Air University Review, September-October 1968
Lieutenant Colonel Vernon J. Elslager
Recent advancements of educational and training research in the military
environment have closely paralleled the direction and guidance our national
leaders have provided on this subject. President John F. Kennedy, in his “Message
on Education” to the 88th Congress of the
President Lyndon B. Johnson, in his “Message on Education” to the 89th
Congress in January 1965, referred to the historic educational measures passed
by the 88th Congress and its increased commitment to education in
In June 1965 Secretary of Defense McNamara, in a memorandum to the service secretaries, expressed his concern over the relatively negligible funds being spent on educational innovations, including research and development and new methods and techniques. He called for an examination of the education and training programs of the respective departments, recommendations for improving these programs to reach him on or before 1 August 1965.
The forceful educational leadership of our national leaders had an immediate impact on military education and training, civilian educational institutions, and the software and hardware industries. Industry was alert to the advent of this educational revolution, and 1966 will perhaps be best remembered as the “year of the merger.” Announcements in the financial pages told of a succession of corporate marriages that promised to exert a profound influence on the character and content of military, school, and college programs.
What, then, is the significance of these new ventures? The new companies are private, profit-making concerns; consequently, their approach to the problems of educational technology is to develop innovations based on instructional systems engineering. The processes involved in designing a training system are arbitrarily analyzed in three areas: (1) determining training requirements, (2) developing the training environment, (3) measuring the results of training.1
The success of the systems approach to education and training is based on the basic definition of learning: an individual’s change in behavior as a result of experience. Therefore, it is important that, first, all training be geared to the place of the individual in the systems process. The behavioral analysis tasks have to be specifically structured in order to determine if learning has resulted. Education or training then becomes the process of arranging the environment of the individual in such a way as to make this behavioral change take place.
Dr. Robert Glaser, Director, Learning Research and
Education involves behavioral change. The system in the environment we create in which the individual makes this behavioral change is what we call education. We have to use certain tools. The whole system, the tools we may use, whether they be computers, books, tests, or measurements—all of these comprise the technology which the educator uses to make this behavioral change take place.
The subject of individualized instruction is not a new one. Educators have been talking about the need to take account of individual differences for at least 40 years, but for 40 years they were doing little about it, in large part because they lacked the pedagogy and the technology. Now, however, the technology is becoming available, fortunately at a time when there is a growing insistence that instructing must take advantage of individual differences.
Today, this search for ways to individualize instruction is emerging as
the most important single force for innovation and reform.
The Air Training Command, with about 3500 courses, has many major obstacles to overcome before total individualized instruction can become a reality. Fortunately, ATC pioneered the programmed instructional systems approach to training in the Air Force, and in 1967 this learner-centered approach was declared operational. In the systems process, emphasis is placed on the instructor’s role in assisting, guiding, and supervising individual student progress to achieve specific learning objectives after the appropriate mode of instruction has been determined. All new methods, devices, and procedures are identified and evaluated as to their purposefulness to training objectives. There are countless new devices, equipment, and techniques that have been developed by industry to assist in achieving specified training objectives. The ATC goal is to identify and analyze those innovations that are most suitable and applicable to its training programs.
Although ATC is involved in many research studies in instructional
technology, the concept of learner-centered instruction has been identified as
one which appears to present far-reaching effects in applying the principles of
individual learning to a training environment. A learner-centered instruction
project now being developed at Lowry AFB,
definition
The learner-centered instruction approach promises great rewards today for satisfying educational requirements in the design of individually oriented instructional systems. Although various forms of this technique have been studied in the past, there is a need to further explore “learner-based” environments in light of possible military applications. At the Aerospace Education Foundation Seminar held in Washington in September 1966, Major General Leo F. Dusard, Jr., Director of Personnel Training and Education, Hq USAF, pin-pointed the urgent necessity to further study the individual and how he learns best:
The teaching process continues to be refined, but what we need to know is how learning occurs so a more precise refinement of the teaching-learning process will take place. We know that a student learns more and remembers it longer if all his faculties and perceptive senses are made a part of the learning process.
