? Question #5: Does your college/district offer any type of technology training? In questions 3- 5 the survey asked participants about their existing knowledge of professional development at their primary college. Participants were asked if their primary college had a professional development committee, a professional development center (or something similar) or if their college offered any type of technology training. While none were exceptionally high, all of these variables have a positive correlation with each other as shown in the correlation matrix. The strongest correlation (slight) was between a college having a Resource Center, and offering some type of technology training. This positive correlation makes sense; if a college has a Professional Development Center it is more likely to provide training at that center. Figure 4: Does your college participate in the Flex program?
  • 16. TECHNOLOGY TRAINING IN THE CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM | 19 Correlation Matrix Flex PD Committee Resource Center Offer Tech Training Flex 1.00 PD Committee 0.21 1.00 Resource Center 0.11 0.23 1.00 Offer Tech Training 0.11 0.22 0.24 1.00 Question #6: Choose the types of training offered by your campus, whether you attended them or not. In question six, respondents were asked to choose all of the types of training that applied to their primary college from a list of training modalities. The option list included eight methods of delivery: on-site workshops, one-on-one training, off-site conference reimbursement, online courses (facilitated), online tutorials (video or document), Links to 3rd party training (ex: Lynda.com), and I don’t know what kind of training is offered at my campus. The most common method of delivery, as reported by participants, is on-site workshops demonstrated by a 94% response rate. Online tutorials (57%) and one-on- one training/consultations (54%) followed to complete the top three 77% 58% 83% 4% 23% 8% 19% 20% 9% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Question #3: Does your college/district have a Professional Development Committee? Question #4: Does your college/district have a Professional Development Center, Staff Development Center, or something similar? Question #5: Does your college/district offer any type of technology training? Yes No Don’t Know Table 2: Response Rates to questions 3-5 Percentages based on 1544 Responses Table 1: Correlation Matrix for questions 3-5 of the survey Figure 5: Types of training offered by colleges as reported by respondents
  • 17. delivery methods. Of the 1,222 responses, 58 (5%) did not know what kind of training was offered at their campus. Question #7: What topics are covered by the technology training at your college/district? In question seven, respondents were asked to choose all of the topics of training that were offered at their primary college from a list of training types. The option list included four training topics: CMS/LMS (Content/Learning Management System); software/tools; resource links; and pedagogy. The most common type of technology training offered is CMS/LMS. 84% of the 1,179 responses acknowledged this, with 78% of the responses acknowledging software/tools as the second most common type of technology training. Resource links and pedagogy were the least common types of technology training at 53% and 51% respectively. The information chosen by respondents was contradictory to the information the team found when conducting their website review. Respondents reported pedagogy as the least covered topic during training events, but the team found the most information about pedagogy topics. Question #8: How do you receive information about technology training offered at your college/district? Question eight was another question that asked respondents to choose all of the options that applied to them from a list of options. The list included six distribution options: college/district website, college/district e-mail, personal e-mail, social media, word of mouth, and other. The most common form of communication in which respondents receive information regarding technology training offered at their primary college is through college/district e-mail. This resulted in a response rate of 1,118 (92%) of 1,214. The next form of communication in which respondents receive information regarding technology training is through their college/district website at 487 (40%). More people learn about technology training by word of mouth (23%) than by social media (3%). If respondents chose other, they were asked to identify the other option. A dozen responses reported that their FLEX program was a source of communication along with approximately ten respondents reporting flyers as another source. Figure 6: How respondents receive information about technology training
  • 18. TECHNOLOGY TRAINING IN THE CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM | 21 Question #9: Did you participate in any technology training activities last year? There were a total of 1,214 responses to this question with 806 (66%) responding YES and 408 (34%) responding NO. This was a conditional question which directed respondents who answered “yes” to question #10, which asked about the type of technology training they attended, and those that selected “no” to question #11, which asked the respondent to choose a reason why they did not participate. Question #10: What type of technology training activity did you participate in? If participants said they participated in training they were asked to choose all of the types of training from a list of seven options: on-site workshops, one-on-one training/consultation, off-site conference (reimbursement), online courses (facilitated), online tutorials (video or document), links to 3rd party training (ex: Lynda.com), and webinars. There was a total of 802 responses with 689 (86%) of them reporting they attended an on- site workshops. This is a dramatic difference from the other options respondents chose: online tutorials with 272 (34%) of the responses, one-on-one training (31%), and webinar (30%). The high participation rate is supported by the high response rate that on- site workshops is the main type of training offered at most of the campuses among the California community colleges. Question #11: Select the primary reason you did not participate in any technology training activities last year: If participants stated that they did not participate in a technology training event, they were asked to choose from a list of reasons why, that included eight options: scheduling constraints (activities that conflicted with the activities), excessive workload, no interest to attend, inability to obtain release time from supervisor, did not need the training, lack of staff to cover my shift, I planned another development activity in lieu of these events, and other. There were 401 respondents who shared why they did not participate in technology training activities last year. Of this total, the majority, 95 (24%), reported having scheduling constraints followed by 80 (20%) who said they did not need the training and 76 (19%) who have an excessive workload. The least (3%) reported that they were unable to obtain release time to attend training. Some primary reasons mentioned for not participating in training were no training for part-time faculty, budget cuts, and not employed last year.
