Computer-Based Training and Traditional Training

¶ … Computer-Based Training and Traditional Training Methods

Innovations in information and telecommunications technologies have introduced a wide array of new opportunities for educational applications, including computer-based training. For example, a white paper published by the e-learning vendor Saba Software emphasizes that, "Organization after organization embraced the new technology hoping to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of learning" (Next generation e-learning and the road to human capital development and management, 2001, p. 3). One of the most popular approaches to emerge from these innovations in information and communications technologies has been computer-based training. As the term implies, computer-based training is provided using a computer as the main medium, either in a standalone setting or an electronic classroom environment. The advantages of computer-based training (CBT) are numerous and broad-based. For instance, by delivering subject matter content using a computer, students are able to learn at their own pace and this alternative to traditional training methods can also be highly cost effective compared to traditional classroom environments. Moreover, studies have demonstrated the students learn as well or better with CBT compared to traditional training methods, in some cases learn faster (Henderson, 1992) and remember what they have learned for longer periods of time (Williams & Zahed, 1996).

Despite the advantages that can accrue to the use of CBT, there are a number of challenges and constraints involved in providing effective instruction that must be taken into account when formulating CBT alternatives to traditional training methods. Foremost among these constraints is the readiness of the student to use these alternative learning tools and the expertise of the instructor in developing effective ways to deliver subject matter content that is aligned with organizational goals.

Background Information

Completed in August 2001, the Navy's Revolution in Training initiative was in response to the findings that emerged from the Executive Review of Naval Training (ERNT). This executive review was a comprehensive analysis of the Navy's training and education of service members over the entire course of their naval careers (Manacapilli, Bennett, Galway & Weed, 2003). According to these authorities, "The review was designed to examine Navy training and make substantive recommendations for improving and aligning organizations, incorporating new technologies into Navy training, exploiting opportunities available from the private sector, and developing a continuum of lifelong learning and personal and professional development for sailors" (Manacapilli et al., 2003, p. 80).

Based on the mandates required by the Navy's Revolution in Training initiative, technological innovations must be incorporated into training opportunities for naval personnel, with CBT being the primary method by which these mandates are achieved (Dye, 2004). The integration of CBT in response to the Revolution in Training mandates is based in large part on its perceived ability to deliver training faster and more cost effectively. In this regard, Hayes (2008) reports that, "A principal aim of the Navy's 'revolution in training' has been to identify the competencies associated with each job in the Navy in order to refine and systematically engineer measurable training programs to produce readiness. Education too is viewed in this vein" (p. 78). In his assessment of the implications of the Revolution in Training for fleet readiness capabilities, the Commander, Naval Education and Training Command cited the importance of the cost savings that can be realized through improved training methods. According to Vice Admiral J. Kevin Moran, "With the prevalent time-is-money mentality in the Navy, getting sailors back to their posts quickly is a key goal of the educational initiative. This means a minimal amount of time in our part of the organization. Time spent in a classroom comes out of ... The individual's account.... That's a bundle of money" (quoted in Hayes, 2008 at p. 78).

In fact, the United States Navy already relies heavily on computer-based training and has done so for a relatively long time, and all signs indicate that current trends in the use of this alternative to traditional training methods such as stand-up lectures and the hands-on exploratory methods will continue to expand in the future (Desai, Richards & Eddy, 2000). For example, according to the Naval Inspector General's Report to the Secretary of the Navy (2009), "We defined CBT as individual or group self-paced instruction using a computer as the primary training medium, to include web-delivered Navy E-Learning. By this definition, CBT accounts for one-third (34%) of instruction at Navy 'A' Schools, 15-33% at schools of the Officer Training Command and 100% of instruction for Navy annual training requirements" (Computer-based training, p. ii). Further, the Navy also has more than 26,000 computer workstations already in place in its network of electronic classrooms that deliver compute-based training, but much of this hardware is aging or obsolete (Computer-based training, 2009). The Navy also suffers from a number of other constraints to the effective use of its CBT resources, which are discussed further below.