Learner-centered instruction is a systems approach that attempts to solve the problem referred to by General Dusard. For our purpose, we will define learner-centered instruction as an educational environment in which the student is provided with behavioral objectives and in which, with minimal instructor interaction, he proceeds at his own rate under self-selected learning conditions to specified terminal behaviors.
training problems
In recent years weapon systems have greatly increased in complexity because
of modern technological advancements. Although greater equipment reliability,
maintainability, and built-in test capabilities have been achieved, there is
still a continuing need to train personnel to perform duties in an expanding
number of weapon-system support activities. The high cost of training and low
re-enlistment rates have served as a stimulus for exploring new training
methods in the armed forces, especially in the electronics area. Research
efforts have shown that electronics resident training under joblike
conditions is possible.2
In the foreseeable future, computers, greater systems reliability and
maintainability, and the use of procedural and troubleshooting aids will
probably decrease the need for the maintenance technician to utilize theory on
the job. Already these technological advancements are in exploratory stages of
development. One such development, the Presentation of Information for
Maintenance and Operation (PIMO), will be tested at Dover AFB,
The future use of microelectronic configurations of electronic systems will reduce significantly the maintenance burden and thus reduce certain maintenance personnel and training requirements. The microelectronic configurations also suggest new techniques of organizing maintenance activities to further reduce training and personnel requirements.3 Therefore, it seems justifiable to consider first-term airmen for an advanced development program designed to demonstrate the feasibility of training them to become proficient in the use of pertinent information-retrieval systems, tools and test equipment, and troubleshooting techniques. In view of the technological advancements in modern weapon systems and maintenance concepts, it may be unrealistic to provide extensive education if front-end principles, with the expectation that the trainee will apply the information later if the operational setting.
providing for individual
differences
To gain entry into electronics maintenance training courses, airmen usually must achieve above-average scores (usually 80th percentile and above) on the electronics aptitude index of the Airman Qualifying Examination. Although airmen may score high on the index, there is no assurance that all of then will be able to cope equally with abstract training course content. A review of grades in courses taught in the traditional manner usually shows a wide range in student achievement. Of course, in a similar training environment, medium-aptitude trainees may achieve a similar distribution of scores and perhaps at a lower level of achievement, especially if the instruction remains constant for both high and low-aptitude groups. However, by developing job-specific courses and providing for individual differences in learning, ATC should be able to train airmen with lower electronic aptitudes (60-75 percentile) as well as those with higher aptitudes (80-95 percentile) to high level of job performance achievement.
job motivation
Motivation is often a problem in the training and operational situation. The problem may become particularly acute if the airman does not intend to pursue a military career. Since this group represents the vast majority of first-term airmen, efforts should be directed toward making the training and operational jobs both challenging and rewarding.
Although many high-aptitude men enter the Air Force, there are also many jobs that require personnel with high ability, primarily because of the abstract nature of the content of a large number of training courses. For example, the traditional electronics technician program usually starts with an extensive study of electronics fundamentals, beginning with the electron and atom. In this program, students build their knowledge of theory through an abstract study of the nature of electricity, direct current, alternating current, electron tubes, and, later, design problems in radio transmitters, receivers, and other electronic equipment. The emphasis in this part of electronics training is on building and designing.4
In general, airmen who can successfully cope with the abstract verbal content of extensive training in front-end electronics principles plan technical careers after discharge from the Air Force. When these airmen are assigned to duties such as on-aircraft maintenance, they find little or no challenge in the “black box” scope of the job. On the other hand, medium-aptitude airmen may be able to perform such jobs to a high degree of proficiency and thus find satisfaction in their accomplishments. They should be tested on their ability to use test equipment and perform job tasks effectively rather than be required to verbalize the job by means of paper and pencil tests. It is possible to train airmen with a minimum of theory to perform flight-line maintenance tasks efficiently. However, their inability to speak the electronics language fluently may result in bias against them which could affect their job motivation.
In remarks by Dr. Eugene T. Ferraro, Deputy Under
Secretary of the Air Force for Manpower, to the Air Force-wide Career
Motivation Conference at Langley AFB,
The recognition of Air Force manpower and personnel research has come most from its leadership in the development of education training technology. Many of the procedures and systems now being applied in the field of education had their origin or early application in the Air Force. Emphasis on educational technology is necessary to increase the Air Force’s ability to meet its needs in the future.
