Training and Technology

Chapter highlights:

Technology and learning—a partnership since prehistoric times What you can realistically expect by incorporating technology into your training Hype and promise versus reality Precautions to take and questions to ask before leaping into the technology fray.

 

Humanity and technology have been intertwined ever since the thumb and forefinger found one another. Early in our prehistory, humans found ways not only to create tools, but to represent their world, their issues, and their beliefs using available technological artifacts. Charcoal, animal blood, plant dyes, and mineral pigments became important means for expressing ideas, explaining events, and augmenting limited vocabularies. In addition to artistic displays on cave walls, early humans adopted music, dance, and costumes to increase the immediacy and realism of what they were sharing. They employed these means to heighten excitement and even manipulate emotions of joy, sorrow, anger, or fear.

 

_____________________

The two chapters in this section were co-authored with Marc J. Rosenberg. We are grateful for Marc’s contributions and expertise in helping readers of Telling Ain’t Training: Updated, Expanded, and Enhanced understand the implications of technology use in training-learning. Please see his bio in the About the Authors section.

The costumes; simulations of weapons; organization of space; and inclusion of natural elements such as smoke, fire, and chemicals as mood enhancers (for example, peyote, hemp, mushrooms, and alcohol) all contributed to augment the impact of their messages.

Hence, it is not a giant leap from these early uses of media and technology to those of today—photographs, films, television, computers, 3-D, and virtual reality—to enrich communication and, of course, learning.

While the use of technology to teach has been around for a long time, it really came into its own on a massive scale during World War II, when so-called “training films” were used to teach everything from personal hygiene to weapon maintenance. Hundreds of thousands of service personnel were exposed to training films, some produced by Hollywood studios, from the 1940s through the Vietnam War. Today, the military is one of the most advanced users of learning technology.

American society also benefited from early efforts to employ mass media to teach. From the 1950s to the present, the lessons of the military’s applications of learning technology were adapted for communities, public schools, and higher education. From filmstrips to film to television and, ultimately, to computers, education became the next big adopter of technology for teaching. Even preschoolers were not forgotten in the drive to apply technology for learning, as Sesame Street became one of the greatest success stories in the history of educational media.

From the 1970s to the 1990s, corporations also began to embrace technology for learning. Video-based training was followed quickly by computer-based training. Web-based training has become a significant part of the learning strategy of most major businesses and some smaller companies as well. Today, most of the modern approaches to the use of learning technology are combined into a broad category commonly referred to as “e-learning.”

Today’s students (and tomorrow’s workers) have grown up around technology. They are so comfortable with it that they expect it to be part of how they learn. So the question is not “should we use technology to teach?” but “how can we use technology to teach well?”

What Is Technology and What Does It Do for Learning?

Technology has two main definitions. One focuses on artifacts and tools—from flint-chipping devices for crafting spearheads to computers and satellites for transmitting messages. The other is concerned with the application of scientific and organized knowledge: ergonomics, economics, and medicine. Both have a single aim: To solve practical problems. When we turn to learning, the practical problem is how to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of training. In other words, how we can make it cheap, fast, and really good.

Let’s delve into this more deeply. You want to be an efficient and effective training professional. What does each of these words mean? Match them with their definitions:

_____ Efficiency		A. Actual desired accomplishment; the degree to which objectives have been met.
_____ Effectiveness		B. Getting the most with the least energy expenditure; ratio of useful work to energy expended.
		The answers: Efficiency = B; Effectiveness = A.

 

When it comes to training efficiency, the measure is fast and cheap. When it comes to training effectiveness, the measure is how well the learning goal is achieved—the “good” component in fast, cheap, and good.

Ideal Versus Real

Ideally, the aim is to put the two together, producing a system that is fast, in other words, reduces time in designing, developing, delivering, accessing, updating, and recording learning results; cheap, or decreases all of the costs related to training from printing, shipping, leasing classrooms, trainee travel, instructor salaries, and reduced time away from the job (productivity); and good by building powerful training that results in valued learning and on-the-job performance. The dream is to obtain great learning outcomes quickly and at low cost.

