2
Education and Training

NATIONAL ISSUES

Emphasize education for officers as an essential part of career development, especially education in science and engineering.

The educational system of the United States, if it indeed can be called a system, has a number of strengths, but also some well-recognized weaknesses. Among its strengths is its broad-based attempt to educate all of its citizenry, not just an elite few. It is widely recognized, however, that the typical schooling received in the K-12 age groups does not compete well with the educational systems of our industrialized competitors. International mathematics and science studies describe this problem in detail.1 On the other hand, the U.S. school system has been able to retain a degree of freedom, individuality, creativity, and spark that these same competitor nations might well wish to emulate. At the college level, U.S. institutions start with incoming students who are often at a serious disadvantage compared to students enrolling from abroad, but our colleges are generally regarded as being competitive in the value added to this part of a student's education. At the graduate level, the United States is widely perceived to excel. Graduate education in the United States has become a mecca for foreign students who want to advance beyond what their own country pro-

1  

See, for example, Third International Mathematics and Science Study, 1997, Science Achievement in the Middle School Years: IEA's Third International Mathematics and Science Study, Boston College, Boston, Mass.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 36
2 Education and Training NATIONAL ISSUES Emphasize education for officers as an essential part of career development, especially education in science and engineering. The educational system of the United States, if it indeed can be called a system, has a number of strengths, but also some well-recognized weaknesses. Among its strengths is its broad-based attempt to educate all of its citizenry, not just an elite few. It is widely recognized, however, that the typical schooling received in the K-12 age groups does not compete well with the educational systems of our industrialized competitors. International mathematics and science studies describe this problem in detail.1 On the other hand, the U.S. school system has been able to retain a degree of freedom, individuality, creativity, and spark that these same competitor nations might well wish to emulate. At the college level, U.S. institutions start with incoming students who are often at a serious disadvantage compared to students enrolling from abroad, but our colleges are generally regarded as being competitive in the value added to this part of a student's education. At the graduate level, the United States is widely perceived to excel. Graduate education in the United States has become a mecca for foreign students who want to advance beyond what their own country pro- 1   See, for example, Third International Mathematics and Science Study, 1997, Science Achievement in the Middle School Years: IEA's Third International Mathematics and Science Study, Boston College, Boston, Mass.

OCR for page 36
vides academically. The Chronicle of Higher Education has reported that a large proportion of the students in engineering and science graduate fields come from abroad. The large number of foreign graduate students attests to the premium placed on U.S. graduate education. Although the U.S. educational system apparently produces an adequate number of degree recipients in science and technology, the courses of study available are in many ways poorly matched with Navy needs. There has been a tendency for both the faculty and the students to aim for more prestigious courses of study, those concerned with the exotic and the theoretical at the expense of more practical applied sciences needed for naval operations. Many applied science programs have attenuated or have disappeared from academic science departments, in some cases reappearing in engineering departments, while many engineering departments have eschewed applications-oriented studies for science-based education. The fraction of college students enrolled in calculus-based elementary physics has declined over the last 50 years, yet the military's need for individuals with expertise in such a discipline has expanded over this period, not declined. In many U.S. graduate departments of science and technology, a majority of the students today are foreign nationals and thus do not qualify for either civilian or uniformed employment by the naval forces. Foreign national students who remain in this country and achieve citizenship constitute a substantial fraction (perhaps half) of the total. They represent substantial gains for the United States, but the Navy can attract them, if at all, only in mid or late career. It is a paradox that although the real strength of the U.S. educational system is at the graduate level, there is little indication that the Navy leadership prizes such education as a necessary component of an officer's background. The discipline in graduate study of tackling an original research problem that has no known right answer; of learning how to frame a question and how to approach it; of knowing how to interpret data, how to draw significant conclusions from them, and how to present and sell the validity of the result provides an extraordinarily effective approach to problem solving that is beneficial throughout a career. The nature of the discipline or the particular problem is less important than the process. The Navy may not value sufficiently the problem-solving potential represented in substantive graduate programs in technology, engineering, and science. Education takes time in the career path of the officer: time to think, collect and analyze data, organize, and communicate. This time cannot be abridged too severely without losing the effectiveness of the process. Although some officers are engaged in this way of learning, others by choice are serving in the fleet without making the commitment to further learning. The latter tend to be favored by fast-tracking in the Navy's promotion process because they are more visible, making personal contact with active Navy officer superiors who then may tend to advocate their subsequent advancement. Viewed in this light, the extended time spent in serious graduate study, even in fields of critical interest to the Navy, frequently inhibits promotion and advancement compared to those who do not

