Cover page.

United States Army Research Institute

Special Report 49

May 2002

Distance Learning: The Soldier's Perspective

Robert A. Wisher

Mark A. Sabol

Franklin L. Moses
U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

5001 Eisenhower Avenue

Alexandria, VA 22333-5600

Internet Site: www.ari.army.mil

Distance Learning:

The Soldier’s Perspective

ARI Special Report 49, May 2002

Robert A. Wisher

Mark A. Sabol

Franklin L. Moses
U.S. Army Distance Learning:

The Soldier’s Perspective

ii

Forward

The goals of the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command 

(TRADOC) include increasing training opportunities for soldiers, 

improving the quality of instruction, increasing access to training, 

and reducing the time soldiers spend away from their units. The 

Army considers distance learning at least part of the solution toward 

achieving these goals.

The U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social 

Sciences has been examining the use of distance learning technologies since January 1997, when we signed a Memorandum of Agreement with TRADOC in support of distance learning research. In 

that time, it has become clear that training in the future, in particular 

training delivered through online communications technology, will 

favor a soldier-centered rather than a classroom-based learning 

model. Although there is ample evidence that self-regulated, webbased training can work quite well, there is another factor to consider: What do soldiers think about this impending change? This 

report portrays the soldier’s perspective as revealed through numerous experiments, studies, and surveys.

 ZITA M. SIMUTIS

 Acting Director
U.S. Army Research Institute

iii

Contents

Introduction.......................................................................................1

What is Distance Learning? ..............................................................2

A Brief History of Distance Learning...............................................3

Why is DL Relevant to the Army?....................................................4

Major Army DL Initiatives ...............................................................6

What do Soldiers Think? ..................................................................7

What Do The Data Say? ...................................................................9

What’s Different About Distance Learning?...................................12

What Makes Effective DL? ............................................................13

Cost Effectiveness...........................................................................17

The Future of Distance Learning ....................................................19

Endnotes..........................................................................................22
Blank page. Please continue to the next page.
U.S. Army Research Institute

1

Scene I (Fort Riley, KS) 

SSG Bill Hurst looked forward to his 

scheduled Battle Staff NCO Course. The six 

week course, conducted in residence at the 

Sergeants Major Academy, provides the skills 

and knowledge to serve as a member of the 

battle staff and to perform the daily operations 

of command posts. Being away from his 

family for that long a time was a drawback, 

but in the end SSG Hurst was pleased with 

the experience. In his evaluation he said “I 

enjoyed the course .... It taught me the total 

Army concept by allowing me to interact with 

other Senior NCOs about how to prepare and 

conduct combat operations.”

Scene II (Fort Bragg, NC)

SSG Cynthia James took the Battle Staff NCO 

course through Video Teletraining (VTT) at 

Fort Bragg, her home base. She went into 

this experience with doubts, despite the fact 

that it meant she didn’t have to travel. She 

was concerned that the interactions with 

the instructors would be limited and that it 

might be more difficult to ask questions and 

get feedback. Her doubts were not erased 

by the experience. Afterwards, SSG James 

reflected “I feel the distance learning course 

is an excellent way for the Army to save on 

spending; however, I still believe that one-onone training is more beneficial.”

Effectiveness of Internet vs. Classroom Instruction

Percentage

9

26

41

24

Internet is more effective

Both are about the same

Classroom instruction is more 

effective

Not sure

These perceptions of distance learning are common amongst soldiers. For example, in a recent Army-wide survey soldiers were 

asked, “Compared with the traditional classroom, how effective do 

you believe the Internet is for individual learning?” 1

About one-third (35%) of the random 

sample of nearly 10,000 soldiers saw 

online training through the Internet 

as being about the same or better than 

the classroom. It is interesting to note 

that 50% of those that had experienced 

online courses said the Internet was 

equally or more effective as the classroom, as compared to 30% of respondents with no such experience.

This report examines distance learning from the soldier’s perspective. It is 

based on research findings, comments, 

surveys, and various studies that have 

Effectiveness of Internet vs. Classroom Instruction

Internet is more effective 9%

Both are about the same 26%

Classroom instruction is more effective 41%

Not sure 24%

Introduction

This report focuses on distance learning (DL) applications within 

the U.S. Army. It provides a brief history of these efforts along with 

a discussion of a variety of topics such as why DL is important to 

the Army, its cost-effectiveness, and current and future plans for 

further integrating DL technologies into Army training functions. 

A primary focus throughout the report, however, is the attitudes of 

soldiers towards this method of training delivery.
U.S. Army Distance Learning:

The Soldier’s Perspective

2

“I am no fan of distance 

learning and this course 

confirms my aversion to 

this style of instruction. 

I understand the economics behind distance 

learning, but the standard of instruction is so 

compromised that I don’t 

think it provides an economy.” 2

Figure 1. A Summary of Types of Distance Learning

Source: Wisher, R. A. (2001). Measuring performance in distance learning environments. Alexandria, VA: U.S. 

Army Research Institute.

examined the acceptance and effectiveness of distance learning. 

First, though, it is useful to examine what is meant by distance 

learning and what plans are underway for its increased use in Army 

training.

What is Distance Learning?

With the development of the internet, DL has come to be thought of 

in many quarters as being synonymous with Internet-based learning. In fact, however, this form of DL represents just the latest trend 

in a long history of teaching at a distance. Over time this has taken 

many forms, from simple paper-based correspondence courses to 

the sophisticated video teletraining, as seen in Figure 1. Over time, 

many definitions of DL have been offered. According to the U.S. 

Army, DL is:

“The delivery of standardized individual, collective, and 

self-development training to soldiers and units anywhere 

and anytime through the application of information technologies.”3
U.S. Army Research Institute

3

A more generic definition was tendered by Moore and Kearsley:

“Structured learning that takes place without the physical 

presence of the instructor.”4 

It is the latter distinction which seems common to most definitions of DL, that being the separation of students and instructors. 

This is one characteristic that describes all distance learning formats, whether or not they are technology based. An additional 

requirement is that there be some means of communication between 

teacher and student. This can include one or more media, such as 

writing (correspondence courses, asynchronous computer training), audio (teleconferencing, audiographics), or visual contact as in 

video teleconferencing.