  • 19. TOPIC 2: PERSONAL PREFERENCES To better understand the needs of their consumer, @ONE is interested in their personal preferences when it comes to technology training. This section of the survey asked respondents a series of questions designed to gather this information. Respondents were asked about their personal technology training needs, how they prefer to receive technology training, how far they are willing to travel and how much they are willing and able to pay for training. Question 1: How do you most prefer to receive information about technology training? The first preference based question asked respondents to choose which type of communication they preferred from a list of six options: college/district email, personal email, college/district website, word of mouth, social media and other. There were 1,397 responses to this question and the vast majority (81%) responded they would prefer to receive information about technology training events via their college/district email. Trailing very far behind was personal email at 9%, college/district website at 7%; other, word-of-mouth and social media at 2%, 1% and 0% respectively. This data clearly shows how @ONE and community colleges can effectively, and should be, communicating with their faculty, staff, adjunct faculty, and administrators regarding technology training events. The majority of the respondents to our survey rated themselves excellent in using email, thus making this form of communication a natural fit. Question 2: How do you most prefer to receive technology training? Understanding how the consumer prefers to receive technology training will equip @ONE with an understanding of the best way to modify or adapt their current training schedule to suit the needs and wants of California Community College faculty and staff. If @ONE can successfully keep up with their consumer’s preferences, this could translate into more educators attending their courses. There were 1,395 responses to this question. Respondents were asked to choose one option from a list of six delivery methods: on-site workshops, one-on-one training/consultation, Figure 7: How respondents prefer to receive information about technology training
  • 20. TECHNOLOGY TRAINING IN THE CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM | 23 off-site conferences, online courses, online tutorials, or links to third party training. On-site workshops accounted for 52% of respondent’s preferences where off-site conference, only received 7% even when their costs are reimbursed. 15% of Respondents chose online tutorials (video or document), online courses (facilitated) were chosen by only 12%, and a mere 1% preferred links to third party training. The team determined that convenience is the key. The convenience of not having to leave the workplace or town to travel for training is the clear winner for over half of the respondents. People prefer being trained locally in a traditional classroom environment. Having the option of online training is attractive because it can be done from work or home and can be worked around a busy schedule. While @ONE does offer a limited amount of face-to-face training, it currently provides the majority of its training as online courses (with designated start and end dates) which only 12% of respondents preferred This is consistent with @ONE only serving about 10% of the state-wide community college faculty and staff. Question 3: What emerging technologies in education would you be interested in receiving training about? This question was asked in an effort to learn what areas of technology faculty and staff need training in to enhance their ability to perform their jobs in an environment where technology is growing exponentially. Faculty and staff need to stay up to date with educational technology in order to keep pace with students’ ever changing, rapidly expanding needs. Respondents were asked to choose all of the topics they were interested in from a list of fifteen. This list was comprised primarily of topics listed in the 2013 Horizon Report and included: MOOC (Massive Open Online Course), new trends in distance education/online course delivery, gamification/game based learning, web 2.0 tools, social media integration, cloud computing, tablet computing, Google applications/services, flipped classroom, mobile apps, the Internet of Things, personal learning environments, learning analytics, blended learning, and other. There were 1,330 responses to this question. 51% of respondents
