Fred Gaudet GWCC         Rosemary Kesler GWCC
Dr. de los Santos DO     Pat Case RSC
Doug Sawyer SCC          Ken Roberts SMCC
Joan Ritsch PC           Alan Levine DO
Mary Long SMCC           Naomi Story DO
Manny Griego GCC         Bob Albury GCC
Ted Wolter CGCC          Chris MacCrate EMCC
Donna Kardell DO         Tracy Price DO

Ocotillo Retreat

1. Narrow and prioritize the list of issues to discuss
   These were the top ranked issues reported back from nine roundtables:

   CGCC Use of existing technology Technology staffing [hiring, keeping] Assessment and evaluation Faculty development	EMCC Access [remote, student, faculty] Assessment and evaluation Faculty development Distance learning Part-time faculty issues
   GWCC Access [remote, student, faculty] Assessment and evaluation Faculty development Part-time faculty issues License compliance Student e-mail	GCC Technology staffing [hiring, keeping] Student e-mail Access [remote, student, faculty] Assessment and evaluation Distance learning Part-time faculty issues License compliance Financial support [use fees]
   MCC [Brad Kincaid was not present, but sent these via e-mail] Distance learning Access [remote, student, faculty] Technology staffing [hiring, keeping] Assessment and evaluation Financial support [use fees] Faculty development Infrastructure standards	PC Access [remote, student, faculty] Assessment and evaluation Faculty development Use of existing technology Infrastructure standards
   RIO Assessment and evaluation Access [remote, student, faculty] Trends, change, the future Distance learning Student e-mail Additional Issues: Learning centered/focus Virtual reality New technologies	SCC Access [remote, student, faculty] Assessment and evaluation Faculty development Use of existing technology Infrastructure standards
   SMCC Technology staffing [hiring, keeping] Use of existing technology Faculty development Access [remote, student, faculty] Assessment and evaluation

   
   

   Thus, the most common issues that were identified: Assessment and evaluation [9] Access (remote, student, faculty) [8] Faculty development [6] Distance learning [5] Technology staffing (hiring, keeping) [5]

   ---

2. Decide format for discussions Doug Sawyer suggested:
   • 10 minute presentation on the topics
   • 30-40 minute campus discussion
   • 20 minute call back and report to the group [with issue success/outcomes]

   Joan Ritsch suggested:

   • Pairing up two colleges but allowing for individual college discussion.
   • Start with a broad issue discussion, then focus with college groups and then end with the broad issues again.

   Another suggested format:

   • Introduction to topic with questions.
   • Show common pieces or unique pieces.
   • Snapshot of elements that each group came up with.

   Another suggested format:

   • Some introduction from an emcee.
   • Break up into discussion groups [paired college teams].
   • Break up into discussion groups [individual colleges].

   What kind of outcome are we looking for from the retreat?

   • A better understanding of issues and how they affect us district-wide
   • These strategies need to be shared.
   • Who is responsible for the issues?

   What will come out of these discussions?

   • Dr. de los Santos - A better definition of the issues - use these definitions to define Ocotillo committees that will deal with these issues for the next year. They will work during the academic year to solve the problem. We need more time to deal with these issues.
   • Ken - We may not resolve these issues, but we do need to find a connection between our technology plans and the issues. The colleges feed the definitions.
   • Joan - It would be helpful if everyone had the common issues to pre-discuss for the retreat within the campus groups to discuss issues. Are they relevant to our campuses next year?
   • Phoenix Colleges process for discussion of the issues was that they posed 3 major questions with subsequent questions, then broke up into teams to discuss personal feedback from each question. They then summarized the group consensus and gleaned out the highlights with stickies. Everyone got feedback and lots of participation.

   How do we see definition of these issues?

   • The issues will be taken back and the committees will work on giving them definitions.
   • Each chair will take the 5 issues back to their colleges to discuss, define, and come up with 1 or 2 key questions, successes, failures and/or attempts at each issues.
   • For each issue, answer:
     1. What is __________ ? [your definition]
     2. What are the issues with __________ ?
     3. What are your experiences with addressing __________ ? [what did you learn?]
     4. What is the status of __________ now?
     5. What kinds of data can we collect about __________ on an ongoing basis?