A Brief History of Distance Learning

The earliest roots of distance learning can be found in the development of the postal service in the 19th century. This inspired the 

creation of commercial correspondence courses that could be made 

available to anyone within the reach of the mail. The University 

of Chicago established a home study division in 1882, soon followed by other colleges and universities. In the early 1900s, radio 

became a means of providing instruction at home; over ten percent 

of broadcast radio stations were owned by educational institutions. When the Federal Communications Commission 

assigned television frequencies in 1952, one of the 

goals was to keep open some portion of the airwaves 

for instructional television. 

The U.S. military began employing print-based correspondence courses in the 1940s. In the early 1950s, the Army Signal 

School began experimenting with the use of television as a medium for training. In one project, 

researchers compared 14 hours of 

basic training delivered in a standard 

stand-up manner with that delivered 

via television and found the latter 

to be at least as effective.5 Other 

media were explored. In the early 

1970s, the Air Force’s Institute of 

Technology began using “teleteach,” 

which involved commercial dial-up 

Scene III (Fort Dix, NJ) 

Autumn 1943

Private Robert Wilson eagerly awaited the fourth in a series of 

50-minute films in the “Why We Fight” series. The films were 

professionally produced by the War Department to acquaint members 

of the Army with factual information on the events leading up to the 

United States entering the war and the principles for which we are 

fighting. Private Wilson was about to see “The Battle of Britain,” which 

dealt with the dramatic British resistance to German air attacks during 

the fall of 1940. Like many of his fellow soldiers, Wilson felt that some 

parts of the films were a little biased, but he still felt he learned a lot 

and they provided a nice break from the daily training regime.
U.S. Army Distance Learning:

The Soldier’s Perspective

4

“This is the first time for 

me to receive instruction 

in this type of environment. I think it is a 

good experience.”

A recent graduate of a VTT course

A DL facility was set up for troops serving 

in Bosnia.

telephones to provide limited duration instruction to remote locations. This was expanded later that decade to include electronic 

blackboards. 

In more recent times, distance learning has seen an explosion of 

new initiatives. Several factors have fueled this growth, with the 

major impetus coming from the increasing rate of technological 

advances. This has had two effects. First, the fast pace of change 

has underlined the need for life-long learning. At the same time, 

technology has opened up the doors to new methods of providing 

instruction at a distance. The proliferation of personal computers 

has leveled the playing field, allowing more and more citizens to 

capitalize on instructional opportunities. Results from the Fall 2000 

Sample Survey of Military Personnel indicated that two-thirds of 

Army personnel had a computer at home, while 45% had access to a 

PC at work. Further, nearly half report that they access the Internet 

every day or almost every day. Only 19% of soldiers had no access 

to a computer.6

A quick Internet search reveals over one million hits when searching for information on distance learning. According to the National 

Center for Education Statistics, nearly 80% of public, 4-year postsecondary educational institutions offer DL courses. There are more 

than 50,000 courses offered online from 1,000 universities across 

the country.7 

The United States military has also seen an expansion in distance 

learning efforts. In fact, the Department of Defense is one of the 

leading parties in the Advanced Distributed Learning Initiative that 

grew out of Executive Order 13111, “Using Technology to Improve 

Training Opportunities for Federal Government Employees.” In many ways, distance learning appears to 

be a perfect match for the Services’ training needs.

Why is DL Relevant to the Army?

In Fiscal Year 2000, the United States Army enlisted 

just under 67,000 new recruits to active duty and 

55,000 young men and women to the Army National 

Guard and Reserves.8 For the most part, these individuals entered service after graduating from high 

school and had little in the way of formal, relevant job 

skills. They were recruited to serve in a wide variety 
U.S. Army Research Institute

5

Each year the Army must train thousands of 

new recruits in a wide variety of technical and 

non-technical occupations.

of jobs in a score of technical and 

non-technical areas. For the military as a whole, only about 17% of 

active component enlisted personnel are in occupations designated as infantry, gun crews, or seamanship. At the same time, nearly 

20% of the job offerings involve 

electrical or mechanical equipment 

repair. Other technical specialties include electronic equipment 

repair (10%), communications and 

intelligence (9%), and medical and 

dental (7%). Clearly, this represents 

a huge training burden that is faced 

year-in and year-out.

But it is not only new recruits who have to be trained. Studies have 

demonstrated that soldiers spend less than half of their time performing the technical tasks for which they have been trained.9

 This 

lack of constant reinforcement opens up the real possibility of skill 

degradation. Further, with advances in technology, job functions are 

continually in a state of flux. According to one estimate, the shelf 

life of technical skills is now about five years.10

Another concern of the Army is with part-time soldiers. The Reserve 

Component makes up about one-half of the Army’s combat arms 

units and medical personnel, and accounts for over half of administrative and electrical/mechanical repair positions.11 Training is a 

particularly critical function for these soldiers, who only devote a 

portion of their time to their Army duties.

A factor that makes Army training a particularly challenging task 

is the geographical dispersion of its troops. At any given point in 

time, active duty soldiers in the same occupation can be stationed at 

various places around the country and the globe. The Army National 

Guard includes 3,200 units located in 2,700 communities across the 

country. Similarly, there are some 1,700 Army Reserve units around 

the nation. Bringing together soldiers from diverse locations for 

training obviously presents a huge logistical and financial challenge.

For all of these reasons, the Army and other Military Services have 

made a substantial investment in distance learning technologies. 
U.S. Army Distance Learning:

The Soldier’s Perspective

6

The increased digitization of Army functions 

effects troops across levels and jobs.

Major Army DL Initiatives

The guiding force behind Army DL initiatives is The Army Distance 

Learning Program (TADLP). This initiative was created and approved in 1996 to “gain consensus and approval for a DL program to 

support Army training requirements, establish required funding levels, and identify program objectives.”12 Fielding of the Digital Training Facilities (DTF) started in Fiscal Year (FY) 1998, with completion envisioned by FY 2010. Over 200 DTF will be established consisting of more than 700 classrooms. Over 500 courses are scheduled 

for redesign to a DL format in this period. Included in these facilities 

are two videoteletraining systems. The Satellite Education Program, 

under the direction of the Training and Doctrine Command, and the 

TNET system operated by the Army Extension Training Directorate. 