As in all pursuits of dreams, the reality factor is always nagging. Reality frequently fouls us up. In the workplace, time and budget pressures force us to focus on how quickly we can produce, implement, and deliver training. The critical measures of success become how fast we delivered, how little it cost, and how many bodies we put through the training pipeline. Where we seriously fall down is on measuring how well the people we trained learned to perform as desired and were able to execute successfully back on the job.¹

An excellent meta-analysis of research on the evaluation of training by Arthur, Bennett, Edens, and Bell (2003) attests to the significant drop-off between Level 2 of Donald Kirkpatrick’s evaluation levels—immediate posttraining learning— and Level 3, on-the-job application.² We can attribute many causes to this sad phenomenon; for example, no front-end analysis to determine whether or not training-learning was necessary or even relevant, inadequate positioning and preparation of learners by supervisors, lack of on-the-job support, hostile environmental factors such as cultural pressures and resistance to change, lack of tools and resources to apply learning, and nonexistent or counterproductive incentives to apply learning. The list could go on almost endlessly. Suffice it to say that, in the push for efficiency (get the training out fast and keep costs down), effectiveness (better performance) has been too often neglected.

What Can We Realistically Expect From the Use of Technology in Learning?

More than 60 years of research overwhelmingly answers what we can realistically expect from using technology in learning.³ Media and technology can substantially improve the efficiency of training and learning, which is extremely important. However, they have little to no impact on the effectiveness of learning. There are, however, exceptions. Technology can become effective in training when the skills and knowledge to be acquired are of a technological nature and are taught using the technology for which the skills and knowledge are required. Use of spearhead chippers to teach how to make better spearheads makes eminent sense. So does the use of electronic hardware and software to train learners on the navigation of complex databases.

Other than in instances in which the “medium” itself is what is to be learned, the medium is not the message. On the contrary, it is how training is designed that makes the learning effectiveness difference, not the technology for transmitting and delivering the learning message. Long ago, computer programmers coined the term “GIGO” with respect to how well programs a programmer wrote produced results. GIGO simply means, “Garbage in, garbage out.” The same applies to training with technology.

Should We Ignore Technology?

The history of humanity has often been dramatically altered by technology. Drawing animals and hunting scenes or using props and costumes to represent weapons and prey in prehistoric times helped deliver important survival messages or communicated significant events and critical lessons learned. Probably the most powerful technology to affect learning and the history of humanity from the 15th century onward was the printing press. Coupled with a first century technological development, paper (originally invented in China and slowly passed on to Europe by the 11th century), these two technological innovations vastly expanded access to knowledge with such explosive force that even fierce church opposition could not withstand the powerful transformation in learning this dynamic technology duo engendered (somewhat analogous to the Internet today).

Printing reduced time to reproduce books and other knowledge-laden documents. Paper tremendously lowered the cost of written and illustrated materials. Together they made knowledge long withheld from commoners accessible. These technological vehicles helped democratize information and laid the foundation for the overthrow of elites who up until then were the only ones who could afford to possess written words. As Francis Bacon, in his 1597 “Religious Meditations,” expressed, “knowledge is power.” The printing press and paper, much as the Internet does today, spread power to the people.

What Can You Reasonably Expect From Technology?

Technology can enable efficiency. Like the printing press and paper, “learning technologies” offer unprecedented opportunities for connecting learners with skill and knowledge content. However, they are only the means of access and interaction. They are not the content and methodology for triggering learning. Technologies are also subject to the rule of GIGO.

Table 10-1 lists benefits of technology with explanations of what you can reasonably expect to obtain from technology applied to training-learning.

Caveat Emptor (Let the Buyer Beware)

All of the benefits listed in table 10-1 are potential. The possibilities are available. Yet, vendors present a great deal of misleading hype to organizations and purchasing decision makers. So, let the buyer beware! Here are 10 promises that vendors and technology evangelists often trumpet. These promises are frequently based on potential and a few dramatic examples. Watch for the price tags and time consumption associated with the development of miraculous benefits. Remember this old saw: If it sounds too good to be true….