OCR for page 36
pursue these paths. The Navy is depriving its future readiness and capability of the use of such technologically astute individuals in larger numbers in its upper leadership. NAVAL FORCE ISSUES Navy needs are already highly advanced scientifically and technologically, and the importance of technical literacy among naval personnel will only increase in the future. The march of information and communication technology, sensing and display techniques, computer system capabilities, material and power options, and so forth has reduced shipboard manning requirements for routine duties and has improved war fighting strength. These technical capabilities substantially increase the Navy's need for personnel who can comprehend the potential for war fighting that the new technologies bring, who understand both the opportunities and the limitations they present, who are able to choose among competing technological avenues, who can critically assess and lead technological development, and who can formulate practicable new technological visions. It is perfectly true that the Navy can and does operate without more of these individuals, and in that sense, it does not need more of them. Nevertheless, technically literate personnel, who are able to recognize which of the new civilian technologies will make a difference in future war fighting capabilities and readiness, could enable the Navy and Marine Corps to field more effective fighting units. In that sense, the Navy needs more than it has, and perhaps all it can get. The current requirements-based personnel system does not necessarily recognize the long-term career enhancement produced by graduate education but rather defines graduate educational requirements in terms of assignments. This approach may result in suboptimization of officer potential, which would be damaging to the long-term readiness of the Navy as a whole. Moreover, the present trend with regard to technical literacy among Navy Department personnel, relative to need, is not positive but negative and thus sounds the alarm for the desired impact of technology on the Navy in the next 35 years. The following are some indications of this trend: Through the mid-1960s, but not much beyond that, the Navy encouraged and nurtured postgraduate technical education among its officer corps; now the Navy's encouragement is weaker, and its nurturing through career growth is largely absent. Fewer of the best U.S. high school graduates opt for a Navy career or a college education in fields relevant to Navy technology needs. Few of the students who are preparing for a Navy career via higher education specialize in science, mathematics, or engineering. Officers who specialize in science, mathematics, or engineering as under-

OCR for page 36
graduates are less frequently provided postgraduate education, are less rapidly promoted, and are more likely to retire early. Navy civilian laboratory personnel, once nationwide leaders in science and engineering, are now less prepared to meet important new Navy needs. Downsizing has inhibited the renewal and innovation that come from the ability to hire a stream of intelligent, highly motivated young people from whom future laboratory leaders can be selected. To meet the human performance needs of naval operations in an increasingly technology-intensive environment, the Department of the Navy will have to do the following: Increase significantly the proportion of naval force officers who obtain bachelor's degrees in science, mathematics, or engineering. Ensure time in the career paths of all officers who are capable of and motivated to invest the considerable effort required for postgraduate study in science and technology, and ensure that they are rewarded in their careers for their added skills and capabilities. Restructure the mode of teaching science and technology at the U.S. Naval Academy with the use of personnel on loan from major research institutions and industrial laboratories and/or the establishment of joint programs with research-based academic institutions. Reconfigure promotion policies and practices to retain and more fully reward technically skilled officers and enlisted personnel, who will be increasingly needed for predominantly high-technology naval duties. Identify the most promising leaders among those technologically educated for special management talent recognition and fast-track movement to leadership positions that can benefit from their expertise. Place priority on ensuring a continuing stream of fresh, young talent employed in naval laboratories. Those who are retained in a longer career path should have regular opportunities to refresh their talents. Graduate education provides career-long enhancement of the abilities of an officer, not just a technical specialty skill. Development of problem-solving skills is applicable to all kinds of problems that face the individual in unexpected situations. It is self-evident that there is little time for such education in wartime. The time to devote resources to obtaining graduate education is when the nation is at peace. It should then be a high priority whose payoff is enhanced performance in times of war as well as in time of peace. Graduate education is a generator of future readiness with a high rate of return. Several steps can be taken to help increase the Navy's commitment to graduate education; they are as follows:

OCR for page 36
Make investment in education a priority in officer development, and separate the educational investment category from the individual's account so that graduate students are not thrown into the same personnel categories as prisoners and the medically unfit. Increase the billet assignment to the investment portion of the individual's account for graduate education, deriving those new billets from a portion of the personnel savings recovered from reduced manning and increased outsourcing. Revamp the subspecialty system as the basis for a requirement for education. This requirement now limits the Navy's access to graduate-educated personnel, rather than maximizing it. Strengthen the precepts to officer promotion boards to pay full attention to the potential of career-enhancing skills provided by graduate education. These are literally cost-free changes that have the potential to significantly improve the technological capabilities of the future Navy officer corps. MILITARY TRAINING Invest more in the conversion of conventional forms of training to technology-based, distributed training. Training is a means to an end—successful performance of military missions. Training is widely acknowledged to be an essential component in preparing for military operations. There is, therefore, great interest in seeing that military training is performed effectively and efficiently and that training resources are expended wisely. Technology has contributed substantially to the complexity of modern warfare and to U.S. success in war. Technology also provides the means to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of preparing for naval operations. Success in modernizing Navy and Marine Corps capabilities and operations will be of less value if it is not accompanied by success in modernizing the conduct of training as well. Military training can be described in terms of who is being trained (individuals or groups) and where the training takes place (in residence or in units). Training in residence refers to training presented in formally convened schools under the domain of specifically designated training commands. Training in units takes place in operational or duty assignments. Training of individuals may be contrasted with training of crews, teams, and units. Clearly, the performance of groups depends on the skills of the individuals who make up the groups. The distinction between individual skills and group skills is imperfectly understood, but the focus in individual training is on the performance of individuals, and the focus in group or collective training is on the performance of crews, teams, and units as a whole. Training of individuals that takes place in residential, schoolhouse settings is

