There is a lot of technology out there in the world, the
question is, what technologies do a better job and which technologies do
not. Just because automation and
technology are available to do just about anything do not necessarily equate to
automation and technology that do work better.
Nowhere is this concept truer than in the classroom. Technology may enable me to zip through a 200
slide presentation in 30 seconds; however, speed does not necessarily mean that
objectives have been met. MIT’s Systems
Engineering Advancement Research Initiative (SEAri) has develop a five aspects
taxonomy that looks at socio-technical innovation strategies to provide a
systems engineering approach and methods to designing and developing complex
technology-based systems and associated enterprises (Rhodes &
Ross, 2010) . Although the five aspects taxonomy looks
primarily at incorporating technology within an organization, the concepts can
be applied to incorporating technology into training.
Before training can be executed, it must first be designed
and documented. It is at this point that
technology is most effectively integrated with traditional training
methods. However, as stated above, any
technology is not necessarily the best technology, and in some cases, the use
of technology may not be more effective as a training tool than more
traditional methods. The five constructs
within SEAri’s taxonomy: Structural, Behavioral, Contextual, Temporal, and Perceptual
aspects provide a structured and focused framework for analyzing socio-technical
innovation strategies in more objective terms balancing stakeholder
requirements, cultural, political, and financial forces, while maximizing the
effectiveness of sometimes highly complex interconnected systems.
Structural forces
Interconnectivity is the new technology paradigm. It used to be that “smart” was important when discussing new technologies; however, the standalone “smart” systems of the past were limited by their own architecture. They could not take advantage of the world of knowledge that is available through extended networks. Nor can they utilize the power of crowd sourcing and collaboration between peers and/or experts. The choice to create a networked environment goes far beyond running cable or setting up an ad hoc wireless network, there are considerations that need to account for what is the intent of the network, what kind of information is being exchanged, security, and portability.
Interconnectivity is the new technology paradigm. It used to be that “smart” was important when discussing new technologies; however, the standalone “smart” systems of the past were limited by their own architecture. They could not take advantage of the world of knowledge that is available through extended networks. Nor can they utilize the power of crowd sourcing and collaboration between peers and/or experts. The choice to create a networked environment goes far beyond running cable or setting up an ad hoc wireless network, there are considerations that need to account for what is the intent of the network, what kind of information is being exchanged, security, and portability.
Behavioral forces
Is the technology used complimentary to the training being
performed? In a recent discussion about
the use of technology for training, the topic of simulations came up. Simulations can be a very effective tool to
teach skills that require repetition, that would otherwise be too hazardous to
accomplish in a realistic training environment, or too expensive. The key to an effective simulation is to not
only simulate the environment, but also simulate the tactile experience that
the student would experience in a real-world environment. This is especially true in situations where
motor skills are an important aspect of the training where students not only
have to remember the proper steps necessary to accomplish a given task, but
also develop muscle memory so that the task can be completed without visual
cues. If the simulation cannot simulate
real world stimuli or incorrectly conveys that stimuli, the simulation can teach
undesirable or counter-productive behaviors that would lead to serious errors
when the task is performed on actual equipment.
In other words, technology may not always be the best answer for all
situations in spite of the fact that the majority of learners are multi-modality
learners (Pashler, McDaniel, Rohrer, &
Bjork, 2008) . Technology works well where the technology
used is complimentary to the lesson being taught; otherwise, the focus of the
training could very easily turn to how to use the technology rather than the
lesson.
Contextual forces
Many lessons are applied on a contextual basis. If this happens, then do this. Not only does the learner have to learn the
task itself, but also understand under what circumstances the task is to be
performed. Additionally, context can, in
of itself, change the way a task is performed; thus, context sensitive lessons
should target as many of the most likely scenarios under which the task should
be performed and how the task is modified given the contextual differences of
the situation. For instance, in the case
of Basic Rifleman (BRM) training in the Army, soldiers are taught to change how
targets are acquired and engaged based on the Mission Oriented Protective
Posture (MOPP) of the environment. MOPP
involves the wearing of protective gear in Nuclear, Biological, or Chemical
(NBC) environments based on contamination levels present. In a worst-case scenario, the soldier would
be in full MOPP wearing a heavy chemical suit, protective gloves, and gas mask. Therefore, not only would the soldier have to
operate his/her weapon in normal conditions, s/he would also have to be able to
operate in MOPP gear as well. There are
contextual modifications to the task of operating a weapons system based on the
MOPP level environment that the soldier would be required to perform. While this may be an extreme example of
contextual forces that task performance, and thus the associated training of a
given task, it quite well illustrates how contextual forces change the task.
