myweb.fsu.edumyweb.fsu.edu/alm06k/https___mywebdav.fsu.edu_alm06k/by... · web viewprocedural tasks...
TRANSCRIPT
Running head: COMPUTER-BASED TRAINING FOR MILITARY PROCEDURAL SKILLS
Computer-Based Training for Procedural Skills in a U.S. Military Context
Alison L. Moore
Florida State University
Running head: COMPUTER-BASED TRAINING FOR MILITARY PROCEDURAL SKILLS
Abstract
The objective of this paper is to present the state of the literature for studies pertaining to
computer-based training (CBT) for procedural skills in the context of the U.S. Air Force, U.S.
Army, and U.S. Navy. This paper is intended to serve as a foundation for understanding CBT
and determining common characteristics for effective CBT materials for procedural tasks.
Computer-based training is an instructional delivery method involving educational content being
conveyed to learners digitally or virtually via a computer. Numerous researchers have addressed
CBT interventions in terms of cost and time efficiency and learner achievement, and a conflict
among their findings currently exists.
Keywords: CBT, procedural skills, U.S. military
Running head: COMPUTER-BASED TRAINING FOR MILITARY PROCEDURAL SKILLS
Computer-Based Training for Procedural Skills in a U.S. Military Context
The U.S. military has an extensive history of training and instruction (Reiser, 2001). The
various skills and knowledge required of personnel by military leaders necessitate a successful
system of education and preparation (Reiser & Dempsey, 2007). Due to the prevalence of
training within the U.S. military, much attention has been devoted to assessing the effectiveness
and efficiency of potential instructional practices. With advancements in technology, options for
implementing training via computers and the Internet became possible (Barker & Brooks, 2005;
Duncan, 2005). A subset of online education is computer-based training (CBT).
Computer-based training differs from the larger, higher-level topics of e-learning and
distance education (Barker & Brooks, 2005; Reiser & Dempsey, 2007). As a branch of these
subjects not necessarily relying on the Internet, CBT has been defined as “individual or group
self-paced instruction using a computer as the primary training medium . . .” (Navy Inspector
General Report to the Secretary of the Navy [NAVINSGEN], 2009, p. ii). Also, Driscoll (2005)
explained CBT as “simply programmed instruction presented via a computer” (p. 62), and Moos
and Azvedo described CBT as “a learning environment with multiple forms of representations
(e.g., text, audio, and video) . . . allow[ing] students to pursue personal goals by presenting
information in a nonlinear format” (p. 576).
Within the framework of CBT are additional facets. These include simulations (Regian &
Shute, 1994), intelligent tutoring systems (Regian & Shute, 1994; Gonzalez & Ingraham, 1994),
and video games (Orvis, Horn, & Belanich, 2009). For the purposes of this literature review, we
will not differentiate between and focus on these components individually, but instead consider
CBT as a whole. This should allow for a more thorough investigation.
1
Running head: COMPUTER-BASED TRAINING FOR MILITARY PROCEDURAL SKILLS
Addressing CBT is important, especially in the context of the U.S. military. Leaders of
the U.S. military have devoted great resources to developing and implementing CBT (Barker &
Brooks, 2005; Duncan, 2005; Newsome & Lewis, 2011). In efforts to decrease costs and increase
learner performance, military leaders have attended to CBT as a solution (Carey, Reese, &
Shuford, 2010). For example, officials of the U.S. Navy have recently spent more than a billion
dollars per year on instruction for enlisted sailors (Carey et al., 2010), and the military is now
faced with substantial upcoming budget reductions (Tiron, 2011). President Obama approved the
Budget Control Act in August 2011, which requires $450 billion to be cut over the next decade
(Tiron, 2011). In order to maintain a successful system of education and instruction for military
personnel, leaders must be able to identify and implement the most cost efficient methods of
preparing individuals for jobs (Ricci, Salas, & Cannon-Bowers, 1996).
In addition to these financial aspects, Newsome and Lewis (2011) discussed the
importance of providing military personnel with adequate skills to perform their assigned tasks.
Military personnel are often faced with dangerous responsibilities that, if not completed
accurately and punctually, can cause detrimental results (Jordan & Curtis, 2010). Procedural
tasks are an example, in that if vehicles or aircraft do not receive appropriate maintenance,
mechanical failure could occur and endanger individuals. Therefore, personnel tasked with
procedural skills must be capable of meeting their occupation’s needs.
