Distance Learning Model Developed By The Superior Court of California, Santa Clara

DETT 621

November 22, 2011

Authors: Charles S. Klitsch and Robb Wilmot

Abstract

This qualitative analysis of State Judicial Systems, and the applications of distance training and

education (or lack thereof) within those systems. The authors identify a sustainable model that is

leading the way as an example for others to follow. Additionally, this paper examines the

structures in State systems that facilitate a more urgent and immediate need for distance learning.

In review of these judicial systems, the application of current trends in distance education and

training, educational frameworks, training and educational models, and educational theories are

reviewed in order to assess the implications on these State Judicial Systems.

Keywords: state judicial, distance training, distance education, current trends, framework,

e-learning models

Distance Learning Model Developed By The Superior Court of California, Santa Clara

The focus of this article is the identification of State Judicial Systems that are leading the

way and serving as role models in the area of distance training and education for the public users

of their system as well as employees. Using an extensive academic literature review, personal

interviews, and analysis using sources such as the National Center for State Courts, and publicly

available information on current trends, the authors provide:

Evidence that the public sector (albeit the State level in this case) should be (and in some

cases is already) moving to maintain current standards associated educationally with the

corporate and academic communities.

Key points that show documented success in providing education at a distance as part of

public awareness, customer service, and workforce development.

Roadmaps that can be used to build bridges to the educational examples and framework

developed in the business world that can be applied to this unique niche and many others.

Although the research and documentation are rooted in history, trends, and precedence

connected to State level systems, the authors reveal an interconnected educational importance in

keeping pace with technology and educational trends.

Current trends, frameworks and theories

In order to identify the current trends, frameworks, and theories that apply to online

training and education, the authors first introduce research from authoritative resources on this

subject. Secondly, those resources are applied to online training and education scenarios and how

shown how they can apply to the State Courts Systems. The end result is a realization and

determination of combining online training and education to the State Courts Systems to allow

for more efficient and effective results for employees within those systems.

According to many sources (see e.g., Garndzol, 2006), online education and training is

growing in popularity and acceptance as technology advances and as more people become aware

of the advantages of online learning. This method of teaching can be conducted synchronously

or asynchronously. One advantage to asynchronous online learning is the student can participate

as it is convenient for them. This flexible learning eliminates travel and other inconveniences

that are often associated with face-to-face training. Synchronous online learning requires the

coordination of all students online at the same time to engage in learning activities. While this

method is desired and enjoyed by some, time and geography can make it difficult with larger

number of students.

The digital divide is a concept and in many cases a reality that some people are denied

access to information based on their lack of available technology. Whether it is in a developing

country or in parts of industrialized societies, some individuals do not have the means or

opportunity to participate in that which requires technological access. The concept of the digital

divide can and does come into play with e-learning because to provide effective and efficient

training, two key requirements must be met:

1. Each student must have access to a computer.

2. All participants must have reliable Internet access (preferably high speed).

Unfortunately, those students and organizations on the wrong side of the digital divide will

suffer. Roy (2009) states that the lack of bandwidth to download online learning courses is one

of the disadvantages faced by some organizations. This will require a company’s IT department

to enhance the infrastructure necessary for e-learning. However, even though the technology is

critical to effective delivery of online distance education and training, Lewis (2006) indicates

that the most effective learning programs will be those which involve placing more emphasis on

the student’s learning experience and not so much on managing the technology.

Course development and user friendly navigation in an online course are necessary to the

success of an online training and education program. In the development of courses

consideration should be given to the motivational factors concerning the student learners. On

page 85 in their 2002 paper on Motivation and performance Keller and Litchfield state that

motivation of the online student is recognized at three distinct levels:

1. Motivation to learn

2. Motivation to work

3. Self-motivation

According to Jonassen (1988) motivation of the student can also be encouraged by

generating necessary information in the online course and allowing the students to access and

apply their existing knowledge therefore enabling a higher level of learning. Providing the

learner/employee with incentives to want to learn and train by providing increase in pay,

promotions, or other benefits deemed desirable to the learner/employee upon successful

completion of the online course, may assist in the motivation process.