     Ken - Are we looking for practical, applied, abstract, or theoretical? Needs at the moment; they need to be tied into our planning process. Do not frame the discussion at this time.

     Doug - After these college discussions, we might have a basis of who to pair together.

     What comes from District or from the campuses?

     Question: Will there be so much that we need to move from 5 to 3 issues?

     ---

   • Speaker or not? No. (consensus)

     Chris - This should be a 10 college focus. We should listen to issues and then process in breakouts. Unless we use the speaker to address the issues or to share individual perspectives to help with the discussion. Or possibly a facilitator that has had experience with the issue(s), but should understand that each college is different. Keep internal - take individuals/facilitators from the retreat, these people could potentially become resources.

     ---

   • Session on Common elements ?
     • The college discussions will bring out common elements.
     • Campus plans - common problems, these things should be in each plan. Outline for plans. Not every campus is tackling the TLTR issues in the same ways.
     • We could have a list of common elements at the retreat with no discussion.

     ---

   • Session on what can be "inventoried" ?
     • Where are we now on our plans at our campus - do we need to take inventory?
     • Where are we going in 3 years?
     Dr. de los Santos - Reasons for technology planning
     1. The bond money will be gone in 2 1/2 years = All the money for technology will be gone. A strategic decision needs to be made. When do we go with a bond request? We can only request on the second Tuesday in November in even numbered years. That means we have November of 2000 or November or 2002, by 2002 we will have already have run out of money. This plan will provide us with 2 years of history - we need to have data to explain to voters - use composite or similar definitions and money figures. Use common data to come up with figures. How much time does it take to order? How long will each computer last - how long until it becomes obsolete? Is it easy to upgrade? Define teaching, learning and technology at colleges. Take data from all plans and combine into a district-wide document.
     2. Dr. Elsner will be retiring either on or before June 1999. The governing board has started the selection process for the new chancellor. What is it about Ocotillo that we want to tell him/her? What direction does he/she need to push? As a committee, we need to make a decision on how to present the plan(s).
     Manny - Should we define technology as a main issues, not just computers - college definition/district definition?

     Each college's plan should address what technology is. If Glendale makes it all encompassed and other colleges do not, they need to reference all the technology branches. Each campus would have its own plan.

     Ken - Each plan does not need to explain each issue but does need to address each issue and where it is at.

     Every department uses technology in some form. Define technology for each campus. Non-computer capitol needed to support programs.

     ---

   • What materials can be distributed ahead of time
     • Agenda
     • Discussion topics
     • College outcomes from the pre-discussions

See also: http://www.aahe.org/technology/elephant.htm

1. Fall+ meeting dates
   • If you are unable to continue as faculty chairs, please send nominations to Alan. Also, if you have chosen a replacement, please start bringing that person to the meetings.
   • Fall meeting dates - the first Friday of each month was good for everyone [2 -3:30]
2. Fall+ events?
   • Technology Showcase (crystal ball predictions for future?)
   • Speakers? Consultants? Funds are available through Ocotillo
3. decide on date for review of college tech plans
   • Each college has their own schedule. This is an opportunity to make the new change, to see how we think TLTR should go.
   • It should go in stages. First draft and technology plan timeline is due for internal review by this meeting group on October 2nd [the first fall meeting for ocotillo chairs.]

• Next Meeting: Friday, April 3, 1998, 2:00 - 3:30 PM District office - Room 311
  Agenda Items:
  • Compile results of questions abotu the five discussion topics.
  • Finalize the Retreat Agenda

  Reminders

  • MCLI needs your list of participants by April 3rd. Let your participants know that all the rooms are double occupancy and they can designate a roommate preference if they wish.
  • If anyone is interested in attending the AAHE Summer Institute [July 11-14, 1998], please contact Alan [731-8297] Since this is most benefical in groups, we can support teams of at least 3 from a college (we can send more!)