U.S. Army Research Institute

for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

Research Report 1811

Training Adaptability in Digital Skills: The Learning

Skills Bridge (LSB) Learning Accelerator

Kathleen P. Hess

Aptima, Inc.

George Alliger

Group for Organizational Effectiveness, Inc.

Michael Linegang, Sarah Meischer

Michael J. Garrity, Mark Hertel, & Adam Bailey

Aptima, Inc.

July 2003

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

BEST AVAILAo» i= rottv'

20030731 068
U.S. Army Research Institute

for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

A Directorate of the U.S. Total Army Personnel Command

ZITA M. SIMUTIS

Director

Research accomplished under contract

for the Department of the Army

Aptima, Inc.

Group for Organizational Effectiveness, Inc.

Technical review by

Guy L. Siebold, U.S. Army Research Institute

Rob Johnston, IDA

NOTICES

DISTRIBUTION: Primary distribution of this Research Report has been made by ARI.

Please address correspondence concerning distribution of reports to: U.S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, Attn: TAPC-ARI-PO, 5001

Eisenhower Ave., Alexandria, VA 22333-5600.

FINAL DISPOSITION: This Research Report may be destroyed when It Is no longer

needed. Please do not retum it to the U.S. Amriy Research Institute for the Behavioral

and Social Sciences.

NOTE: The findings In this Research Report are not to be construed as an official

Department of the Anmy position, unless so designated by other authorized documents.
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

1. REPORT DATE (dd-mm-yy)

July 2003

2. REPORT TYPE

Final

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Training Adaptability in Digital Skills: The Learning Skills Bridge

(LSB) Learning Accelerator

6. AUTHOR(S)

Hess, Kathleen P. (Aptima, Inc.), Alliger, George (Group for

Organizational Effectiveness, Inc.), Linegang, Michael;

Meischer, Sarah; Garrity, Michael J.; Hertel, Mark, &

Bailey, Adam (Aptima, Inc.)

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

Aptima, Inc., Group for Organizational

12 Gill Street, Effectiveness, Inc.

Suite 1400 409 Vespers Court

Woburn, MA 01801 Slingerlands, NY 12159

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

U. S. Amiy Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social

Sciences

5001 Eisenhower Avenue

Alexandria, VA 22333-5600

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

3. DATES COVERED (from... to)

November 2000 to November 2002

5a. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER

DASW01-01-C-0005

5b. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

665502

5c. PROJECT NUMBER

M770

6d. TASK NUMBER

5e. WORK UNrr NUMBER

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER

10. MONITOR ACRONYM

ARI

11. MONITOR REPORT NUMBER

Research Report 1811

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Guy L. Slebold, Contracting Officer's Representative

14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words):

The objective for this SBIR Phase II project was to increase the degree to which soldiers are able to apply

classroom/computer-mediated training on-the-job and to capitalize on their present digital skills in the acquisition of

new and changing digital skills. Aptima, Inc. and the Group for Organizational Effectiveness, Inc. used basic

theories of learning transfer to create a two-module training package designed to increase digital skill adaptability.

This Leaming Skills Bridge learning accelerator training package (LSB) was pilot tested, revised, and re-tested. The

study found that training designed to increase basic computer knowledge (e.g., the LSB) does result in learning

transfer to the AFATDS. Specifically, the LSB training eliminated any group differences based on prior computer

experience, and thus compensated for deficient computer experience. Also, participants scored significantly higher

on the measures of AFATDS networks and AFATDS visualization and Mapping after LSB training than they did

before the training. Further, 88.8% of participants reported that the LSB training improved their understanding of

AFATDS. From these results it was concluded that generalizable, transferable digital skills taught in the context of

device- and job-specific goals (such as with the LSB) has promise in increasing adaptability in the use of those

digital skills.

15. SUBJECT TERMS

Personnel Training, e-Learning Tools, Computer-based Training, Network-Centric Warfare

Distance Leaming, Distributed Leaming, Learning Transfer, Training Transfer

' ^. : ' sgCuRrrYCLASsiprcATioNOF

16. REPORT

Unclassified 17. ABSTRACT

Unclassified

18. THIS PAGE

Unclassified

19. LIMITATION OF

ABSTRACT

Unlimited

20. NUMBER

OF PAGES

21. RESPONSIBLE PERSON

(Name and Telephone Number)

Dr. GuyL. Siebold

(703)617-9708

1

BEST AVAILABLE COPY

Research Report 1811

Training Adaptability in Digital Skills: The Learning

Skills Bridge (LSB) Learning Accelerator

Kathleen P. Hess

Aptlma, Inc.

George Alliger

Group for Organizational Effectiveness, Inc.

Michael Linegang, Sarah Meischer

Michael J. Garrity, Mark Hertel, & Adam Bailey

Aptima, Inc.

Advanced Training Methods Research Unit

Franklin L. Moses, Chief

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

5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22333-5600

July 2003

Army Project Number Small Business innovation

2O665502M770 Research

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

Preceding Page Blank iii BEST AVAILABLE COPY
IV
FOREWORD

The Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) project, "Training Adaptability in

Digital Skills, Phase II," was conducted under contract number DASWOl-Ol-C-005 by Aptima,

Inc. and the Group for Organizational Effectiveness, Inc. (gOE) with mentorship by the U.S.

Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI), Advanced Training

Methods Research Unit. The goal ofthe project was to develop a marketable training program

that would increase training transfer from one technology system or version to another.

ARI has a research program focusing on how to best train the digital skills necessary for

increased battlefield digitization. The concept is to design training that will help personnel

benefit from the ftiU potential ofimproved technology. One way to accomplish that objective is

to train adaptability as a key aspect oftraining for successftil battlefield digitization.

The purpose ofthe Aptima and gOE two-phase SBIR effort was to increase the degree to

which soldiers are able to apply classroom/computer-mediated training on-the-job and to

capitalize on their present digital skills in the acquisition ofnewer and changing digital skills. In

combination with other research being done at ARI, this work will provide part of a foimdation

for training adaptability in digital skills. This report is addressed primarily to training managers,

developers, and system designers.

p^/>^

'RANKLIN L. MOSES

Acting Technical Director

BEST AVAILABLE COPY
ACKNOWLEDGMENT

So many people have contributed to this work over the past several years that it is

impossible to Hst them all. Apologies go to those who are inadvertently left out ofthis

acknowledgment.

Many Aptima employees, not listed as authors, contributed their time and talents to this

project. The hst ofcontributors includes the following: Dr. E. Beth Littleton, Mr. Brian

Rubineau, Ms. Caroline Busch, Mr. Chuck Kaylor, Dr. Gabriel Spitz, and Ms. Rebecca Morley.

Ms. Bonnie Carberry, an external consultant, did the graphics and helped with the web

design. Mr. Stephen Bohler of gOE contributed to the data collection and analysis.