The former involves one-way, full-band-width video with provision 

for audio interaction. TNET offers two-way compressed video.

Another recent major initiative is the Army University Access Online (AUAO). This is designed to allow eligible soldiers access to 

college degree programs through the Internet. It involves creation 

of the largest online education system ever designed for soldiers, 

eArmyU.com. At the present time, 85 certificate and degree programs are offered, with more 

scheduled to come online in the 

future. Twenty-three education 

institutions around the country 

are taking part. Among the offerings are certificate programs in 

business management, Associate 

Degrees in applied technology 

and criminal justice, Bachelor’s 

Degrees in health care administration and accounting, and 

Master’s Degrees in adult education and computer information 

systems. These are offered at no 

cost to soldiers, who are also provided laptop computers, printers, 

and Internet service accounts to 
U.S. Army Research Institute

7

“Distance learning is 

great when someone is 

simply teaching facts. 

But when you are attempting to teach a complex subject, it is virtually impossible to get 

a quality education over 

this DL system.”

A recent DL class graduate

Video teletraining can involve one- and twoway video access.

allow them to participate. One indication of the potential success of this program is that, even in its relative 

infancy, more than 15,000 students have been enrolled. 

In addition to Regular Army initiatives, the Army National Guard developed a demonstration system under 

congressional direction called the Distributive Training Technology Project. This resulted in a DL network 

that includes all 50 states and 4 territories. Although 

the primary use for the system is to maintain the readiness of soldiers in the Guard, the program includes 

a “shared use” concept in which the system is made 

available to the surrounding civilian communities when not in use 

for its primary purpose. There are four classroom configurations, 

differentiated on the basis of such characteristics as the number of 

workstations and the range of communication options offered. The 

Army Reserve is also active in DL initiatives, having established 

the Distance Learning Futures Group that is examining alternatives 

to traditional classroom training as a means for maintaining troop 

readiness.

All of this activity virtually ensures that DL will have an impact on 

Army training far into the future. And as these efforts advance, it 

is important to solicit and take into account the views of the most 

important element to their success—the trainees themselves.

What do Soldiers Think?

An essential element to the success of the DL initiatives described is 

the acceptance by the population at which they are directed. So the 

question arises: What do soldiers think about distance learning in 

general and web-based training specifically? The Sample Survey of 

Military Personnel (SSMP), conducted in the Fall of 2000, included 

several questions about these domains. Nearly 10,000 soldiers took 

part, and the results are provocative in that they suggest a certain 

wariness among this group about the effectiveness of at least some 

forms of DL for training. This despite the fact that, as we have 

already seen, the vast majority of soldiers have access to computers 

and the Internet and visit the web on a regular basis.

This level of familiarity with computers and the Internet might lead 

to the expectation that this group of soldiers would be very open to 

using this tool for education and training purposes. However, the 
U.S. Army Distance Learning:

The Soldier’s Perspective

8

Figure 2. Willingness to Take Various 

Education/Training Courses via the 

Internet

Percentage

SSMP data are not that clear on this point. Although 85% of respondents expressed at least moderate confidence that they could complete an online education or training course, as mentioned earlier, 

two-thirds either felt that classroom training is more effective or 

were not sure which was better.

Another interesting finding in the SSMP data is the apparent distinction these soldiers make between different types of courses and 

the Internet. As seen in Figure 2, while respondents were generally 

willing to consider taking education courses using this medium, 

they were much more circumspect about its application in the area 

of military training. Less than one quarter indicated a willingness to 

take individual or small unit training courses using the Internet.

As might be expected, there were relationships between background 

characteristics and the opinions regarding Internet training. For 

instance:

n Those who connect to the Internet on a daily basis were 

somewhat more likely to express confidence in their ability to complete a course using this medium.

n Younger respondents were more likely to rate Internet 

instruction as more effective.

n Those with more years of education appear somewhat 

more wedded to traditional classroom instruction.

n A higher proportion of soldiers who had taken an online 

course (Internet or CD-ROM) 

rated this medium as equally or 

more effective.

It is also worth pointing out that 

these data focus specifically on 

the Internet and not other forms of 

DL. But, as we shall see, feedback 

from a variety of studies suggests 

that the introduction of DL on a 

large scale may require not only 

an investment in hardware and 

conversion of courses, but also the 

conversion of the trainees themselves.

Not willing 13%

Small unit training 11%

individual military training 24%

Professional development 39%

Education courses 69%
U.S. Army Research Institute

9

Results from the Sample Survey of Military 

Personnel showed a greater acceptance of 

Internet-based training among soldiers who 

had participated in an on-line course.

What Do The Data Say?

There is a substantial literature on distance learning, 

including a wide variety of books and several journals. 

Included in this are a slew of evaluations of specific DL 

programs. However, as pointed out by several authors, 

these evaluations often have methodological flaws that 

make straightforward interpretation of their meaning 

problematic.13 Among the problems cited is the fact that 

most evaluations focus on DL in education as opposed 

to training settings. Further, there is a tendency to gear 

the focus to such factors as the usability of the equipment and learner preferences. Outcome measures—the 

basis used to decide if a given program “worked”—are often relegated to user satisfaction with the experience, as opposed to what 

was actually learned and retained. Other difficulties include the frequent failure to randomly assign subjects to DL or traditional learning environments, in those instances where there is a comparison 

group at all. This lack of random assignment is particularly troubling in cases where there are post-instruction measures only. With 

no indication of how much students knew before going through the 

course, there is no way of judging relative gains that result. Finally, 

in cases where there are achievement measures, their reliability and 

validity are often questionable.

