86-AiS2 388 COMPUTER-BASED TRAINING SYSTEMS ORGANIZING TO USE THEN t/i(U) AIR COMMAND AND STAFF COLL MAXWELL AFB ALD B MACNIVEN APR 87 ACSC-87-1i15

UNCLASSIFIED F/G 5/9 ML

IIEIIIIIIIEIElllllEllllllEIEEI.

~ud 1. ~IL 2

luiuL2

titiC P REOION TETCHR

NAT04A §~f~ O VADAM-140

I-IVI'll'P IPII

lI FILE COPYDTICELECTEIr.:

D

0

00 ,4d

AIR COMMAND

STAFF COLLEGE

STUDENT REPORT-COMPUTER-BASED TRAINING SYSTEMS

ORGANIZING TO USE THEM

Major Donald B. MacNiven 87-1615

"insights into tomorrow".

DISriII(mON STATEM~'t ITApp id for public reeal A

i ution Unlimited v

* A .- * *N~~ - *' " *

DISCLAIMER

The views and conclusions expressed in thisdocument are those of the author. They are

, not intended and should not be thought torepresent official ideas, attitudes, or

o,. policies of any agency of the United StatesGovernment. The author has not had specialaccess to official information or ideas and

, has employed only open-source materialavailable to any writer on this subject.

This document is the property of the UnitedStates Government. It is available fordistribution to the general public. A loancopy of the document may be obtained from theAir University Interlibrary Loan Service(AUL/LDEX, Maxwell AFB, Alabama, 36112) or theDefense Technical Information Center. Request

*must include the author's name and completetitle of the study.

This document may be reproduced for use inother research reports or educational pursuitscontingent upon the following stipulations:

-- Reproduction rights do not extend toany copyrighted material that may be containedin the research report.

-- All reproduced copies must contain thefollowing credit line: "Reprinted bypermission of the Air Command and Staffo11 College."

-- All reproduced copies must contain thename(s) of the report's author(s).

-- If format modification is necessary tobetter serve the user's needs, adjustments maybe made to this report--this authorizationdoes not extend to copyrighted information ormaterial. The following statement mustaccompany the modified document: "Adaptedfrom Air Command and Staff Research Report

(number) entitled (title) by(author) .

-- This notice must be included with anyreproduced or adapted portions of thisdocument.

hr ' . ' '' : - ' '" - '" - " - , " . " . " . " . ~ , " " • , " ' . " -

REPORT NUMBER 87-1615

TITLE COMPUTER-BASED TRAINING SYSTEMS:ORGANIZING TO USE THEM

AUTHOR(S) MAJOR DONALD B. MACNIVEN, USAF

FACULTY ADV ISOR MAJOR MICHAEL L. MCKIM, USAFR

SPONSOR COL J.P. FLANNERY, HQ AFSPACECOM/DOT

Submitted to the faculty in partial fulfillment ofrequirements for graduation.

AIR COMMAND AND STAFF COLLEGE

AIR UNIVERSITY

MAXWELL AFB, AL 36112

UNCLASSIFIED/ 2 3 -

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGEIa. REPORT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION lb. RESTRICTIVE MARKINGS

UNCLASSIFIED________________________2.. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION AUTHORITY 3. DISTRIBUTION/A VAILABILITY OF REPORT

2b, ofCLASSIFICATION/OOWNGRADING SCHEDULE Aopreved "a ulcrA" e

___________________________________________________flkri6ufipn is unlimiWe.

4. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S) 5. MONITORING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S)

87-1615

6.. NAME OF PERFORMING ORGANIZATION Sb. OFFICE SYMBOL 7a. NAME OF MONITORING ORGANIZATION(if applica ble)

ACSC/EDCC

6c. ADDRESS (City. State anid ZIP Code) 7b. ADDRESS (City. State and ZIP Code)

MAXWELL AFB, AL 36112-5542

ft. NAME OF FUNDING/SPONSORING 8Sb. OFFICE SYMBOL 9. PROCUREMENT INSTRUMENT IDENTIFICATION NUMBERORGANIZATION I (it appliable)

Sc. ADDRESS eCity. State and ZIP Code) 10. SOURCE OF FUNDING NOS.

PROGRAM PROJECT TASK WORK UNITE LE MENT NO.. NO. NO. NO.

11, TITLE (Include Security Claiauficalon,

COMPUTER-BASED TRAINING SYSTEMS: ______

12. PERSONAL AUTHOR(S)

MacNiven, Donald B.," Major, USAF13a. TYPE Of REPORT 1~b TIME COVERED 14. DATE OF REPORT (Yr.. Mlo.. Day, 15.PGCON

16. SIJPIPLEMENTARY NOTATION PO ____ O____ 97Arl.PGON

ORGANIZING TO USE THEM (U)

17, COSATi CODES 18. SUBJECT TERMS eContinue on rerse it necesea-v and identify by block number)

FIELD -GROUP SUB. GR.

19. ABSTRACT rConlirnue on leeree if necesaary and identify by block number,

The Air Force does not currently have adequate organization and control ofcomputer-based training (CBT) efforts at the small unit level. The use ofCBT has the potential for improved training at lower cost, but that potentialis often not realized. Advances in computer technology have made CBT systemsmore readily available, and their use is spreading rapidly. A lack oforganization causes duplication of effort, a failure to share resources, andpoor training for CBT developers. This paper traces the development of CBTsystems in the Air Force, looks at present systems, reviews recent DODorganization initiatives, and discusses ar.eas for improved use of CBT withinthe Air Force. ie. j 4.~ ~ .. ,,*. 4. .LpS

20. DISTRIOUTION/AVAILASILITY OPD AOSTRACT 121. ABSTRACT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

UNCLASSIPIEDO/UNLiMITED C: SAME AS 04PT D TIC USERS C3UNCLASSIFIED

2211, NAME OF RISPONSISLIE IWO. viOkAL- - 22b TELEPHONE NUMBER -22C OFFICE SYMBOLI(inctude Area Code,

ACSC/EDCC Maxwell AFB, AL 36112-5542 j (205) 293-2483

DO FORM 1473, 83 APR EDITION OF I JAN 73 IS OBSOLETE. TNCT ARSTFTEDSECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE

PREFACEI am not a computer experts but I can see tre kind of

impact computers have on our daily lives. The fact that I

wrote this report using a personal computer certainly had an

impact on me. It maae it much more enjoyable.

