Using Technology to Train The TC

Using Technology to Train the TC We hear a great deal about training technology and sometimes we even see the results. But those of us who have been around since you couldn’t fit a calculator iri your hand may still be somewhat uncomfortable with new technology. Are we running it, or is it running us? How can we most effectively use new technology to improve our training programs? As new training technology becomes available, developers and users of it need to work together to systematically test and apply training innovations. One way to do this that has been suggested several times in recent years is designation of a specific site within a training institution for controlled operational testing and refinement of new technology.1 That is, some training program is picked as a model or “guinea pig” for trying out new technology. The assumption is that the potential by Bill Burnside, Ph.D. benefits outweigh the disruption that will be caused by refining new technology in one or a few training programs. The Army is currently applying this approach through TrainingTech-nology Field Activities (TTFAs) at Fort Knox, KY, Fort Lee, VA, Gowen Field, ID., and Fort Rucker, AL. TTFA’s have the overall mission of systematically identifying, introducing, and evaluating new technology to improve Army training. The first TTFA was established at Fort Knox during November 1983, by mutual agreement among the Training and Doctrine Command (TR.ADOC), the United States Army Armor Center (USAARMC), and the Army Research Institute (ARJ).2 Initial efforts of the Fort Knox “ F A are concentrated upon the Basic Noncommissioned Officer Course (BNCOC) for training M1 tank commanders (MOS 19K). Benefits of CBI Saving in student training time, through individualized instruction. More effective use of instructor time, by automation of administrative functions. Reduced need for support by non-instructor personnel, through automation of scheduling and delivery of support. Increase in number and variety of practice opportunities for students. Tailoring of initial and remedial instruction to meet individual student’s needs. Automated collection and management of data relating to training cost and effectiveness. Automated maintenance of student records and reports. Capability to rapidly revise and update c o m e materials. Saving field training resources by accomplishing the “crawl” phase of instruction through simulation. Improved student feedback through immediate analysis of responses. Increased test security through increase in test item pool and reduction in need for hard copies. Decreased testing time through automated scoring. Automated control of group exercises, such as sandtables. Standardization of instructional packages throughout the Army. Provision of instruction during times other than normal classroom hours (i.e., through terminals in study halls). Increase student motivation by using realistic computer games rather than boring lectures. The potential applicat-ana of new technology to training are practically limitless. The Fort Knox TTFA should allow the armor community to be at the forefront. Within the next two years, many new technologies will have been implemented and evaluated in 19K BNCOC. Successful applications will be available for transfer throughout armor training and eventually throughout the whole Army. Need for Technology Technology is not just fancy machines or displays; it is a body of knowledge that is directed to developing equipment, practicing skills, and gathering and distributinginfor-mation. Training technology includes techniques, strategies, methods, models, hardware, and software. Examples include drill and practice techniques, training manuals, training simulators, microcomputers, vidm disc systems, and the Systems A p proach to Training (SAT)3. When we think of technology we tend to concentrate on new computer-based systems, but we should not forget that many useful technologies do not have bells, lights, and whistles. In fact, the Army’s best training technology is already in use. It’s not fancy, but it speaks the Army’s language, tailors itself to trainees’ needs, works long hours, and has an imperfect but nearly unlimited memory. It’s called the NCO. All other training technologies should support the NCO and allow his or her expertise to be used more effectively. Technology should not be implemented for its own sake. It should address specific problems. A key prob lem is that the Army’s best training technology (the NCO) is not available in sufficient quantity. The NCO as a classroom instructor is steadily being shifted to the conduct of field training. When sufficient classroom instructors are available, much of their time is consumed by activities other than training. For example, during classroom training, 19K BNCOC instructors spend less than half their time interacting directly with students. The rest of their time is spent in meetings, bargaining for support for future training, paperwork, or other administrativerequire- 42 ARMOR july-august 1985 menta. Instructors are hard-pressed to meet the Program of Instruction (POI), and they have little time to give individualized remedial instruction. Technology can automate course management and standardize basic instruction so that instructors can concentrate on individual students. Another specific problem is that resources for field training are dwindling. The cost of fuel and ammunition is up while the availability of ranges and training areas is down. The cost of operating an MI tank is approaching over $120 per mile and the cost of firing the main gun is over $200 per round. The training areas available to BNCOC at Fort Knox are generally limited to two or three kilometers in depth. Technology can simulate the field for the “crawl” and “walk” phases