In view of this need, a thorough reappraisal of the Air Force education and training system may be in order—not so much in terms of the adequacy of training but of the necessity for much of it. What was the relation between the time spent in training the 84 percent of our first term airmen who have left the Air Force this year, with their period of productivity as Air Force members? Was it worth the time and effort? We need to consider alternatives. Possibly the best way to begin reducing training time and improving the productivity of our training system is to adopt different objectives for “first termers” and career airmen. Under this concept, all men would be trained at a certain level for their first tour, with in-depth training given only after reenlistment. We shall examine selected courses in several career fields to redesign them for the “first termer” and career training concept. This concept might also help retention by providing advanced educational opportunity as an inducement to reenlistment.
The learner-centered instruction (LCI) systems approach to training has been developed as a result of many Department of Defense studies. The task analysis research in the early 1950s attempted to specify knowledge, skills, and abilities from data based on actual job requirements. Later refined task analyses have formed bases for well-defined learning objectives and terminal behavior statements. Many comparative training media studies have advanced the methodology of training aids selection. Later research on troubleshooting, programmed instruction, performance aids, and job proficiency evolution has contributed to the refinement of training technology.
Since 1964, ATC has conducted experiments at Lowry AFB in learner-centered
instruction. The LCI concept utilizes various education and training
techniques, including programmed instruction and multimedia selection. In
January 1966, the Behavioral Sciences Laboratory, Wright-Patterson AFB,
goals and purpose
The LCI research project has as its goal the development of a 12-14-week (conventional course 25 weeks), systems-oriented, learner-centered course in electronics maintenance for the Weapon Control Systems Mechanic (AFSC 322Xlr, F-111A). Although the Course instruction will be conducted by Air Force personnel at Lowry AFB, the development of the total program will be through the standard multisource contract procurement with civilian companies. The Behavioral Sciences Laboratory will monitor all contracts.
The purpose of the Lowry LCI project is to demonstrate and evaluate the technology for developing job-specific electronics maintenance courses that will (1) be systems-oriented and compatible with time schedules and data provisions associated with the development of both the aircraft and the firepower control subsystem; (2) increase the efficiency of training through the use of multimedia, including automated instruction; (3) allow effective use of first-term airmen of lower aptitudes than those currently assigned to electronics maintenance training by providing for individual differences; and (4) develop course objectives from a detailed job behavioral analysis, with very little emphasis on theory. In addition the effort will provide a demonstration to determine just what savings and performance increments will be possible.
experimental design
In the experimental demonstration to be conducted at Lowry AFB, the trainees will be divided into three groups of 40 students each. The trainees in the current electronics course (control course) will have high electronics aptitudes, ranging from 80 to 95, as will the trainees in one of two experimental courses. In the second experimental course the students will have lower aptitudes, ranging from 60 to 75. Airmen with scores below 80 will not take the current electronics course, since the training is oriented toward students in the 80-95 range. The experimental course will be designed to provide for individual differences throughout the aptitude range 60-95.
The learner-centered systems approach to electronics training is programmed over a three-year schedule and will consist of three major phases: (1) job description and performance test; (2) development and conduct of course; and (3) course evaluation. Let us examine each of these developmental steps in relation to the programmed schedule.
Phase I: job description and performance test
The basic training philosophy underlying the Lowry LCI project is that the trainee should be taught on-the-job skills and knowledges in formal training. To develop a course based on this philosophy, it is necessary to analyze and describe the actual behaviors that are required on the specific job. A contract was awarded to obtain a behavioral analysis of job requirements, course objectives, and a job proficiency, test of the Weapon Control Systems Mechanic, for F-111A aircraft. The Phase I schedule:
Perform task analysis…………..March 1967
Prepare job description………….June 1967
Prepare job performance test. . . .June 1968
Deliver simulator. . . . . . . ……. .June 1968
The following work has been accomplished according to that schedule:
· Preparation of the job behavioral description
Data collection. The contractor was
furnished all required quantitative and qualitative personnel requirements
information (QQPRI) by the F-111A-SPO at Wright-Patterson AFB,
The first approximation to the job description (preliminary) contained all the elements expected to be included in the final job description, but in less detail and less authoritatively. The preliminary job description included names of the fire-control subsystems, definition of maintenance echelons used with this system, and the behaviors involved under the maintenance functions of checking, adjusting, replacing, repairing, servicing, and troubleshooting.