Promise 1: Technology-Based Training Offers Enormous Cost Savings

Be cautious about promises of giant savings from lower facility, instructor, and travel costs. These are definite possibilities, but only under certain conditions. First, technology-based learning requires an appropriate technological infrastructure of equipment, software, communications, storage, delivery, security, technical expertise, and instructional design capability. The cost of obtaining and installing these when they are not already present is generally steep, offsetting promised delivery savings, at least in the beginning.

Table 10-1. Technology Benefits for Training-Learning

 

Benefit	Explanation
Accessibility	More than by any other means, learning content via computers and the web, information repositories, and portable storage devices is infinitely easier to access than in the past. Attending a class or visiting a library is no longer required. Learning management systems (LMSs) make locating courses or even brief, just-in-time learning modules a touchof-the-fingers exercise. Registering for online courses via an LMS is also usually simple. Modern computers and high-speed Internet access deliver learning material to learners not only instantaneously, but also with a high probability that it will flow smoothly, thus increasing the likelihood of a positive learning experience.
Instantaneous response and feedback	With new technologies, learning can be delivered quickly, sometimes within moments of a request, adapting, based on the design of the learning program, to learner progress. If learners require help, terminology definitions, or examples, these can be included in the learning and immediately delivered. Similarly, feedback on learner responses requires no discernable delay. Feedback that either simply confirms or rejects a response or elaborates on the learner’s response and provides guidance to assist toward attaining success can be built into a training program.
Instantaneous testing and feedback	The technology for developing e-learning and associated tests is continually improving. Today, not only can we capture and record test responses and results, but we can have these interpreted and programmed to adapt presentation of content based on how a learner responded to test items. Feedback to the learner is not only timely, it is seamless, presenting appropriate messages and either new material or, via links, previously encountered content for review. New software is making the testing and feedback features of electronically delivered learning increasingly more “intelligent” in helping learners.
Consistency of message	Delivering the same message, without live instructor variation, can be a desirable benefit when consistency is essential. Once developed, the learning material can be quickly disseminated to all parts of an organization and across the globe simultaneously. This is a savings in both time and effort to control message content delivery.
Rapidity of delivery	The cost of getting training to everyone who requires it in a timely manner has often been a major issue. The cost of recruiting and training sufficient numbers of instructors and then scheduling classes can create serious lag times in training delivery. Imagine sending 10 instructors to deliver two-day classes on regulatory changes to 6,000 employees with 20 employees per class. This would require each instructor to teach 30 classes. Without breaks, this would end up taking three months (at 20 working days per month). More realistically, it probably would take six months, given people’s schedules and the unlikelihood of filling every class. While excellent technology-delivered training could require a longer development time, delivery to all 6,000 employees would be almost immediate, thus offering considerable time savings.
Simultaneity of training delivery	Continuing the above scenario, all 6,000 employees would be able to receive simultaneous access to the required training. Despite the diversity of people’s schedules and operational constraints, all employees could still receive training within a short timeframe. What is more, there are no border crossings to deal with when it comes to delivering the instruction. The electronic highways have few barriers to delay transmission of materials and instructional expertise across national boundary lines.
Ease of update	Updating instructor and student materials for a course is a demanding and often frustrating experience. Paper substitutions can be haphazard and incomplete, regardless of how well a system has been designed. Learning programs delivered via technology require much less effort and time to update, modify, and transmit the new release. Everyone on the distribution list receives the changes simultaneously. It is even possible to have a new release trigger deletion of a previous iteration of the same training program.
Reusability	Aside from being able to retake an e-learning or other technology-delivered course, parts of these can be reused and reworked into handy sets of on-the-job application tools. The same content, illustrations, and guidelines can be reformatted for uses other than learning. Parts of courses can be lifted and adapted or repurposed for different learning groups. There is a great deal written on reusable learning objects (RLOs) and standards for creating such items and then reusing them in multiple ways. One can build up libraries of learning parts (content loaded or instructional strategy loaded, such as a game whose content can be replaced), seriously saving development time.
Flexibility of use	Two terms frequently applied to online or e-learning (but can be applied with other technologies) are “synchronous” and “asynchronous.” These refer to whether or not the learners participate in a training-learning session while it is actually being taught (synchronous) or at any time of their choosing (asynchronous). The advantage of synchronous training-learning is that with a knowledgeable instructor and some useful, but not expensive materials (for example, colorful visuals, real objects, and sample cases), a webinar (seminar via the web) can be scheduled to allow many learners in disparate locations to log on and participate in the activity simultaneously. Asynchronous learning requires considerably more time and cost to develop. Its key advantage, however, is flexibility of use. Anyone, at any time, in any place, can sign up and take the training on his or her own schedule—a distinct advantage, especially in a global setting. Synchronous sessions can be recorded for independent, individual use, but even with interactive elements included to increase individualized use, the result is not as effective. Most organizations use combinations of synchronous and asynchronous technology-delivered training for greater flexibility in meeting both learner needs and organizational constraints. They also frequently combine the technology-based instruction with live learning sessions, tutorials, mentoring, or even on-the-job practical assignments, thus creating a versatile and comprehensive approach to training.
Interactivity	Technology-delivered training-learning, especially various forms of e-learning and simulations, requires active responding on the part of learners. This leads to increased attention and retention. The kicker here is in the nature of the instructional design. Meaningful interactivity strongly affects learning. Questioning, problem solving, especially if introduced in gradually more challenging exercises, and thought-provoking activities are all feasible by computer. However, you can also create senseless, dull, meaningless button-pushing and clicking lessons that do not stimulate mental engagement and generate learning. Technology offers great possibilities for intriguing and stimulating learners to think, infer, store, and retrieve knowledge and skills. It provides a platform for applying what is learned. The key is in the design of what is programmed into the technological medium.
Adaptability	Once you have developed a basic course, you can easily adapt it to different learning populations, locations, and needs. If more advanced or different examples are necessary, replacements or additions require minimal effort to insert or replace. Similarly, if certain parts of a program are not relevant for geography, deletions are easy to execute, seamlessly reconnecting what is needed. Introductions and guidelines are also simple to reword.