Due to the importance of CBT use by the U.S. military, multiple researchers have
conducted studies regarding CBT implementation in the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Army, and U.S.
Navy. In general, the articles reviewed for this study indicated CBT is a positive tool and
strategy for instruction of procedural skills. However, Barker and Brooks (2005) stated that
military CBT initiatives did not result in outstanding improvements when compared to traditional
2
Running head: COMPUTER-BASED TRAINING FOR MILITARY PROCEDURAL SKILLS
face-to-face instruction in terms of return on investment. More notably, in a report to the
Secretary of the U.S. Navy, a team of the Naval Inspector General (2009) outlined an in-depth
review of CBT implemented for instruction. The study team reviewed multiple sites for CBT and
reported:
We found minimal governance or standardization for the acquisition, design and
development, or life cycle management of CBT curricula. Courseware content and
quality vary widely, and updates are protracted. Delivery systems are outdated, and
funding has not kept pace with the growth of electronic training. The instructional design
of CBT curricula does not capitalize on the learning theory principles. . . . We also found
no mechanism in place to ensure curricula content is linked to Sailor work. (Navy
Inspector General Report, 2009, p. ii)
This literature review is warranted due to the potential ability of CBT to maintain low time and
cost requirements while simultaneously providing an effective and efficient process for training.
With contradictory evidence produced by some researchers, a systematic and exhaustive look at
CBT use for procedural skill instruction will be useful in addressing this gap.
Goal
The purpose of this paper is to present the current state of the literature for studies
pertaining to CBT for procedural skills in a U.S. military context, namely in the U.S. Air Force,
U.S. Army, and U.S. Navy. Through this exercise, guidance for developing and selecting CBT
tools will become apparent. These recommendations may be helpful to designers of instruction
and individuals responsible for training military personnel. The objective of this paper is to
provide general guidelines that will support military personnel master procedural skills via a
CBT medium.
3
Running head: COMPUTER-BASED TRAINING FOR MILITARY PROCEDURAL SKILLS
The research question developed for this literature review is: What are characteristics of
effective CBT for procedural skills implemented by the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Army, and U.S.
Navy? This question guided the purpose and direction of the literature review. The process of
conducting this review allowed for the discovery of numerous key points that react to the stated
research question. These specific factors will be discussed throughout and at the conclusion of
this review.
Method
Procedure
In preparation for this literature review, articles were located and evaluated for relevancy
and strength of research. This process was developed to be as systematic as possible to ensure
comprehensiveness of the current literature searches, as well as repeatability for other
researchers. Various databases accessible through the Florida State University Library system
were searched, including:
Academic Search Complete,
o This multidisciplinary database provides access to sources, such as full-text
documents, abstracts, reports, and conference proceedings, from numerous
academic fields of study.
ERIC (Proquest),
o The ERIC database is affiliated with the U.S. Department of Education and offers
published sources pertaining to education. The sources comprising the ERIC
database originate from two journals, Resources in Education (RIE) and Current
Index to Journals in Education (CIJE).
4
Running head: COMPUTER-BASED TRAINING FOR MILITARY PROCEDURAL SKILLS
JSTOR,
o The JSTOR database spans numerous fields of study, such as the humanities,
socials sciences, and sciences, and provides access to sources at a two- to five-
year delay from initial publication date.
Military & Government Collection,
o This database is accessible through the Florida State University’s Library system
and is a subcategory of EBSCOhost. The purpose of this database is to provide
sources affiliated with military and government publications.
PsychINFO (Proquest), and
o The PsychINFO (Proquest) database provides access to psychology-related
journal articles, books, reports, and dissertations.
Google Scholar.
o Google Scholar is a website that serves as an online database for peer-reviewed
sources.
In addition to searching these databases, reference lists of relevant articles were also reviewed,
which yielded additional sources. Many of these supplementary articles were located and
accessible through the Florida State University Library system, Inter Library Loan, and
download from websites.
Inclusion Criteria
Search terms were identified and entered in each of the databases listed above to retrieve
relevant articles. The terms were compiled by exploring the thesauri of databases to distinguish
the most appropriate search terms for each database system. Search terms and phrases consisted
of computer-based training, computer-assisted training, computer-based instruction, computer-
5
Running head: COMPUTER-BASED TRAINING FOR MILITARY PROCEDURAL SKILLS
assisted instruction, computer-based learning, computer-assisted learning, procedure,
procedural skills, military personnel, defense, armed forces, and government.