Employees ofEngineering and Professional Services (EPS) graciously allowed us to sit

in the AFATDS training, and they, and the AFATDS trainers and CECOM NET team at Fort

Sill, were patient with our many questions and comments. Special thanks go to SFC James

O'Connor, Mr. Roger Baker, Mr. Maxie Burke, Mr. Stephen Sells, Mr. Terry Camden, SFC

Travathan, SFC Gluck, SFC Henry, SFC Stephens, SFC Bowen, CPT Jose Serrano, and Sergeant

Dan Scraper for their assistance.

Col. J. Nuttall, Major Rich Owens, Major Robert Markovetz, and SFC Benjamin Lamp

were key in helping us get National Guard support for data collection. The 147* Field Artillery

Brigade, 1** Battalion (led by Lieutenant Colonel Kerry Loudenslager) and 2""* Battalion (led by

Lieutenant Colonel JefFMarlette) also deserve special acknowledgment for their contributions to

earher versions ofthe Learning Skills Bridge Training Program. A special "thank you" goes to

CPT Baibi L. Aleandre, without whom the research for the final vaUdation at Fort Sill would

never have been possible.

Acknowledgement also goes to Drs. Franklin L. Moses, Guy L. Siebold, Phylhs

Robertson, and Mr. Mike Valentine for their comments, contributions, and support for this

project.

VI
TRAINING ADAPTABILITY IN DIGITAL SKILLS: THE LEARNING SKILLS BRIDGE

(LSB) LEARNING ACCELERATOR

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Research Requirement:

Given the rapidity by which warfighting digital technology is being updated and

replaced, successful warfighters will be those who possess a solid foundation for adaptive digital

skills that goes beyond abilities to utilize specific tools and applications and includes deep

knowledge of digital concepts that are relevant in every context of use. The requirement for this

Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR), Phase II project was to pick an exemplar

technology system and show how a training product could increase the degree to which soldiers

are able to apply classroom/computer-mediated training on-the-job and to make use oftheir

current digital skills in the acquisition of new and changing digital skills.

Procedure:

Aptima, Inc. and the Group for Organizational Effectiveness, Inc. capitalized on the basic

theories oflearning transfer to create the Learning Skills Bridge (LSB), a web-based two-module

training package designed to mcrease the soldier's digital skill adaptability. The first module

(basic computer knowledge), was created by working with computer-technology and^

learning/training subject matter experts (SMEs) to identify the basic computer knowledge that is

essential to ensure learning transfer to novel or changing technologies. Through an iterative

process of content development and revision, the researchers were able to identify specific

questions and informational material that would facilitate the learning of computer knowledge

essential for such transfer. The second module ofthe LSB training program (jlcnown as the

"bridge" component) was developed through interviews and discussions with operational SMEs.

With this information, content was produced that encourages learning transfer ofthe basic

computer knowledge to the computer system ofinterest, the Advanced Field Artillery Tactical

Data System (AFATDS), by illustrating the specific relationship between the basic computer

knowledge and the target technology (i.e., AFATDS). The LSB was pilot tested, revised, and

eventually used to collect performance data for soldiers participating in AFATDS trainmg at Fort

Sill, OK. In this final data collection, participants were pre-tested on their knowledge of

AFATDS network topics and AFATDS visualization and mapping topics. Next they were given

the LSB training package and told to go through both the Networks section and the Visualization

and Mapping section. Then they were given a post-test to determine whether the training on the

basic computer knowledge resulted m learning transfer to the target system. Sample results firom

the Fort Sill data collection are briefly reviewed below.

vu
Findings:

The findings from this data collection effort suggest that training designed to increase

basic computer knowledge resulted in learning transfer to the AFATDS, the target computer

system. Specifically, the LSB training eliminated any group differences based on prior computer

experience, and thus compensated for deficient computer experience. It was also foimd fliat

participants scored significantly higher on the measures ofAFATDS networks and AFATDS

visualization and Mapping after LSB training than they did before the training. Further, 88.8%

ofparticipants reported that the LSB training improved their understanding ofAFATDS. These

results may support the notion that generalizable, transferable digital skills taught in the context

ofdevice- and job-specific goals (such as the LSB training program) has promise in increasing

adaptabiUty in the use ofthose digital skills. It must be noted that this was an initial study

incorporating a quasi-experimental design. As such, fiirther studies incorporating a control

group are needed before more firm conclusions can be drawn.

Utilization ofFindings:

The current version ofthe LSB is ready for use as a learning accelerator for AFATDS

training. In the current version ofLSB, trainees may complete sections in an order and timing of

their choice. As such, training times may vary. None the less, allowing trainees to complete

relevant sections ofthe LSB training before AFATDS training may assist trainees to complete

the AFTDS training in less time while learning and retaining more ofthe content. AFATDS

trainers may spend less time covering base computer knowledge and low-level AFATDS

knowledge, so they can focus more on advanced AFATDS knowledge and skills. More

important than the AFATDS application, however, the LSB training program was developed

such that it can be easily re-configured to be appropriate for any target system that requires basic

computer skills. For example, all branches ofthe armed forces are experiencing the same

technology challenges, and the police and the FBI are both experiencing an incredible increase in

technology use. With relatively little development, the LSB can be revised to be used for any of

these. With more resources, the LSB can be developed to handle other basic knowledge -such

as basic reading skills -that are needed for other target platforms.

vui
TRAINING ADAPTABILITY IN DIGITAL SKILLS: THE LEARNING SKILLS BRIDGE

(LSB) LEARNING ACCELERATOR

CONTENTS

Page

Training in Adaptive Digital Skills Is Critical 1

The Aptima/gOE Solution 3

Developing the LSB tool 3

Backend 3

Content 5

UsabiUty Evaluation 9

User Side 9

Local Administration 9

Validation Research 10

Initial Data Collected with National Guard 10

Fort Sill Data Collection 11

Final Product 19

Overall Conclusions and Implications 19

Commercialization 19

References 21

Appendix. Walk-Through ofthe LSB Learning Accelerator Training Program A-1

List ofTables

Table 1. A Question, Answer Choices, and Feedback Found in the Database 7

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics for Pre- and Post-Test Scores 13

Table 3. Correlations ofComputer Experience with Test Performance 15

Table 4. Responses to the Reactions Questionnaire 17

List ofFigures

Figure 1. Five Training Challenges for Digitization 2

Figure 2. LSB System Architecture 4

Figures. Research Design for Evaluation at Fort Sill 11

IX
CONTENTS (continued)

Figure 4. Number ofParticipants Indicating Varying Levels ofComputer Experience 12