 

This is why investment in e-learning is best done organization-wide, to get the economies of scale needed to justify the expense. The ratio of instructional design time to training delivery time is high for any true quality instruction. Estimates for development of excellent e-learning, for example, run anywhere from four to 10 times longer than typical times for classroom training. Some vendors quote low design and development ratios per hour of output. Examine their final products. Many are nothing more than online page turners, primitive in presentation and poor in instructional quality. Developing quality, asynchronous instruction can take weeks or months. This is a time lag cost that must be considered.

Most examples of low-cost delivery per learner are based on large numbers of learners. If an online training program costs $200,000 to develop (and generally this excludes amortization and maintenance of infrastructure costs) and there are 5,000 employees to train, the cost per employee is only $40—a remarkably low cost. However, if there are only 250 employees who will participate in the program, the cost escalates to $800 per employee. At this point, live delivery of the program with 20 participants per delivery might be considerably cheaper. (In both cases, we are not including employee time in training or lost opportunity costs, which become a critical calculation in deciding whether or not to go the technology route.)

Where technology-delivered training does offer cost savings is in its efficiency. Carefully designed e-learning and other forms of self-paced learning generally eliminate unnecessary chatter and time wasters associated with a live class. The technology-based version can be tightly engineered, sticking to the essential. The result is that a five-day instructor-led class may be reduced to three days thus returning the learner to the workplace two days early. This adds to worker productivity and is one of the major benefits of more efficient e-learning. Travel and hotel costs are also eliminated—a desirable bonus.

There is a need for some caution here, however. Often live training serves multiple purposes such as team-building, social interaction to facilitate later communication, and a sharing of passion and commitment usually absent in the more sterile atmosphere of the electronic environment.