Student support is another key factor to the success of an online training and education

program. Rumble (2000) suggests that successful online teaching includes, among other things,

“high quality student support” (p. 216). Student support can range from having a proactive IT

department with total buy-in of the online training and education program, a telephone call from

support staff to the students, and proper training for instructors to respond to student queries.

Johnson (2004) indicates that for students to be successful they have to possess the study skills

necessary to be the most effective. Sadler-Smith (2004) states that online learning requires a

certain amount of autonomy by the learner to engage in the learning process effectively. A

learner/employee who customarily conforms to the routine direction and instruction by a

supervisor now has a new role as a self-directed learner. Additional orientations and trainings

may be necessary for learner/employees to develop the skills necessary to become less dependent

on direction from a manager and more depend on self-direction. It may be important to develop a

tutorial or demonstration program to introduce the navigation skills required to manipulate the

online lessons and prepare a user friendly environment.

Understanding the Court System

Since the focus of this paper is to examine a specific workforce and their ability to utilize

distance learning provided by their organization, it is imperative to learn more about that specific

structure and culture.

State Judicial systems across the country are as similar as they are different. The most

important thing they have in common is that they are the cornerstone of the American Judiciary.

In order to understand the need for workforce distance education and e-learning in the state court

system, one must first understand the structure of the state courts. There are 50 such systems

across the country (with countless sub systems contained within), in the interest of brevity, the

authors of this paper have focused on a sampling of courts from both the east and west coasts and

one in the middle.

Representing smaller simpler state systems will be the State of Maryland with 5.7 million

residents living in 23 counties plus the City of Baltimore. In the middle of the country sits the

Lone Star State of Texas with its 25.1 million residents occupying 254 counties. Representing

the west coast is the State of California which according the US Census Bureau is the most

populous state in the union serving 37.2 million (Census.gov, 2010) residents spread up and

down the coast in 58 counties.

Maryland is not a large state but there are roughly 30 states that are smaller. So, as far as

court systems go, it is the middle of the road and an excellent representation of the American

court system. The Maryland courts are divided into four judicial levels. District Court is where

most people get a taste of the Maryland judiciary. This is where small claims are handled as well

as traffic citations, and non-jury trials. The next level up in Maryland is the Circuit Court. Each

county and the City of Baltimore has a Circuit court which handles jury trials, major cases,

adoptions, marriages, and many other community services. District Court cases can be appealed

to the Circuit Court. The Court of Special Appeals handles appeals that come from the Circuit

Court. Maryland’s highest court is the Court of Appeals. Unlike the Court of Special Appeals,

Maryland’s Court of Appeals decides which cases they will hear. Between District, Circuit, and

the Appellate Courts, there are roughly 60 court locations in Maryland, all staffed with State

employees. As previously stated, Maryland is not a large state, but it can still take up to four

hours to get to the state capital from the western border and 3 hours from the southeastern shore.

From an educational perspective, that can be a lot of ground to cover regarding access to

education, but nonetheless it is possible and many people are willing to do it, which is why

Maryland is somewhat behind in the use of distance learning. The demand has not been strong

enough to force the development.

The State of Texas covers a land mass that is unequaled in the continental United States.

Texas has more counties than any state in the country. Before discussing the Texas system with

its 254 counties, it is important to note that the core of the State systems across the country are

the county level courts. The Texas system follows this model. A quick look at the Court

Structure of Texas (2011) will reveal that there are five layers to the Texas court system. There

are two entry level options, the Justice Courts of which there are 819, and the municipal courts of

which there are 923. At the next level there are 506 County Trial Courts of Limited Jurisdiction,

followed by the 456 State Trial Courts of General and Special Jurisdiction. Next up are the 14

Courts of Appeals with 80 Justices which fall under the Supreme Court and the Court of

Criminal Appeals. There are a total of 2,720 court locations in the State of Texas. Out of

necessity, distance education for the residents and workforce in Texas is growing in leaps and

bounds.

The borders of California hold almost 13 percent of the nation’s population. Out of need

and ingenuity, California has streamlined most of their judicial processes including workforce

education. As previously discussed, California has just over 37 million residents in 58 counties.