The abstracts for articles generated by the database searches were reviewed, and those
that appeared to match the goals of this literature study were downloaded and considered in more
detail. Preference was shown to research studies pertaining to the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Army,
and U.S. Navy. Studies were excluded from this paper if they were published in languages other
than English, demonstrated poor study designs, or were not peer reviewed. This system yielded
multiple sources, and six were selected.
Literature Review
Computer-based training is an instructional delivery method involving digital or virtual
material being conveyed to learners via a computer. In general, CBT is considered to offer
instructors and students various features for potential success, including portability, time
efficiency, and customizability (Bedwell & Salas, 2010). Within the U.S. military, CBT
approaches have been used for electronics, medical, and aviation education (e.g., Dossett &
Hulvershorn, 1983; Hemman, 2005; Bell, Billington, Bennett, Billington, & Ryder, 2010). A
table outlining the content of this literature review is presented in Appendix A.
CBT in the U.S. Military
Dossett and Hulvershorn (1983) conducted a two-part study looking at the effects of CBT
on student performance. The authors compared student achievement resulting from peer training
integrated with CBT, individual training with CBT, and standard face-to-face instruction paired
with CBT. A common curriculum for electronics principles and procedures served as a consistent
subject matter for the training. The first portion of the study addressed the benefits offered by the
three groups, (a) CBT and peer training, (b) CBT and individual training, and (c) CBT and
6
Running head: COMPUTER-BASED TRAINING FOR MILITARY PROCEDURAL SKILLS
classroom instruction. The second part of the study pertained to determining a process for ideal
pairings of peer training partners.
For the first study, all participants were men enlisted in the U.S. Air Force and enrolled in
the electronics course. The sample was initially divided into two groups. Two comparison groups
both consisted of 55 participants (no more information about this assignment process was
provided), with one group receiving the traditional classroom instruction and the other receiving
the individual CBT. The researchers formed an experimental group with a total of 72 participants
pulled randomly and equally from the two comparison groups, and these individuals were
matched based on ability levels. The content of these instructional interventions was the same
electronics procedures, and supposedly only differed in the medium of delivery.
Student performance was recorded via time spent on the instructional materials and
achievement of three intermittent skills tests. Dossett and Hulvershorn (1983) did not divulge
details regarding these assessments, which significantly hindered readers’ ability to judge the
study’s findings. However, the authors explained that in terms of student mastery of procedural
skills as measured across the three tests, participants’ scores were not statistically significant
between the three groups (CBT and peer training, CBT and individual instruction, and classroom
instruction).
Similar to Dossett and Hulvershorn (1983), Parchman, Ellis, Christinaz, and Vogel
(2000) addressed CBT for electronics procedural skills, specifically those of U.S. Navy
electronics systems operators. The authors explained that, due to the various options for CBT
implementation, “choosing one approach over another or determining how to combine
approaches optimally is difficult” (p. 74). The purpose of their study, therefore, was to compare
three possibilities for CBT for electronics systems operators of procedural skills. To guide this
7
Running head: COMPUTER-BASED TRAINING FOR MILITARY PROCEDURAL SKILLS
study, the authors composed the following research questions: (a) Are the CBI strategies more
effective than current CI (classroom instruction)?, (b) Are the CBI strategies more efficient than
current CI?, (c) Are the CBI strategies more motivating than current CI?, and (d) Do differences
in effectiveness and efficiency exist among the CBI strategies? (Parchman et al., 2000, p. 75).
The study involved three types of CBT delivery. The first treatment was a computer-
based drill and practice (CBDP). This intervention involved students progressing through screens
of text and basic graphics to complete problem-solving activities. The second treatment was
enhanced computer-based instruction (ECBI), and the content of this intervention was the same
as the CBDP electronics subject matter, but differed in the way the information was conveyed.
The ECBI version presented the content through more attention-grabbing text, graphics,
animation, and simulations. The third treatment was identified as a game requiring students to
immerse themselves in a virtual environment. The computer screens replicated a futuristic
battleship, and the students could navigate throughout the vessel while interacting with and
learning about artifacts and processes relevant to the electronics instructional content. The game
scenario also included an advanced organizer and summary of the exercise. A group of students
receiving traditional classroom instruction for the electronics content served as a control group
against which the three experimental groups were compared.