I am not interested in computer-based training from a

technical point of view, but rather from tne standpoint of

an instructor. If a computer can help me teach better and

at the same time help a student learn faster, then it would

seem to be a tool worth using.

What this report hopes to do is to improve the way wework with computer-based training systems from an

organizational point of view. The computer experts have

designed systems that can help us teach, and now it is up to

Lis to look for ways to use the systems effectively.

Acce;ion For

NTIS CRA&IDTIL TAB UUridirr1vcert

By D I ;t b uti- ': ..... .......... . .

DAAviby ~~

tii

M , "". '

____ ___ ___ ABOUT THE AUTHOR _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Major Mac~i~ven received a Bachelor of Science Degree inEngineerjnq Management from the United States Air ForceAcadeg in 1972. In Januarw 1973, he was an Honor Graduateot the Aircraft Maintenance Officer Course at Chanute AFS,Illinois. His initial assignment was with the 11th AirRefueling Squadron at Altus AFB-, Oklahoma. While At Altusfrom Februarw 1973 until Aprii 1974, he served in a varietqof aircraft maintenance officer positions working withKC-135s. In Maw 1976, Major MacNiven was transterred toAndersen AFS3, Guam. He served in Job Control and as theMaintenance Supervisor of the 43d Field Maintenance Squadronsupporting B-52Ds. He attended Squadron Officer School inMarcn 1977 and was "elected as a Distinguished Graduate.Upon his roturn from Guam in April 1978,9 Major MacNivenreceived an assignment to the faculty of the SquadronOfficer School at Maxwell AFN9 Alabama. While at SOS, heserved as a section comander, a curriculum developer, and alecturer. Major MacNiven went on to serve as the Chief ofthe Maintenance Management Division with Detachmetnt 192 inIncxrlik A2, Turkew from June 1981 through June 1982. lHereturned to an assignment at the UnitedStates Air ForceAcademyw and worked with the Professional MilitarV Trainingprogram. In June 1984, Major MacI~iven became the AirOff icer Commandins of the Academy's 22nd Cadet Squadron andserved in that position until July 1996. Major MacNivonholds a masters deee* in managemnt and is currentlwattending the Air Command and Staff College at Maxwell AFB9Al abama.

iv

4A m %I A hn '

_ __ TABLE OF CONTENTS _

Pref ace -i--- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - i

About the Author iv

Executi ve Summar - v-

CHAPTER ONE-iNTRODUCTIbM.Statement of the Prroblp................................. IA sumpt .one ............................................ 2Limitations ..................................... 2

CHAPTER TWO---HISTORY OF C0VPUTER-BASED TRAININ4 SYSTEM-3IN THE AIR FORCE

Programmed Logic for Automated Teaching OperationsSPLATO ) ............................................... 3Advanced Instructional Stm (AI....................... 5

CHAPTER THREE--PRESENT CBTS ACTIVITIESAdvanced Training St tem (ATS) ........................ 7Base Level Training Management System (BLTMS) ........... 7ime Related Instructional Managemnie (TRI4) ......... 7

Programmed Logic for Aur omated Teaching Operations(PLATO) ............................................... 8Computer Directed Training Syste (CD.TS) ................ 8Instructional Support System { ISS) ................... 6Aanced On-the-Job Training SjstE-m (AOTS) .............. 8TRIADS ................................................ 8Training and Performance Support 54stem (TPSS).........9

CHAPTER FOUROrganizational Changes within the DoD ................. i

CHAPTER FIVECBT Organizational Problems in the Aiv- Force .......... 13

CHAPTER SIXReccfmmendations........................................ 17

'

m V

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY APart of our College mission is distribution of thestudents' problem solving products to DoDsponsors and other interested agencies toenhance insight into contemporary, defense

. related issues. While the College has accepted thisproduct as meeting academic requirements for

Zgraduation, the views and opinions expressed orimplied are solely those of the author ana shouldnot be construed as carrying official sanction.

"insights into tomorrow"

REPORT NUMBER 87-1615

AUTHOR(S) MAJOR DMALD B.. MACNIVEN, USAF

TITLE COMPUTER-BASED TRAINING SYSTEMS--ORGANIZIN TO USETHEM

I. Purpose: To suggest wags the Air Force might organizeto more effectively use computer-based training systems.

II. Problem: Althougch computer-based training ',CP.T) s.stemshave been shown to be effective teaching tools,organizational problems exist in applying them wideiv withinthe Air Force. As CPT systems have become more availableand affordable, the number of applications in the Air Forcehave expanded. Today all MAJCOMS are involved with CBT tosome extent. Orvganizationai sho-ttalls "4ithin the Air Forcehave resulted in lack of standardization of both hardwareand software, duplication of CAT deveiopment efforts% and alack of support and training tor CBT devetopers. Thisprevents the effective use of CBT.

II. Daka: Extensive oevelopmental o-ograms involving CDTwithin the Air Training Command over many years proved CSTworked. A wide variety of CBT syst.e . is now availavle andtrainers at the small unit level are developinq mang moreapplications. These individuals cite Problems of Lack oS4tandardizai.on, guidance, au trininq.

vi

• .- dam

___________ CONTINUED_IV. Conclusion: C'T can be effective if developed andapplied properly. The Air Furce needs to organize itself tDmake better use of the technology on a wide-icale basis.Nat all MAJCOMs mave not established effective single-pointsof contact for CBT ,matters. Additionally, personnelinvoived with deveioping CST are not well supported ortrained.