Figure 5. Distribution ofTest Scores: Computer Networks 13

Figure 6. Distribution ofTest Scores: Visualization/Moping 13

Figure 7. Mean Pre- and Post-test Scores 14

Figure 8. Mean Pre- and Post-test Scores by Prior AFATDS Training 15

Figure 9. Mean Pre- and Post-test Network Scores by Computer Experience 16

Figure 10. Mean Pre- and Post-test Visualization Mapping Scores by Prior AFATDS Training

and Computer Experience 16

Figure 11. Mean and Pre- and Post-test Computer Network Scores by Prior AFATDS Training

and Computer Experience 17

Figure A-1. Screenshot ofUser Login Page A-1

Figure A-2. Screenshot of'Torgot Your Password" Page A-2

Figure A-3. Screenshot of "Illegal Login" Page A-2

Figure A-4. Screenshot of "Introduction to AFATDS" Page A-3

Figure A-5. Screenshot of'"Navigation" Page A-4

Figure A-6. Screenshot of "Assessment Pages" Page A-4

Figure A-7. Screenshot of "Instruction Pages" Page A-5

Figure A-8. Screenshot of "Bridge Pages" Page A-5

Figure A-9. Screenshot of "My Progress Page" Page A-6

Figure A-10. Screenshot pointing out ways to start a computer skills category A-7

Figure A-11. Screenshot of "Introduction to Computer Networks" (Category) Page A-8

Figure A-12. Screenshot of "Introduction to Types ofComputer Networks" (Topic) Page A-9

Figure A-13. Screenshot ofAssessment Page with a True/False question A-10

Figure A-14. Screenshot ofAssessment Page with Multiple Choice Question A-11

Figure A-15. Screenshot for When a Student Does Not Select an Answer A-12

Figure A-16. Screenshot of a "Correct Response" Feedback Page A-12

Figure A-17. Screenshot for a "Incorrect Response" Feedback Page A-13

Figure A-18. Screenshot of"LAN Basic histructions" Page A-14

Figure A-19. Screenshot pointing out button to access Instructions from the Assessment Pages

A-15

Figure A-20. Screenshot ofPage Indicating When a Concept is Finished A-16

Figure A-21. Screenshot of "Bridge" Page A-17

Figure A-22. Screenshot of "Category Status" Page A-18

Figure A-23. Screenshot of "My Progress" Page pointing out also how to get there A-19

Figure A-24. Screenshot of "Certificate ofCompletion" Page A-20
TRAINING ADAPTABILITY IN DIGITAL SKILLS: THE LEARNING SKILLS BRIDGE

(LSB) LEARNING ACCELERATOR

Training in Adaptive Digital Skills Is Critical

This two-phase Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) project addressed a critical

Army need: training soldiers to adapt digital skills to rapidly evolving technology. It is not

sufficient for soldiers simply to learn how to operate today's digital equipment. Soldiers must be

able to quickly transfer digital knowledge and skills to set-up, use, and maintain new software

and new equipment.

The concept ofNetwork-Centric Warfare is rapidly becoming a reality for today's

modem military. While there are many variations in definition, some common attributes ofthis

concept include the following: multiple information inputs, a collaborative approach at multiple

operational levels for information processing and decision making, choice ofmultiple weapons

platforms/resources, and a larger amount ofreal-time self-sequencing to accomplish tasks at a

greater speed (Siebold & Benton, 2003). Many argue that, with this changing nature ofwarfare,

infomiation dominance is the key by which we will maintain our military advantage (Siebold &

Benton, 2003). As such, military technology has been revolutionized in an attempt to facilitate

the best use ofinformation. In practically every operational context—^fi-om simulation-based

training, to digital collaborative planning, to real-time video conferencing on the battlefield—the

tools used by flie modem "digital warrior" are networked and software based. Digital equipment

and communication evolve rapidly. Shortened supplier design/production cycles and uniquely

fast improvements in software and computer components mean that new equipment and

techniques are fielded with unprecedented speed. The stability ofthe military environment, and

the concomitant predictability oftasks and equipment, has become a thing ofthe past. This

means that the "half-hfe" of equipment training is short, so that a soldier may face the need to

master new equipment in the field. In addition. Army personnel may have to work under an

intense optempo, under which learning conditions are not optimal. Thus, for Network-Centric

Warfare to be a success, adaptability in learning to use equipment requiring digital skills under

difficult conditions is essential.

In such digital environments, the successfiil warfighters are those who possess a soUd

foundation of adaptive digital-Uteracy that goes beyond abilities to utilize specific tools and

appUcations, and includes deep knowledge ofdigital concepts that are relevant in every context

ofuse. Whether faced with new tools, incremental improvements offamiliar tools, or the same

tools in new contexts (e.g., fi-om a CONUS simulation setting, to a theater ofwar, or drug ops

appUcation), the warrior will be expected to apply what he or she akeady knows to quickly come

up to speed on new tools, often with "just-in-thne" rapidity. Ensuring this level ofknowledge

transfer will require new approaches to training, focused on providing a deep foundation of

digital skills and knowledge, and a set of "tools" and strategies that the warfighters can use to

apply what they akeady know to actively engage and learn new tools. In fact, one ofthe major

drivers for the Objective Force, Task Force TLS ("Training," "Leadership," and "Soldier"),

recognizes that the role ofthe soldier will change dramatically because of changes in technology,

and that this will result in the need for an increase in adaptive skills.

The U.S. Army Research Institute (ARI) has a research program focusing on how to best

train the digital skills necessary for battlefield digitization. The concept is to design training that
will help personnel benefit fi-om the full potential ofimproved technology. One way to

accomplish that objective is to train ad^tability as a key aspect oftraining for successful

battlefield digitization. The framework ARI chose to organize their plan of attacking this

problem consists offive topics (see Figure 1), each emphasizing a different area in need of

research (Moses 2001).

As highlighted in Figure 1, ARI believes that training adaptabiUty is a key aspect of

training for successfiil battlefield digitization. Moses (2001) suggests that "Soldiers will have to

go beyond minimal operation ofdigital workstations to be effective" (p. 17) and that training

must shift its perspective fiwm training in 'Vhat to think" to training in *liow to think." A key

goal identified in Moses (2001) for digital skills traming is to "develop training methods and

strategies that promote adaptive/flexible and innovative behavior" (p. 18). Schaab and Moses

(2001) address ways to assist soldiers in applying digital skills in a wide variety ofmilitary

settings by having trainers "present instruction in the context ofrealistic situations" (p. 6) and

"integrate digital systems into everyday work routines whenever possible" (p. 9). The purpose of

the Aptima/gOE two phase effort was to increase the degree to which soldiers are able to 1)

^ply classroom/computer-mediated training on-the-job and 2) capitalize on their present digital

skills in the acquisition ofnewer and changing digital skills.

Training Delivery on Demand >

What training should be done now, when '

and where using soldier-centered

ifistributed/digital environments

Determine Digital Task Training Requirements

How should training requirements analyses change for

digital tasks and for hybrid digital-conventional environmerts

to determine the training needed for producing high

performance soldiers?

.ffT'-^ZP'*

Assess Skill Levels of

Digital Soldiers

What measurementAassessnnnt

and feedback tools are needed to

ensure that required skill levels

are attained and retained?

<7,

Train Adaptability

What training methods

work best to prepare

soMiers for tiiequent

software/equipment

changes combined with

ad-hoc and varied

missions Cmchiding combat

and special assignments)?

'\^<, Prepare Digitally-Linked Teams

N What methods work best to prepare leaders and to

train wMely dispersed soldiers linked as teams and

units through digital networks?