A total of 88 Naval flight students, selected based on their Armed Forces Vocational
Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) scores indicating potential success in aviation, participated in the
study. Each of the four groups contained between 13 and 24 students, and were randomly
assigned to a treatment or the control group. All students passed the initial flight training course,
at which point the three test groups completed the treatment conditions, and then concluded the
standard flight curriculum. Overall, Parchman et al. (2000) found the two treatment groups of
8
Running head: COMPUTER-BASED TRAINING FOR MILITARY PROCEDURAL SKILLS
CBDP and ECBI yielded higher student results than the game treatment and control groups. The
authors based this determination on time spent by students with the instruction, and student
performance of skills on Navy Personnel Research and Development Center (NPRDC)
assessments. It should be noted that concern arises from the three test groups receiving additional
instructional time in the interim, whereas the control group did not.
In a military medical context, Hemman (2005) examined the effectiveness on student
performance of the program Simulation Technologies for Advanced Trauma Care (STATCare).
This software is a CBT system designed to deliver and test students’ abilities to execute medical
procedures. Specifically, the purpose of Hemman’s study was “to supplement standard
emergency medical technician [EMT] training with a three-dimensional, computer-based, virtual
training simulator” (p. 723). The study was also intended to determine if the resulting student
skills and knowledge could pass the National Registry of Emergency Medical Technicians
examination. To achieve these goals, Hemman conducted a quasi-experimental study with
participants randomly assigned to either the control group (normal classroom EMT course) or the
treatment group (normal classroom EMT course incorporated with CBT simulations).
Participants were 167 U.S. Army personnel enrolled in the EMT classes who volunteered
to join the study. For almost one year, Hemman (2005) monitored six EMT classes, of which
three randomly received the CBT addition. For this treatment group, laptop computers, headsets,
and microphones allowed participants to access the STATCare material. The face-to-face
classroom instruction remained the same for both the control and treatment groups, with only the
extra CBT program added to the treatment group.
Hemman (2005) found little difference in final assessment scores between the control and
treatment groups. However, there was improvement when the CBT approaches were combined
9
Running head: COMPUTER-BASED TRAINING FOR MILITARY PROCEDURAL SKILLS
with face-to-face instruction. Also, the rates for drop-out did not differ greatly between the two
groups, with neither experiencing much attrition. The author suggested the lack of significant
results of the study may be due to limitations pertaining to the STATCare software. More
specifically, Hemman explained that time constraints and communication with the technical
developer hindered progress during the development phase. Should a follow-up study be
performed, a more finished and successful version of the CBT materials form the EMT course
may yield different findings (Hemman, 2005). Also, the author recommends integrating a more
comprehensive system for feedback, since this may provide students with needed information
regarding the instruction and cause them to spend more time with the simulation.
Bell, Billington, Bennett, Billington, and Ryder (2010) addressed computer-based
simulation technology for flight training, but focused on the dearth of information regarding
simulations used for group settings. The study involved U.S. Air Force flight students working
with the Virtual Interactive Pattern Environment and Radiocomms Simulator (VIPERS)
program. This CBT “blends cognitive models and speech interaction with PC-based simulation”
(p. 68). The VIPER program requires students to enact procedural skills for flight training (take
off, landing, radio operations, etc.), as well as incorporate group interaction and communication
during practice. The authors composed two research questions for the study, one of which is:
Can contemporary technologies (desktop simulation, intelligent agents, and voice recognition)
provide training gains in communications performance among student pilots? (p. 68).
This was a longitudinal study in which the researchers monitored student performance
data for a duration of five months. The purpose of the study was to determine the effectiveness of
the VIPERS program on student performance. To do this, Bell et al. (2010) followed three
consecutive flight courses, in which between 25 and 28 U.S. Air Force flight students enrolled
10
Running head: COMPUTER-BASED TRAINING FOR MILITARY PROCEDURAL SKILLS
each time. A total of 70 individuals participated in the study, and they received laptop computers,
headsets, and microphones for access to the VIPERS program. Data collection consisted of built-
in software measures designed to determine correlations existing between student performance
and the VIPERS program. Measuring student performance required the creation of rubrics to
facilitate more objective data, and categories of the rubrics included communication and
procedural adherence during in-flight checks.
Bell et al. (2010) indicated that students who utilized the VIPERS training program
performed at a high quality level, and reached this superior rating at a fast pace. Although these
results seem to be promising in favor of CBT, the researchers admitted that because their
experimental design did not include a control group, they are not able to claim causality on
behalf of the VIPERS program. Therefore, Bell et al. could only suggest a correlation between
the increased student performance and use of the VIPERS program, rather than causality.