V. Recommendations: T'ee MAJCOMs mtwst take a more activerole in mon:Ltoring CBT applications. The Ai- Force shouldestablish an agency within the Air T-aining Command witr tIreexpertise and equipment to help current and futUre CST usersevaluate ano oevelop effective programs. The Air Forceshould develop a training program for personnei involved inCBT ano track this expertise utth a special experenceidenti ier.

vii

'" " -" ," ." " -" " ' - " ", ' " - ' ,

Chapter One

INTRODUCTION

Computers have become and will continue to be anintegral part of Air Force training programs. Along withthe other services in the Department of Defense, the AirForce has helped develop computer-based training (CBT)systems (8:3) and has shown them to be effective in reducingoverall training costs. These systems use the communicationand storage capabilities of a computer to provide directpresentation of instructional mauterials, allow for practiceby the learner (8:9), and also handle a myriad ofadministrative tasks for the instructor.

The potential for CBT systems is vast, and every majorcommand in the Air Force is now using the technology(14:--- . New advances in computer hardware and softwarewill, in the near future, enable the systems to run ondesktop computers and be coupled with videodisc players,making CBT even more available at the tocal level. Theattractiveness of the technology does not however, lie withits "bells and whistles" approach but with its effectivenessas a teaching tool and the cost benefits it can provide.While CBT systems can produce powerful instructional tools,the flurry of development activity by government agenciesand private industry ali-Ke has not been without itsproblems.

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Currently, the Air Force is not well organized to handleCBT development and realize all of the training benefits ithas to offer. Studies of CBT systems have shown thatcomputers can increase training effectiveness, reduce totaltraining Lime, and lighten administrative workloads (9:3-6).As d result of these potential savings, the Air Force made acommitment to use computers in training and now has a vastarray of systems in use. This commitment to the technologyhowever, has not been followed by the necessaryorganizational changes needed to manage CBT effectively.Today, both present and potential users of CBT are facedwith a lack of standardization in equipment and computer

!1

languages, little or no training for themselves, and noplace to go for help. This has resulted in unnecessaryduplication of program development efforts, a lack ofcoordination and communication among CBT users, and anoverall patchwork approach to the application of CBTsystems. This is not an effective use of valuable trainingdollars. Training costs have always consumed a huge part oithe Air Force budget in terms of manpower, money, andequipment; and at a time when sharp budget cuts are eminent,the Air Force must make the most out ot every trainingdollar it spends. Accordingly, the Air Force needs to makeorganizational changes in order to use CBT to its fulladvantage.

ASSUMPTIONS

Computer-assisted instruction (CAI) is defined as theuse of the communication and storage capabilities of acomputer to manage the direct presentation of instructionalmaterials and/or provision ot practice to the learner (8:9).

Computer-managed instruction (CMI) is the use of acomputer for testing, scheduling, dilocating resources,collecting student data, and providing status reports(8:13).

Computer--based training (CBT) systems use a combinationof both CAI and C-i1.

Computer based-training systems (CBTS) are notapplicable to every training situation. As an example, theywould not be cost effective if used with a very smalistudent population or for one-time training requirementsthat could be presented by lecture or in print. CBT systemsshould be integrated where needed as part of an overallsystems approach to training requirements.

When properly designed and used, CBTS can producequality, cost effective training.

LIMITATIONS

The use of simulators and computerized gaming is notwithin the scope of the study.

2

Chapter Two

hISTORY OF COMPUTER-BASED TRAINING SYSTENSIN THE AIR FORCE

Educators have been interested in computers asinstructional tools for decades (3:7). They saw programmedtexts, developed in the late 1950s and early 1960u, as idealcandidates to convert to computer instruction. Eventually,educators, trainers, and behavioral scientists adapted theprogrammed texts for computer presentation as computersbecame more readily available. The instruction took theform of a traditional text broken down into -frames-.Basically, the computer presented the 'frames', askedquestions, and responded to multiple choice answers from thestudent. [f the student's response was correct, thecomputer displayed the next -frame. If the studentanswered incorrectly, the computer presented the materialagain. During these first attempts at computer-aidedinstruction (CAI), the early computers were expensive tobuy, maintain, and program. As a result, program developerssaw CAI-s future to be with large-scale oystems "using manystudents to amortize the costs" (3:7). Since the militaryhad an ongoing need for training large numbers of students,the services were an ideal testing ground for CAI.

The Air Force helped pioneer the development of CAIwith projects occurring at Chanute, Sheppard, and LowryTechnical Training Centers (8:3). The PLATO (ProgrammedLogic for Automated Teaching Operations) computer-basedinstruction system was used extensively at Chanute andSheppard Technical Training Centers while the AdvancedInstructional System (AIS) was tested at Lowry AFB.

PLATO

PLATO started as a research project at the Universityof Illinois in 1959 (2:33) and is now the oldest and largestcomputer-based instruction system avaiLable (8:3). In 1972,the Air Force beqan a tri-secvice evaluation of PLATO afterreceiving funding from the Defense Advanced ResearchProjects Agency. The Technical Training Center at ChanuteAFB, Illinois was chosen to perform the evaluation with the

3

- S.' -

first phase beginning in July 1972. This phase continueduntil June 1974 and included the operations planninq andacquisition of equipment. During the second phase (June1974 until January 1976) Air Force members working closelywith civilian contractors developed CAT to be part of theSpecial Purpose Vehicle Repairman courses at Chanute. Thethird phase began in October 1975 and ran until September1976 and consisted of a series of seven experimental lessons(8:3). While not without its problems, the entire programproduced dramatic results and was an overwhelming success.