Figure 1. Five Training Challenges for Digitization (Moses, 2001) [emphasis added]
The Aptima/gOE Solution

In Phase I ofthis project, Aptima, Inc. and the Group for Organizational Effectiveness

(gOE) laid the groundwork for an innovative digital-skills training package designed to increase

the adaptability ofdigital skills. In Phase 11 the Aptima/gOE team developed the Learning Skills

Bridge (LSB) "learning accelerator" training program. The LSB is a web-based training package

that uses asynchronous computer-based instruction and sound pedagogical theory to train basic

computer knowledge and its application to job-specific requirements. Generalizable, transferable

digital skills are not taught in a vacuima but instead are learned in the context of device- and jobspecific goals. This approach was developed based on the Uterature on learning and transfer of

training. Specifically, there exist two major learning/training theories iu relation to skill transfer

to tiie job environment. The first theory, identical elements theory, is adopted firom classical

learning tibieory and states that transfer will occur as long as there are the same elements in the

training and application environments. The second theory, principle theory, states that training

should focus on the global principles necessary to learn a task so that the learner may apply them

to a novel situation (Goldstein & Ford, 2002). While training designers typically adopt one of

these two learning theories in which to base their training programs, the LSB training program

capitalizes on the strength ofboth theories.

The LSB training package has two "modules" - one a general computer module, the

other a device specific "bridge" module. Through the general computer training we adhere to

"principle theory" -the instruction and assessment are designed to provide a comprehensive

global understandmg ofimportant computer/technological issues. The use ofthe bridge module

allows us to incorporate the "identical elements theory." The content ofthe bridge portion is

designed to be specific to the technological/applications elements that the trainee will be

expected to use on the job. Consequently, the LSB is designed to both increase the effectiveness

offuture training and increase the degree to which trained skills are appUed on the job. The

general device knowledge training will ensure true adaptability when going fi-om one computer

system to another, while the device-specific training will allow the trainees to take full advantage

offlie general training in a specific situation.

The LSB provides today's AFATDS operator with a deep foundation of computer

knowledge, relates this foundational knowledge to his target computer system, and permits the

dehvery oftraining content directly to operational settings using modem distance-learning

methods. This training program is also a commercial "learning accelerator" that can be adapted

to prepare other users of different target systems. The LSB training provides a foundation of

general digital-tool concepts and strategies for mappmg these concepts to new applications. This

training provides a deeper base ofknowledge and cognitive learning strategies to insure rapid

transfer. The remainder ofthis report describes how the LSB tool was developed and tested.

Developing the LSB Tool

Backend

The major requirement ofthe Learning Skills Bridge (LSB) program that guided

development was to present information in a non-linear fashion so that the user's movement

through the program is determined by his/her interests and expertise instead of a predetermined

path. To allow for this, we created a software product made up ofmany components: a backend

data server, a web server for serving dynamically created web pages, dynamic script execution

for generating web pages, and the student side user interface. The software is organized into four
areas: data, student, administration, and content authoring as shown in Figure 2. Each ofthese

areas is explained in more detail below.

Figure 2. LSB System Architecture

Data. The "data" portion ofthe program provides the basic connectivity to the content

and student data that resides in the database. An Application Programming Interface (API) was

used to develop the PHP Hypertext Preprocessor (PHP; http://www.php.net) scripting language

that makes communicating with MySQL (http://www.mysql.com) based databases very easy.

MySQL based databases are relational database systems that store data in the form ofrelated

tables. This type ofrelational database system was needed to ensure the flexibility needed for

the LSB. The database schema was designed using upfront requirements analysis and then finetuned via an iterative process during development.

Student. The "student" portion ofthe program is a large set ofdynamically generated

web pages that are controlled by the program. These are the pages with which th.; student

interacts. The responses ofthe student govern the generation ofthe next page.

Administration. The "administration" portion ofthe program presents the local

administrator with options for adding students and generating reports. The administrator also

adds program specific "bridge" content, controls the number ofquestions a student must answer

for each concept, as well as which concepts, topics, and categories to include in the customized

training program.

Authoring. The "content authoring" portion ofthe program, one part ofthe "global

administration" level, allows for the addition of content, both instructional and questions.

Software Used

The Aptima software developers designed the LSB system to use a Structured Query

Language (SQL) database as the backend storage system. For its simplicity and speed, the

MySQL Open Source product is used. The user-side interface is created using the web scripting
language PHP for the majority ofthe work and some Javascript programs are mixed in for

various visual/programmatic effects.

The software development team used standard development workstations running Linux

and Windows 2000/XP suppUed with the appropriate software. Each developer created a

miniature version ofthe actual website for testing purposes. Each workstation ran with the same

versions ofthe servers as the actual target server.

The source control product (CVS; http://www.cvs.org) was used to store and manage the

projects source code. The use ofthis tool creates an enviroranent more conducive to team

development. During the development process Aptima tracked the software issues using email

and a simple database. Product reviews were held regularly during the phase leading up to

deployment with the team reportmg issues and verifying fixes.

The soflware is deployed on a server running Linux, Apache, and MySQL.

Content

In developing the LSB tool, our team defined a set of content areas. The information to

be covered in the tool included a variety ofhigh-level computer skill categories (e.g., computer

networks) with lower-level topics (e.g., network configuration) and, at the lowest level, concepts

(e.g., bus configuration). After initially identifying categories and their topics and concepts

considered essential for basic computer understanding, computer experts' opinions on these

topics were gathered.

The basic computer skills categories realized after this survey are as follows:

• Computer Networks

• Electronic Communications

• Components

• Operating Systems

• VisuaUzation/Mapping

• Application Soflware

• User Interface

Each ofthese content areas was then populated along a generic structure as follows. For

each category there was an overall introduction. Then, for each topic within that category, there

was a more focused introduction for that specific topic. Finally, for each concept within each

topic there were instructions and corresponding questions. The categories, topics and concepts

were initially ordered according to priorities identified by the computer experts. This suggested

order can be easily altered as needed.

The category, "Visualization/Mapping," may not be as easily perceived as part ofthe

traditional "computer skills" domain as the other categories contained in the program. The

rationale for the inclusion ofthis content area, however, was that one ofthe most unique and

important strengths of computer technology is the display of electronic maps and graphics.

Tims, while "mapping and visualization" could be seen as two of a myriad ofpossible computer

applications, at the same time they leverage computer technology so effectively that they can

almost be considered an extension ofthe user interface. In particular, military apphcations use

maps and visualization so fi-equently that we considered these to be part ofthe "digital skills"
domain. For example, to "zoom" in or out on a map is a critical ability for many digital

applications.

Introductions and Instructions

Once the categories were selected, the team authored the introductory and instructional

materials for each topic through an iterative authoring and reviewing process. A lead auflior was

assigned for each category. ITiis individual used online and hard copy resources to write an

initial draft ofthe introductory and instructional materials for the category, specifically creating

content for each ofthe topics and concepts. During this process ofresearch and authoring, tiie

author would often identify gaps in the current list oftopics and concepts for a category. The

author would create additional topics or concepts to fill these gaps as the situation required.