With these flaws in mind, the results of the DL evaluation literature 

that does exist are remarkably consistent. And these can be summed 

up in three simple words: no significant difference. That is, when 

student achievement after DL courses is compared to that resulting 

from traditional face-to-face classroom instruction, no differences 

are found that are larger than would be expected by chance. The 

majority of these studies replicated classroom practices, so it is not 

surprising that the learning outcomes were also replicated. A few 

representative military studies demonstrate this point. 

n Audio teletraining was used to conduct a Unit Clerk Course for 

Army National Guard soldiers, while another group received 

standard, in-class instruction.14 The soldiers who experienced 

the audio teletraining were found to have a higher pass rate 

based on the first test taken following the course, although all 

soldiers eventually were successful.
U.S. Army Distance Learning:

The Soldier’s Perspective

10

Evaluations of DL programs have generally 

found no differences in outcomes when compared to traditional instructional methods.

n A National Guard Information Operations Course was delivered 

using instructor controlled graphics and two-way audio (i.e., 

audiographics), and no differences were found between DL and 

in-class trainees in terms of outcomes on a final written test.15

n One module (66 hours) of a Reserve Component Engineering 

Officer Course was conducted in both classroom and computermediated conferencing formats, and no reliable differences were 

found between the two groups on their test, homework, or practical exercise scores.16

Although learning outcomes are generally found to be equivalent—or even to favor distance learning—there are criteria on which 

DL typically fails to measure up. One of these is course completion 

rates. For instance, in the Engineering Officer Course study cited 

above, only 64% of the students in the computer-mediated version 

of the training completed the instruction. This compares to a resident training completion rate of 95% or better. In another instance, 

Reserve Component soldiers took part in an air traffic control course 

under two different modes.17 A residence course was delivered at 

Fort Rucker, Alabama over an 11-week period. The distance learning 

version of the instruction was extended over an 11-month period to 

accommodate soldiers’ schedules. Test results indicated that the two 

groups were nearly equal in terms of subject matter knowledge at 

the completion of the course, but the in-residence group performed 

better on hand-on skill tests. Further, of the 32 students who took 

part in the DL course, only 12 entered the final in-residence portion at Fort Rucker. This represents 

a 62% attrition rate as compared to 

12% among in-residence students. The 

reasons given for failing to complete 

included family and job conflicts. 

Another outcome that is often found 

when DL training is compared to traditional methods is lower satisfaction 

rates among the distance learning participants. For instance, a recent administration of the Battle Staff NCO Course 

via VTT elicited the following reactions 

from soldiers who participated.
U.S. Army Research Institute

11

“Learner attitudes do not 

appear to impact learner 

achievement...learner 

achievement does not 

appear to impact learner 

attitudes.”

Course 

completion rates have often been found 

to be lower when instruction is delivered at a 

distance.

VTT can be difficult to grasp all the information 

being presented based on the instructor to student 

ratio. The majority of the students I attended class 

with would have preferred to attend six straight 

weeks at Fort Bliss.

I also strongly feel that the residential course is 

great because it gets the NCOs away from their 

home station and they can concentrate on the course 

without any outside distractions.

I strongly oppose the VTT course of instruction 

due to students not having actual “live” face-toface with instructors at Fort Bliss.

One interesting result that has been found 

in a variety of studies is that there is 

apparently little relationship between attitudes 

towards a DL experience and learning outcomes. This 

conclusion is borne out by the results from the Battle Staff 

NCO course that was the basis for the comments above. Sometime 

after the class was delivered in both classroom and VTT formats, 

researchers went back and administered job knowledge tests to 

the soldiers who took the course.18 They also carefully constructed 

job performance measures based on the course content and had 

the supervisors of the attendees complete them. They found no 

difference between the groups. So despite the reservations of the 

VTT students, they appear to have learned just as much—and 

were able to apply it just as well—as soldiers who received more 

traditional training. This is not an anomalous finding. An author 

who conducted a review of a variety of research projects concluded that, “learner attitudes do not appear to impact learner 

achievement...learner achievement does not appear to impact 

learner attitudes.”19
U.S. Army Distance Learning:

The Soldier’s Perspective

12

“The collaborative experience can still be had, 

but you need a robust 

instructor and an IT team 

behind the scenes.”

A Reserve Component Officer

Scene IV 

(a soldier’s home. Summer, 2010)

1LT Mary Wright had mixed feelings 

about her training assignment. She 

looked forward to logging on to her “My 

Training” portal on the World Wide Web 

and collaborating on a course of action 

analysis with her virtual classmates as part 

of her Captains Career Course. She found 

the collaboration techniques to be an excellent 

instruction vehicle, but the intensity of the 

training was fatiguing and she was not pleased 

with having to spend so much of her own time as a selfdirected learner. She sometimes also felt frustrated with 

the lack of immediate access to an instructor, but the 

corrective feedback she would receive the next day on 

her wireless digital assistant was always enlightening.

What’s Different About Distance Learning?

Given that there appears to be some question in soldiers’ minds 

about the value of DL as compared to traditional forms of training, 

it may be worthwhile to examine the differences between the two. 

Doing so may highlight some of the root causes behind the apparent 

misgivings that many soldiers—as well as trainees in other environments—have about DL.

Perhaps the major difference between distance learning and traditional instructional methods is the increased role of the student 

in all phases of the process. In fact, with the advent of learning on 

demand, there are many situations in which it is the learner who 

initiates the process by deciding that he or she has a knowledge gap 

that needs to be filled. Depending on the medium selected to address 

this need, it can be largely up to the student to maintain the motivation to stay with the program of instruction. Unlike traditional 

classrooms where the immediate presence of an instructor and fellow students bring about social pressures to continue involvement, 

in at least some forms of distance learning that pressure must come 

from within. Often in DL environments, the student must also play 

a more active role in locating information needed. Although instructors are typically available, if an immediate need-to-know situation 

arises, the learner may have to call on his or her own investigative 

resources to address that need. 

Another element that 

often distinguishes 

DL from traditional 

classroom settings can 

be the lack of social 

contact. This can be 

important for several 

reasons. Other trainees 

or students can be a 

source of both social 

support and information. Knowledge 

can also be gained and 

ideas generated through 

group discussions both 

during training and in 
U.S. Army Research Institute

13

“The expansion of the 

instructor role is important. He/she must recognize that some students 

will need help with the 

material and with their 

motivation. The instructor’s role is to work with 

the student until all efforts to help him/her succeed have been exhausted. Instructors must go 

beyond the traditional 

lecture techniques.”