In the area of instructional effectiveness, studenttest scores showed the PLATO program was as effective as theregular course with a 28% savings in time. Instructorevaluations noted students using PLATO were more attentivewhen compared to those using programmed texts and workbooks(8:4).

With the computer technology of the mid 1970s, thePLATO program was more costly than the conventional courseby S87,500. "However, cost-avoidance savings due to thetotal combination of instructional system development

. procedures, PLATO, and instructional material design wasdetermined to be $180,000 a year" (8:4).

Also of concern to evaluators of the project was theimpact PLATO had on students' and instructors- attitudes-Course critiques from students using PLATO showed they had amore positive attitude toward the course than other studentsnot using the PLATO instruction. Instructors attitudes wereinitially positive, but declined as they became dissatisfiedwith their less direct role in the instruction process. itbecame clear that the changing role of the instructor shouldbe a concern for future CBT systems (8:4).

Throughout the project it became apparent that courseinstructors by themselves could not develop large-scale CAL.Evaluators felt a team approach drawing on the expertise ofcomputer programmers, systems designers, and subject-matterexperts was needed to produce the best computer-aidedinstruction (8:4).

Overall positive results achieved at Chanute were also

seen in tests of PLATO at the Air Force's School of HealthCare Sciences. The school, located at Sheppard APB. Texas,ran an evaluation of PLATO between 1975 and 1977 (5:9).Applied to the Physicians Assistant course, CAI showedencouraging results in both student performance and reducedtraining time.

4

With CAI, student performance increased by 18% overtraditional lecture based instruction. For low aptitudestudents, it proved to be 17% more efficient than programmedtexts. Additionally, high aptitude students showed a timesavings of from 29-32% (8:5). In student course critiques,"favorable comments toward CAI were primarily related to theability to progress through the course on a self-pacedbasis" (5:20).

In the area of management however, "the results of thePLATO evaluation at Sheppard AFB pointed out the need forextensive preplanning activities to ensure that appropriatestaff personnel are in place and that course instructionalstaff are trained prior to the implementation of CAI" (8:5)

AIS-

The Advanced Instructional System (AIS) "was developedto demonstrate the feasibility of managing and administeringindividualized instruction for up to 2,000 students daily infour Air Force technical training courses" (9:i.) Thiscomputer-aided instruction system "was to be the first largescale integration of technology to produce cost-effectiveindividualized instruction" (7:3). It was desiqned toprovide a "full range of Computer-based Instruction (CBI)functions, including course development and presentation,resource allocation and scheduling, and individual student.management (9:i). Presently, AIS is being used in a varietyof programs within the Air Force Systems Command, theStrategic Air Command, and the Tactical Air Command (8:5).

An important part of the AIS program was its use of anauthoring system designed to make it easier for instructorsto write CAI without extensive training in computerprogramming. Based on experience with the PLATO system,recommendations for future computer-aided instructionprograms called for the use of "a development teamconsisting of both instructors and CAI authors" (8:6). AISsimplified the authoring system so the subject matterexperts (instructors) could also produce the CAI materialwithout being experienced computer programmers. The resultsfrom AIS showed that instructors could develop effective CAImaterials when using the authoring system and that theavailability of a simplified authoring system had a greatdeal of impact on the organizational acceptance ofcomputer-aided instruction (8:6).

AIS produced very positive results from the beginningof its operation in 1975 through the end ot the evaluationin 1979. First, the system averaged 11.2% less

5

administrative time. Also AIS lessons had only a 61 failurerate compared to an average 23% failure rate with programmedtexts (8:2). And 20,000 students graduated from AIS courseswith demonstrated training time reductions of 15--50%. Theiroverall attitudes were positive with 80-90% reactingfavorably to the instruction. Test achievement among thestudents was comparable to conventional instruction. Sixmonths after the students completed training, follow-upquestionnaires sent to their supervisors rated 95% of thestudents as satisfactory or better. The majority of thestudents (68%) were rated in the two highest categories,either -very satisfactory- or 'excellent' (9:5). Clearlythe AIS evaluation demonstrated the capability of CBI toproauce large numbers of highly qualified students whiledoing it 5n less time than conventional methods.

Both the PLATO and.the AIS systems required largemainframe computers and an extensive support team todevelop, program, and administer CAI and C!I; but theyproved the computer to be an eftective teaChing tool. Theyhelped pave the way for future refinements in computer-bisedtraining systems and helped spdrk the imagination oftrainers concerning new applications of this technology. Asa result of its experience with these two systems, the AirForce decided to use CBT more extensively.

6

Chapter Three

PRE.SENT CBTS ACTIVITIES

The Air Force and the Department of Defense have Made dlarqe-scdle commitment to computer-based t'raining. It iseasy to understand why when one views the magnitude oftraininj requiKements. The Air Training Command atoneannually "trains 344,000 people in more than 4,300 coursescovering some 300 specialties" (1:66). Since CBT Cdflproduce results equal to or better than conventional methodsand signif~icantly reduce the training time required. thereis little wonder why CBT systems are so appealing.

1ome of the current Air Forre computer based trdininqsystems efforts are listed below-

AT.The Advanced Training System is designed to providethe Air Training Command ai computer-based training systemwith a wide range of capabilities. The system accompiishes"tsix training delivery tasks: information presentation,demonstration, drill and practice, evatuation, feedback, andremediation" (8:6). The management function schedultes thestudents. instructors. and equipment.. It also follows eachStUderit's progress and evaluates the instructional process.

-BLTMS. The Base Level Training Management System is anin-house etfort of the Air Trdining Command. rhe syste~mprovides "a computer-bdsed data collection and mandqementcapability that provides an interface between ATC technicalcourses and the Advanced Personnel Data System" (8:6)Additionally, it provides rourse management and courst-documentat ion.