Additionally, the author would segment the content into basic and advanced concepts.

Originally it was intended that every concept would have both basic and advanced material;

however, during the authoring process it became clear that some concepts were inherently basic,

while others were inherently advanced, and a smaller subset could be broken into both basic and

advanced. As such, the team decided to alter the software requirements to allow concepts to

have only basic, only advanced, or both basic and advanced material. The distinction between

basic and advanced content was relatively transparent to the user; however, the sections were

organized to encourage the user to work through the basic material first before reaching more

advanced concepts. Once a complete draft of a category was complete, the draft was passed

through a two-tier review process. In the first tier ofthe review process, the content was

reviewed for its technical accuracy. In the second tier ofthe review process, the content was

reviewed for clarity and structure, with an eye towards making the content clear for individuals

who are likely to have minimal experience with the topic. The second tier reviewer also focused

on providing definitions to the reader for potentially unfamiUar terms. These definitions were

created fi-om combining sources from the web; http://whatis.techtarget.com/.

http://www.webopedia.com/. and The American Heritage College Dictionary: Third Edition. The

definitions were created to apply across the computer skills categories. Upon completion ofthe

second tier ofreview, the content was converted into an HTML format and loaded into the

database to be made available through the tool.

Throughout the authoring and review process, the team worked to maintain consistency

in the content, providing training that was structured in a logical manner and supplemented with

information that would make it easy to understand for novice users. Whenever possible, the

authors and reviewers identified topics that could be accompanied by pictures and diagrams to

faciUtate a student's understanding ofthe concept. The author would create a diagram that

would then be passed on to our visual designer to give it a professional look and feel.

Consistency was fiirther maintained through examination ofoverlapping areas between

diflferent categories. The author for a given section served as a reviewer for the other sections.

As such, each author was able to identify areas where another author was describing similar

material and could come to an agreement as to how that material could be presented in a

consistent fashion. In some instances, the solution was to move a topic from one category into a

different category where it would make better sense. In other instances, the same material was

duplicated and presented in multiple categories. And in additional instances, similar material

was presented from different perspective appropriate for the category in which it was presented

(e.g., email systems were described at different levels ofgranularity for the Electronic
Communications category and the Applications category). Overall, as indicated by subject

matter experts (SMEs) from the computer engmeering/programming, professional/academic

training, and military operations/training fields, the authoring and review process allowed the

team to create consistent, accurate content at an appropriate level of detail to train novice users in

tilie basic computer skills categories.

Questions

The questions used to assess the trainee's knowledge level were developed directly from

the reviewed and approved concept instructions. Ifthe student answers a question wrong and is

consequently sent back to the instructions, he will be able to find the answer to the question

within these instructions. Questions are either True/False or multiple choice with a minimimi of

three choices. After each question is answered, immediate feedback lets the trainee know ifhis

answer is right or wrong. When the answer is correct, the trainee receives a confirmation that he

answered tiie question correctly along with the correct statement, occasionally with fiirther

information regarding the question content. In this way the correct information is reinforced.

When the answer is wrong, the trainee receives feedback that the answer was incorrect and why.

To determine the correct answer, however, he must read the concept instructions. An example of

a question with feedback can be seen in Table 1.

Table 1. A Question, Answer Choices, and Feedback Found in the Database.

Question

A thread is made up of:

Choices

mstructions.

processes.

programs.

Feedback

Correct! A thread is a part of

a program, or list of

instructions, that can execute

independently ofother parts of

the program.

Incorrect, a thread is not made

up ofprocesses.

Incorrect, a thread is not made

up ofprograms.

In creating questions, the team avoided creating questions in which the correct answer is

the concept titie. For example, in a concept called Threads, the trainee would never be presented

a question like the following: "A is made up ofinstructions", where Thread is the

correct answer. Choices such as "all ofthe above" and "none ofthe above" were also avoided

because tiie tool will present answer choices to the trainee in a random order. Moreover, "all of

the above" and "none ofthe above" tend to make the question scoring more difficult to justify,

because test-takers can often legitimately argue for such an answer despite the test-writer's

intentions. In computer-based testing, it is particularly important to avoid any potential

ambiguity in items, since there may be no available human resource for the user to turn to with

concerns.

Bridge

The next fimdamental area for content development was the "bridge" portion ofthe

program. By design, this content is totally dependent on the system for which the LSB program

is being used (e.g., AFATDS). To develop this material, subject matter experts (SMEs) defined

the types ofmaterial trainees should be presented for each ofthe relevant topic areas.
specifically, for the AFATDS program, we asked AFATDS instructors at FT Sill to indicate

which topics within each category should be presented to the trainee (e.g., when considering the

configuration ofthe AFATDS system, is it more like a star, bus, or ring computer network and

how). The instructors were also asked specifically how the basic computer concepts available

apply to AFATDS. If a topic was not relevant in regards to the AFATDS program, it was not

presented to the trainee. AFATDS instructors had no difficulty deciding which content was

relevant to AFATDS. Moreover, the instructors took some time to explain the AFATDS system

in detail to enable the inclusion ofAFATDS specific diagrams based on instructor input.

We also used this opportunity to have the instructors tell us how they actually use

AFATDS. This information was crucial for the "category bridge" that summarized how each

category, in its entirety (e.g., computer networks), is operationalized with the AFATDS system.

This category bridge content is presented after the trainee has successfiilly completed a category.

The bridge content is presoited to help the trainee have a better understanding ofthe "big

picture" and how these skills tested are applied within their operations.

The last sections ofthe program requiring content were the main introduction to the LSB

program and a general description ofthe specific system described in the bridge material. The

main introduction informs the trainee why they are using this program and gives them some

background on the system for which they are being trained. The instructions explain to the

trainee how to navigate within the LSB program and the fimdamental pages that will be

presented: Assessment Pages, histruction Pages, Bridge Pages and My Progress Page.

The Bridge "Philosophy." The Bridge is central to the LSB program, and makes the

program different fi-om a standard program that teaches computer skills. The bridge uses digital

concepts that have just been learned and/or reviewed by the user and maps those concepts onto

the topic ofinterest, in this case AFATDS. Thus, immediately after learning and/or reviewing

the general digital topic "Types ofcomputer networks," the user learns how AFATDS is a

network. After learning and/or reviewing information on 'Types ofuser mterfaces," the user

learns about the user interfaces in AFATDS. Of course, the Bridge content can be modified to

address any digital platform or technology. This makes the LSB program highly ad^table to the

needs ofthe US Army.

We believe that the combination ofquestions, instructions and remediation (on the

general digital skills content), combined with the Bridge (general content applied to specific

digital platform) represents the best practices in pedagogic design. For example, one ofthe facts

haunting instruction Aeory and practice is that generaUzability of even well-learned principles

and facts is limited (Alliger, Tannenbaum, & Bennett, 1995). By immediately instantiating

learned general digital skill knowledge into the context of a particular tool or platform, however,

the learner is able to "make the connection" between concrete and particular. In effect, the

generalization process is being assisted. "Network configuration" is no longerjust a concept, but

is particularized as a specific kind ofnetwork for a particular tool or platform.