OCR for page 36
annually reported to Congress in the Military Manpower Training Report (MMTR).2 The MMTR describes how the trained manpower projected by another annual report, the Manpower Requirements Report, will be provided in coming fiscal years. The MMTR for FY 1997 estimates that the training load (the number of man-years students are expected to be in training), where will be about 144,632 man-years (or student-years)—officers and enlisted—for active duty personnel and 30,217 man-years for the reserve components—a total training load of 174,849 man-years across DOD. This training will require about 115,000 military and civilian personnel to provide instruction, administration, and supervision, and it will cost about $13.7 billion. As shown in Table 2.1, the number of Navy personnel—officer and enlisted, reserve and active—entering formally convened military schools in FY 1997 is expected to be about 586,200, with a training load of 41,600. Comparable numbers for the Marine Corps are 156,200 school entrants, with a training load of 22,500. The FY 1997 costs for this training, as shown in Table 2.2, will total about $3,866 million for the Navy and $1,433 million for the Marine Corps, summing to $5,299 million for the Navy Department. The MMTR estimates are focused on residential training for individuals and do not reflect all training costs. They include formal course instruction conducted by organizations whose primary mission is training, but they exclude training conducted by operational units, on-job training, factory training for new systems, most team and unit training, and most fleet and field exercises. Although the magnitude of resources allocated to these latter activities is not regularly reported and is difficult to determine, it would probably increase the $5.3 billion cost estimated for Navy Department training by a factor of two or three. TRAINING CHALLENGES Many commentators have discussed current trends that increase the challenges to the successful conduct of military training. Among the points raised by these discussions are the following: Workplaces in all sectors have become increasingly infused with technology, requiring workers to become increasingly technology literate. The com- 2   Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Readiness. 1996. Military Manpower Training Report: FY 1997, Department of Defense, Washington, D.C.

OCR for page 36
TABLE 2.1 Total Student Input and Training Loads Planned for Active and Reserve Component Officer and Enlisted Individual Training in FY 1997   Input (thousands) Load (thousands) Training Categories Army Navy Marine Corps Air Force Total Army Navy Marine Corps Air Force Total Recruit 91.4 55.7 41.6 33.5 222.2 13.9 9.5 7.8 3.7 34.9 Officer acquisition 7.9 3.1 0.9 2.0 13.9 6.0 5.5 0.9 6.3 18.7 Specialized skill 279.7 517.1 103.2 117.1 1,017.1 42.9 23.1 11.6 16.7 94.3 Flight 4.8 3.2 0.4 5.0 13.4 0.9 1.3 0.5 1.8 4.5 Professional development 5.3 7.1 10.1 42.0 64.5 3.7 2.2 1.7 4.8 12.4 One-station unit 41.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 41.5 10.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.1 Total 430.6 586.2 156.2 199.6 1,372.6 77.5 41.6 22.5 33.3 174.9   SOURCE: Compiled from data in Military Manpower Training Report: FY 1997, 1996, Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Readiness, Department of Defense, Washington, D.C., July.

OCR for page 36
TABLE 2.2 Funding Planned for Active and Reserve Component Officer and Enlisted Individual Training in FY 1997 (million dollars) Training Categories Army Navy Marine Corps Air Force DOD Total Recruit $ 307 $ 282 $ 419 $ 147 $ 1,155 Officer acquisition 146 210 11 174 541 Specialized skill 1,560 1,497 601 784 4,442 Flight 390 990 0 584 1,964 Professional development 312 216 72 298 898 Army one-station unit 247 0 0 0 247 Direct training support 338 114 64 60 576 Base training support 1,226 499 188 720 2,633 Training management headquarters 46 21 0 71 138 Reserve pay and allowances 703 37 78 265 1,083 Total $5,275 $3,866 $1,433 $3,103 $13,677   SOURCE: Adapted from Military Manpower Training Report: FY 1997, 1996, Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Readiness, Department of Defense, Washington, D.C., July. plexity of military operations has continued to increase along with the human performance needed to operate, maintain, and deploy the technology—the materiel, devices, and equipment they employed. It could be argued that technology will decrease the complexity of human performance required by operations in the military and elsewhere, but this has not happened. The demand for people trained to hold jobs that are classified as technical or highly technical continues to increase in the Navy and Marine Corps. The quantity and variety of military systems along with the pace of their introduction have substantially increased the demands on military training to provide the people needed to operate and maintain these system. At the end of World War I, the U.S. military fielded about 500 materiel systems. At the end of World War II, this number had increased to 2,000. Currently, about 4,000 systems are fielded or in planning. The technological complexity of military systems is increasing. In 1939, the volume of technical documentation required for the J-F Goose Catalina Flying Boat filled 525 pages. In 1962, the volume required by the A-6A Intruder filled approximately 150,000 pages. In 1975, the volume required for the F-14 Tomcat filled approximately 380,000 pages. Documentation required by the B-1 bomber has been estimated to be 1,000,000 pages of information. This upward trend will no doubt continue. Costs to conduct training in the fleet and the field have risen in absolute terms and in terms relative to other DOD expenses. Worldwide land, sea, and air space available for military exercises continues to be reduced as civilian requirements for space increase. Fuel and ammunition for new weapons have been