Promise 2: Delivered to the Desktop

The benefit of desktop delivery offered by purveyors of technology-delivered instruction is intuitively attractive. There is no travel, ready accessibility, just-in-time delivery, and minimal cost. However, you must make sure that the desktop equipment is able to handle the technical requirements of the learning program (that is, bandwidth, sound card, streaming software, and memory). You also must have in place a suitable information technology infrastructure to facilitate access, delivery, and support. Any lapses in the system will quickly discourage use. This is even more critical as more organizations allow employees to participate in e-learning from home; on the road; and, even unfortunately, on vacation. This gives rise to a special kind of e-learning known as “m-learning” (mobile learning).

Now, for the most important aspect of desktop delivery—the workplace environment and culture. In most enterprises, employees spend a large part of their time juggling priorities to meet demanding, shifting, and competing deadlines. Under pressure conditions, despite high quality and useful, relevant, desktop-delivered training, a major question is, “Will workers actually set aside the time to take the training and will their bosses let them?” Learning requires some form of isolation and considerable concentration, especially if the instruction is challenging and engaging. The workplace is rife with task interferences from people dropping by to phone calls and emails to continual requests for attention, help, support, and demands for answers to questions or simply to “find things.”

The workplace is not an ideal setting for engaging in any type of formalized training, especially when done while teeming life continues all around the learner, so strong efforts must be made to create a space that is conducive to learning, away from distractions such as phone calls and email and with the strong support of local managers. An advantage to live classroom instruction is that it isolates learners and focuses their attention without the distractions of the normal workplace. This, then, is an extremely important factor to consider when presented with the seduction and allure of on-the-job desktop training delivery. Learning in the workplace is possible, and sometimes preferable, but the organizational culture—the “learning culture”—must be right.

Promise 3: Greater Active Engagement

While the promise of greater active engagement is absolutely true potentially, the reality is that most technology-based learning is expository with much of it in the form of page turning. The learner reads from a screen and occasionally responds to questions. Even when accompanied by audio, average e-learning, for example, is often nothing more than overloaded visual displays with droning or text explanations (also known as “death by slides”). All the technology in the world cannot compensate for lack of true engagement built into the training design. Engagement requires creative instructional designers and trainers working with truly knowledgeable subject-matter experts—ones who also know the job of the learn-ers—to develop an engaging training program. So, bear in mind that “greater active engagement” is not a natural outcome of employing technology for learning, but rather the result of your investment in designing to make it happen. Telling ain’t training, and, as with any medium, you have to work to ensure that the training is not a technologically delivered telling session.

Promise 4: More Tailored and Targeted Instruction

Developing technology-delivered training so that it responds to every learner in an individualized manner can become prohibitively expensive. For this reason, as with any other form of delivery, learner analyses are required to determine the characteristics of those who are to be trained along with significant learner population variations. You can then construct modules of interaction which, based on learner diagnoses, self-evaluations, or pretests, allow the system to assign appropriate modules. These can range from basic skills and knowledge in a particular content area to advanced training. Specific modules can deal with specialized aspects that are accessed by those requiring the specific content they contain. Tailoring and targeting are definite possibilities. However, they come at a price. Some flexible modularity based on simple diagnostic/assessment mechanisms is the more likely option.

Promise 5: More Up-to-Date Instruction

While most technology-delivered instruction can be updated rapidly, in reality, redoing visuals, exercises, and tests with feedback can be time consuming. Someone, or a team, must be assigned the task of updating a course or program. Our experience is that while technology-based training can be readily brought up to date, maintaining currency in training is far too frequently neglected. Up-to-date instruction requires, just as for all training, a firm commitment and assigned resources to make it happen.