An Army Officer

DL presents unique challenges to 

instructors.

off hours. Through this type of interaction, information can be obtained, integrated, and committed more firmly to memory. It should be noted, 

however, that research involving synchronous, 

web-based instruction has demonstrated that as 

much of one-third of the on-line communication 

between students was social in nature.20 This suggests that, depending on the medium used, DL is 

not necessarily incompatible with student collaboration and interaction.

DL also presents unique challenges to instructors. 

As one author noted, “Anyone who says that 

teaching at a distance is the same as traditional 

teaching is dead wrong. Instructors need more 

planning time, more instructional support, and 

additional training to modify courses for all of 

the potential delivery formats for distance teaching.”21 This same 

author goes on to note several areas of expertise that are essential 

to the DL instructor. These include the ability to organize and plan 

the course, encourage teamwork among trainees, present questions 

effectively to reinforce information, and involve trainees in coordinating activities at field sites.

It is important to recognize the differences between DL and traditional training so that accommodations can be made to make up for 

the relative weaknesses and capitalize on the strengths. To simply 

assume that materials developed for the classroom can be used as 

is in a DL environment—no matter what the specific format—is a 

mistake that can have significant consequences for student achievement. And so the question arises, what is it that makes good instruction in a distance training mode? This has been the subject 

addressed by many authors who have offered a variety of useful 

suggestions.

What Makes Effective DL?

Over the years, a good deal has been learned about the characteristics of effective distance learning programs. It should be noted 

that there is overlap between DL and traditional training in terms 

of effective design and development principles. For this reason, 

many authors emphasize that the first step in course conversion to a 

distance format is to evaluate the existing training. Instruction that 
U.S. Army Distance Learning:

The Soldier’s Perspective

14

DL is not necessarily incompatible with student collaboration and interaction.

is ineffective in the classroom is unlikely to be any more so when 

conducted in a DL environment, no matter what the media. It is also 

true that there are instructional design principles that are unique 

to certain mediums. For instance, effective instructor presentation 

techniques that are essential in a VTT course are not applicable to a 

course conducted over the Internet. However, there are some common threads that apply across media and that have a significant 

impact on the effectiveness of the instruction that results. The following provides a brief overview of these tenets.

Learner orientation. Learners must know what to expect. They 

need to know the rules for participating. When will their input or 

questions be sought? What form will feedback take and when will 

it be received? What other requirements will they be expected to 

meet?

Interaction. As mentioned, in the DL environment the demands 

involved in learning tend to shift away from the instructor and 

towards the student/trainee. This makes it all the more important 

that opportunities for interaction be built into the instruction. Wagner (1997) defines three types of interactions: between the learner 

and the instructor, among learners themselves, and between the 

learner and the material they are trying to master.22 Of particular 

importance is interaction with the instructor. Research has demonstrated that satisfaction with DL increases as the amount of contact 

between students and instructors increases.23 Further, as satisfaction 

increases so does the likelihood of course completion. Interaction 

can take many forms depending on the 

particular media. It can be verbal (audio 

teleconferencing), verbal and nonverbal (video teleconferencing), in written 

form (e-learning), or some combination 

of these. To the degree that the trainee is 

interacting with someone or something, 

he/she is taking an active role in the 

learning process, which facilitates that 

process in the short- and long-run.

Feedback. One essential form of communication is instructor feedback to the 

student. Research has demonstrated that 

a lack of feedback or delays between 
U.S. Army Research Institute

15

Prompt instructor feedback has been shown 

to increase student satisfaction and 

motivation.

student actions that require input and 

the time that input is provided decrease 

motivation and learner satisfaction.

Understanding and reliability of 

equipment. To the extent that DL 

involves technology, it is very important 

that instructors and students be prepared 

to play their role in employing that 

technology. Resources must be available 

to deal with problems encountered and 

resolve them quickly. This can take the 

form of instructor/student training in the 

use, maintenance, and troubleshooting of 

equipment and/or having someone available to take on this role. Technological 

difficulties can have a direct impact on 

student motivation, understanding, and 

success.

Materials design. Printed materials need to be geared to a level 

that is appropriate for the student population. This is particularly 

essential to the degree that students will be operating more independently than in a traditional training setting. Adjustments may have 

to be made to ensure that it is clear to students how various components (e.g., books, on-line resources, videotapes) should be used 

in conjunction with one another. These modifications may be quite 

simple, as in the course mentioned previously that employed audio 

teleconferencing. In this case, reference materials were color coded 

to make it easier for the instructor to direct students to the correct 

resources. Graphic materials may need to be redesigned to ensure 

that they appear as clearly to the students as possible given the 

transmission medium. In short, careful thought needs to be devoted 

to the impact of switching to a DL environment on the course materials used in traditional classroom settings and how this, in turn, will 

affect student use and comprehension.

Appropriate learning strategies. Given that DL shifts the 

instructional focus from instructors to students, this may require a 

corresponding shift in the strategies that are used to communicate 

and reinforce information. In the early 1990s, the American Psychological Association developed a list of learner-centered psycho
U.S. Army Distance Learning:

The Soldier’s Perspective

16

Expectations of learners must be taken into 

account when designing DL programs that 

are technology-based.

logical principles that have direct relevance to DL instruction (see 

page 21). Abell (2001) incorporates many of these principles into 

guidance specifically geared to Army trainers as they develop or 

translate instruction to DL environments.24 She cites various authors 

who have identified characteristics of adult learners that need to be 

taken into account in designing programs:

n Adults like to know why they need to know what is being taught 

(e.g., context).

n Adults like to play a role in the learning process, so offering 

choices of what and how to learn can be of value.

n Adults bring a great deal of experience with them to the learning 

environment, and trainers should capitalize on this by trying to 

relate the information being taught to what the students already 

know.

n The application of knowledge should be stressed by emphasizing the immediate, real-world value of what is being taught.

n Motivation is built through success, so strategies should be employed that heighten the probability that students will be able to 

conquer the material and see its immediate value.