  • 21. indicated that they were interested in learning more about new trends in distance education/online course delivery. The spread across the rest of the technologies listed is fairly even with an average of 28% of respondents interested in training related to the topics. With just over half of all respondents stating they are interested in distance education training, the team identified two trends worth noting: distance education is growing rapidly in popularity, and educators need more training in this important area to support the growing demand. With the economy still recovering and unemployment higher than average, many people are returning to school to obtain a degree. The convenience of online classes is attractive because they can be attended from home and worked around busy schedules. Question 4: Are you interested in completing an online teaching certification program? We asked this question to determine the level of interest faculty and staff have in training to become qualified to teach online courses. @ONE’s current focus is on supporting its Online Teaching Certification program, so it is important to understand the demand from the consumer perspective. Participants were asked to choose yes, no, or already certified from a list of options. There were 1,379 responses to this question. Of this amount, 42% said yes they were interested in an online teaching certification program, and 17% had already been trained, leaving 41% saying they were not interested in an online teaching certification program. The results from question 3 and 4 combined underscore the importance of distance education training and educator desire to keep up with the rapidly growing trend in this area. This data shows 59% of our respondents are looking positively at distance education by either desiring to be trained, or having already received some training in this area. Question 5: If your college district does not reimburse you for travel, how far would you be willing to travel for technology training? The survey divided this question into four sections: half-day workshops, one-day workshops, two-day conferences, and thee-plus-day conferences. Participants were instructed to choose the maximum distance for each event and duration from a list of five choices: on my campus, 20-50 miles, 50-100 miles or over 100 miles. It is important for @ONE to understand Figure 8: Interest in completing an online teaching certificate
  • 22. TECHNOLOGY TRAINING IN THE CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM | 25 the behavior of their consumers so they can better plan training events that will meet their needs. Knowing the distance faculty and staff are willing to travel will allow @ONE to explore additional face-to-face training events which respondents overwhelming requested in question two of this section. There were 1,205 responses to half-day workshops. 37% preferred to stay on campus, 30% would travel less than 20 miles, 26% would travel 20-50 miles, and only 7% were willing to drive 50 miles or further. There were 1,197 responses to the one-day workshop. 36% were willing to drive 20-50 miles, 29% less than 20 miles and 20% preferred to stay on campus. 15% were willing to drive more than 50 miles. There were 1,087 responses to the two-day conferences. The responses here are more evenly divided: 20% prefer to stay on campus, 21% would travel less than 20 miles, 24% 20-50 miles, 19% 50-100 miles and 16% over 10 miles. There were 1,059 responses to the three plus day conference. Again these responses are fairly evenly split. 20% prefer to stay on campus, 19% would travel less than 20 miles, 20% 20-50 miles, 14% 50-100 miles, and 26% over 100 miles. For a half-day workshop it is not worth it to most respondents to travel either off campus or a long distance. The longer the event, the further they are willing to travel. This is noted when comparing a half-day workshop where only 2% of respondents are willing to travel over 100 miles, with the responses for a three plus day conference, where 26% said they are willing to travel this same distance. The data shows that 20-50 miles is the average distance people are willing to travel for technology training. 37% 20% 20% 20% 30% 29% 21% 19% 26% 36% 24% 20% 5% 11% 19% 14% 2% 4% 16% 26% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% ½ day workshop 1 day workshop 2 day conference 3+ day Conference On my campus Less than 20 miles 20 - 50 miles 50 - 100 miles Over 100 miles Table 3: Distance respondents are willing to travel for varied types of technology training.