To facilitate field data collection, various materials were devised,
including task analysis forms to permit systematic collection of data and
simulated maintenance problems for use in structured interviews. Data
collection visits were made to General Dynamics, Edwards AFB,
Behavioral analysis. Two classes of behavior are associated with job performance: normal repertoire (NR) behavior, which requires no special skills or knowledges to perform; and special behaviors (SB), which only the proficient technician, using special skills and knowledges, can perform. Anyone who can read and follow directions can perform NR behaviors; therefore, these behaviors were of little concern in the behavioral analysis. However, the SB aspects received special consideration, since they include very narrow discriminations, especially in rapid responses, knowledge of unfamiliar terms, and test equipment operation. The behavioral analysis consisted of three steps: identifying tasks, determining task activities, and describing behavioral details.
· Development of job performance test
Preparation of test rationale and specifications. The LCI job performance
test will serve as the criterion of the Weapon Control Systems Mechanic based
upon task and equipment analysis of job requirements. In a performance test the
trainee is observed while performing a task on real or simulated equipment and
is scored on a quantitative or qualitative basis. The purpose of the LCI
program is to demonstrate how well the airman can perform the job, not how well
he can verbalize the job.
For each class of activity in the job behavioral description a statement giving the following information will be prepared: (1) critical aspects of the behavior to be measured in the proficiency tests; (2) type and nature of test items to be used in measuring this behavior; (3) kind of equipment needed, insofar as it can be specified before the items are prepared; (4) nature of the scoring of the item, if it can be specified before the item is prepared; and (5) an estimate of the time required for the item or class of items.
Preparation of list items. Items will be prepared in accordance with the stated specification and rationale. One requirement is that the test be diagnostic. In order to achieve this, subtests or test items will have part-task scores. For example, if the operation of a given item of equipment is to be tested, scores might be obtained on resetting the instrument, obtaining the proper display, and evaluating the display. If the trainee’s performance is poor, the subtest with three subscores will reveal to some extent just where his difficulties lie.
· Development of simulated maintenance training environment (SMTE)
During the development of the job behavioral description, it became evident that the limited number of aircraft at the test sites would make it extremely difficult to obtain an adequate performance test tryout. To overcome this problem, it was decided to build a fully transportable, full-size mockup of approximately a 14-foot section of the F-111A aircraft. The necessary physical, electrical, and electronic features for adequate simulation of the tasks of the Weapon Control Systems Mechanic will be incorporated into this mockup or into accessory equipment and materials. The simulation designed to support the job performance test would be the simplest possible device with only the fidelity necessary to provide testing ability and potential training facilities for the tasks performed by the mechanic. The characteristics of the SMTE will be determined from the job behavioral description and performance test requirements.
Phase II: development and conduct of course
Phase II, development of the LCI course schedule, deals with three major areas:
Prepare plan of instruction. . . . March 1968
Develop training course. . . . . . .July 1968
Monitor and conduct course. . .July-December 1968.
Let us consider a brief résumé of each step.
· Prepare plan of instruction
Preparation of primary statements of learning objectives (SOLOs). The primary learning objectives will be based upon the performance requirements of the job, taken directly from the behavioral job description but supplemented with performance times and error specifications. The statements will specify what the trainees will be expected to do at the end of the training program.
Determination of subordinate learning objectives. The subordinate learning objectives must be derived from the primary learning objectives through identification of their behavioral components. This process should produce a hierarchically organized set of subordinate learning objectives, so that for any higher-level task to be performed successfully the trainee must be able to perform all lower-level tasks.
Determination of teaching sequence. The development of an effective course sequence for practically any subject depends largely upon the judgment and insight of the person performing the sequence, although it is desirable to be as systematic as possible.
Selection of media and training equipment. A multimedia approach will be taken in the development of the LCI course, and the selection of the media and equipment will be determined by the objectives. Among other factors to be considered are the nature of the behavior change to be produced, number of students to be trained, proficiency level required at the end of training, and the manner in which the medium is to be used.