Additionally, Carey, Reese, and Shuford (2010) addressed current self-paced CBT
courses offered through the U.S. Navy that had recently been converted from long-standing face-
to-face formats. Three new CBT delivery versions were included in the study, including courses
for (a) electronics technicians (ETs), (b) fire controlmen (FCs), and (c) yeomen (YNs). Due to
the nature of the roles, the ET (manage and repair electronics) and FC (manage and repair
weapons systems) courses pertained to procedural skills, whereas the YN (manage administrative
tasks and decision making) courses did not. Adhering to the scope of this literature review, only
the results pertaining to the ET and FC courses will be addressed. The incorporation of
electronics skills is similar to the procedural tasks investigated by Dossett and Hulvershorn
(1983) and Parchman et al. (2000).
11
Running head: COMPUTER-BASED TRAINING FOR MILITARY PROCEDURAL SKILLS
The researchers’ minimal discussion regarding the ET and FC computerized materials
will probably prompt most readers to desire more description, specifically in terms of the design
and features of the instruction. However, Carey et al. (2010) explained participants accessed the
ET and FC courses at computers in a lab overseen by a staff monitor. Also, between 5 and 10
applied activities accompanied the implementation of the ET and FC courses.
The researchers measured time students spent on training for the classes, and then
compared to archived records of student performance resulting from the previous face-to-face
options. Cost-benefit analyses were completed to answer the first research question: Was the
amount of time saved in training enough to yield significant cost savings? (Carey et al., 2010, p.
475), and the authors indicated costs could be saved by utilizing CBT. Due to constraints of the
study, the researchers were not able to review performance scores of participants, and therefore
focused on the outcome of time. Addressing this additional aspect of student performance would
greatly increase the usefulness of a similar study.
Jordan and Curtis (2010) addressed the effectiveness of a new instructional tool
administered to vehicle maintenance trainees. Students participating in the study completed a
training course for procedures of de-icing aircraft that was implemented via a new system called
the Wiring, Signal Tracing, and 3D Interactive Training Tool. The developers of this instruction
claimed the software would reduce teaching time, increase student understanding, and improve
student performance. To test these assertions, the authors developed multiple research questions
to guide their study. The three questions germane to this literature review include: (a) Will the
new tool increase the understanding of the subject material?, (b) Will the new tool improve
performance of the students?, and (c) Will the new tool reduce the amount of time needed to
conduct the course? (Jordan & Curtis, 2010, p. 43).
12
Running head: COMPUTER-BASED TRAINING FOR MILITARY PROCEDURAL SKILLS
Analysis by Jordan and Curtis (2010) of data failed to confirm the developers’ claims that
the new instructional system would improve student performance. This performance
measurement was based on student scores of a paper-based assessment and a final test, as well as
instructors’ critiques. Although final scores decreased, the change was not statistically
significant, which was a comparable finding to the work of Dosset and Hulversgorn (1983) and
Carey, Reese, and Shuford (2010). Similarly, instructors’ evaluations of student performance of
de-icing procedures increased slightly, but not enough to be statistically significant. At the same
time, the researchers found that integration of hands-on practice with CBT improved learner
performance. This coincides with the findings of Hemman (2005).
In addition to testing (and consequently negating) the assertions made by the training
system’s developers, Jordan and Curtis (2010) also considered numerous theoretical issues (that
exceed the scope of this literature review) within this training context. These included (a)
V.A.R.K. learning preferences (visual, auditory, read/write, and kinesthetic), (b) Armed Services
Vocational Aptitude Battery scores (ASVAB) and personal characteristics (intellect, need for
cognition, age, and extraversion), and (c) alternative training strategies. The authors’ discussion
of learner preference and modality, a topic that is not worthwhile (Kozma, 1999), made
considering this source dubious. Due to this initial concern, full confidence should not be placed
with the negative findings of this study in terms of CBT.
Summary and Discussion
The purpose of this literature review was to present the state of the literature for studies
pertaining to CBT for procedural skills implemented by the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Army, and U.S.