  • 23. Question 6: If your college does not reimburse you for fees, how much would you be willing to pay for the following technology training? Respondents were asked to choose the maximum amount they would be willing to pay. We asked this question on our survey in order to learn how much people are willing to pay for different types of events and gain a better understanding of the value they placed on these training events. Specifically, we asked about on-site events, off-site events, online offerings, and one-on-one training. The range of payments we asked about was from free to more than $200. The number of respondents to each offering varied, but what stands out is that the free option overwhelmingly had the highest percentage of responses across the board. The option that most respondents were willing to pay more than $200 for was the online Teaching Certification Program, however only 11% of our respondents who were willing to do so; 45% of the respondents still wanted it for free. People are more willing to pay more for off- site multiple topic events, and the online four-week course which requires ten hours of work per week. This would indicate that our respondents view these offerings as having more value. TOPIC 3: DEMOGRAPHICS There were approximately 930 females and 440 males who took part of the survey totaling 1370 respondents. A total of 1,366 respondents provided their age. A majority (535) of this population ranged between 51-60 years old and the minority (4) were less than 25 years old. The total of the respondents over 40 years old constitutes 83% (1,138) of the population that participated in the survey while the remaining 17% (228) were under 40 years old. When asked what devices were owned, a total of 1,379 people responded. There were slightly more owners of smartphones (997) than PC desktop computers
  • 24. TECHNOLOGY TRAINING IN THE CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM | 27 (976). Tablets were the next device that was owned (772) and Google Chromebooks were least owned (43). It was relevant to understand the technological demography of the participants as this gives insight into their current level and their outlook of technology. According to Marc Prensky, a writer, speaker, and educator, “… the single biggest problem facing education today is that our Digital Immigrant instructors, who speak an outdated language (that of the pre-digital age), are struggling to teach a population that speaks an entirely new language” (Prensky, 2001). The survey asked participants to identify with the digital status they considered themselves to be out of the following four options:  Digital Native (born after the introduction of digital technology or people who grew up with the technology that became prevalent in the latter part of the 20th century)  Digital immigrant Avoider (Born before the introduction of digital technology and does not adapt to new technology quickly, if ever.)  Digital immigrant Reluctant Adopter (Born before the introduction of digital technology, is aware of new technology and adopts to it at a slow pace)  Digital immigrant Eager Adopter (Born before the introduction of digital technology but enthusiastically adapts to and embraces new technology) The sample size was 1,376 and 778 (57%) reported being a digital immigrant eager adopter, 417 (30%) reported being a digital immigrant reluctant adopter, and surprisingly 1% described themselves as digital immigrant avoiders. The survey also asked participants to rate their skill level for a list of technologies that included: email; course management system; internet research/online library resources; Microsoft office (PowerPoint, Word and Excel); social media (Facebook, You Tube, Twitter, etc.); wikis, blogging, online journaling; and creating video lectures. Participants could choose from four skill levels: none or do not use, moderate, good, or excellent. Not surprisingly, most respondents (77%) rated their email skill level as excellent. However, when it came to topics such as creating video lectures participants overwhelmingly rated their skill level at none or do not use (64%). Responses about using course management systems were distributed around 20% at all skill levels. This was surprising because respondents reported having the most access to CMS training. Figure 9: Respondent digital status
  • 25. After seeing the responses for video lectures, a key component of online education, we looked at a comparison of respondents who stated that they are or would be interested in teaching online in the next year, and chose none or do not use as their skill level for creating video lectures. Of the 392 respondents who said yes to the former question, 42% (192) also chose none or do not use to the latter. The team believes this is an area where @ONE can focus training to increase faculty participation in technology training. Near the end of the survey, participants were asked if they had any familiarity with @ONE. As one of @ONE’s goals is to increase participation, it was important to know what percentage of respondents even knew @ONE existed and provided technology training. Participants were asked to choose one of four options: No, I have never heard of @ONE; Yes, I have heard of @ONE, but I have never visited their website or participated in any of their trainings or events; Yes, I have heard of @ONE, and I have visited their website, but I have not participated in any of their trainings or events; or Yes, I have heard of @ONE, and I have visited their website, and participated in one or more of their trainings or events. Over 50% of respondents said they had never heard of @ONE, and only 21% said they had ever participated in an @ONE event or training. The last question of the survey was an open ended response question that