OCR for page 36
major contributors to increased military training costs. In addition, the ranges needed to exercise the long reach of the newest systems are scarce, environmentally controversial, and increasingly expensive to establish and maintain. Reserve component training poses particularly difficult challenges. The reserve components have a limited time—39 days per year—to train. Reserve units are widely dispersed, not fully equipped, and are supported by only small numbers of qualified supervisors and trainers. Many reserve component trainers for these units are noncommissioned officers who have primary assignments elsewhere and give training short shrift. Yet with a downsized military, we are likely to rely increasingly on reserve component readiness. It is unlikely that conventional approaches using platform lectures, paper-based workbook exercises, and laboratory experience with actual, scarce, and expensive equipment will meet the demands for the training efficiency and effectiveness required for the coming century. Although technology introduces these problems, it may contain the seeds for their solution. Increasingly, trainers in both military and civilian settings are turning to technology as a source of improved training effectiveness and efficiency. TECHNOLOGY EFFECTIVENESS It may be said, with some help from the dictionary, that the word ''technology" refers to the application of any effective procedure to solve a specific, practical problem. Popularly, the meaning of technology has become increasingly associated with computers and computer-controlled applications, and this is the sense in which it is commonly used in education and training. Applications of computers and/or computer-controlled capabilities to military training have been around for more than 35 years. After this period of time, it is fair to ask if they have improved either the efficiency or the effectiveness of training. The most fundamental promise of technology applied to training appears to be its ability to tailor pace, sequence, content, presentation style, and even difficulty to the needs of individual learners. Research suggests that the difference between those taught in classroom groups of 30 and those taught one-on-one by an individual instructor providing individualized instruction may be as great as 2 standard deviations in achievement.3 However, individual, one-on-one tutoring is prohibitively expensive. In military training as in civilian education, the provision of a single instructor for every student is an instructional necessity and an economic impossibility. Technology—substituting the capital of technology for the labor of human instructors—can replace some of the individualized tutoring and its instructional value that are now lost to economic necessity. 3   Bloom, B.S. 1984. "The 2 Sigma Problem: The Search for Methods of Group Instruction as Effective as One-to-one Tutoring," Educational Researcher, 13:4-16.

OCR for page 36
The primary benefit of instruction tailored to individual needs may be efficiency—students spend less time repeating material they already know and more time concentrating on what they do not know. They should learn more quickly, and this, in fact, is a principal finding of assessments of technology applied in education and training that serves to emphasize the economic and readiness benefits of individualizing instruction. This finding and others are summarized below. First, however, it may be noted that no single evaluation, no matter how carefully done, is conclusive. The results of many evaluation studies must usually be collected to draw a cumulative picture of what has been learned. In the current state of the art, such collection is accomplished using meta-analysis, which employs a measure called effect size. Effect size is simply a standardized measure defined as the difference between the means of two groups divided by the estimated standard deviation of the population from which they are drawn. In this summary, they are calculated so that the larger the effect size, the greater is the instructional impact of technology. The main drawback in using effect sizes is that they are, basically, a measure of standard deviations and are not especially meaningful to those who are not statisticians. For this reason, the effect sizes reported here are accompanied by rough translations to percentiles based on the notion that an effect size of, say, 0.50 (half a standard deviation) is roughly equivalent to raising the performance of students in the 50th percentile to that of students at the 69th percentile. Some findings follow. Technology Can Be Used to Teach A number of studies have compared applying technology in education and training to simply doing nothing. The issue here is not to determine whether these applications are a good way to teach or if they teach the right things, but simply to see if they teach anything. The results suggest that they do. For instance, some studies4 have compared applications of interactive videodisk instruction (IVI) to placebo treatments in which no instructional material was presented. The average effect size for these studies was 1.38, suggesting an average improvement in student achievement due to the presence of this technology from 50th to 92nd percentile performance. Additional evidence comes from early studies5 tracing student progress, or trajectories, through instructional material. These studies found that based solely on the amount of time students spent in computer-based instruction, the improvement of each student on a standardized test of total mathematics achievement 4   Fletcher, J.D. 1990. The Effectiveness of Interactive Videodisc Instruction in Defense Training and Education, IDA Paper P-2372, Institute for Defense Analyses, Alexandria, Va. 5   Suppes, P., J.D. Fletcher, and M. Zanotti. 1976. "Models of Individual Trajectories in Computer-Assisted Instruction," Journal of Educational Psychology, 68:117-127.