From a developer’s perspective, the training developer needs
to understand the context of the training to be created; otherwise, technology
could be wrongly used as a training tool where the technology is not always
available when the task is performed in real life. Using the example above, one of the factors
that makes weapons operation so difficult in MOPP posture (other than wearing a
5 lb rubber mask) is the heat and sweating.
While there is no deliberate steps that can be taken by a soldier to
cool down while in full MOPP that can be taught, the experience gained by the
soldier who must overcome the difficulties and discomfort of the heat better
prepares the soldier for the experience should s/he ever come across a
situation where full MOPP and combat occur in the same environment. As a result, conducting weapons training in
an indoor and air conditioned environment is the wrong use of technology
because it changes the context of the training in such a way that it does not
prepare the soldier to deal with all of the conditions of the environment.
Temporal forces
Temporal forces have a significant impact on training
development. Temporal forces not only
determine how much time is available for training, temporal forces must be a
consideration with regard to how often and when the task is performed. Technologies such as Interactive Media
Instruction (IMI), web-based training, and social media can be used to
reinforce rarely performed critical tasks.
Whatever technology chosen should be available for the lifespan of the
product and important consideration should be given to what technologies will
remain viable. For instance, if the
anticipated product lifecycle is 10 years, an IMI product that supports the
product should not be built on a technological framework that will be obsolete
during that period; thus, making the IMI product unusable. Thus, Macromedia Flash may not be the best
development platform as the coming advent of HTML 5 is anticipated to make
proprietary animation obsolete.
Perceptual forces
John Robert McCloskey once said, “I know you think you
understood what I said, but what you heard isn’t what I meant.” As mentioned before, technology can very
easily become a distraction from the task selected for training. The choice of what technology is used or not
used for training can affect the student’s perception of how the training
went. A poor choice or implementation of
technology can result in a perception that the training itself failed to meet
its objectives. Perception becomes
reality and the training fails. The choice of using technology or not using
technology comes down to how that technology is perceived. In an age where video game technology often
leads business technologies and the target audience is often in an age group
that expects a certain level of sophistication in the application of
technology, choices of what technology to employ may very well rest on the
perception that the target audience will have of its use. For target audiences with lower expectations,
the same technology can easily become a distraction. It is very important for the developer to
understand who the target audience is and what their expectations and
perceptions might be to using a specific technology and apply the technology
accordingly. The use of technology
should be as transparent as possible to ensure that the focus is on the lesson
and not the tools.
There is a sixth consideration that SEAri’s five aspect
taxonomy does not consider, and that is costs associated with technology. Often the two driving factors with regard to
training efforts are time and money. The
temporal considerations of this particular taxonomy was briefly discussed, but
did not costs associated with purchasing, learning, and employing the
technology. The costs associated with
the choice of technology must balance against the gains associated with
employing that technology. In a business
case, this means that the costs associated with using the technology must
somehow offset the costs associated with conducting the training without the
technology. In some cases, technology is
an enabler that can shorten training times or allow for training to occur in
situations where it would be otherwise impossible to use traditional training
methods. Often developers must quantify
and justify the use of technology in terms of potential savings rather than using
qualitative assessments on the impact of training effectiveness that can often
be an elusive figure to capture.
Many considerations must go into the design and development
of training and the use of technology. While
SEAri’s five aspect taxonomy concerns itself with the employment of technology
in organizations and enterprises, using SEAri’s five aspect taxonomy can simply
the task of identifying the factors necessary to make sound choices on the use
and employment of technology in training.
There’s another old saying that says that “just because you can, doesn’t
mean you should”, and that assertion certainly applies with the regard of the
use of technology in training. If you
cannot justify its use, then you should probably not use it.
References:
Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008, December). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychology Science in the Public Interest, 13(2), 105-119.
Rhodes, D. H., & Ross, A. M. (2010, April 15). Shaping socio-technical system innovation strategies using a five aspects taxonomy. (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) Retrieved August 31, 2012, from Systems Engineering Advancement Research Initiative: http://seari.mit.edu/documents/preprints/RHODES_EUSEC10.pdf
References:
Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008, December). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychology Science in the Public Interest, 13(2), 105-119.
Rhodes, D. H., & Ross, A. M. (2010, April 15). Shaping socio-technical system innovation strategies using a five aspects taxonomy. (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) Retrieved August 31, 2012, from Systems Engineering Advancement Research Initiative: http://seari.mit.edu/documents/preprints/RHODES_EUSEC10.pdf