of training, so that students are ready to “run” on a field exercise and make maximum use of limited resources. Field training can then be used to integrate and evaluate classroom training. Technology can also gather data during field exercises, so that students can get objective feedback and learn more from field experiences. Yet another problem is that students do not get enough practice with individual feedback on their skills in either classroom or field training. For example, tank commanders straight from 19K BNCOC should be able to give fire commands automatically, almost without thinking, but development of this ability depends on extensive practice with feedback. Students currently receive almost no classroom practice on fire commands due to lack of time, instructors, and target pictures. Each student usually gives less than ten simple fire commands during range firing or a situational training exercise (STX), and an instructor is not always available to say whether the command was given correctly. A similar situation exists in the training of Communication-Electronics Operating Instructions (CEOI). Students receive a lecture but little or no classroom practice, due to lack of radios and assistant instructors. Only limited practice is available in other important areas as well, such as land navigation, tactics, and gunnery. The resources for the obvious solutions - more equipment, more instructors, and more time - are simply not available. Technology can provide practice and feedback without more operational equip mentor a one-to-one student-instructor ratio. We need to exploit technology to supplement limited classroom and field training resources. Much of the technology needed is available off-the-shelf and being used, at least to a limited extent, in academic, industrial, and military settings. But the training problems that still exist indicate that we are not getting the most out of training technologies. Why is this the case? Many of the problems in applying new technologies in any organization revolve around continued failures to communicate. Technology developers and users not only speak a different language, they also have limited opportunity to interact. This leads to difficulties in identifying key training problems and ensuring that technologies are appropriately applied. Attempts to implement technologies may be resisted by trainers who were not involved in their development. All too often, useful technologies end up as technical reports and prototype equipment sitting on the shelf. Implementation of new technologies in the Army training system has also been inhibited by operational training environment constraints. The need for a steady flow of trained soldiers does not provide much time or freedom for applying and refining new technologies. Resources are often in short supply, and training managers have many short-term problems to resolve. The training environment does not provide time for collecting the detailed data needed to assess the effects of new technologies. The communications gaps and environmental constraints often result in piecemeal implementation of new technologies which does not facilitate the transfer of benefits throughout the Army. The TFFA approach has been designed to breach these obstacles. How the TTFA Works The Fort Knox TTFA does not follow normal procedures for develop ment and implementation of training technologies. It is basically an attempt to get developers and users working together. USAARMC provides instructional resources, facilities, and subject matter expertise, ARI (primarily through ita Fort Knox Field Unit) provides expertise on available technologies and methods of evaluating them, and TRADOC provides resources for implementing and testing technologies, as well as the channel for transferring successful applications throughout the Army. These organizations are working as a team to identify key training problems and refine the technology to solve them. Sticky issues are resolved by the TTFA Management Team which is made up of a representative from each of TRADOC, ARI, and USAARMC. The Fort Knox TTFA supports research relating to the use of technology, but it is not a research and development activity. It takes available off-the-shelf technologies and applies and refines them for 19K BNCOC. Technologies found to be effective will be transferred throughout armor and then Army training. The implementation strategy at Fort Knox TTFA has four steps: identify training problems and potentially useful technologies, establish a base line, implement and evaluate off-the-shelf technologies, and transfer successful applications to the field. A good deal of progress on the first step has been made. “FA personnel have observed several cycles of 19K BNCOC and have surveyed and interviewed students, instructors, and instructional managers. Several key training problems have been identified by instructors and other personnel. Continuous monitoring of technological developments in military, industrial, and academic setr tings has led to identification of an initial set of technologies which appear to be appropriate for addressing these problems. (These technologies will be described later.) The second step (establishing a base line) is crucial for determining effectiveness of new technology. The time, cost, and effectiveness of present training will be determined before any new technology is introduced into 19K BNCOC. Initial estimates based upon FY82 cost and workload are that BNCOC training costs $378 per trainee per day during field exercises and $124 per trainee per day during classroom instruc- t i ~ n . ~ An automated data base for maintenance of detailed cost and effectiveness information is being installed at Fort Knox. The third step of the ‘l”A strategy (implementation and evalua-