Promise 6: Just-in-Time Learning

You may have a huge catalog of instructional modules a worker can access on an as-and-when-needed basis. The problem may be, however, lack of guidance to help make the appropriate selection at the right time. If your organization has not taken suitable care to ensure that the repertoire of training perfectly matches job-specific needs, then someone attempting to take the training just in time for the job requirement will be disappointed with what is presented. Just-in-time training in the proper dosage at the moment of need is a wonderful delivery capability of most computer-based learning systems. However, it is mostly a buzzword, unfortunately, if not designed and built to serve the just-in-time need.

Promise 7: Any Time, Any Place Learning

This promise is similar to that of desktop delivery. The infrastructure must permit access to the organization’s intranet from any location. Bandwidth is an issue if the learning materials contain sophisticated graphics, animation, video, and sound. The equipment or terminals on the receiving end must contain sufficient memory and capability to handle the available training. Security may be an additional consideration. Just how much “any place” can an organization really tolerate without compromising protection of confidential information? Finally, as with desktop delivery, is “any place” delivery appropriate for fostering learning?

Promise 8: Built-In Testing

Most modern e-learning systems come equipped with testing engines that facilitate the creation, delivery, and correction of tests and mechanisms for recording of test results. While this is a great feature, its usefulness to support learning and retention is only as good as the tests themselves. Test development is a professional skill. Poorly developed test items lacking validity, or tests that are statistically unreliable, can only distract and discourage learners. They also may provide inaccurate information about learner progress. This can lead to misinterpretation of results generated by unskilled test developers. Testing capability in technology-based learning systems offers an excellent opportunity to allow learners to demonstrate that they have indeed learned. The capability must not be confused with the real work of quality test design and construction.

Promise 9: Accurate, Up-to-Date Training Records

Accurate, up-to-date training records are an excellent feature of most LMSs. They can capture an array of learner information, including the number of key strokes per exercise and number of seconds these took. The danger is TMI—too much information. When training organizations become awash in TMI they may end up drowning in detail and unable to discern what is essential. What constitute meaningful data and significant trends? As with each of the hyperbolic promises about what a technology-based learning system can deliver, judgment and ability are required to harness the potential, apply it with skill, and delete or ignore the superfluous.

Promise 10: Reusability of Training

Being able to store and retrieve instructional components for reuse can produce significant savings in costly and time-consuming instructional design. There are two ways to approach reusability. The more formal one, which most vendors favor, requires adoption of standards for developing and encoding learning “objects” and then entering these into repositories according to well-defined rules.⁴ Labeling of each object must be clear and based on explicit conventions. This, in itself, requires that training content developers master the standards and conventions. Review and maintenance of the reusable learning objects (RLOs) residing in the database are essential. You must purge old content regularly to avoid the risk of learners accessing outdated instruction. The proper management of an RLO treasure trove requires the assignment of knowledgeable personnel to maintain reusability protocols, content currency, and appropriate accessibility.

With respect to the formal approach, we have some fundamental concerns and questions about this “RLO system” of instructional design. A potential danger exists that in creating a learning object capable of being reused with a variety of audiences, each with its own learning needs, the object itself may lose an essential quality, that of being specifically tailored to the characteristics of a distinct learner group. A “one size fits all” piece of instruction may end up not being appropriate for anyone. Like an article of clothing made for all sizes, ages, and genders, it may, in fact, be fit for no one. An essential requirement of sound instructional design is that the instruction be an excellent match with the intended learners.

Granularity, or the size of an object, is also an issue. If too small in size, the resulting training package may resemble a patchwork quilt. Tiny bits of instruction do not necessarily combine seamlessly to create a coherent whole. If the size of the objects is too large, then decreased flexibility may limit their range of use.

Another consideration is that of language. The nature, style, vocabulary, and type of examples required for a sales audience may strongly differ from those needed by a technician, or a customer service agent, or a customer. What type of language should one employ in developing an object destined to be used with a variety of audiences? Again the question arises, “If it is destined to fit everyone, will it fit anyone?”