Not only is the State very large, but the counties are large as well. The California court system is

divided in a similar manner to many other states, but even with their massive population and

expansive borders, they have broken their system down to three levels; Trial Courts, Courts of

Appeal, and the Supreme Court. The Trial Courts are located in each of the 58 counties. These

courts handle criminal cases, probate matters, juvenile cases, traffic citations, and family matters.

Additionally, the Trial Courts handle real estate and business contracts, personal injury claims,

and small claims. The Appellate Courts are located throughout the state in 6 jurisdictions. The

Courts of Appeal handle cases that are being appealed from the local Trial Courts. The top level

is the Supreme Court which can choose whether or not to take a case that has already been

decided in the Courts of Appeal.

Similar to all other states, the core of California’s system is the county structure. Like

many States, California has what is called an AOC – Administrative Office of the Courts. For

many states, this is where everything starts to go in separate directions. In smaller states like

Maryland, the AOC does everything for all courts. The AOC provides a consistent platform for

everything from human resources to technical services and training. In larger states, the AOC

tend to exist as a resource for the courts in that state but they do not necessarily control their

functions or staffing. California follows this individualized process. However, since some of the

counties in California are larger than some East Coast states, the county is able to function much

like a state. In many of these cases, California counties have established their own educational

structure for citizens and employees.

E-Everything

Recently, the annual Court Technology Conference (organized by the NationalCenter for

State Courts – NCSC) was held in Long Beach, California. The portion of the conference that

garnered the most attention and post conference chatter was a two part workshop led by Tom

Clarke, Vice President, Research & Technology, NCSC, Artie Pepin, Director, New Mexico

Office of the Courts, and Donald Goodnow, Director, New Hampshire Judicial Branch,

Administrative Office of the Courts. The workshop was titled “E-Everything.” The concept of

the session was to open the eyes of Judiciaries around the country to the fact that the courts of

tomorrow including the people who work there will be driven by E-_____. “Everything that can

be virtual will be” (Clarke, Pepin, and Goodnow, 2011). The State Court System operating in

Santa Clara County, California and an associated consortium of three other county systems is

already leading the “E” way from an educational stand point. Everything educationally that can

be done virtually – is.

Leading The Way, A Model For E-Learning In The Courts

Santa Clara and their neighboring courts laid the foundation many years ago for the

model we see today. They created a successful face to face model, and then enhanced it, not

replaced it with e-learning. “In 2003 the Superior Courts of Monterey, San Benito, Santa Clara,

and Santa Cruz Counties collaborated to create a Regional Educational Consortium for staff

training” (Regional Educational Consortium, 2003). The purpose of the consortium was to

develop training collaboratively, and to make courses available to the largest number of

employees around the region. Essentially, these courts working together created what the

academic world refers to as open education. This open education model continued to grow in

strength and program offerings. “Whenever a court develops a course, it is shared; when a court

needs a course created, the work is shared. Most courses are free, because they use materials

available within the judiciary” (Regional Educational Consortium, 2003).

Today, with the need and popularity of e-everything, the Consortium has taken on a

distance approach to their training. Robert Oyung, Chief Technology Officer, Superior Court of

California, County of Santa Clara describes a model or process that begins with a constant focus

on what is needed to create the most highly trained workforce making use of available

technology. They have established several levels of training, most of which can be obtained

virtually. They have not replaced the face to face training that has been in place, but they have

enhanced their services by either adding a distance component to the training or have created

fully e-focused modules that stand on their own independent from the face to face modules.

Due to the time and money that is consumed by travel logistics, attendance numbers at

face to face classes was falling short of desired expectations. So, they took very seriously the

needs of the users and began a process of creating videos. This small start met with favorable

results. Oyung, refers to it as a “YouTube type video process where short 5 minutes videos are

available on the court system’s intranet” R. Oyung (personal communication, October 27, 2011).

This process is not interactive but it allows training to be available to the users based on their

schedule. The next avenue that the Superior Court took was to create a series of remote training

broadcasts. These broad casts are similar to video conferencing but the information is one way.