Abell goes on to cite several characteristics of the generation of 

soldiers who are the primary targets of Army training that can effect 

its design. These include the fact that they are used to high quality 

video and graphics presentations and expect a certain standard to be 

met in this regard. They also expect highly 

dynamic presentations, constant feedback, 

and freedom of choice in the sequence of 

what they see and learn. Several barriers to 

effective distance learning that need to be 

addressed are detailed, including the need 

to compensate for the reduced amount of 

feedback often encountered in DL settings, the importance of keeping trainees 

involved rather than letting them become 

passive, and the need to provide constant 

guideposts to prevent learners from getting 

lost in the instruction.
U.S. Army Research Institute

17

Chart: Six Unwarranted Assumptions Regarding Distance Learning (adapted from Richard Clark25)

Assumption 1: Media influences learning.

Reality: There is little evidence that some media are better than others for delivering instruction. Rather, the quality is determined by the 

instructional methods employed.

Assumption 2: Online instruction increases learner motivation.

Reality: The research in this area is incomplete, but there is evidence that the opposite may be true, making attention to this aspect of the 

instructional design especially important.

Assumption 3: Active screen designs (e.g., busy screens) help learning.

Reality: Screens filled with lots of images and animation may lead to student overload.

Assumption 4: Discovery/problem-based learning and extensive learner control are the most effective instructional techniques.

Reality: This may be true for more advanced or capable students, but others may be left behind. Ideally, techniques should be incorporated that allow for these features after learners have demonstrated their ability to handle them.

Assumption 5: Traditional training methods are adequate for complex online learning environments.

Reality: When the subject matter is complex, room must be made for integrating the material through increasingly large and inclusive 

practice exercises. Demonstrating mastery of “chunks” of material is not enough; learners must also be challenged to integrate those 

chunks if adequate outcomes are to be expected.

Assumption 6: Online instruction should be adjusted to accommodate different learning styles.

Reality: Aside from making provision for learners with different levels of incoming knowledge and ability, there is little evidence to suggest that varying instructional techniques to account for different learning styles (e.g., visual or verbal) has any impact on outcomes.

1. Media influences learning.

2. Online instruction increases 

learner motivation.

3. Active screen designs (e.g., 

busy screens) help learning.

4. Discovery/problem-based 

learning and extensive 

learner control are the 

most effective instructional 

techniques.

5. Traditional training methods 

are adequate for complex 

online learning environments.

6. Online instruction should be 

adjusted to accommodate 

different learning styles.

There is little evidence that some media are better than others for delivering 

instruction. Rather, the quality is determined by the instructional methods 

employed.

The research in this area is incomplete, but there is evidence that the 

opposite may be true, making attention to this aspect of the instructional 

design especially important.

Screens filled with lots of images and animation may lead to student 

overload.

This may be true for more advanced or capable students, but others may be 

left behind. Ideally, techniques should be incorporated that allow for these 

features after learners have demonstrated their ability to handle them.

When the subject matter is complex, room must be made for integrating 

the material through increasingly large and inclusive practice exercises. 

Demonstrating mastery of “chunks” of material is not enough; learners must 

also be challenged to integrate those chunks if adequate outcomes are to be 

expected.

Aside from making provision for learners with different levels of incoming 

knowledge and ability, there is little evidence to suggest that varying 

instructional techniques to account for different learning styles (e.g., visual or 

verbal) has any impact on outcomes.

Six Unwarranted Assumptions Regarding Distance Learning

(adapted from Richard Clark25)

Assumption Reality

These are a few of the elements that need to be taken into consideration in the design of instruction to be delivered through DL. Perhaps most important is simply the realization that there are differences between traditional training and that delivered at a distance. It 

is not enough to simply try to mimic the classroom when designing 

DL courses. Rather, the uniqueness of the setting needs to be recognized and addressed.

Cost Effectiveness

As mentioned previously, the costs of maintaining a fully-trained 

Army are substantial. Not only must some 67,000 new active duty 

recruits be trained each year, but enlisted and officer personnel 

throughout the force must receive ongoing training to keep their 

skills fresh and their knowledge up to date. Given the widespread 
U.S. Army Distance Learning:

The Soldier’s Perspective

18

“DL was sold as a money 

saver. The biggest savings, though, is time. The 

three biggest benefits to 

DL are the time saved, 

keeping soldiers in their 

units while they are 

learning, and the ability 

to train more soldiers at 

one time.”

An Army Officer

dispersion of this population and the constant nature of the need, 

bringing the training to the troops seems to be a logical option. Not 

only does this cut down on expenses associated with travel, it also 

is efficient in that it means less time away from soldiers’ day-today jobs. Finally, allowing soldiers to remain at their home base on 

a more consistent basis means less disruption to home and family 

lives, which may result in higher Army life satisfaction, less attrition, and higher reenlistment rates.

But conversion to a DL format is not without its costs. Depending 

on the format, these can include hardware, software, transmission 

costs, the expense associated with converting courses to the new 

environment, and training time for faculty and staff.26 Most of these 

are encountered up front, and can be amortized over the life of the 

system. However, the question remains, are they justified, given 

the results achieved? The evidence already reviewed—however 

flawed—suggests strongly that DL is at least as effective as traditional training methods. Therefore the real question is just what are 

the associated cost savings?

Several of the evaluations already mentioned examined the cost-effectiveness issue directly. For instance, the Engineer Officer Advanced Course for the Reserve Component involved one module 

(66 hours of instruction) that had been converted to asynchronous 

computer conferencing in combination with print materials, CAI 

lessons, videotapes, and synchronous computer-based group activities.27 No difference was found in learning outcomes. However, 

when taking into account the expense of equipment and conversion 

and calculating a per-student cost over a 7-year period, the authors 

estimated that there was a net savings of 33% per student. The 

National Guard Unit Clerk Course conducted via audio teletraining 

was found to result in higher student grades on the first end-of-training test. In this case, the authors estimated a per-student savings of 

$1,044. A Navy study estimated that the use of VTT for training 

and conferences saved over 7 million dollars in travel and per diem 

expenses over a 5-year period. Similarly, the U.S. Air Force estimated a 5 million dollar savings through the use of VTT to deliver 

its Acquisition Planning and Analysis Course in just one year.28

So, the evidence seems clear that cost savings associated with DL

are substantial. This, in combination with the various findings that 

suggest it is equally or more effective—instructionally speak
U.S. Army Research Institute

19

The Department of Defense is the leading 

player in the Advanced Distributed Learning 

Initiative.

ing—as more traditional forms 

of training, seems to make a 

strong case for investing in DL 

over the long term. And, as 

highlighted earlier, the Army is 

doing just that. 