OCR for page 36
TABLE 2.3 Some Effect Sizes for Computer-based Instruction Where Effect Size Number of Studies Improvement from 50th Percentile Performance to: Elementary school 0.47 28 68th percentile Secondary school 0.42 42 66th percentile Higher education 0.26 101 60th percentile Adult education 0.42 24 66th percentile Military training 0.40 38 66th percentile Overall 0.39 233 65th percentile   SOURCE: Fletcher, J.D. 1996. "Does This Stuff Work? Some Findings from Applications of Technology to Education and Training," Teacher Education and the Use of Technology Based Learning Systems, Society for Applied Learning Technology, Warrenton, Va. could be predicted to the nearest tenth of a grade placement, within 99 percent confidence limits. If time spent in the computer curriculum had no effect, no predictions would have been possible. In these studies, the precision of the predictions is as notable as the fact that they could be made, and validated, at all. Technology Improves Instructional Effectiveness The conclusion that technology improves instructional effectiveness concerns the more common issue of determining whether or not the application of technology allows us to do any better than we can do without it. A typical study that addresses this issue compares an approach using technology, such as computer-based instruction or interactive multimedia instruction, with what might be termed conventional instruction, which uses platform lectures, text-based materials perhaps including programmed text, and/or laboratory hands-on experience with real equipment. There have been many studies of this sort. Some results for computer-based instruction (CBI) are shown in Table 2.3. Their effect sizes range from 0.26 to 0.47 and average 0.39, which suggests an average improvement from 50th to 65th percentile achievement. A recent review6 of 12 meta-analyses involving at least 250 different evaluations of CBI reported an overall average effect size of 0.35, suggesting an increase from 50th to 64th percentile performance after introduction of CBI. The results shown in Table 2.4 for IVI, which includes the functionalities generally used to describe interactive multimedia instruction, are slightly higher 6   Kulik, J.A. 1994. "Meta-Analytic Studies of Findings on Computer-Based Instruction," Technology Assessment in Education and Training, E.L. Baker and H.F. O'Neil, eds., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, N.J.

OCR for page 36
TABLE 2.5 FY 1997 Navy Department Costs for Specialized Skill Training Expected to Vary with Time Spent in That Training (million dollars) Cost Category Navy Marine Corps Total Operations and maintenancea $218.7 $ 26.6 $ 245.3 Active component student pay and allowancesb 523.8 210.3 734.1 Base training supportc     164.8 Direct training supportd     46.6 Reserve pay and allowancese     55.1 Temporary duty costsf     314.6 Total     $1,560.5 a Given by the FY 1997 MMTR, these costs are expected to vary with student time in specialized skill training. b Earlier MMTR data and a recommendation from the Defense Training and Performance Data Center suggest that about 35 percent of total Navy Department specialized skill training costs (Table 2.2 gives the estimated FY 1997 total) are for active component student pay and allowances. c The amount of total Navy Department base training support costs expected to vary with student time spent in specialized skill training was estimated to be about 24 percent of the $686.7 million total estimated in Table 2.2. d A similar percentage of total Navy Department direct training costs is assumed to vary with student time spent in specialized skill training ($46.6 million of the $178 million estimated for FY 1997 in Table 2.2) e Specialized skill training will account for about 47.6 percent of the total anticipated FY 1997 Navy Department reserve component student load, and the portion of reserve component pay and allowances affected by student time spent in specialized skill training is thus assumed to be about 47.6 percent of the $115.7 million estimated by the FY 1997 MMTR for reserve pay and allowances (Table 2.2). Additional cost savings—and improvements in reserve component readiness—resulting from technology applied in schools operated by the reserve components are also likely but are not considered here. f The Defense Training Performance and Data Center has estimated that 15 percent of specialized skill training costs are temporary duty costs. Costs would also be affected by time spent in specialized skill training but are not included in this analysis. Of the $2,097.6 million estimated for Navy and Marine Corps FY 1997 costs for specialized skill training (Table 2.2), $314.6 million is expected to vary with time spent in training. SOURCE: Complied from data in Military Manpower Training Report: FY 1997, 1996, Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Readiness, Department of Defense, Washington, D.C., July. student pay and allowances, including reserve pay and allowances, and the remaining $771.3 million comes from other training costs. Table 2.6 shows cost avoidances in student pay and allowances that are likely to accrue from various levels of reduction in specialized skill training time due to the introduction of technology for various portions of the student load. Cost avoidances in other specialized skill training areas that are likely to accrue from reductions in training time achieved by the introduction of technology are shown in Table 2.7. The reasoning underlying both Tables 2.6 and 2.7 is that not all students will be

OCR for page 36
TABLE 2.6 Potential Savings (Cost Avoidances) from Recovered Personnel Pay and Allowances Due to the Introduction of Technology in Navy and Marine Corps Specialized Skill Training (million dollars)   Percent Training Load Covered Percent Time Saved 20 40 60 80 20 32 63 95 126 30 47 95 142 189 40 63 126 189 253 TABLE 2.7 Potential Savings (Cost Avoidances) in Training Costs Due to the Introduction of Technology in Navy and Marine Corps Specialized Skill Training (million dollars)   Percent Training Load Covered Percent Time Saved 20 40 60 80 20 31 62 93 123 30 46 93 139 185 40 62 123 185 247 affected by the introduction of training technology and that different estimates for the amount of time to be saved should also be taken into account. As shown in Tables 2.6 and 2.7, the cost avoidances that may result from the introduction of technology and reduction in the time needed by Navy and Marine Corps personnel to complete specialized skill training range from $63 million (costs avoided for both direct training resources and pay and allowances combined by reducing time to train by 20 percent for 20 percent of the student load) to $500 million per year (assuming 40 percent time reductions achieved by 80 percent of the students in specialized skill training). These are significant cost avoidances and may well justify the investment required to introduce technology into this training. Again, the difficulty is in accounting—the investments will come from one category, but many of the savings will appear in another. Still, if this cursory analysis holds up under further scrutiny, the conversion of Navy Department training to the increased use of technology should be pursued sooner rather than later. By 2035 the training enterprise is likely to be modernized in any case, but the sooner that modernization occurs, the greater the level of resources that will be freed up.