Navy. This exercise should serve as a foundation for understanding the use of CBT materials in
general, but also in the more specialized framework of military-required procedural skills. Also,
13
Running head: COMPUTER-BASED TRAINING FOR MILITARY PROCEDURAL SKILLS
it was the intent for this paper to serve as a starting point for determining common characteristics
for effective CBT materials. After reviewing the six selected articles, the following main points
were identified: (a) CBT for procedural skills resulted in a reduction in time required to prepare
students for on-the-job performance and (b) CBT is most effective when augmented with
relevant hands-on practice. For designers of instruction and individuals responsible for training
military personnel, this information may be useful in decision making.
Many of the studies included in this literature review addressed time efficiency as a
strength of CBT, especially Parchman et al. (2000). With this strong endorsement, military
leaders would do well to take advantage of this money-saving aspect of CBT. The current issue
of financial conservatism is particularly poignant to leaders of the military due to the approval of
the Budget Control Act (Tiron, 2011). Also, CBT offers great potential for continued military
implementation. Although many of the studies reviewed determined CBT did not offer military
leaders benefits in terms of increased student performance, possible weaknesses of the designs
were highlighted and discussed.
A conflict exists among the findings of this literature review regarding the effectiveness
of CBT on student performance. Three of the studies addressed in this paper indicated CBT
materials did not cause statistically significant results in student performance of procedural tasks
(Dossett & Hulvershorn, 1983; Carey et al., 2010; Jordan & Curtis, 2010). Conversely, the
researchers of two studies reported superior abilities in students after completing instruction via
CBT (Hemman, 2005; Bell et al., 2010). In considering this discord, it becomes apparent that the
three studies with negative findings addressed procedural skills for electronics tasks, whereas the
two studies yielding positive findings for CBT involved medical and aviation procedures.
Further research should be devoted to clarify this issue.
14
Running head: COMPUTER-BASED TRAINING FOR MILITARY PROCEDURAL SKILLS
Implications
Despite repeated evidence for CBT not causing significant improved performance of
procedural skills, other support exists for its usefulness, including time management and success
when merged with a complimentary instructional strategy. Integrating CBT and applied practice
has produced positive results in student performance, especially as reported by Jordan and Curtis
(2010). Additionally, participants responded well to CBT in group settings where
communication was key, and learners also gained the intended procedural skills (Bell et al.,
2010).
Direction for Future Research and Conclusion
Those interested in furthering the academic discussion of CBT would do well to follow
up on the disconnect between subject matter, specifically procedural skills for electronics versus
medicine and aviation. This conflict may be a coincidence among the articles selected for this
study, but clarifying this issue would be beneficial. Also, additional attention should be devoted
to how CBT functions in tandem with other instructional strategies, such as hands-on, applied
activities and practice, as well as traditional face-to-face classroom delivery (Carey, Reese, &
Shuford, 2010; Jordan & Curtis, 2010). Hemman (2005) recommended looking at feedback
provided through CBT approaches since this aspect greatly impacts learner retention.
Furthermore, should future researchers decide to conduct a similar literature review, they should
network and collaborate with individuals with access to military records and databases. Such
connections and familiarity with the subject matter should pave the way for article searches and
allow for a more thorough evaluation.
Computer-based training is an ever-evolving field. As technology continues to advance,
additional possibilities for CBT will be available for design, development, and implementation.
15
Running head: COMPUTER-BASED TRAINING FOR MILITARY PROCEDURAL SKILLS
With this literature review, individuals involved in these processes should be able to gain a better
understanding of CBT in general, but also become familiar with the issues specific to CBT use
within the U.S. military. The information presented through this literature review should clarify
the topic of CBT, as well as indicate areas still deserving of research attention.
16
Running head: COMPUTER-BASED TRAINING FOR MILITARY PROCEDURAL SKILLS
References
Barker, B., & Brooks, D. (2005). An evaluation of short-term distributed online learning events.
International Journal on E-Learning, 4(2), 209–228.
Bedwell, W. L., & Salas, E. (2010). Computer-based training: Capitalizing on lessons learned.
International Journal of Training and Development, 14(3), 239–249.
Bell, B., Billington, S., Bennett, W., Billington, I., and Ryder, J. (2010). Performance Gains from
speech-enhanced simulation in military flying training. The Journal of Defense Modeling
and Simulation: Applications, Methodology, Technology, 7(2), 67–87.
doi:10.1177/1548512910365698
Carey, N., Reese, D., & Shuford, R. (2010). Navy self-paced computer-based courses: Practical
implications of saving time under instruction (UI). Military Psychology, 22, 474–489.
doi:10.1080/08995605.2010.513268
Dossett, D. L., & Hulvershorn, P. (1983). Increasing technical training efficiency: Peer training
via computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Applied Pychology, 68(4), 552–558.