Beyond this, the Bridge has the additional advantage ofmaking the general into the

particular in an entirely different way -through personalization ofthe content. General

knowledge isjust that, general, and not especially related to any given individual. The users of

the LSB program, however, will be shown Bridge material that relates specifically to a platform

on which they will be shortly trained, and which, in fact, may be central to their US Army career

identity (e.g., their MiUtary Occupational Specialty; MOS). For this reason they can be expected

8
to see the material as relevant to themselves as individuals. Although it is at this point only an

inference, the followmg argument seems reasonable: making general information personalized

by tying it to a platform on which soldiers are to be trained may increase motivation to learn in

that training. The fact that the platform is not a "black box" but has been contextualized through

the LSB (e.g., AFATDS is not just a computerized system of unknovm character, but a

networked system akeady pre-framed and understood as possessing many characteristics ofother

networked systems) may lead to a greater sense ofwillingness to tackle the formal training

program. This is an hypothesis only, of course, but one that could be tested without difficulty,

provided the right participants and situation.

Usability Evaluation

One ofAptima's in-house usability experts. Dr. Gabriel Spitz, performed a full usabiUty

evaluation ofthe LSB site, both the user side and the local administrator side. Summaries ofDr.

Spitz' findings and tlie actions taken in response are detailed below.

User Side

The objective ofthis effort was to perform a heuristic evaluation ofthe Learning Skills

Bridge web site and apphcation. This evaluation consisted ofa systematic walk throu^ the site

and assessment oftiie usability aspects of each page type, the interaction within a page, and the

navigation between pages. The primary usability aspects that were reviewed and evaluated

during this effort included navigation, functionality, user control, feedback, and consistency.

Overall the site design was nice and appealing. Although this was not part ofthe

usability evaluation, the content ofthe site was well thought out, the language used was clear and

straight forward, and the questions and the options provided were very well constructed. The

graphics and color schema ofthe site were also very well thought out and presented in an

effective and aesthetically pleasing way. The area where the site or module needed to be

improved was in its usability. At a high level of abstraction some ofthe usability issues

identified include:

• Unclear conceptual model ofthe module due to absence of a site and module home

pages

• Several instances ofinconsistency with user interface design conventions such as using

the hand pointer when displaying "What's This" information

• Missing functionality such as a mechanism to deal with forgotten passwords.

From these recommendations, improvements were made to the login page (e.g., "forgot

your password?" link) and the introduction page (more information about the target system -

AFATDS - and how the LSB program will help the user better learn the target system were

included). "Help" pages and a "log-out" page were added. The look and feel ofthe "my

progress" page was changed to allow the student to more quickly see what they have left to do to

complete tiie training program.

Local Administration

Dr. Spitz also performed a similar evaluation for the local administrator pages. Again,

his expert advice was taken and changes in the interface were implemented. These changes

include making the login page more visually appealing and adding a "forgot your password?"
link; better navigation by allowing the local administrator to access all three major sections fix)m

any page within the site; adding a log-out capability; improving tiie student reports by allowing

(he local administrator to sort and select which to view; and improving the content management

capabilities ofthe program.

VaUdation Research

Initial Data Collected with National Guard

The LSB was launched with the National Guard Soldiers ofthe 147* FA Brigade, 1*^

BTN. Data were collected at Camp Ripley to determine the program's usefulness and face

validity. The results are summarized below.

Participants and Methods

Nine National Guard Soldiers (all men) participated in the LSB training program before

participating in the AFATDS training. They were given instructions for the LSB program, along

with IDs and passwords, two weeks before their scheduled AFATDS training. After their

AFATDS training, they were asked to give feedback on the utility ofthe LSB training program

in preparing them for the AFATDS training.

Summary ofFindings

Overall, the Learning Skills Bridge was well received by almost all ofthe individuals

who logged on and used the system. The Networking material was most commonly mentioned

as a topic that provided a solid foundation in terminology and understandmg prior to AFATDS

training. Most interviewees also felt that LSB could be useful as a refresher course after the

completion ofAFATDS training in addition to its current pre-training implementation. More

specific to the method ofimplementation in this program, most participants had very positive

comments about the "answer questions to determine where I need to read" method of

presentation rather than being required to go through the entire volume oftext. The pictures and

diagrams were also well received and discussed as being beneficial for understanding concepts.

Overall, participants feU that LSB was a good refresher in computer-related concepts, and most

thought tiiey learned somefliing they didn't know before by going through the program.

The most common negative comments related to the initial learning ofthe navigation

scheme, length ofthe program, and a desire for more AFATDS-specific material. Several

participants discussed difficulties learning the navigation scheme initially. Comments indicated

that there was no clear place to start. Several individuals felt there was too much need for

navigation; they would prefer a system that required fewer decisions and simply allowed them to

walk down a pre-set pafli to completion ofthe program. Regarding the length ofthe program,

most participants felt that the progress pages were useful; however, several indicated that they

did not have a clear idea ofhow much more traming was still required. Opinions were split as to

whether the training was too long orjust right, with a slight lean towards the training being too

long. The amount oftime required for completion varied greatly between participants but did

not seem to affect their opinions as to whether the program was too long or not (i.e., some ofthe

individuals that spent the most time in the program felt the training wasjust right). Finally,

interviewees regularly commented that they expected to see more AFATDS-specific information

and thought that tying the LSB even more closely to the AFATDS training would be beneficial.

10
Conclusion

In summary, the comments and suggestions made by the National Guard Soldiers were

invaluable for the further development ofthe LSB program. For a more rigorous testing ofthe

program's validity, more data were collected at FT Sill, OK, on September 23-26,2002.

Fort Sill Data Collection

Participants

The 62 male soldiers had a mean age of 19.74; 64.5 percent were under the age of20; the

youngest age was 18, the oldest 30. Most ofthe soldiers in the sample were privates: 43.5% had

a rank ofE-1,40.3% a rank ofE-2,14.5% had a rank ofE-3; there was a single E-4 (Specialist)

in the sample. The MOS of all soldiers in the sample was 13D, Field Artillery Tactical Data

Systems Specialist.

Research Design

The soldiers were given pre-tests in two LSB AFATDS modules, Computer Networks

and Visualization/Mapping. The soldiers next completed these two modules in LSB and then

completed post-tests. A schematic ofthe evaluation design is shown in Figure 3. While the

researchers believe that the results ofthis study are sufficiently strong to mitigate the threat to

validity associated with quasi-experimental designs, the accuracy of conclusions regarding the

impact ofti-aining on pre- and post-test differences may be questioned without the use of a

control group.