asked participants to share one or two specific recommendations about enhancing technology training to meet their professional needs. There were a variety of responses to this question, so the team did a trend analysis to determine specific topics that respondents felt were important. Some specific topics that were repetitively mentioned were the price of training, certification, one-on-one and face-to-face training, a variety of skill level training, and the need for training opportunities for classified staff. Of those that stated a concern regarding price, it was expressed that training should be provided for free or that the rates were too high. One respondent shared, “I think the training is too expensive. I would participate more if the state funded the training, but most of the trainings are expensive and our college does not fund any training.” Budget cuts were addressed as being the primary reason for cuts to staff development training. One respondent suggested that, “… If the Chancellor's Office could "consolidate" and provide mass trainings to all community colleges in California at a fixed cost to the college (i.e. per FTE) that might be less
  • 26. TECHNOLOGY TRAINING IN THE CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM | 29 expensive than each college trying to fund trainings for a smaller group at a higher cost.” Statements like these should be areas of interest for @ONE, as it is consolidated training available to all community colleges at a fixed cost. @ONE was specifically addressed by some, all of whom provided positive feedback about services and training provided by @ONE. A respondent directly addressed training with @ONE stating, “I'm one of the original members of the @ONE consortium and I enthusiastically support and endorse what @ONE does and continues to do for the system”. It was also recognized as a primary provider for training by one respondent, “I can't thank @ONE enough for all the training they offer. They are my primary provider for technology training and I don't know what I would do without them.” Although the feedback was overwhelmingly positive in support of @ONE, a few people did discuss the lack of refresher courses for those who have been certified through @ONE. A certified online teacher expresses, “Having taken all of the current @ONE classes and completed my online teaching certificate, I'd like to see refresher classes offered periodically or classes that go beyond those I've taken already.” There were also some respondents that expressed the lack of training available for classified staff. Lynda.com was suggested as a source to help train staff because of the availability and accessibility of it. It was expressed that, “Lynda.com is the way to go, don’t reinvent the wheel.” Additionally, “I am thinking about Classified development skills as well as faculty development skills. We are exploring the use of LyndaPRO on our campus now- or Lynda Campus…I have so many part-time faculty, as well as full-time who would benefit from a concerted state-wide effort, but do not have the funds available to put towards training.” Additionally, IT specific training was an area that was addressed. It was mentioned a couple of times that @ONE used to cater to IT personnel but has since “morphed into a Faculty resource. None of the offerings are geared towards IT support personnel.” Another respondent shared, “The value of the IT training that @ONE used to offer was enormous. I was able to attend two different training conferences and both were very valuable for my professional growth. @ONE offered Microsoft Certification-based courses on their networking technology. The Active Directory and Network Security courses I completed were the only training I received to upgrade my skills as the College implemented newer networking technologies. Please consider bringing Figure 10: Word cloud created from all open ended question responses
  • 27. this back.” At least 25 people expressed the need for one-on-one or face-to-face training being the most helpful because of the wide gap between technology learners or the lack of basic computer skills. Face-to-face training is preferred, specifically on-site, which is supported by 52% of the survey respondents; one respondent expressed that “hands-on training is the best way to learn” and another states “face-to-face, onsite is always better than online instruction.” However, a concern that was expressed multiple times when it came to face-to-face training was the variety in skill level of participants who participated in training. The spectrum ranged from the need to provide more workshops on basic computer skills to the lack of training provided for advanced users. A respondent from one side of the spectrum shares, “Have attempted to take many, many courses offered through our District Education classes but am slower at learning and have trouble keeping up in a classroom format.” While another addresses the opposite side of the spectrum, “Because I have been teaching online for over a decade, I know all the basics. Most courses are still aimed at beginners. It would be interesting to have advanced topics offered that would extend my existing skill set, especially if case studies are show demonstrating how those innovative educators are implementing ideas.” LIMITATIONS The team faced some of the limitations when it came to the survey. The team initially planned to distribute the survey via college/district email, but soon realized there was no practical way of obtaining access to all 112 college’s distribution lists. The team spoke with Micah Orloff, Interim Director of @ONE, to see if there was another option for distributing the survey. Mr. Orloff stated that the survey could be distributed via TTIPS’s distribution list, but it would require approval