The second, or more informal approach to reusability, offers some immediate, cost- and time-savings benefits. Graphics, game frameworks, various types of challenge activities, test templates, and even task analyses developed for one training program can be readily reused in others, generally with some tweaking. Procedural instructions, job aids, product descriptions, examples, and cases may fit into other training materials and modules, even ones destined for different audiences. With technology to assist, all of these can be lifted easily out of one program and inserted, sometimes with adaptation, into another. This form of reusability is available to you, as a trainer, without requiring any form of specialized training or formalized protocols.

To conclude, reusability is a long-sought goal that promises all sorts of efficiency benefits. You must decide, however, how it can work best within your learning context. The formal approach is a long-term investment with many issues to resolve. The informal path is one you can set out upon today. However, it will not provide a consistent method for systematic exploitation of the training capital you possess.

Promises, Promises, Promises

To summarize major promises and claims made by technology vendors and the precautions you should bear in mind about them, we offer exercise 10-1, Promise Versus Precaution. Read each vendor/enthusiast promise and then match it with the most suitable precaution and questions you must ask.

Exercise 10-1. Promise Versus Precaution

 

Our system offers you	Great, but…
1. enormous savings through lower instructional and travel costs	A. some of our current training is information dumping with slides— pretty much one-way telling. Will the technology make what we do more engaging and interactive? Will it alter long entrenched training habits?
2. desktop delivery	B. we will have to conduct systematic learner and task analysis to develop instruction tailored to job needs and our learners’ characteristics and backgrounds.
3. greater active engagement	C. there are the same problems as for desktop delivery in terms of technical infrastructure to deliver training. Also, do we really want our learners to be taking training in just any place? What about security and confidential information? Does any place mean the best place to learn?
4. more tailored and targeted instruction	D. can our desktop terminals handle the training delivery technical requirements? Is the work site the best learning environment? Can or will workers take time to stop what they are doing at work and engage in training?
5. more up-to-date instruction	E. what data do we really want to record and report about training? We will have to sort through the mass of data the system generates to tailor reports that are helpful and meaningful for decision making. Who will do this? What skills are needed for this task?
6. just-in-time learning	F. are we technically capable of replacing classes with technology-delivered learning (for example, asynchronous e-learning)? What about instructional design costs compared to delivery costs? And the time to design and develop effective online learning? What about swiftly changing content? Do we have enough learners per course to achieve sufficient cost/benefit ratios?
7. any time, any place learning	G. what standards will we adopt for developing and labeling reusable learning objects? What exactly will a reusable piece of instruction look like? Who will create and maintain the database? What special training will be required to train on designing for reusability? If we reuse existing pieces of instruction informally, are we missing the benefit of a comprehensive approach to efficiently repurpose our training capital?
8. built-in testing	H. does our system have a well-designed test engine? What are its exact capabilities? Do we have in-house expertise to verify the validity of automatically generated tests?
9. accurate, up-to-date training records	I. does our current catalog of training match immediate job needs? Are our courses designed for just-in-time? How much modification will they require? What investment is needed to create “doses” of training tied to a job-task need? Will our workers, on their own, pull up the training just in time? How do we get them to do this naturally?
10. reusability of training	J. how well do we currently update and maintain our training? Will we be more likely to do this in a training technology environment? What skills will people require to do this? Will we assign personnel to update and purge?

Answers: 1-F; 2-D; 3-A; 4-B; 5-J; 6-I; 7-C; 8-H; 9-E; 10-G.

You probably found this to be a tough exercise. Promises and precautions overlap considerably. Nevertheless, if you come away from this exercise with a strong set of questions to pose when technology-driven solutions for training are touted, then the effort was worthwhile. Technology, as we have stated in several ways, offers great learning advantages for empowering the efficiencies of learning. It is up to you to ensure that effectiveness is not forgotten. It is also up to you to realistically assess what it will take to gain the most from the technology. Otherwise, you will end up with technologically enhanced telling and not training.

Remember This

This chapter contained a lot of information about technology and its promises. Did you retain the chapter’s lessons? Cross out the inappropriate alternative in these statements. Then check your responses against ours.