--TRIM. The Time Related Int;triew'.iondl Management systemprovides CA! for Undergraduate Pilot Training, pius tthqhttraining management and scheduling support (8:6)

--PLATO. CAI continue!s to be provided by the PLATO systemat Sheppard and Cheinute Te'-hnical Training Cpnte-rs (9:1)~Contract instruction using the PLATO system 13 d!sf, used~ inprograms such ds KC 10 airsrew training (2:36).

7

--COTS. The Computer Directed Training System originated atKeesler APB. Mississippi in 1968 as a way of using acomputer to teach people how to use i computer. It provideson-the-job training tor the Base Level Military PersonnelSystem and the World Wide Military Command and ControlSystem (8:7).

..-ISS. The Instructional Support System provides softwarefor supporting computer-aided instruction andcomputer-managed instruction and is available for DoU use.The software is designed to operate on a variety of computersystems and was developed from the AIS. It uses Ada, acomputer ldnguage designed to be compatibLe throughout theDot (8:7).

--AOTS. The Advanced On-the-Job Trdining System is underdevelopment at Bergstrom APB, Texas. It is designed o makebase level OJT more effect.ive by giving supervisors atraining pLan individually taiiored to each worker. Itcompares job requirements with the worker's qudlificatikjnsand produces d priorltized OJT schedule. "AOTS; may ident,!v• nd schedule hy task. qualtited and available trainer.;.technticd references study guides, supplies, equipment,weapons systems, and facilities necessary to supporttraining" (1:58).

TRIADS. This is a Ucpartment ot Defense joint jerilreeffort that involves developing a library of programs thatcelate to computer based instruction. The purpose is to"develop sottware quality standards and instructionalquality standards for programs to be included in the systemlibrary, demonstrate the proqrams and develop user traknnq"i3:16. "he hardware for TRIAD!; is to feature modularirvand .nterdevice ,compat.ibility" and the soft.ware is to hebased on Aria, the n-w Dot) lanquage (8:8).

- TPSS. The ?raininq and Pertormance Support System is acomputer based jystem developed for the Air Porc _ SystemsConmmand. "The system was designed fo)r novie' and lessexperienced acquis;ition managers and provides.. individual Ytiorred curriculum.. "as required'. Each lessontopic...provides )ob performanCe adi. in the- form of p11 1cV.les:;ons learned, provedures, 4nd technicil backgroundinformation" (8A)

As YOU (.an see, a wide varpey .0 programs ,reeunderwdy, but they dare not w;!h(out si,;nificant probit-s!;flost of *he system'; r'i-y r)n d!tk f r,,nt (--)rpute-r; with

,lifterent snftw dre h [ [oD na:, r #qnzL'd the problem ,tlack of stindo rd,zat. tn in software and has deveioped Aria,de.; igned tf) he- a st anda rt I anquaqie. but it w i I be many

I .-. .-. S

years before all existing programs are converted, if at all.A standard for computers has yet to be established. Thecomputer industry is developing so rapidly that systemsbecome outdated quickly. Recent advances in commerciallydeveloped COT software has made courseware preparationeasier and reduced the number of manhours needed to produceeach hour ot computer instruction. This is both good andbad. It makes CBT more available on a smaller scale, but* atthe same time it makes standardization that. much harder.Alonq with the problem of standardization is one oftraining. The early tests involving PLATO and AIS pointedout the need for instructors trained in the use of CBT and ateam approach to course development. New systems boast ofeasy to prepare CBT but experience is proving that newcourse developers need good training to produce qualitymaterials.

Changes are coming in how the DoD is organizing to makebetter ,tse of CBT and are covered in the next chapter.

aid

C hapter Four

ORGANIZATIONAL CHAN(;ES WITHIN THE DoD

After years of study and analysis, many of thetechnical problems initially encountered ith comput.er basedtraining systems have been solved. The question today isnot "Shouid we use i:ompuLers?", but "How can we best usecomput.ers?" The systemi have proven usefuL, and thecommercial marketplace now has a myriad of computers dndprograms to produce computer based traininq. The Dcepartmentuf Defense helped pioneer this effort with programs in eachof the services. To reduce duplicat ion of effort. and tostandardize some of [he equipment and software used in thebuD, several key organizational tnd manaqement changes havetaken place in recent years. In L'82, the Report of theDefense Scienct Board on Traininq and Training Technologyconcluded that "major improvement, in training are necessaryand that !echnology will contribu e siinificantly 'awardetlectinq these improvements" (ltl:Liii A-tong the primaryconclusions of the study was one ;,hich stated "MuchLmprovement in readiness is AVdilable throught improve-:dtraining. Hiqh technology cmn help. Rapid progress ispossible with promise of hi.1h payoff by funding knownsuccessful appli(:ations sucth as computer aided instruction"(1OV) But it. also went on to say, "asily identiri.ableproponency 15 missinq in OSD and the Military Departmenti; todireut R&D relating to trairnitq, to review tecnnoiogy fiot.raininq appliCations and Lo intluence trdining initiat.vr-'(t0:v). In other words, thrl re is a 1, tk of central tocus*nd cont rl

The O-eTense Science 4oard panel made some key

recommendations in if s November 198? report The ,ec:etaryof Defense reviewed their findinqs and approved tht-m inPebruary 198't. The first recommendation under rqaqIni.at t on

and management (one of tnret" art'as dddressed) w-*; *.,establish a st-eerinq ('ommitte, fo(:usinq on traininq andtrdininqj tPchnoioqy. The (hairman o the Junt' "hicft; ofStaff h.is .n.Iated this act:n !() (' et "a hiqh itve-perspective and pruponenc:v" tin tie 1vera(i tranin(n, ;y;tvm.There wa,; t need to "strerqthvn the- position ),t trainin'o a0t.he hudqef table, and help t(, preve--nt adminiutr.tive 'Indtechnical (lupI iCat ion of el trt" ( ti)