The down side to all of this 

is seen in the comments and 

survey results from the soldiers 

themselves. These reflect a real 

sense of doubt regarding DL, 

along with some resistance. 

Future development of DL 

programs must address soldier 

concerns and overcome the 

doubts that exist.

The Future of Distance Learning

So what does the future hold for distance learning? First, it seems 

inevitable that with the ever increasing array and availability of 

technology, opportunities for the development and use of distance 

learning will continue to grow.29 And with that growth will come 

additional challenges. One of these that is being addressed already 

is how to coordinate the various development activities so that they 

can borrow from one another where appropriate and thereby capitalize on successful efforts. In fact, DoD is the lead player in this 

arena through the Advanced Distributed Learning (ADL) initiative. 

Among the ambitious goals of ADL is to be the impetus for largescale development of interoperable education and training products 

and services that will meet the needs of both the military and the 

nation’s workforce of the future. The creation and reuse of learning 

content will occur through open standards rather than proprietary 

practices. The intent is to identify barriers to the effective use of 

current and emerging technologies and work together to overcome 

them. This is being accomplished through a partnership between 

DoD, other agencies within the Federal government (notably the 

Department of Labor), academia, and the private sector. 

But more needs to be done. In particular, several authors have noted 

the need for more research and sharing of knowledge regarding the 

selection of media and methods to best match content.30 The mere 
U.S. Army Distance Learning:

The Soldier’s Perspective

20

Given current trends, it seems that distance 

learning will be play a key role in Army training efforts for the foreseeable future.

fact that a technology is available does not mean that it is the appropriate means for conveying information to students. For instance, 

the Army has concluded that DL is not an effective medium for 

experiential learning, problem solving, or applied leadership—at 

least as yet. The creation of tools that will assist training managers 

in drawing links between course content and the most effective and 

efficient media and methods for conveying that content will be of 

great value in insuring the appropriate use of technology for training 

in the future.

Students, too, will have to break the mode of traditional learning 

environments. Making training available anytime, anywhere puts a 

bigger burden on the learner to be his or her own training manager. 

This includes recognizing that there is a knowledge gap, being astute enough to know where to go to fill it, recognizing when additional help is needed, and maintaining the motivation to stick with it 

until success is achieved. 

The Army’s primary concern should be the development of instructors and instructional strategies that most effectively capitalize on 

the powers of new media, as well as addressing their shortcomings. 

Conversion of training from traditional forums to those which are 

technology-based involves more than just the downloading of lecture notes and briefing slides. Trying to mimic the traditional classroom through the use of advanced technologies is a disservice to the 

power of those technologies and the students who are trying to learn 

through them. Instructors need to rethink their approach so that 

interaction can be maximized and student attention and motivation 

maintained. The sharing of approaches taken to 

achieve these goals will be an essential element 

of DL’s continued growth and success.
U.S. Army Research Institute

21

1. Nature of the learning process. The learning of complex subject matter is most effective 

when it is an intentional process of constructing meaning from information and experience.

2. Goals of the learning process. The successful learner, over time and with support and 

instructional guidance, can create meaningful, coherent representations of knowledge.

3. Construction of knowledge. The successful learner can link new information with existing 

knowledge in meaningful ways.

4. Strategic thinking. The successful learner can create and use a repertoire of thinking and 

reasoning to achieve complex learning goals.

5. Thinking about thinking. Higher order strategies for selecting and monitoring mental 

operations facilitate creative and critical thinking.

6. Context of learning. Learning is influenced by environmental factors, including culture, 

technology, and instructional practices.

7. Motivational and emotional influences on learning. What and how much is learned is 

influenced by learner motivation. Motivation to learn, in turn, is influenced by the individual’s 

emotional states.

8. Intrinsic motivation to learn. The learner’s creativity, higher order thinking, and natural 

curiosity all contribute to motivation to learn. Intrinsic motivation is stimulated by tasks of 

optimal novelty and difficulty, relevant to personal interests, and providing for personal choice 

and control.

9. Effects of motivation on effort. Acquisition of complex knowledge and skills require 

extended learner effort and guided practice. Without the learner’s motivation to learn, 

willingness to exert this effort is unlikely without coercion.

10. Developmental influences on learning. As individuals develop, there are different 

opportunities and constraints for learning. Learning is most effective when differential 

development within and across physical, intellectual, emotional, and social domains is taken 

into account.

11. Social influences on learning. Learning is influenced by social interactions, interpersonal 

relations, and communications with others.

Cognitive and 

Metacognitive 

Factors

Motivational

and

Affective

Factors

Developmental 

and Social

Factors

12. Individual differences in learning. Learners have different strategies, approaches, and 

capabilities for learning that are a function of prior experience and heredity.

13. Learning and diversity. Learning is most effective when differences in learners’ linguistic, 

cultural, and social backgrounds are taken into account.

14. Standards and assessment. Setting appropriately high and challenging standards and 

assessing the learner as well as learning progress—including diagnostic, process, and 

outcome assessment—are integral parts of the learning process.

Individual 

Differences

Learner-Centered Psychological Principles31
U.S. Army Distance Learning:

The Soldier’s Perspective

22

Endnotes

1 U.S. Army Personnel Survey Office (2000). Sample Survey of Military Personnel.

2 Student comments presented throughout this report were abstracted from the 

written statements trainees provided on evaluation instruments following several different distance learning courses (e.g., 97 E/B/L HTLC, Battle Staff NCO 

Course).

3 U. S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (1996). Army Distance Learning 

Plan. Fort Monroe, VA: Author.

4 Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (1995). Distance education: A systems view. 

Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co.

5 Kanner, J. H., Runyon, R. P., & Desiderato, O. (1954). Television in Army 

training: Evaluation of television in Army basic training (Technical Report 14). 

Washington, DC: Human Resources Research Office.