This is a technology that has been used in large scale international conventions where the

keynote speaker is in one country and portions of the audience are in several other countries.

This process keeps the synchronous aspect of live training, but adds the convenience factor of

distance training. Interactive video conferencing for smaller groups is also used for some

sessions, as well as webinars and podcasting.

The next venture for Oyung and his team was to create packaged pre-recorded training

sessions that could be streamed via the Internet or could be provided on DVD. He considers this

concept to be a hybrid model. Since the information is pre-packaged and pre-recorded, there is

no interaction with the facilitator, but that is by design. Participants download and print a

workbook or can choose to go paperless by using a tablet pc. The facilitator appears on the video

screen and provides lectures and instructions based on the topic being discussed. At preset

intervals, the facilitator provides instructions for a group activity or discussion, the video is

paused, and the groups work together to reach a prescribed conclusion. Once the video is

reactivated, the facilitator discusses possible outcomes and explains the dynamics that usually

drive those outcomes. This program has been favorably received and has expanded. The models

described began with technical training where very little interaction was expected or needed but

has since grown to successfully include training for all aspects of workforce development; HR,

people skills, customer service, and others.

The Superior Court team is now working with Learning Management tools like Moodle

to track learning and make more available virtually. Oyung is also contemplating the idea of

creating and internal version of a system made popular by the Khan Academy. The Khan

Academy is revolutionizing the concept of individualized distance learning for K-12 students.

“Students can make use of our extensive video library, practice exercises, and assessments from

any computer with access to the web… Complete custom self-paced learning tool, a dynamic

system for getting help, a custom profile, points, and badges to measure progress… [learning]

coaches, parents, and teachers have unprecedented visibility into what their students are learning

and doing on the Khan Academy [website]” (Salman Khan, 2011). Although it is unlikely that

the Superior Court will be able to match the 2,600 educational videos available through the Khan

Academy, they are hoping to establish their own internally available collection of instructional

videos to cover all aspects of workforce development.

Government, Academia, and the Corporate Models Meet

Santa Clara (being the fifth largest court system in California) was faced with many

challenges. They are operating in multiple locations; they were migrating to a single case

management system from several unlinked tools, and their staff continued to grow in numbers

and migrate from other working units. There were feeling the pain of trying to educate and

motivate their very busy and very diverse as well as dispersed workforce. They created a

successful roadmap that uses approaches often seen in the academic and corporate arenas.  

Conclusion

The California Courts, and more specifically, the Santa Clara court system is leading the

way and providing a model for distance education and e-learning that will usher in a new era of

education for a long time. This is a rare occasion that public and private sector organizations can

enjoy following similar models and learn from each other. IBM, GE, Hewlett Packard, and most

of the fortune 100 companies provide distance learning opportunities for their workforce. It is a

concept that works; what is happening in the California court is a remarkable blending of

corporate ingenuity with government needs. The model that continues to develop in Santa Clara

County is a model that can be used in any industry in any part of the world. The benefits are far

reaching. In a 2007 article for Financial Executive (a journal serving the financial industry) Paul

Sweeney discussed the views of online training models used by top financial and accounting

firms like San Francisco based Hemming Morse, or international giant Deloitte with its more

than 45,000 employees.

National Director of Education for Deloitte Services, LLP Joseph Gibbons admits that

“Online education isn't cheap, yet it's a bargain compared to the costs for a live program” (p. 20).

The bargain of which he speaks will vary in reality from organization to organization based on

their direct and indirect costs. Gibbons estimates that it generally cost his organization roughly

$1,000 per day to train their people (not including the daily salaries of the attendees). Many

organizations don’t pay that much for training. Also, with a workforce numbering in the tens of

thousands, Gibbons estimates that Deloitte could spend $1,000,000 for a live presentation to

1,000 people (whether it is at the same time or spread over a period of days, weeks, months or

years). Where the bargain comes in is that he estimates that his cost to produce an e-learning

version of the same presentation is $150,000. For some organizations whether they are corporate

or government, the financial examples shared by Gibbons are unfathomable. However, if it is

scaled down to levels that might be more digestible by small businesses or in this case, a state

court system using tax payer dollars, the numbers could be more in the neighborhood of $200 per

person per day to provide in-house or outsourced training. The total number of people being

trained at a given moment might be 20; and, the training might be repeated twice per quarter.