1()

The next recommendation was to establish a "DefenseTraining Data Center for all training-related data" (10:6).The Defense Training Data and Analysis Center (TDAC) wasestablished in Orlando, Plorida (the name has since beenchanged to the Training Performance and Data AndlysisCollection, (16: -)) and is collucated with the NavalTraining Equipment Center arid the U.S. Army Program Manager,'training Devices (4:47). The center is the focal pointwithin the Otfice of the Secretary of Defense for aefenseLraininq-reiated data such as Lraininq loads, flow rates andtraininq support. Their chiet "product is intormationneeded for decistun-makxng." (4:47)

The third recommendation was to "revise the acquisitionprocess to (a) edse procurement specifications andstandards, commensurate w~th training/device use; ()acquire training requirements data earlier in the weaponsystem development cycle" (1l0:8) Aany training deviceswere being nredlessly "over engineered" when they weredesigned to meet standards for equipment intended for field

_ and combat conditions. There was d150 d frequent compiaintthat training devices arrived too long after the weapons

csystems were o lded (8). The r-commendation was made to

Save time and money by "elininaung excessivedV5Ign/Mdnufacturing requirent.3" and "to have the training

devices in place hy t they dre needed" (10:).

Another recommendation was to have the "servicelabordtories increase fundinq and management emphasis ontraining technology" (10:9). The bgard felt that "'w,,h fewnotable exceptions, the laboratories R&D prioriLies ,tr'- noldriven by operational requitements cr probiems. Noreuver,cperational people, when ta'ed iith immediate applledquestions, rarely look to thv laboratories for answers"(10:9)

The final recumlendal-n in orqaniztiiin and manaqement;as to "provide d uinqle point of ,ontact fr pruponenvy tndcrierdination of training and traininq technology" with~neaich service (10:9) This wad to help ,:ommuni(,atin -.indmake the best usr of limited rtsourcet;. The Air Porce nowhias an office which .. erves aS It.S sin(jiv point of (ontcitand it is O USAP/XO( ', (1: ).

The procrss of inttqrat inq computer based rininqsystems has; in the author'; opinion taken two giant sitp,;with a third y!-,. to be 'ospiet,-,d. :'*tcp Ont' Was the de-;4n,devel opment. and test nq of the tvchnmot)y Step two -aS thrrerognition and action at the- [,) level to oirgdnize thedefensr training community tf, estab!iL;h "inqle poin's o,'onl act wit.hin each service f;r tr i nirni Iechnoloqy needs,

11.

to standardize systems, and to provide for informationsharing. All these etforts help make the training communitybetter able to state its case, operate more efficiently andultimately provide better and cheaper t[aining. Theinitiatives have yet to stand the test of time, but theyrepresent a good start. The third step is for the Air Forceto organize itself to use CBT better.

12

Chapter Five

CBT ORGANIZATIONAL PROBLEMS IN THE AIR FORCE

The Air Force is not well organized to support CBTwithin small organizations. The Air Train".nq Command has agreat deal of experience working with CRT on a large-scale,but experience is lacking within many smaller organizations.Much of the present CBT development is occurring in smallunits such as combat crew training squadrons, the AirCommand and Staff College, and individual departments withinthe faculty of tne Air Force Academy. To assist CBT in theareas it is growing the fastest, the smaller units, the AirForce must do several things.

First, the Air Force needs single points of contact forCBT matters at each of the AAJCOMs. At present, not allMAJCOMS have established an office of primary responsibility(OPR) and this is causing confusion and wasted effort atmany levels. HQ USAF/XOOTW (the Air Forc-es CRT OPR) held aconference in December 1986 and discussed computer-basedtraining systems.. While each of the MAJCOMs wasrepresented, the feeling was the Air Force as a whole was"not very well organized" (14:--) to use the systems totheir greatest advantage. In one command, the 00. LG, andIN communities were all developing and using CBTS withoutknowledge of what the others were doing. When problems oflack of coordination were discovered in another command'saircrew training community, the policy of MAJCOM/DO checkotfwas Cstdblished to force coordination at least to that level

The situation is particularly frustrating for thosetunits that can see benefits from CBT and want. to use theavailable technology. A great deal ot time is spUnt iusgetting started. With no centril point of contact., thepotential user is forced to dev-1op his own sources ofintormation on Systems Capdbiltt-IeS, dVaildb~lit-y,development, and application 'The 4239th Strategic TrainingSOuadron has become the advocate ol computer based traininqfor tne operations field within the Strategic Pir Command.They found "one shortcoming appLeared and reappeared againand again: Organization. There weren't dny recoqni:zableCBT advocates around... there (-re CBT supporters but they

,IA

weren-t out there, day in and day out, advocating CBTapplications." They took their concerns to SAC headquartersand within three months were appointed the CBT OPR for SACOperations (12:1-4).

It is easy to imagine how potential CBT users could endup duplicating the mistakes of others. Dr. Jerry Boling ofthe International Officer School at Maxwell AFB, Alabama,stated there is a need for information crossflow. There isa need to know what systems are available, who is doingwhat, and what are the ingredients for a successful program(15:--). An effort is currently underway by Major MikeMcKim (a Reservist assigned to Air University) to produce anewsletter to aid communication in what has become a word ofmouth community. He has undertaken this effort on his ownJncluding personally shouldering ail printing costs (17:-->.A command single-point of contact could go a long way tomeet the information crossflow needs involving CBT and makeindividual efforts unnecessary.

Air University has taken the first step to providingthat contact within its command. AU/XPZ is responsible fortraining technology, and they have established the AirUniversity Technology Aoplications Committee to increase thesharing of ideas and resources between the component schoolsof the Command (6:vii). This structure is not without itsproblems, but it is responding to recognized needs.