“Land navigation is a particularly fertile area for applying CAI. . .” tion) is in progress. Many of the technologies being introduced fall under the category of computer-based instruction. The final step of the strategy (transfer) will follow determination of cost and effectiveness of current versus technology-based training. Application of CBI Computer-based instruction (CBO consists of computer-assisted instruction (CAI) and computer-managed instruction (CMI). In CAI, a student receives instruction directly from a computer terminal. CMI, on the other hand, automates various administrative and management functions, such as maintenance of student records. For example, a CMI system can determine when the student should proceed to the next block of instruction. Work is currently underway to implement both CAI and CMI in 19K BNCOC. In order to prevent a host of incompatible computer systems from descending upon the course, all CBI will be compatible with the Micro-TICCIT System II.5 This system is based upon the IBM Personal Computer, and it is designed to support automated production (authoring), delivery (CAI), and management (CMI) of instruction. A training developer sits at a computer terminal and writes instruction which is later used by students at similar terminals. MicroTICCIT options allow authors to use videodisc and audio presentations, as well as computer-generated text and graphic displays. Students can use light pens and other simple input devices, rather than responding through a keyboard. CAI will first be implemented in 19K BNCOC for training land navigation. This important skill is generally recognized as difficult to acquire. Land navigation is a particularly fertile area for applying CAI using videodiscs. Films of movement through actual terrain or a terrain board can be shown on a monitor. By manipulating a joystick or similar device, students can interact with the videodisc and see the terrain as if they were actually moving through it. This is commonly referred to as “surrogate travel”. Work , is currently underway to design and develop all 19K BNCOC classroom land navigation training on Micro-TICCIT using videodiscs. If successful, this instruction is immediately transferable to many other Army training programs. Another area for which CAI is being developed is the remedial training of tasks prerequisite to 19K BNCOC. Students are currently being tested on about a dozen such tasks during the first two days of the course. They get remedial instruction on failed tasks during non-program hours. By developing CAI for prerequisite tasks, students can be tested and provided individualized remedial instruction on the computer. This helps insure that students can perform all prerequisite tasks, and frees instructors for concentration on POI subjects. Remedial CAI is also immediately transferrable, because the prerequisites for BNCOC are also primary tasks for other training programs. CMI at the Fort b o x ‘ITFA is being designed for instructors who have had no previous experience with computers. It will keep records, schedule delivery of training and resources, and produce reports. This will give instrudors more time for their students. The CMI system is expandable. Once it works in 19K BNCOC, it can be applied to other training programs and interfaced with other training management systems (e.g., the Automated Instructional Management System (AIMS)). Before discussing other technologies for 19K BNCOC, a few basic points should be made about implementation of CBI. First, all CBI at the Fort Knox l”A is designed to be user-friendly; that is, it is being designed for students and instructors who have no previous familiarity with computers. Light pens and touch screens will minimize the need for using a keyboard. Students and instructors will have to become comfortable with operating some simple controls, but they will not have to become computer experts. Will users accept the technologies developed for them? The probability is high that they will, for two reasons. First, as stated above, the technologies are designed to be easy to use. Second, the users will be involved in technology development every step of the way. Instructors are identifying the technologies they need, being consulted regularly during development, and will be directly involved in implementation and evaluation. Thus far, instructors and students have been enthusiastic and eager. Another important point is that CBI supports self-paced instruction. But this does not mean that the Fort Knox ‘ITFA is attempting to self-pace 19K BNCOC. Portions of the course, such as remedial training, will be individualized, but not all of the course will be put on a computer. Much of a tank commander’s training requires hands-on experience with actual equipment, and much of it must be evaluated during field exercises. Technology will not replace hands-on or field training; rather, it will prepare the soldier for maximum benefit from field training. The final point relates to the cost savings and benefits to be derived from implementation of CBI. How much money will this technology save and when can it be expected to pay for itself? This question is difficult to answer at present. Develop ment of CBI for BNCOC is ongoing, so its precise cost is unknown and the degree to which CBI can effectively replace conventional instruction will be determined during initial implementation. We do know that over 100 hours of work are required to develop one hour of effective CBI. This indicates that use of computer-based instruction will have to be expanded beyond 19K BNCOC for it to be cost-effective. A review of previous applications of CBI has indicated that individualizing instruction saves an average of 30 percent of student time.6 This savings can be used to shorten course length or to provide additional instruction. Many benefits can be derived from use of CBI (see Table l), some of which are difficult to quantify. The Army must find ways to obtain these benefits in a cost-effective manner. The TTFAs should provide a major impetus toward achieving this goal. 44