from the executive director. The team initially planned to distribute the survey on March 18, 2013; however, the survey distribution was delayed one week until March 26th after approval from the TTIPS executive director was received. This led to the survey being distributed during the time period that many colleges/districts were closed for spring break. Although the survey was available for two weeks, the team anticipates that more responses may have been received if the survey was not distributed near spring break. While the team received information from TTIPS about how many emails were sent, it is unknown how many people actually received the survey as participants were encouraged to distribute the link to colleagues via local email distribution lists. In addition to the survey being sent via TTIPS’s distribution list, the survey email was sent to Mt. San Jacinto College’s
  • 28. TECHNOLOGY TRAINING IN THE CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM | 31 distribution list, which may explain why the number of responses from MSJC was higher than any other college. Because all of the questions (excluding primary college) were optional, the response rate for each question is not the same. This resulted in various sample sizes for each question. As such, statistical representations are based on actual responses, not overall survey participation. RECOMMENDATIONS After reviewing the data gathered from both methodologies, the team has divided our recommendations into three categories: marketing, services, and staffing. The team has provided the recommendations and the importance of implementing each one, which the team believes will aid @ONE in reaching their goal to provide relevant technology training to faculty and staff at an affordable cost. MARKETING RECOMMENDATIONS After compiling and analyzing the survey data, the team proposes the following marketing recommendations for @ONE to increase the number of faculty and staff who participate in training beyond the 10% it currently serves. Generate broad exposure to consumers @ONE needs to be better promoted as a primary source of technology training in the Community College system. Data from the survey concluded that 52% of the respondents had never heard of @ONE. In the open ended response question, people made comments about needing and wanting access to quality technology training. Because @ONE directly provides these services, it would be in @ONE’s best interest to focus on communicating this information to those in need of their services. Of the faculty and staff surveyed, 81% most preferred receiving information regarding training events via their college/district email. In an effort to reach these consumers via their preferred preference, the team recommends @ONE build relationships with the public relations office/department of each campus/district. This could increase the potential for information from @ONE being distributed via local email distribution lists. Explicitly state services are available to everyone, not just full-time faculty. @ONE needs to make clear that their services are available to everyone, not just full- time faculty. The data from the open ended response survey question provided insight that
  • 29. many classified staff, adjunct faculty, and administrators think that @ONE only provides services to full-time faculty and no one else. When communicating training events, @ONE could perhaps include a direct statement that training is open to all employees of the community college system. Acquire the old cccone.org domain and redirect to current @ONE website at onefortraining.org Almost 20% of the websites the team viewed had links to @ONE’s old website, cccone.org. The team recommends @ONE repurchase the old domain name to ensure all traffic is re-directed to @ONE’s new domain name. Many of these outdated links are the result of the old ambassador program. While many of these websites were nicely done, most of them contained outdated information, and an incorrect @ONE logo in addition to the inaccurate website link. Faculty and staff visiting these pages and seeing this information may get the impression that @ONE no longer exists, which is obviously not the case. If @ONE cannot acquire the old URL address, it is recommended that they contact the colleges that have the incorrect link4 in an effort to have them updated to @ONE’s new website at http://www.onefortraining.org. Offer an “Incentive Program” to those who have taken @ONE courses in the past to increase word of mouth advertising out about @ONE opportunities The team suggests providing an “Incentive Program” for faculty and staff who have previously participated in @ONE events. After reviewing the open ended responses in the survey, the team found that faculty and staff had positive experiences with @ONE, and commented on the excellent quality of the online courses and expert facilitators. By giving those who have taken @ONE courses before, incentives, such as discounts on participating in the Online Teaching Certification Program or a free online course after referring 5 new participants, may increase the number of faculty and staff who are advocates of @ONE. Create an @ONE Member Program Offering an @ONE membership program would provide faculty and staff additional benefits beyond what @ONE currently offers. These benefits could include discounted prices for conferences/on-site workshops, faster response rates for FAQs or inquires, live customer support via live online chat, etc. The membership program would be offered at a premium cost and be marketed as a “VIP” program. The funds raised by this program could be used for additional staffing or projects that are not currently part of the grant’s work plan. 4 A list of websites with incorrect @ONE links has been provided to @ONE.