The annual total for this workforce development effort might be $32,000 for that single topic for

up to 160 people. Assuming the technical infrastructure (network, high speed connectivity,

desktop computers, etc.) is in place for other business functions, and an organization has the

talent to create the course in-house, the cost for a one day e-learning course will be significantly

less than $32,000. As would be the case with anything, the higher the quality and the more

feature laden the course becomes, the longer the project will take and the more it will cost to

produce. However, the concept of what Deloitte’s Gibbons shared is still valid. There is a

significant financial and time management value in e-learning. The model created by the Santa

Clara Courts in California is one that offers the desired convenience of e-learning but since they

are using both e-learning combined with face to face instructional opportunities, the live personal

interaction that is desired by some has not been lost; this is a very sustainable model.

References

Clarke, T., Pepin, A., & Goodnow, D. (2011) National Center for State Courts. Court

Technology Conference. E-Everything. Long Beach, CA. Retrieved from

http://popup.ncsc.org/

CTC2011-session-descriptions/~/media/Microsites/Files/CTC2011/2011%20

presentations/e_everything%20bus%20mgmt_%20Admin2.ashx

Court Structure of Texas. (2011). Retrieved from http://www.courts.state.tx.us/oca/pdf/

Court_Structure_Chart.pdf

Grandzol, J., & Grandzol, C. (2006). Best practices for online business education. International

review of research in open and distance education. 7(1), 1 – 17.

Johnson, M., (2004) Enhancing study skills: Developing self-help materials for distance learners.

In J.E. Brindley, C. Walti, & O. Zawacki-Richter (Eds.), Learner support in open,

distance and online learning environments (pp.117-124). Oldenburg: Bibliotheks – und

Informationssystem der Universität Oldenburg.

Jonassen, D. (1988). Integrating learning strategies into courseware to facilitate deeper

processing. In D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Instructional designs for microcomputer

courseware (pp. 151-182). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. Retrieved from

http://ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet15/mcloughlin.html

Keller, J., & Litchfield, B., (2002). Motivation and performance.In R. A. Reise & J.V. Dempsey

(Eds.) Trends and Issues in Institutional Design and Technology. (pp.83-98). Columbus:

Prentice Hall.

Khan, S. (2011). Frequently Asked Questions. Khan Academy. Retrieved from

http://www.khanacademy.org/about

Lewis, C.C., & Abdul-Hamid, H. (2006). Implementing effective online teaching practices:

voices of exemplary faculty. Innovative Higher education, 31(2). doi:10.1007/s10755-

006-9010-z

Maryland’s Judicial System. 2011. Retrieved from http://www.courts.state.md.us/overview.html

Regional Educational Consortium. (2003). Pooling resources for staff training. Retrieved from

http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/KlepsBrief_RegEdConsortium.pdf

Roy, A. (2009). Proceedings from the 8th European Conference on e-Learning October 29 – 30,

2009. Transition From conventional training towards e-learning: How to ensure success.

Bari, Italy. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.umuc.edu/ehost/

pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=df594855-2694-436c-8032-c65a0f79d68

%40sessionmgr4&vid=11&hid=19

Rumble, G., (2000). Student support in distance education in the 21st century: Learning from

service management. Distance Education. 21(2) pp. 216 – 235.

Sadler-Smith, E., & Smith, P., (2004). Strategies for accommodating individuals’ styles and

preferences in flexible learning programmes. British Journal of Educational Technology.

35(4), pp. 395-412.

Sweeney, P. (2007). Web-based learning gains more converts. Financial Executive, 23(4), 18-21.

Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.umuc.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/

pdfviewer?sid=393db58d-e5db-49c5-b68f-ee9b66f70331%40sessionmgr4&vid

=4&hid=10

Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara. (2011). Overview of the State Court

System. Retrieved from http://www.scscourt.org/general_info/courtsystem.shtml

Quickfacts. 2010. US Census Bureau. Retrieved from

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html