Beyond CBI In addition to the primary CBI examples discussed above, the Fort Knox TTFA plans many other training technologies for implementation. One technology allows users to speak to the computer and the computer to respond in a close approximation to the human voice. Right now, voice recognition systems are limited to a small vocabulary of short statements. But, when merged with CAI, such a system is capable of training tasks requiring a limited number of verbal statements, such as the giving of fire commands. Target pictures can be obtained from videodiscs, with students responding to each picture by giving a fire command, followed by verbal feedback from the computer. Such a system is presently being developed by the Fort Knox TTFA, and it should provide 19K BNCOC students with almost unlimited practice on fire commands. As this technology develops, it will also be applied to training

CEOI.

Another technology under development is directed to the design of Situational Training Exercises (STXs) and Field Training Exercises ( n X S ) . The 19K BNCOC POI currently calls for the conduct of three STX's and one FTX during the course. The Fort Knox TTFA will soon begin to examine and redesign these exercises to ensure that classroom and field training correspond appropriately. That is, each exercise will be designed to reinforce classroom training and to provide objective feedback on students' performance. Objective field evaluation will be s u p ported by hand-held data collection devices which can directly interface with the BNCOC CMI system. BNCOC instructors have said that they need an "automated sandtable" to replace the unwieldy sandtable presently used in the course. TO meet this need, a platoon-level tactical trainer developed for research purposes will be adapted for training command, control, and communication skills in 19K BNCOC. This system will use a network of microcomputers, voice synthesis/ recognition, and videodiscs. It should build a bridge between classroom and field training and be less cumbersome than the sand-table. Factors such as line-of-sight and move ment rates will be computer-controlled rather than debated among instructors and students. Various other technologies are plan-nedfor 19KBNCOC. Availablevideo-discs systems are being examined for training leadership, tactics, and other task clusters. Various instruo tional techniques are being examined for use in training tank commanders to train their crew members. An effort is also underway to use an automated hand-held tutor to assist students in using booklets for training degraded mode gunnery and handling of multiple returns from the rangefinder. Other potentially useful technologies will be examined by the Fort Knox 'ITFA as they become available. The Future Videodisc-based land navigation training should be available within the next few months, along with CMI, remedial CMI, and an initial application of voice synthesishecog-Footnotes Bxamples of references proposing such an approach are: Seidel, RJ. & Wagner, H. "Management". In H.F. O'Neil, Jr. (Ed.), Computer-Based Instruction: A State-of-the-Art Assessment. New York: Academic Press, 1981, pp. 211-230; and memorandum, DRDCO-FE, TRADOC Deputy Chief of Stafffor Training, 22 Dec 1980, subject: Army Experimeatal Training Center. Hazeltine Corporation. Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) be 6 elansky, J. & string, J. Compubr-Bd OAleen USARI*andUSAARMC* Instruction for Military Training. Defense 4 Nov 1983, subject: Establishment of Field Management ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l ,

Second gumr 1981, Training Technology Activity, Fort Knox, pp. d6-%. Kentucky. TRADOC Regulation 350-7, A System A p pmach to Training, 5 November 1982. ' D F , A T Z K - D P T - P & M , D o f P l ~ s and Training, USAARMC, 8 February 1984, subject: 19K BNCOC Efficiency., M~t.Xtfl"l'CcI" is a regietered kftde~~adtof nition to training f i e commands. These technologies will be tested in 19K BNCOC within the next year. If successful, they will then be available for integration throughout armor training. If the "A approach is successful, what does the future hold? The development of a system for automating management of institutional training should allow the integration of various training programs. Students being trained as tank crew members, tank commanders, platoon leaders, etc., can then participate in joint STXs and FTXs, just as they will in the field. The continued development of BNCOC classroom training on microcomputers should result in development of a model automated classroom. This classroom can be used as a test-bed for addressing many issues related to CBI, such as cost-effectiveness, the design of faci-lites, and the training and use of instructors. This should help insure that the Army effectively uses available training technologies, as well as providing a framework for the adoption of new technologies, such as artificial intelligence. Dr. Billy L. Burnside is currently Chief Training psychologist for the TRADOC Training Technology Agency Field Office at Fort Knox, Kentucky. He received his Ph.0. in cognitive psychology from Indiana Universityand served four years in the U.S. Army as a Medical Service Corps officer. For over seven years he worked asa research psychologist for the US Army Research Institute (ARI) Field Unit at Fort Knox. The majority of this article was written while he worked for ARI.

july-august 1985 45