  • 30. TECHNOLOGY TRAINING IN THE CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM | 33 SERVICE RECOMMENDATIONS In the service recommendation section, the team has provided recommendations based on the survey data collected in an effort to meet @ONE’s goal of providing relevant technology training at an affordable price. Provide face-to-face, skill level based, training within a 50 mile radius at a cost between $20-50 The survey data showed that over 50% of faculty and staff prefer face-to-face training within a 50 mile radius of their college and willing to pay anywhere from $20-$50 dollars for these face-to-face trainings even if they are required to pay out of the pocket and are not reimbursed by their college/district. As a result of this data, the team recommends that @ONE increase the number of face-to-face training opportunities available. Regional training will reduce the cost of travel for facilitators and will meet the needs of consumers. While most respondents preferred face-to-face training, many also commented in the open ended response section that the only part of traditional training they didn’t like was the fact that so many skill levels were in the same training. The team recommends that @ONE design training based on specific skill levels, such as beginners and advanced or novice and expert, which will make the training less cumbersome and overwhelming, and improve the learning for all involved. Provide online tutorials for refresher courses and updates to software/tools Faculty and staff like the convenience of online tutorials because they can watch them either on their lunch time on campus, while on travel, or at home. However, they prefer them for refresher topics or updated information more than initial instruction. The team recommends that @ONE use online tutorials more for refresher courses or updates on software. The team also recommends @ONE consider a partnership with Lynda.com (one of the largest companies who produce online video tutorials) as a source of this type of information instead of using funds to create the videos yourself. Respondents to the open ended questions suggested this state- wide access as well; specifically to meet the needs of classified staff. Increase offerings focused on new trends in distance education and online course delivery The survey data showed that 51% of respondents are interested in learning about new trends in distance education and online course delivery. Although @ONE currently offers an Introduction to Online Teaching and Learning course that address some of the current trends in distance education, the team recommends expanding the number of courses dedicated to this topic. The team also recommends adding a “Hot Topics in Distance Education” series to the already existing webinar program, and creating a series of face-to-face presentations on these
  • 31. topics. The combination of these recommendations will provide faculty and staff a variety of options to increase their knowledge about distance education and online course delivery. Design training for classified staff; specifically IT personnel Many people commented about the fact that @ONE used to provide IT specific training, but no longer does. After speaking with Micah Orloff, Interim Director of @ONE, The team learned that this training was discontinued due to budget cuts. The team recommends that @ONE reinvest any funds available in designing training specifically for classified and IT staff to keep this group as active participants. STAFFING RECOMMENDATIONS In an effort to implement the marketing and service recommendations stated previously and to continue experiencing project success, the team provides the following staffing recommendations for @ONE to provide the most efficient and effective training possible for faculty and staff throughout the state of California. Increase staff to support a future expansion of @ONE services @ONE is drastically understaffed, which is a hindrance to the potential growth they could be experiencing. Staff members are currently supporting multiple projects, which creates an issue of prioritizing certain projects over others at specific times. Opportunities to coordinate more projects are prohibited due to these limitations. This can also lead to reduced services to consumers as staff become unavailable to answer phone calls and emails while they are dedicated to projects outside the office. The team will not recommend specific staff positions, however, based on the recommendations provided in this report, the team suggests adding at least one dedicated staff member to both marketing and educational project coordination. Establish regional trainers In an effort to reduce travel costs the team recommends developing a regional pool of training subcontractors. @ONE’s offices and staff are located in Southern California, so to support schools in Central and Northern California, trainers must travel long distances and incur high travel costs. This would require a lot of coordination on @ONE’s part, but could drastically reduce travel costs if implemented correctly.
  • 32. TECHNOLOGY TRAINING IN THE CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM | 35 CONCLUSION @ONE has a wonderful opportunity to expand its services in technology training. The field is ripe and the time is now to further tap into the technology training market. Faculty and staff alike are eagerly desirous to receive training that will enhance their skills for distance education, course management/learning management systems and other software. Through a vigorous marketing plan and advertising via college/district email, @ONE can successfully market its technology training offerings to the California Community College system because the research shows that email is how an overwhelming majority of faculty and staff prefer to hear about technology training events. The research showed that these potential consumers prefer face-to-face training, but also appreciate webinars and online training for the convenience these modalities offer. They would also like to be grouped by skill levels for training events, as this would allow them to work at pace they are comfortable with. The research shows that people place more value on training that offers more than one topic or conferences that last for more than one day. @ONE’s expansion into serving more than 10% of its current customer base will, of necessity, involve adding more staff and sub-contracting trainers who could handle training events in areas further away, i.e. Central or Northern California. @ONE will need to add course offerings or adapt some of its current offerings to accommodate the desires and needs of its potential consumers who responded to the survey. With technology growing exponentially and students’ needs ever changing, educators must keep up and hone their technology skills to be able to equip today’s students with the ability to handle tomorrow’s needs. Educators recognize this and are eager to do so. @ONE has the product to satisfy these needs. With the right marketing and advertising plan, @ONE should have no problem tapping into this market further.