Driscoll, M. (2005). Psychology of Learning for Instruction. Boston: Pearson.
Duncan, S. (2005). The U.S. Army’s impact on the history of distance education. The Quarterly
Review of Distance Education, 6(4), 397–404.
Gonzalez, A. J., & Ingaham, L. R. (1994). Automated exercise progression in simulation-based
training. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 24(6), 863–874.
Hemman, E. A. (2005). Improving combat medic learning using a personal computer-based
virtual training simulator. Military Medicine, 170(9), 723–727.
Kozma, R. B. (1991). “Learning with media.” Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 179–212.
17
Running head: COMPUTER-BASED TRAINING FOR MILITARY PROCEDURAL SKILLS
Jordan, J. D., & Curtis, C. (2010). Evaluating the impacts of technology education on military
maintenance students. Journal of sTEm Teacher Education, 47(2), 41–64.
Moos, D. C., & Azevedo, R. (2009). Learning with computer-based learning environments: A
literature review of computer self-efficacy. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 576–
600.
Navy Inspector General Report to the Secretary of the Navy: Computer Based Training. (2009).
Retrieved from http://www.corpsman.com/attachments/ig/cbt_ig_report.pdf
Newsome, B., & Lewis, M. B. (2011). Rewarding the cowboy, punishing the sniper: The training
efficacy of computer-based urban combat training environments. Defence Studies, 11(1),
120–144. doi:10.1080/14702436.2011.553108
Orvis, K. A., Horn, D. B., & Belanich, J. (2009). An examination of the role individual
differences play in videogame-based training. Military Psychology, 21, 461–481.
doi:10.1080/08995600903206412
Parchman, S. W., Ellis, J. A., Christinaz, D., & Vogel, M. (2000). An evaluation of three
computer-based instructional strategies in basic electricity and electronics training.
Military Psychology, 12(1), 73–87.
Reiser, R. (2001). A history of instructional design and technology: Part 1: A history of
instructional media. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(1), 53–64.
doi:10.1007/BF02504506
Reiser, R. A., & Dempsey, J. V. (2007). Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and
Technology (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Ricci, K. E., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (1996). Do computer-based games facilitate
knowledge acquisition and retention?. Military Psychology, 8(4), 295-307.
18
Running head: COMPUTER-BASED TRAINING FOR MILITARY PROCEDURAL SKILLS
Regian, J. W., & Shute, V. J. (1994, October). Embedded on-line assessment for intelligent
tutoring systems: Implications for test design. Paper presented at the 36th Annual
Conference of IMAT, Rotterdam, The Netherlands: International Military Testing
Association.
Tiron, Roxana. (2011, Nov. 30). Obama gets defense plan to cut $450 billion from budgets.
Bloomberg. Retrieved from http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-30/obama-gets-
defense-plan-to-cut-450-billion-from-future-budgets.html
19
Running head: COMPUTER-BASED TRAINING FOR MILITARY PROCEDURAL SKILLS
Appendix A
Authors Year of publication
Subject matter of procedural skills
Intervention studied Finding(s)
Dossett and Hulvershorn
1983 Electronics procedures
CBT integrated with peer training and classroom-based instruction
CBT did not yield statistically significant results from classroom-based instruction
Parchman, Ellis, Christinaz, and Vogel
2000 Electronics procedures
Three options for CBT delivery (CBDP, ECBI, and GAME)
CBDP and ECBI yielded less time required for student performance achievement
Hemman 2005 Medical procedures STATCare, a computer-based EMT simulator
Standard face-to-face instruction augmented with CBT simulation was positive
Bell, Billington, Bennett, Billington, and Ryder
2010 Flight skills and procedures
VIPERS, a computer-based flight simulator
CBT increased student performance
Carey, Reese, and Shuford
2010 Electronics and fire safety procedures
Redesigned CBT course materials and hands-on lab activities
CBT did not yield statistically significant results, but integration of hands-on practice was positive
Jordan and Curtis
2010 De-icing system for aircraft procedures
Wiring, Signal Tracing, and 3D Interactive Training Tool
CBT did not yield statistically significant results from classroom-based instruction, but integration of hands-on practice was positive
20