In addition to MAJCOM single-points of contact, the AirForce should establish an organization with the ability tohelp users develop effective computer-based training systemsquickly and easily. Currently, many ot the user developedtraining programs are produced through trial and error.Individuals nave had to train themselves on the use of thecomputer systems, a task that has not proved easy. The AirCommand and Staff Coliege Directorate of Associate Programshad problems using an authoring system when producing theirown computer-based instruction. They found the curricuimwriters, who were subject--matter experts not computerprogrammers, could not immediately use the system. Thedesigners of the system assumed that all of the educational

-questions had been answered and the lesson logic had beendeveloped, dnd all of the Instructional Systems Developmentconcerns had been taken into account. Thus, ACSC found theauthoring system reduced the need for a computer programer,but d systems designer was still needed to work closely withthe subject-matter experts (11:1 20).

The Air Force Academy has deveioped a Computer LearningLaboratory (CLL) to solve problems at the Academy that aresimilar to those encountered by ACSC. The Academy describes

14

the CLL as "an emerging concept of service to the facultyand students." Its purpose is "to enhance undergraduateeducation through the use of computer-based tools"(13:1-86). The CLL helps the various faculty departmentsprepare computer-based instruction by providing the computerexpertise with courseware development. The variousdepartments supply subject-matter experts, and the CLLadvises on the appropriateness of computer-based tools,offers the programming expertise, provides computers, andhelps develop the best product for the need. The CLL alsoexperiments with new technology products looking for ways toapply them to education.

An Air Force-wide tesource such as the Academy-s CLLcould help immeasurably in developing computer-basedtraining. The 423Fth Strategic Training Squadron-sTechnical Applications Branch at Carswell AFB, Texas, is oneunit that has been forced to get. much of its computer-bastdtraining experience the hard way. They had an opportunityto develop a CBT system for the FB-IIl AvionicsModernization Program when they were tasked to produceflight crew training devices to teach the avionics updates.They realized "that there were no existing guidelines forsystematically designing, selecting, and implementing afully operational CBT system for military applications."They used a team approach and developed a checklist whichenabled them to accomplish their task. They offer thesewords of caution to others: "CBT is one medium ofinstruction and should be chosen as carefully as anothermedium in accordance with the 1SD model. It can be asuperior method of instruction if used properly, but usedimproperly, it can be more like an albatross" (12:1-2). Ifan agency like the Academy-s CLL had been available toassist in CBT development, the task would have been mucheasier for the 4235th STS. Many others could avoid apotential "albatross" as well.

The Air Force also needs to develop a training programfor those involved with computer-based training. It seemsobvious that people developing computer-based training forothers need to know what they are doing, but to date much ofthat experience has been gained through trial and error.Members of the 4235th STS have been directly invclved withCBT development for over four years but readily admit thatthe experience was gained through, "years of trial anderror, learning to ask the correct questions and ofdeveloping successful solutions to the various trainingtasks we were tasked to support" (12:1-2). Othersillustrate this situation when they tell of a lack ofexpertise with CBT throughout the Air Force. In oneinstance, a complete interactive videodisc system was found

15

60M *%,

in a hospital storage room. The system had been procuredthrough the efforts of a CBT advocate on the hospitaltraining staff, but after that individual was transferred,no one else knew how to use it (15:--).

Some might argue that the Air Force should get out ofthe computer-based training business and that contractsupport is the way to go but there will always be a need forsubject-matter experts to assist in program development.From the first Air Force experience with PLATO, programevaluators recommended the need for a team approach to CBTdevelopment. It makes good sense to train Air Force membersresponsible tor producing quality CBT products. Oncetrained, members could receive a special experienceidentifier (SEI) that would be used to track them in thepersonnel management system. No longer would that valuableexperience be "lost" and not able to be drawn upon af alater date it need be.

The Air Force could improve the way it is organized tohandle CBT by acting on the recommendations in the nextchapter.

16

Chapter Six

RECOMNENDATIONS

1. The Air Force should establish single-points of contactfor computer-based training within each of the MAJCOMs.These single-points of contact should monitor and assistcomputer-based training efforts within their command andmaintain close liaison with the Air Force OPR.

2. The Air Force should establish an agency within the AirTraining Command with the expertise and equipment to aidcurrent and future computer-based training users developeffective programs. The agency should be prepared toprovide computer expertise and work in concert with

.%" subject-matter experts to prepare computer-based instructionappropriate for the need. The Air Force Academy's ComputerLearning Laboratory could serve a model for this neworganization.

3. The Air Force should develop a training program withinthe Air Training Command for personnel involved indeveloping computer-based training programs. A specialexperience identifier (SEI) should be used to trackpersonnel trained and experienced with computer-basedtraining systems.

17

I 1P 11, 11

___ ___ ___ ___BIBLIOGRAPHY _ _ _ _ _ _ _

A. REFERENCES CITED

Articles and Periodicals

1. Mc:Coy, Tidal W. ONew Ways To Train.0 Air Force, Vol. 69,No. 12 (December 1986), pp. 55-61.

2. Meyers, Reva. OPLATO: Historical Roots, CurrentApplications and Future Prospects.- TrainingTechnology, Journal, Vol. 1, No. 1 (Winter CQuarter1984), pp. 33-37.

3. Montague, William E. and Wulteck, Wallace H. II.

'ComputerBased Instruction: Will It Improve

Instructional Quality?* Training Trechnology!,Journal, Vol. 1, No. 2 (Winter Quarter 1984), pp.4-19.

4.. Sicilia, G. Thomas. "The Defense Training Data andAnalysis Center.0 Training Technology Journal, Vol.1, N'o. 3 (Spring Quarter 1984), pp. 47-51.