  • 33. WORKS CITED @ONE. (2013). Desktop Webinars. Retrieved April 6, 2013, from @ONE: http://onefortraining.org/seminars @ONE. (2013). Online Courses. Retrieved April 6, 2013, from @ONE: http://onefortraining.org/online-courses @ONE. (2013). Trainers Bureau. Retrieved April 6, 2013, from @ONE: http://onefortraining.org/bureau Brown, E. G. (2013, January 10). Govenor's Budget Summary 2013-2014. Retrieved April 3, 2013, from http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/pdf/BudgetSummary/HigherEducation.pdf Cheon, J., Lee, S., Crooks, S. M., & Song, J. (2012). An investigation of mobile learning readiness in higher education based on the theory of planned behavior. Computers & Education, 1054-1064. CoBA. (2013). Senior Experience. Retrieved April 5, 2013, from College of Business Administration, CSUSM: http://www.csusm.edu/coba/programs/se/ Indiana University - Perdue University Indianapolis. (2010). Three Learning Styles. Retrieved April 15, 2013, from University College Bepko Learning Center: http://blc.uc.iupui.edu/AcademicEnrichment/StudySkills/LearningStyles/3LearningStyles. aspx Johnson, L. A. (2013). NMC Horizon Report: 2013 Higher Education Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium. Orloff, M. (2013, February 25). Interim Director, @ONE. (R. Ellerd, K. Ellis, L. Pedersen, & A. Stirling, Interviewers) Prensky, M. (2001, October). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. Retrieved April 5, 2013, from MarcPrensky.com: http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20- %20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf Student Succes Task Force. (2012). Advancing Student Success in the California Community Colleges. Sacramento, California: California Community College Chancellor's Office. Walsh, K. (2013, January 6). Flipped Classroom Successes in Higher Education. Retrieved March 16, 2013, from emergingedtech.com: http://www.emergingedtech.com/2013/01/flipped-classroom-successes-in-higher- education/
  • 34. TECHNOLOGY TRAINING IN THE CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM | 37 APPENDIX A: SURVEY INSTRUMENT
  • 35. TECHNOLOGY TRAINING IN THE CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM | 39
  • 36. TECHNOLOGY TRAINING IN THE CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM | 41
  • 37. TECHNOLOGY TRAINING IN THE CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM | 43
  • 38. TECHNOLOGY TRAINING IN THE CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM | 45
  • 39. TECHNOLOGY TRAINING IN THE CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM | 47
  • 40. TECHNOLOGY TRAINING IN THE CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM | 49
  • 41. TECHNOLOGY TRAINING IN THE CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM | 51 APPENDIX B: SURVEY DATA INTERESTED IN THE DATA? If you are interested in the data collected from this survey, we are happy to provide it to you. Below you will find links to a variety of formats that will meet your analysis needs. If you have any questions about the survey, data collected, or downloading the data please direct them to @ONE via email: info@onefortraining.org If you are interested in performing any statistical analysis of your own, you can download the entire survey response set, for importing into a spreadsheet or database. All files will download as a zip file and may need to be extracted prior to use. The data in this file is formatted to open with SPSS analytical software.  http://bit.ly/SPSSdata The data in these files are formatted to open with spreadsheet software.  http://bit.ly/ExcelActual (Actual Choice Text)  http://bit.ly/ExcelCode (Numerical Value (1-n) You can view a summary overview of the responses collected by downloading this pdf file.  http://bit.ly/PDFsummary
  • 42. TECHNOLOGY TRAINING IN THE CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM | 53
  • 43. Technology Training in the California Community College System http://bit.ly/TTCCCS2013