Problem Statement

Despite its enormous investment of resources in CBT training and the importance of the training that is involved, the U.S. Navy continues to experience significant problems with this training alternative, including a lack of standardization of program content, obsolete delivery systems, and inadequate funding. Furthermore, learning theory principles are frequently not considered in the instructional design used by these alternative computer-based training methods (Computer-based training, p. ii). Other problems experienced with the Navy's CBT initiatives that were identified by the Naval Inspector General included a lack of funding needed to maintain CBT courses to ensure they remained timely and aligned with organizational goals, insufficient bandwidth that created significant time delays in loading course materials, and the lengthy amounts of time required to update CBT curricular offerings when funding was available.

Because resources are by definition scarce, it is important for the U.S. armed forces to take advantage of these and other attributes of CBT in providing service members with the training they need to achieve their missions and remain combat ready. The Naval Inspector General also identified a lack of alignment between current CBT curricular offerings and "Sailor work" (p. ii), as well as finding that even though young Naval personnel may be "digital natives," many do not possess the background or expertise needed to use CBT to its maximum advantage. For example, the report from the Naval Inspector General emphasized that members of Generation Y who are now entering the service have been assumed to possess the skill set needed to benefit from CBT. The findings that emerged in this report showed that, "Generation Y users acknowledged they were comfortable using computers. However, while they enjoyed using computers for communication, entertainment, and social networking, they did not view CBT as an enhancement over interaction with an experienced instructor or hand-on training" (pp. 5-6).

Furthermore, in an effort to jump on the CBT bandwagon, many traditional Navy training programs were simply converted to CBT formats, with little or no front-end analysis concerning their effectiveness or efficiency made prior to their implementation (Computer-based training, 2009, p. 3). According to Bowman, Crawford and Mehay (2009), "The Navy, like other organizations, has a history of converting traditional classroom training to various forms of mediated instruction, including CBT, to reduce costs and provide learning at any time and any place. Yet, many prior studies have questioned whether using CBT is associated with a reduction in the quality of instruction" (p. 11). Likewise, Kraiger (2002) emphasizes that, "Although there is some evidence that computer-based training can reduce long-term training costs for certain courses and reduce training time for learners, lingering questions about how to implement it effectively in organizations remain" (p. 193). Moreover, there also remains a lack of valid metrics by which CBT training can be measured against traditional training methods (Compute-based training, 2009). Therefore, determining when and why CBT instruction is most effective represents a timely and valuable enterprise today.

Literature Review

One of the first approaches to integrating computers into educational settings was termed "computer-assisted instruction," but the introduction of a wide array of software applications that are specifically designed for the purpose has created a second generation of educational technology that has been termed "computer-based training" (Leonard, 2002). Like a growing list of other major organizations around the world, the Navy has a long history of using CBT for its training needs. For instance, Bowman and his associates report that, "Computer-based training and other forms of mediated instruction have been used by the military and other organizations for many years. The Navy, for example, received multi-year funding from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency to evaluate the use of CBT for Navy training over 30 years ago" (p. 14). Throughout its experiences with CBT, the Navy has consistently sought more effective and efficient ways of delivering curricular offerings (Bowman et al., 2009).

A seminal study by Williams and Zahed (1996) analyzed the effectiveness of computer-based training with traditional lecture formats and found that although there were no significant differences in the amount of material learned using these different approaches and no differences in satisfaction with the different training experiences, individuals who received computer-based training retained information at significantly higher rates one month later. Likewise, a similar study by Desai et al. (2000) that compared traditional lecture format training with CBT found that, "The CBT subjects' overall end-of-training and one-month-after-training performance was significantly better than [the traditional lecture method] subjects' performance" (p. 239).