OCR for page 36
Notably, the increases in readiness and effectiveness from these conversions remain to be determined, but they, rather than savings in costs, may be the most significant result of reducing the time to reach the human performance levels that are needed by operational forces and are the object of military training programs. FLAG AND GENERAL OFFICER TRAINING It is tempting to assume that flag and general officers, as the most senior of military executives, have reached a level of mastery that transcends any need for further education and training. Such an assumption is, in a word, wrong, and given the level of authority and responsibility held by general and flag officers can easily lead to disaster in the rapidly evolving environments of naval operations. Because of its capacity for privacy, technology-based training in individual technical matters may well appeal to these officer-executives. However, the new forms of technology-based training that involve linked simulations and can include force-on-force operations with levels of verisimilitude that seem to increase daily offer great promise in preparing flag and general officers for the operational environments of the future. Four types of training are typically available to flag and general officers: Training for decision making. In training for decision making, a real or simulated problem is typically identified. Participating officers provide their own staff support, as necessary (i.e., personnel officer, intelligence officer, operations officer, logistics officer, and other special staff). The host command for the decision-making training provides a series of necessary questions that, when answered, can lead to a logical decision. Each question is tackled by each participating flag officer and support staff team. After a designated time (innings), the officer presents to the participating group an answer to the question. The presentation follows the course-of-action format (problem, analysis, conclusions, recommendations) and is tightly controlled by time. After the various innings described above, the original problem is addressed with the information developed in the intermediate question session. The host command then summarizes the recommended decision and forwards it to the convening authority. War gaming. Participants in war gaming may be single Service, joint or combined, or multinational. The host provides a general and a special situation, generally describing a geopolitical international crisis by addressing the background, cause of tension, increase of tension, and spread of conflict. Flag and general officer participants often represent the commands they would be expected to use in the crisis. They are supported by staff appropriate for a real-world operation. The scenario is broken down into phases, moving forward from response to tension up to the advent of war and initial operations. Commander-staff interactions develop decisions affecting the represented commands, ranging from precrisis deployments to war employments. A war game control group

OCR for page 36
evaluates the various gaming moves and decisions and modifies the game's scenario based on the actions of various participants. Staff challenges are interjected into the scenario. All staff have responsibilities and often DOD and other federal government agencies participate. War games help flag and general officers become aware of the tremendous coordination required to undertake military operations and of the often unintended results of major decisions. Crisis action. This type of training is similar to war gaming, except that the scenario does not involve execution of a major war plan. Generally, the scenario evolves from an international crisis for which no general war plan exists. The demands of the crisis stimulate original thinking, adaptability, coordination, and often new and unique concepts for the deployment and employment of U.S. forces (e.g., U.S. Army rotor assets on aircraft carrier platforms). POM cycle and POM decisions. A real-world demand within established DOD-Navy processes caused the former commandant of the Marine Corps to make effective use of his general officers to aid in program objectives memorandum (POM) decisions. A format similar to the one described above in training for decision making was used, except that each general officer participated with fewer support staff. Of particular significance were the various tradeoffs and decisions that had to be made based on Service missions, ongoing programs, R&D efforts, departmental decisions, and war fighting capabilities and support. It is not difficult to see how technology would assist in delivering these types of training. Technology-based, distributed simulations will be especially valuable for busy, high-level military executives if participants do not have to be physically assembled for the training and can participate from widely dispersed locations worldwide. These capabilities are now within the state of the art at fairly basic levels. They will improve substantially in the future and will be used for other levels of training. There is little reason to deny their benefits to our most senior decision makers. TRAINING MODERNIZATION If the modernization of Navy and Marine Corps training through technology is likely, it may be worthwhile to speculate on the forms this modernization might take. In general, the training capabilities that are sought should be accessible, effective, and efficient. Training should be accessible. Training should transcend physical location so that it is available wherever it is needed or wanted. Training should be available in schools, homes, workplaces, and learning centers. Environmental constraints should be minimal. Training should transcend time so that it is available whenever it is  