1. Humans have a (short/long) history of using technology for communicating and learning.
2. The aim of technology is to (solve practical problems / discover new tools).
3. Today, the U.S. military is (an advanced / a reluctant) user of technology for learning.
4. Efficiency refers to the (degree to which objectives have been met / ratio of useful work accomplished to energy expended).
5. Effectiveness refers to the (degree to which objectives have been met / ratio of useful work accomplished to energy expended).
6. Often neglected in measuring training success is (how fast and cheaply we trained large numbers of trainees / how well trainees performed as a result of their training).
7. Kirkpatrick’s Level 3 evaluation focuses on (on-the-job application posttraining / satisfaction with the training).
8. We (should / should not) ignore technology for training-learning.
9. Technology applied to training increases (accessibility, flexibility, and immediacy of feedback / the probability that learners will learn better).
10. Asynchronous training allows (all participants to take the training as it is being delivered / individual participants to take the training at a time of their own choosing).
11. Technology (decreases/increases) the amount of time wasters associated with live classroom training.
12. Technology-delivered training can decrease costs if there are (large numbers of trainees / any number of trainees).
13. RLO stands for (retrofit learning organization / reusable learning object).

Here is how we would respond to these statements:

1. Humans have a long history of using technology for communicating and learning. Early cave paintings and artifacts dating back to prehistoric times show that humans used the technology of the times to communicate and celebrate events in their lives.
2. The aim of technology is to solve practical problems. Science aims at making discoveries about the workings of the universe. Technology puts those discoveries to work solving the practical problems we encounter.
3. Today, the U.S. military is an advanced user of technology for learning. Not only today, but going back into its early history, the military has systematically embraced technology as a powerful means for helping train millions of its personnel. It is not only an avid user and advocate of technology in training, it is an innovator in this arena and a model for many corporate and nonprofit organizations in using learning technologies.
4. Efficiency refers to the ratio of useful work accomplished to energy expended. Efficiency focuses on reducing time, costs, effort, and resources used to achieve desired ends. The lower the expenditures of all of these, the greater the efficiency.
5. Effectiveness refers to the degree to which objectives have been met. How well a goal is met is the measure of the effectiveness of the means for achieving success. The greater the goal success, the greater the effectiveness.
6. Often neglected in measuring training success is how well trainees performed as a result of their training. Sadly, organizations, in their rush to check off that training was done, ignore following up to verify if the training did the job. That is why technology is so attractive to training decision makers. “Faster and cheaper” is easily calculated and sounds good.
7. Kirkpatrick’s Level 3 evaluation focuses on on-the-job application posttraining. Level 1 is participant reaction evaluation. Level 2 refers to immediate learning at the end of a training session. Level 4 focuses on results—did anything change organizationally as a result of the training?
8. We should not ignore technology for training-learning. Anything that increases efficiency of learning is important. The printing press and paper increased access to knowledge by disseminating it more rapidly and at much lower cost than before. The result in history has been enormous.
9. Technology applied to training increases accessibility, flexibility, and immediacy of feedback. Yes to all of these. Effectiveness of training depends on its design.
10. Asynchronous training allows individual participants to take the training at a time of their own choosing. This is self-explanatory. Asynchronous means not at the same time.
11. Technology decreases the amount of time wasters associated with live classroom training. No roll-call is required, or lunch breaks, or discussions of extraneous subject matter. Technology-based instruction sticks to the essential (if well designed).
12. Technology-delivered training can decrease costs if there are large numbers of trainees. Because of high infrastructure, design, and maintenance costs, amortization of these requires large numbers of trainees to take the training. If all groups are small, other delivery means, including live classroom delivery, may be less costly.
13. RLO stands for reusable learning object. In the formal approach to reusability, instructional designers create “objects” or pieces of instruction that follow specific standards and conventions for easy storage in repositories. These can be retrieved, repurposed, and reused for a variety of training-learning audiences and requirements.

With this foundational chapter as a base for integrating technology into your training, you are now ready to discover, from a practical perspective, what is out there for you to choose from. This is what the next chapter offers.