By sharp contrast, the analysis of the effectiveness of CBT by Bowman et al. (2009) found that the effectiveness of this alternative can be adversely affected by a number of Navy-specific factors, including the pace of operations in some settings, an enormously diverse population that often requires more individualized instruction, and that self-paced formats can actually serve to increase student failure rates. Nevertheless, Dye (2004) emphasizes that the Navy has taken steps to integrate lessons learned and best practices into newly developed CBT curricular offerings, and notes that improvements in the support technologies continue to provide better ways of individualizing computer-based training opportunities in the future. In fact, one of the keystones to the Navy's Revolution in Training is the ability of CBT to be tailored to the individual learner's needs. For instance, according to Peck, "The Navy system relies on individualized training instead of rigid classroom instruction will produce better-qualified sailors more quickly. The revolution in training (RIT) replaces traditional rote classroom with the tailored training they need for their tasks -- and then ensures that they are assigned to those positions for which they are best qualified" (2004, p. 67). Rear Admiral Kevin Moran, the chief of Naval Personnel Development Command cited this aspect of the Revolution in Training initiative in particular as helping the Navy better align mission objectives with individual training needs. "We are marching toward a solution that allows you to tailor a course depending on where that sailor is going in the Navy, what platform they're going to serve on, and what they need to know to serve in that exact position" (quoted in Peck, 2004 at p. 67). The "revolutionary" aspect of the Navy's ongoing Revolution in Training initiative also relates to this improved alignment. As Peck points out, "Historically, there has been no direct link between mission requirements of fleet units and the training sailors received. The Revolution in Training [initiative] addresses this problem by using human resources practices [found] in the corporate sector" (2004, p. 67).

Researchers have found that humans learn best when information is delivered in ways that take advantage of memory resources. For instance, in Chapter 7, Memory and Training, Wickens (1999) advises, "Spatial tasks are less disrupted by employment of the phonological loop to handle subsidiary information-processing tasks" (p. 244). In other words, CBT resources should not place dual demands on students' spatial memory resources. Likewise, Wickens adds that, "Correspondingly, tasks involving heavy demands on verbal working memory such as editing texts, computing numbers, and using symbolic-based computers, are more disrupted by concurrent voice input and output than by visuospatial interaction (e.g., control with a mouse) (p. 244). This observation suggests that CBT applications will be more effective when they use different visual and auditory sensory cues rather than using one or the other in isolation from other educational resources.

Similarly, an analysis of the relative effectiveness of various approaches to CBT by Yi and Davis (2001) found that a combination of retention enhancement activities together with practice sessions to promote retention produced better overall results. Likewise, the Naval Inspector General's report (2009) also made the point that CBT is most effective when it is used in a blended environment that incorporates both CBT and problem-based and hands-on learning opportunities, and the mandates of the Revolution in Training also require an optimum blend of training resources. In this regard, Dye reports that, "Given training requirements, the training command will deliver training solutions via residency courses, computer-based training (CD ROM, Internet LAN), correspondence courses, or on-the-job training" (p. 9).

Despite the progress made in developing effective CBT applications for the Navy to date, there are some significant problems that remain firmly in place, some of which are organizational and involve "turf" issues that may be exceedingly difficult to overcome. For example, Hayes emphasizes that, "Training problems are cumbersome to deal with due to fragmentation at the [the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations] level.... [T] he Fleet [commanders in chief], [Naval Education and Training Command] and the [Systems Commands] all own and operate commands that conduct training in major Fleet concentration areas" (2008, p. 78). Although efforts have been made to more fully integrate the Navy's training resources, these disparities will clearly affect the ability of the service to develop more effective CBT approaches. In this regard, Hayes adds that, "For the most part, these commands act as independent agencies, each using its resources to conduct training in support of its own mission. Although these training facilities are seldom fully utilized, the Navy rarely looks across the different commands to accomplish training missions" (2008, p. 79).

Taken together, it is apparent that it is possible and desirable to develop and administer computer-based training opportunities that can contribute to the accomplishment of mission objectives, but is also clear that there are a number of factors that must be taken into account in this process. For instance, Kraiger emphasizes that, "Clearly, the effectiveness of [CBT] will depend in large part on the way it is used. Most authors agree that the most powerful influence on learning from instructional technologies like computers is not the nature of the technology itself but what is delivered with it" (2002, p. 193). Although it is reasonable to suggest that state-of-the-art computers with lightning-fast processing speeds will produce superior outcomes compared to the slower computers that comprise part of the legacy hardware still in use by the Navy, the observation by Kraiger (2002) makes it clear that simply throwing more expensive hardware and software at the training problem is not the answer. As Krainger concludes, "Poorly designed training will not stimulate and support learning no matter how appealing or expensive the technology used. As a result, it is imperative that the growth in computer-based training be matched by a greater understanding of how to use technology in order to support learning" (p. 193).