myweb.fsu.edumyweb.fsu.edu/alm06k/https___mywebdav.fsu.edu_alm06k/by... · web viewprocedural tasks...

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

myweb.fsu.edumyweb.fsu.edu/alm06k/https___mywebdav.fsu.edu_alm06k/by... · web viewprocedural tasks...

Documents