OCR for page 36
needed or wanted. Scheduling of training resources, equipment, materials, and/or instructors should not constrain the time at which training can be accessed. Training should transcend physical devices so that it can be portable. Constraints imposed by delivery platforms should be eliminated. Training should be effective. It should do the right things. It must be relevant (1) to the job to be performed and (2) to the individual who is to perform it. Training analyses should be done in real time to set skill and knowledge objectives specifically tailored to the skills and knowledge that an individual needs. Training should be efficient. It should do things right. Once relevant objectives are chosen, the instructional approaches used to meet them should be the most cost-effective available for the individual being trained. Given that these capabilities are sought in training, what sort of goals should be set for developing them? It may be best to base goals on extrapolations from what is now embryonic in technology applied to training but has been launched and is likely to continue. Three areas of development that seem likely to change the nature of training are (1) embedded training, (2) modeling and simulation, and (3) intelligent training systems. Technology-based training capabilities expected to be available in 2035 are listed in Table 2.8, along with the key enabling technologies that will make them possible. The capabilities described in Table 2.8 are evolutionary, not revolutionary. Although it is always possible that a scientific or technological breakthrough will overshadow these developments, they are nevertheless likely to occur. Given the heuristic of extrapolating from these areas of training R&D and from other developments that will have an impact on training technology, goals for technology development applied to training might be realistically established for five areas of capability: (1) portability; (2) interoperability in preparation of materials; (3) aids for delivery of instruction, including tutoring capabilities; (4) instructional intelligence; and (5) integration of instruction into current institutions (Table 2.9). Development of portability will provide interactive courseware with the same operating capability—plug and play—now available in high-fidelity audio systems. Authoring system interoperability will permit interactive courseware written using one authoring system on one suite of equipment to be freely modified using another authoring system and another suite of equipment. Development of aids for instructional delivery will provide everyone with a so-called Ph.D. in a pocket—an expert, articulate advisor that will provide information for decision making and performance advice that the student or user can understand and apply. This advice will be delivered on a device comparable to early pocket calculators. Distinctions between instruction and advice will be very difficult to draw. Development of instructional intelligence will provide individualized tu-

OCR for page 36
toring that integrates the setting of training objectives, job performance aides, and performance assessment into a single package. Natural language interaction will be an essential feature of this capability—there will be an Aristotle for every Alexander and a Mark Hopkins for everyone else. Integration of technology-based instruction into the routine, daily practice of existing instructional and workplace institutions will be the most difficult challenge. The goals, organization, and functioning of these institutions will all be modified to take advantage of the technology. Just-in-time training that is available to everyone will change not only the ways human resources are managed in the workplace but also the workplace itself. TRAINING SUMMARY The application of advanced technologies for education and training is key to developing and sustaining the levels of human performance necessary for naval force effectiveness. Currently, the Navy has at least three significant opportunities to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its education and training activities: (1) capitalize on the efficiencies available from applications of multimedia, interactive technologies such as interactive distance learning, embedded training, intelligent training systems, and collaborative virtual environments; (2) capitalize on the efficiencies available from increased outsourcing; and (3) leverage and find common cause with the research, development, and acquisition activities that exist outside the Department of the Navy—in the other military Services and across federal agencies, at all levels of government, and in the private sector. Comparisons of technology-based training with more conventional approaches have found that its use can raise student achievement by 15 percentile points, that it reduces time to reach given instructional objectives by about 30 percent, that it lowers costs of training for equipment operation and repair by about 40 percent, and that students generally prefer it. It also makes training more accessible. Use of CD-ROM or newer digital videodisk (DVD) technology to provide training aboard ships and at other dispersed locations can overcome residential classroom limitations of both time and place. A natural application of technology-based training is in specialized skill areas. If 20 percent of Navy and Marine Corps specialized training students were to use technology-based training to reduce training time by about 20 percent, the savings in training costs and student pay and allowances would amount to many millions of dollars per year. These economic benefits exclude the improvements in readiness that might result from 20 percent earlier graduation of students from training. Despite their promising indications, the current use of these technologies in

OCR for page 36
TABLE 2.8 Technology-based Training Capabilities Expected to Be Available in 2035 Capability Description Key Enabling Technologies Goal Embedded training Training for operation, maintenance, and/or employment of a system (e.g., device, software package) included in, and presented by, the system itself • Human-computer interaction • Information access and decision support technology • Cognitive modeling • Obviate requirements for external training: potential user should need only to turn the system on to learn how to use it—all operator and deployment training should be embedded, as should most maintenance training • Ensure separation of training from operations and noninterference of one with the other Distance learning Structured learning that takes place without the physical presence of an instructor. Distance learning refers to distance training, distance education, distributed training, etc., and includes the full range of approaches (not just video teletraining) for distributing instruction to physically dispersed students • Computer and video communications • Data compression • Networking • Interactive courseware (e.g., computer-based instruction, interactive multimedia instruction, techniques of individualization, design to effect specified outcomes • High-quality training available anytime, anywhere, to any student • Integration with personnel, classification, and assignment systems Interactive courseware Training delivered using computer capabilities that tailors itself to the needs of individual students • Computer technology • Cognitive modeling • Instruction engineered to achieve specified training outcomes Training that uses interactions with each student to maximize its efficiency by tailoring sequence, content, style, and difficulty of instruction to the needs of that student Intelligent training systems A form of interactive courseware that is generated in real time, is • Speech and natural language interaction • An articulate, expert tutor for every student, possessing full knowledge of the