6 U.S. Army Personnel Survey Office (2000). Sample Survey of Military Personnel.

7 National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), (1999). (Lewis, L., Snow, 

K., Farris, E., Levin, D., & Greene, B.). Distance education at postsecondary 

education institutions: 1997-98 (National Center for Education Statistics, NCES 

2000-013). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

8 Department of Defense, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Force 

Management Policy) (2002). Population representation in the military services: 

Fiscal year 2000. Washington, DC: Department of Defense.

9 Bialek, H., Zapf, D., & McGuire, W. (1977). Personnel turbulence and time 

utilization in an infantry division. (HumRRO FR-WD-CA 77-11). Alexandria, 

VA: Human Resources Research Organization.

10 Oblinger, D. G., & Maruyama, M. K. (1996). Distributed learning. Boulder, 

CO: CAUSE.

11 Department of Defense, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Force 

Management Policy). (2002). Population representation in the military services: 

Fiscal year 2000. Washington, DC: Department of Defense.

12 The Army Distance Learning Program, Master Plan

13 Wisher, R. A., Curnow, C. K., Borman, W. C., & Chase, S. L. (2001). The effects of distance learning on job performance. Paper presented at the annual 

conference of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.

 Wisher, R. A. (2001). Measuring performance in distance learning environments. ARI Report. Alexandria, VA: Army Research Institute for the Behavioral 

and Social Sciences.

 Koble, K., & Bunker, E. (1997). Trends in research and practice: An examination of the American Journal of Distance Education, 1987 to 1995. The 

American Journal of Distance Education, 11 (2), 19-38.
U.S. Army Research Institute

23

 Phipps, R., & Merisotis, J. (1999). What’s the difference? A review of contemporary research on the effectiveness of distance learning in higher education. 

Washington, DC: THE INSTITUTE for Higher Education Policy.

 Wisher, R. A., & Champagne, M. (2000). Distance learning and training: An 

evaluation perspective. In S. Tobias & J. Fletcher (Eds.) Training and retraining: 

A handbook for business, industry, government, and military. New York: Macmillan.

14 Wisher, R. A., Priest, A. N., & Glover, E. C. (1997). Audio Teletraining for unit 

clerks: A cost-effectiveness analysis (ARI Research Report 1712). Alexandria, 

VA: Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

15 Wisher, R. A., & Curnow, C. K. (1999). Perceptions and effects of image 

transmissions during Internet-based training. The American Journal of 

Distance Education, 13, 37-51.

16 Phelps, R. H., Ashworth, R. L., & Hahn, H. A. (1991). Cost and effectiveness of 

home study using asynchronous computer conferencing for Reserve Component 

training (ARI Research Report 1602). Alexandria, VA: U. S. Army Research 

Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

17 Wisher, R., Seidel, R., Priest, A., Knott, B., Curnow, C. (1997) Distance learning over extended periods: The effects of knowledge decay. Paper presented 

at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, 

Chicago, IL.

18 Drenth, D. J., Kubisiak, U. C., & Borman, W. C. (2001). Effectiveness of 

distance learning for the Battle Staff NCO course. ARI Study Report 2001-03. 

Alexandria, VA: Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

19 Payne, H. A review of the literature: Interactive video teletraining in distance 

learning courses (2nd ed.).Atlanta, GA: Spacenet, Inc. and the United States 

Distance Learning Associaon.

20 Orvis, K. L., Wisher, R. A., Bonk C. J., & Olson, T. M. (2002). Communication 

patterns during synchronous Web-based military training in problem solving. To 

appear in Journal of Computers and Human Behavior

21 Cyrs, T. E. (1997). Competence in teaching at a distance. In T. E. Cyrs (Ed.) 

Teaching an d learning at a distance: What it takes to effectively design, deliver, 

and evaluate programs (pp. 15-18). San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass.

22 Wagner, E. D. (1993). Interactivity: From agents to outcomes. In T. E. Cyrs 

(Ed.) Teaching and learning at a distance: What it takes to effectively design, 

deliver, and evaluate programs (pp. 19-26). San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass.

23 Cookson, P. S. (1990). Persistence in distance education: A review. In M. G. 

More, P. Cookson, J. Donaldson, and B. A. Quigley (Eds.), Contemporary issues in American distance education (pp. 192-204). New York: Pergamon Press.

24 Abell, M. (2000). Soldiers as distance learners: What Army trainers need to 

know. Paper presented at the Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation, and 

Education Conference, Orlando, FL.
U.S. Army Distance Learning:

The Soldier’s Perspective

24

25 Clark, R. E. (2001). Learning from media: What works and what doesn’t. Paper 

presented at the Symposium on Assessing the Quality of Online Instruction, 

Monterey, CA.

26 Howard, F. S. (1997). Distance learning annotated bibliography. White Sands 

Missile Range, NM: TRADOC Analysis Center.

27 Phelps, R. H., Ashworth, R. L., & Hahn, H. A. (1991). Cost and effectiveness of 

home study using asynchronous computer conferencing for Reserve Component 

training (ARI Research Report 1602). Alexandria, VA: U. S. Army Research 

Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

28 Barry, M. & Runyan, G. B. (1995). A review of distance learning studies in the 

U.S. military. The American Journal of Distance Education, 9, 37-46.

29 Connick, G. P. (1997). Issues and trends to take us into the twenty-first century. 

In T. E. Cyrs (Ed.), Teaching and learning at a distance: What it takes to effectively design, deliver, and evaluate programs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

30 Wisher, R. A., Champagne, M. V., Pawluk, J. L., Eaton, A., Thornton, D. M., & 

Curnow, C. K. (1999). Training through distance learning: An assessment of research findings (ARI Technical Report 1096). Alexandria, VA: Army Research 

Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

 Crawford, A., & Suchan, J. (1996). Media selection in graduate education for 

Navy medical officers (NPS-SM-96-003). Monterey, CA: Naval Post-Graduate 

School.

31 American Psychological Association (1993). Learner-centered psychological 

principles: Guidelines for school reform and restructuring. Washington, DC: 

American Psychological Association and the Mid-Continent Regional Educational Laboratory.

Back cover page.

United States Army Research Institute

for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

5001 Eisenhower Ave.

Alexandria, VA 22333-5600

www.ari.army.mil

End of document.