Pre-tests;f

completed completed |

Post-testsr

:completed^

Figure 3. Research Design for Evaluation at Fort Sill

Materials andProcedure

The testing was conducted with small groups ofup to 16 people. Each room had 16

computers, all with Internet accessibility. The participants were provided a quick rationale for

their participation, and then asked to complete a pre-test. After the pre-test was collected, they

were instructed to logon to the LSB and complete two modules: Visualization/Mapping and

Computer Networks. These two were chosen for the following reasons: AFATDS is a highly

networked system, and maps are a crucial AFATDS appUcation. After all individuals had

completed the LSB modules, they were asked to complete the post-tests. They could not look

back at any LSB screens during tiie post-test.

The Computer Networks test was a 20-item test, the Visualization/Mapping test had 10

items. The tests were True/False/Don't Know format. Because these tests contain sensitive

information concerning the AFATDS training program, they are not included in this report.

Sample Description

Participants reported varying levels of computer experience, as seen in Figure 4. The

anchors for this question had the following descriptors: Slight = e.g., have spent some time with

11
computer games or surfing the web; Basic = e.g., some word processing, email, surfing the web;

Intermediate = e.g., word processing, email, spreadsheet, surfing the web; Advanced = e.g., able

to troubleshoot computer problems, programming. One reason to collect this information was to

be able to examine an hypothesis ofinterest: the greater the prior computer experience, the better

participants would do on the pre-tests, while still showing an improvement on tiie post-tests.

None Basic Moderate Substantial

Computer Experience

Extensive

Figure 4. Number ofParticipants Lidicating Varying Levels ofComputer Experience

Participants were also asked whether they were familiar with AFATDS. 46.8% said

••No," while 51.6% said "Yes." One participant did not answer this question. Ofthose who said

they were familiar with AFATDS, most reported some degree oftraining experience, firom 1 to

several weeks. This question, like the question on computer experience, was asked because it

was thought that test performance might differ based on the answer participants provided.

Test Score Results

Participants did better on both the networks and the visualization/mapping tests after LSB

trainmg than Ihey did before. The descriptive statistics for the tests are shown in Table 2. Note

the change in means, pre to post, and also the increase in the "floor" or minimum scores. The

internal consistency ofthe tests, as indexed by Coefficient Alpha, was acceptable (the lower

alpha for the post-test Visualization/Mapping test is probably simply indicative of a multi-factor

test).

12
Table 2. Descriptive Statistics for Pre- and Post-Test Scores

!»;

Minimum Maximum Mean^ /

37.9

-Std." ,

^ Deviation

1 t

Alpha

.846

I Pjre^Test

Networks

I

62 0 80 22.9

VIS /Mapping 62 0 100 53.1 29.9 .828

Networks \ 62 35 100 81.6 15.6 .758

VisJMappmg , 62 50 100 89.8 12.2 .468

The distribution ofpre and post scores is shown in Figures 5 and 6. These distributions

are typical ofpre- and post-test distributions showing a normal, substantial learning effect.

Figures. Distribution ofTest Scores: Computer Networks

Figure 6. Distribution ofTest Scores: Visualization/Mapping

One important question ofinterest, of course, is whether the test gains are substantial

enough to allow the conclusion that a true gain occurred (this is often termed "statistical

13
significance"). Figure 7 shows pre and post means, with the standard error ofthe means plotted

as error bars. Two conclusions can be made: first, that participants found the test on

visualization and mapping substantially easier than the test on computer networks, and second,

that the performance on the post-tests was substantially better than performance on the pre-tests.

That is, a real gain occurred in knowledge (as measured by the tests) -the soldiers knew more

about both AFATDS visualization/mapping and AFATDS networking in the post-test than they

did in the pre-test. It is possible that the higher post-test scores resulted fi-om the practice effect

ofthe pre-test; however, the findings were so strong that there seems to be a main effect for the

LSB training such that the training resulted in the increased knowledge.

Figure 7. Mean Pre- and Post-test Scores

Comparingpre- andpost-testscoresforsoldiers with some versus no AFATDS training.

One hypothesis was that soldiers with some AFATDS experience would do better on the pretests and on the post-tests than those without AFATDS experience. This hypothesis held true for

the pre-tests; however, LSB training seemed to eliminate any post-test differences due to prior

AFATDS experience training for Visualization/Mapping (see figure 8). Note that the quasiexperimental nature ofthis study makes it impossible to state with certainty whether these

findings were the result oflearning fi-om the training or rather the result ofhaving experienced

the pre-test (Cook & Campbell, 1979). Such a "testing effect" would result in increased post-test

performance for all participants; however, it would not be expected to result in the elimination of

differences due to prior experience that was found in this study.

14
Priest Posttest

Figure 8. Mean Pre- and Post-test Scores by Prior AFATDS Training

Comparingpre- andpost-test scores by level ofreported computer experience. Prior

computer experience correlated with Networks test performance, as shown in Table 3. This is

reasonable, given that computer networks is more likely than mapping to be understood by

someone with some computer experience.

Table 3. Correlations ofComputer Experience with Tesit Performance

PREMAP POSTMAP PRENET POSTNET

r .021 .171 .315 .368

2-tailed sig .869 .189 .013 .004

N 61 61 61 61

When the mean scores are broken out by level of computer experience, this correlation

between computer experience and networks test scores is seen clearly (see Figure 9). Moreover,

the upward trend in means on the networks test across levels of computer experience is evident

in the post-test as well as the pre-test.

15
120

100

40

20

.-^'¥

___--»-

r!TT7T

- —Posttest: VisualizatiorVMapping

-*-Po$tt8St: Netvratks

-•-Pretest: VisualizatkxVMapping

A -Pretest: Networks

Slight Basic Sul)stantial

Computtr B(p«1*nc*

Extensive

Figure 9. Mean Pre- and Post-test Network Scores by Computer Experience

Comparingpre- andpost-testscores by both level ofreported computer experience and

priorAFATDS training. Figures 10 and 11 show the influence ofboth computer experience and

prior training on test performance. In general, the graphs can be interpreted as showing that

computer experience assisted soldiers on the Networks test only, while AFATDS experience

assisted soldiers in both Networks and Visualization/Mjqjping. This makes sense, since moping

is a topic that should not be assisted by prior computer knowledge, while prior AFATDS

experience should assist participants in both the mapping and networks areas.

Slight Basic Substantial

Computer Experience

Extensive

Figure 10. Mean Pre- and Post-test Visualization Mapping Scores by Prior AFATDS Training

and Computer Experience

16
30

20

10

-»—Some AFA7X3S Training: Pretest

—ik—Some AFATDS Training. Posttest

.•-No AFATDS Training: Pretest

- 'A -No AFATDS training: Posttest

Slight Basic Substantial

Computer Experience

Extensive

Figure 11. Mean and Pre- and Post-test Computer Network Scores by Prior AFATDS Training

and Computer Experience

Participant Reactions. Our observations during the training sessions iudicated that

participants were able easily to complete the LSB modules. Moreover, a reactions questionnaire

vi^as administered. The responses to some ofthese questions were content coded; the results of

this content-coding are shown in Table 4. These responses, as a whole, show a very favorable

response to different aspects ofthe LSB experience.

Table 4. Responses to the Reactions Questionnaire

1. Did you find the introduction to be effective at explaining

the purpose ofthe system and how to use it?