OCR for page 36
  tailored to the needs of the individual student, and permits initiation of a tutorial dialogue and open-ended questioning by the student • Cognitive modeling • Knowledge representation • Computer technology student, the subject matter, and tutorial techniques and capable of sustaining mixed initiative, tutorial dialogue in terms the student understands • ''An Aristotle for every Alexander" Simulation Representations of real-world systems, situations, and environments that help achieve specified training objectives • Digital, multimedia displays • Fidelity matched to training objectives • System, situation, and environment representation • Knowledge representation • Device representations for maintenance and operator training generated directly from computer-aided design databases • Representations of interpersonal situations that respond to student decisions and actions • Representations of environments that convey sufficient psychological reality to achieve specified training objectives Virtual reality A form of virtual simulation—sensory immersing representations of real-world environments • Digital, multimedia displays • Multisensory displays • Real-time interaction Environmental representations providing full psychological reality and sufficient physical reality selected to achieve training outcomes Engagement simulation Simulations providing live, virtual, and constructive representations of real-world war fighting environments • Networking • Data communications • Digital, multimedia displays Seamlessly linked simulations supporting simulated environments in which engagements occur continuously against "real" and semiautomated forces Human performance assessment Assessment of relevant performance capabilities of individuals and teams • Psychometrics of simulation • Job-sample testing • Assessment of cognitive processes Valid (measures the right thing), reliable (measures things right), precise (exactly identifies progress toward learning objectives) assessment of the knowledge, skills, and attitudes of individual students and teams available at any time in a training program

OCR for page 36
TABLE 2.9 Planned Training System Capabilities for Interactive Courseware Technical Capability By 2000 By 2015 By 2030 Portability System-level interoperability Device-level plug-and-play interoperability Authoring system interoperability Instructional materials preparation and "authoring" Object-based authoring from object repositories Knowledge-engineered capture of subject matter and instructional expertise Automated generation of simulations, job aids, and instructional guidance from interoperable CAD databases Instructional delivery Expert system-based tutor Individual tutoring and job-aid expert on a desktop • Individual tutoring and job-aid expert in a pocket • Natural language understanding and interaction • Individual tutor and expert assistant embedded in every complex device Instructional intelligence Information management • Automated instructional design • Integrated tutors and simulation • Intelligent agents embedded in virtual environments as aids, surrogates for missing team members, and opposing and friendly forces • Immersive, virtual environments • Expert tutors using natural language Institutional integration Widespread access to national information infrastructure • Seamless school-to-work transitions • Networked interactive simulation for situated apprenticeships • Journeyman-level training available in all settings

OCR for page 36
naval training is minimal. Available records14 indicate that of the 3,139 courses presented by the Navy in FY 1997, only 47, about 1.5 percent, used interactive instructional technology. An additional 49 courses were taught using video teletraining to accomplish learning at a distance. Overall, technology-based approaches are unlikely to be found in more than 4 percent of all Navy and Marine Corps training. It may be time to increase their use. Considerable leverage will be gained if the Navy and Marine Corps and the other Services cooperate in developing and expanding use of these technologies in training. Investments in these technologies are likely to increase substantially both the effectiveness and the efficiency of training, to yield significant returns that can be used to fill existing gaps in the delivery of training, and to increase the pace of training modernization. Moreover, the technologies in question can collect data on individual and collective performance that could be used by local commanders in determining the composition of small teams. Outsourcing is a high-priority concern within DOD. Recent studies15,16 have found that costs to produce instructional materials and operate networked training simulations may be lowered and fewer instructional personnel may be required when outsourcing is used. Outsourcing cannot be applied universally in Navy and Marine Corps training, but it can produce significant economies in obvious areas such as specialized skill training or the delivery of education and training that is already available from community colleges and trade schools. Finally, the Department of the Navy could join with other federal agencies and the private sector to leverage the development of performance and certification standards for jobs and occupational areas of common interest and to establish technical standards for the reusability, portability, and interoperability of technology-based courseware. These actions will significantly increase the value and quality of training materials available from suppliers. Specific investments in research and development applied to training can yield large returns. For example, team training research is still in its infancy; much has to be done to learn how to properly characterize what a team is, how to measure team cohesion, and how to instill team cohesion efficiently. To insert technology into the training enterprise in a time of cost constraints, it will be necessary to understand how much fidelity is required to achieve a desired degree of training transfer and use this measure to drive the requirements for a given technological training solution. As the Navy moves to greater use of distributed 14   These records are available from the Defense Instructional Technology Information System (DITIS), which is maintained by the Defense Manpower Data Center, Washington, D.C. 15   Tighe, C., and S. Kleinman. 1996. Outsourcing and Competition: Tools to Increase Efficiency, Center for Naval Analyses, Alexandria, Va. 16   Metzko, J. 1996. Government vs. Contractor Training at the U.S. Army Signal Center, IDA Document D-1942, Institute for Defense Analyses, Alexandria, Va.

OCR for page 36
training and applies it to collective training, attention must be paid to interaction over communication channels. Thus, an investment must be made in research into the nature and technological implications of human interactions within shared virtual environments. The movement of training closer to the time of its utilization will also characterize the future training of naval forces. One can foresee a time when a decision to deploy a force rapidly, generate the necessary training content for mission-specific rehearsal, and deliver that training in transit to the operational site can all be accomplished within a single 24-hour period.