Official Documents

5. Air Command and Staff College. An Analysis of Air ForceUse of Computers in Education and Training. StudentReport No-. 16355-79. Maxwell AFB, AL: ACSC/EDCCMay 1979.

6. Air Command and Staff College. How Can Air Univers~ityBest Manage the Acquisticin and Use of Classroom andDesktop Technology? Student Report No. 86-1685.Maxwell AFB, AL% ACSC/EDCC, April 1986.

7. Air Command and Staff College. Success Determinants ForAir Force Computer-Assisted Instruction. StudentReport No. 2295-79. Maxwell AFB, AL: ACSC/EDCC,May 1979.

18

CONTINUED_______

-3. A).r -orce 13:st-ews Command. Computer-AssistedThstruction. D~ecisio~n Handbook. Tech~nical Report

No.A~RLTR-4-6. Loary Air Force FBAsei COZ AirForce Human Resources Laboratorgs April 1985.

Q. Air Force _:.Vstem~s Command. computer-Based Training:.7plerw-ntation and %steu Evaluation. TecnI cal

Report IJo AF*HRL-FP-95-4O. Lowiry Air Force 37ac#,CC), Air Force Hujkan Resources Laboratory, ijini±ry*986.

0Under Secretarg of Defense for Research andi Engimper~ng.Report of troe Defense Science Board 19e2 SuwvaerStUdY F-anel #-n Tr'aininy and Training Technolagqy.'shinqtor. D.C., November 1982.

'Urnpu& itned M~aterials

1!. Onti!et. Rict~rd A'., Lt Col, USAF and Richard A. Ran~ker,Maj I.SAF, *The mCSC Curriculum Developer's ;_-PerModel and !*s Support of Computer-Aidedin.stru-ct ion.4 Paper Presented at the A-,r PorceConference on rechinology in rr-iining ana Edu':-ation.Maritqomery4, AiAbawa, 111-1.3 March 19 86.

12. Hamrick, jack, i'aj, USAF and Eric Emde SMSgt, LISAF.* "Appl-41nq Computer Based Training Tecnnolovsj. A

6swtems Approwac,. w Paper Presented at the 1986 AirForce Confsarence an Technology in Training an~dEducation, 4ontoe-%, Alanata 10-13 March X906.

* ~Z..Jaimes, Robert L. "The Un~ited States Air Force AcademyCompute~ir '-earning Laboraorv Projeczt Plan.* rpt'rpresented at t'-e Air Force C.:nferepce on Techn1' c,,-4in Traininq ac.d Education? I' ntgoovery, Alaoamba,

O-.3Marcr, 19'86.

19

.........

____________CONTINUED

Otner Sources

14. Baltazar, Bili R. Lt Col, USAF. Chief, 3,aeiT -irner Section, Warrner Management Divi;cn, HQUSAF./XIIIOTW, Washington D.C. Telec.DD, lr' December1986.

1L5. Boling~, jerry, Cniet of Cross,-Cultural Ccmraunicat.onsBranch, international Officer Schools M1axwel.' AFR,

-A1nt~rvx.wq 10 Decemoer19.

16. Dicl,.ensonq Tceia, Audio-visual Product'-on Of,.cer. 'HOCIJSAF!XOORVj Wasn:Lngton D.C. Telecon, !-2 Decemuer'9%6.

1-7. Mc~im, Michael L., Maj, USAFR. co- Techno IgApp)ication Officer. AUiXPZ, Maxwell AFB. A.Cnversati.n, 14 January 1987.

B. RELATED SOURCES

Art.,Cles -And Pertrjdicals

IF. Pok, Dereit. *Looking inlto Education's Hizqh-Tpch

i9. Comweau, B.J. "Does Y1our CDT Course~ Teach Pp'-forrnance'"Training and Deveoment Journal, (Juilq, 1986), pp.427-44.

20. Mc~umbs, Barbara L. *'-Al Enhancements to Motiva ixoralSikills Tr-_ining for Militart Technical T-ajn.rngStudents.' TrainingTechnol.oqL Journal ', Vol. 1, No.

4(Suammer Qv~arter 19I) op 10-15.

21. McMeen. (jeorgi' R. %Mlodern Techrology in Education: '--omrTeaching *lacrhine to Microcomputers and StudientResponse Systems. Educatiovial Technology, tAugutt1986)9, pp. 20-24.

20

CONTINUED_______

P2123. Ile-j i W' 1 1~3 Am e-rm gA~r ican Educa ir.-Reaucing '1-s Ris- r~o 4,he Nation.' Ter N rV.Ear Is . 0

23. 5-IeMaSKO. Dan. CrBT Fnrasies: The 'GroLzrnd Be~clecs.'Train~ing,% Vai. 23, No. 12 %D46cemlloer, 19'3o'.

7c;-f6.

24. Wi~sons Lois S. 'Presentin~i TICCII: ~t--t-rComputer-PRac,ed istruction.' TraininQ

z2urna, I ot. :, No. 2 !4xpt#er Q-'uarter !-,b4

Cdfficl.: £'ccumuints.

-5. Air ;:orce %S.itembs Command. -%dvanced IlsteutiopaL.-Yt~s Applic-ations fo- r~ Uture. Wchn 4 a A

Report Nc3. AFHL-TP-9-Bi-5. Lawrq Air FLjrce R.CtAi-- Force Human Resource-, Laboraltory, Jui:,

25. Ai.- Force Systeets :oRmusand. ~ompter-PanaqedInstruction: Dove'iopawnt ion oaiu.,tion tSkiil 4od.ules to Reduce Trainirci r~ime. 7 eC-in i -alReport No. AFHRL-TR-79-2C1. -,)w: Air Fo'rceCIO: Air Force. Human Resources Lanaratoryg, Atictis19'79.

21

b

i

I

I

.~ .~. w -~ w w *w *e * ~ -

.1~