· Develop training course
This phase will be devoted to the development and preparation of detailed lesson plans, actual training materials, and training media and equipment to be used in the conduct of the course. It will also include orientation of the Air Force instructors to be used in the experimental course. It is considered that the best orientation that can be given to the instructors would be to have them participate in the development of the LCI course. Two months prior to the course start, the instructors, will be oriented to the approach and given experience with the course materials, procedures, and training media.
· Monitor and conduct Course
Each instructor will teach the whole course to his class. To maintain the planned content and methods of instruction, contractor representatives will monitor much of the training. Television will be used for on-site monitoring of the classes and will eliminate the disruptive effect of an observer in the classroom. Video recordings will be made of some of the class samplings for later evaluation. In addition, the contractor representatives will confer with the Air Force instructors conducting the classes.
Phase
The evaluation of this experiment will be made by means of the job proficiency test to be developed for the specific purpose. The test will be designed to measure actual job performance in the field. It will be administered to graduates of both courses, and for follow-up the graduates will take the same test after they have been in the field about, four months. The Air Force Specialty Knowledge Test (SKT) also will be administered when the trainees graduate and after they have been on the job four months. The job proficiency test will serve as the criterion for evaluating the experiment; however, the SKT results will be compared with the job proficiency test results.
The experimental course will be evaluated according to the following evaluation design:
Upon Graduation In the Field
Job Perf. Test SKT Job Perf. Test SKT
Current Course
Electronics Principles—10 weeks
Equipment (sets)—14 weeks X X X XExperimental Course
LCI Electronics Maintenance
Course—14 weeks X X X X
Although the general technology associated with the Lowry LCI project is largely available on a piecemeal basis, it has not been systematically evaluated for use in Air Force programs. The total program will focus and demonstrate the technology for developing job-specific, apprentice-like technical courses as an integral part of the weapon system development cycle. It is hoped that this systems-oriented approach for the development of job-related technical courses will provide the following potentials:
· In comparison with current practices, this program proposes to train personnel of equal or lower input aptitude in half the time and produce equal or better on-the-job proficiency in their first job.
· The technology associated with this program is keyed to the weapon system development cycle for several reasons. Personnel must be considered an integral part of operational Air Force systems. During the development of a weapon system, much information is generated that is of direct value in planning training courses. Greatest economies can be realized if technical courses are initially keyed to weapon system requirements, rather than establishing a course that is not system oriented and redesigning it based on feedback from the field.
By making the technical course job-related and apprentice-like, we can train personnel of average aptitude to perform maintenance duties in a very satisfactory manner. Use of such personnel is important because they are more available, more likely to remain in the Air Force, and perhaps even more likely to perform routine maintenance duties satisfactorily than those with higher aptitudes.
· The course will make use of multimedia self-instruction and training to a job-sample performance criterion. This effort will include the development of formal performance measures of the F-111A Weapon Control Systems Mechanic. Accurate measurements of the effectiveness of the training program for teaching personnel to perform the electronics maintenance job will be developed.
The total program will be judged in terms of the applicability of the procedures used to efforts in other systems and the degree to which execution of this program increases confidence in the general technology being demonstrated and evaluated.
Hq
Air Training Command
Notes
1. G. A. Eckstrand, “Current Status of the Technology of Training,” Department of Commerce, AD608 216, September 1964.
2. H. Valverde, “A Systems Approach to Electronics
Maintenance Training, Part I,” Wright-Patterson AFB,
3. D. H. Harris, “The Impact of Microelectronics on the Utilization and
Training of Maintenance Personnel,”
4. J. P. Foley, Jr., “Performance Testing: Testing for What Is Real,”
Wright-Patterson AFB,
Acknowledgment
The author is grateful to Mr. Horace H. Valverde, F-111A Learner-Centered Instruction Project Contract Monitor, and others of the Behavioral Sciences Laboratory, Air Force Systems Command, for their assistance and technical advice in preparation of this article.
Lieutenant Colonel
Disclaimer
The conclusions and opinions expressed in this
document are those of the author cultivated in the freedom of expression,
academic environment of
Home Page | Feedback? Email the Editor