Technology Training in the California Community College System

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

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.

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

 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

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

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

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

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

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/.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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?

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?
college/district have a
Professional Development Center,
Staff Development Center, or
something similar?
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

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

(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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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/

APPENDIX A: SURVEY INSTRUMENT

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

Technology Training in the
California Community College System
http://bit.ly/TTCCCS2013

Technology Training in the California Community College System

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Technology Training in the California Community College System (20)

More from Anna Stirling (18)

Recently uploaded (20)

Technology Training in the California Community College System