2. Was the system easy to navigate through?

3. Were the assessment questions too easy? Too difBcult? Just

right?

4. Were the lessons written in a way that made the concepts

easy to understand?

5. Do you feel that the system improved your understanding of

AFATDS?

Content-icodedj'esults

Yes-90.3%

No- 3.2%

Somewhat-4.8%

No response -1.6%

Yes-98.4%

No response -1.6%

Too easy-11.1%

Too difficult - 6.3%

Just right-71.4%

Other response - 9.5%

Yes-72.5%

No-4.8%

Somewhat or Other - 22.7%

Yes, considerably-8.1%

Yes, slightly-19.4%

Yes ~ 61.3%

No~9.7%

The participants also indicated what they liked and did not like about the system. Most

responded that the system was informative and easy to imderstand. Many said that it was

17
instrumental in teaching them about hardware and software and the AFATDS program. A

majority ofthe respondents could not think of anything about the LSB that needed improvement,

or their suggestions were superficial (e.g., "color scheme*'); however, eight soldiers thought the

program was too long or had too many questions.

Research Conclusions and Implications.

In summary, the LSB program was very well received by the Soldiers. They responded

positively to it, generally finding it easy to use and believing it to be helpful in preparing them

for AFATDS training. Testing results showed significantly improved scores on the AFATDS

material and knowledge ofbasic computer systems.

The effects ofprior computer experience and prior AFATDS training affected LSB

performance as expected: relevant test scores were improved; however, it is useful to point out

that neither ofthese variables eliminated the much more powerful main pre-post effects for both

ofthe examined AFATDS modules. The primary lesson here is that the LSB seems to be a potent

method oflearning that can be ofbenefit even to users with some prior computer experience

and/or some exposure to AFATDS.

It should be remembered that this research examined performance on only two ofthe

LSB AFATDS modules. One reasonable question is whether the increases in performance that

were shown for both ofthe modules in this research (Computer Networks,

Visualization/Miqjping) also will occur on the larger scale of all the modules that ^jply to

AFATDS. This question can only be definitively answered empirically. However, likely gains

from pre- to post-test would be similar in all AFATDS modules ifwe make two assumptions: 1)

assume a matrix ofgenerally positive intercorrelations, as found previously among tests of

achievement (Alliger, 1988); and 2) further assume that the learning that can be gained fi-om the

other LSB modules is ofsimilar magnitude since each content area was written according to the

same standards and subject to the same review.

Ifthere was a perceived negative to the LSB system, it is that to some soldiers the

experience seemed "too long" or "too drawn out." This probably is due in part to the fact that the

LSB is academic, requiring users to study material and answer questions, understand remediation

-in short, to be a student. Being a student requires attentiveness, which can be tiring over a

period oftime. Given that this perception was reported by a small minority ofsoldiers, it is not in

itself excessively worrisome. On the other hand, in this research soldiers were exposed to only

two modules. In a complete rollout ofthe system, the perceptions oftedium could increase since

there would be substantially more material to cover. This suggests that the "Start/Stop/Restart"

feature ofthe program is important. That is, because users can begin an LSB session, stop when

necessary, and resume when convenient without losing any progress through the program, issues

ofboredom and fatigue are minimized. Add to this the fact that learning seems best when it is

distributed in sessions over time (Baddeley & Longman, 1966) Probably the recommended way

for users to experience the LSB is in a time-distributed manner.

Overall, then, the Ft. Sill research effort indicates that the LSB can provide substantial

learning to candidates for AFATDS training. Further research could extend the current findings

in a number ofways, however, and is recommended. Ofparticular interest are the effects offull

LSB traming on actual performance in AFATDS and on field performance. Also, experimental

18
studies incorporating a control group should be performed to folly determine the effectiveness of

the LSB training, and it would also be usefol to assess group differences based on ethnicity.

Final Product

Based on the feedback from the usability studies and data collection, improvements were

made to the LSB program. The final product for this project is a dynamic web-based training

program (Learning Skills Bridge). It is designed to both enhance current and foture technologybased training and to enhance transfer oflearned skills to the field setting. For those who do not

have the opportunity to experience this program first hand, we have provided a walk through of

the program in the Appendix.

We believe that a clear need is met by the Learning Skills Bridge, that it possesses a

compelling and pedagogically superior design, and that results to date indicate its potential. The

LSB is designed to allow local administrators extensive control over how the program uses its

core information to tie into a target field application, tool, or platform. Users, too, have

substantial freedom in navigation and in scheduling their participation. In short, we believe that

the LSB has a successfol and highly adaptable design, and will meet the need for military and

non-military users and administrators alike in training adaptability in digital skills.

Overall Conclusions and Implications

This SBIR Phase 11 has not only provided a great deal of evidence indicating the need for

digital skills - as revealed by participant's reactions and comments during our final data

collection - but it has provided evidence for the usefolness oftraining general computer

knowledge to achieve adaptability in digital skills. The great majority ofparticipants reported

benefiting greatly from this training and felt the training better prepared them for using the target

system (i.e., AFATDS).

While our training philosophy and methodology is more than sufficient to result in digital

skill adaptability, we cannot say that it is necessary for such adaptability. In other words, it is

clear that the combination ofprinciple and identical elements theories, as demonstrated in the

LSB ti-aining, results in adaptability of digital skills, but we can not say that this result is better

than the application of either ofthe theories alone. To remedy this, we recommend a trial

implementation ofthe LSB in the AFATDS environment, with a long-term plan to follow

trainees through AFATDS traming and out into the field. Such an implementation could

continue to test the effectiveness ofthe LSB in one targeted training environment, and the

longitudinal nature ofsuch a study - which would last through introductions of new versions of

the AFATDS computer system - would allow for further and more rigorous testing ofthe LSB's

ability to train adaptability in digital skills.

In addition, it would seem important to adapt the LSB (and, as mentioned, ease of

ad^tation was "designed into" the system from earUest specifications) to a new platform besides

AFATDS. One ofthe many other U.S. Army platforms requiring digital skills could serve as a

testbed for examining the effectiveness ofthe LSB. Such ongoing research can provide

information that would allow the LSB to be as effective as possible in promoting digital skills

and optimal training performance in the US Army.

Commercialization

In addition to providing a compelling product for ti"aining adaptability in digital skills for

AFATDS operators/ti-ainees, the LSB's design affords a much broader appUcation. With the two19
module design, re-tailoring the bridge module to a new domain should benefit a new (i.e., nonAFATDS) training area. As such, Aptima has begun a process of exploring the possibilities by

which this technology can be applied to a wide variety ofjobs and settings.

As a first step, research has been, and continues to be, conducted to assess the current

maricet state for web-based asynchronous learning management systems in order to identify the

maricet potential for the Learning Skills Bridge (LSB) product. Specific maikets Aptima is

actively pursuing outside ofthe defense sector include policing agencies, emergency

management agencies, hospital settings, and secondary education settings. Aptima's reason for

targeting these maricets is two fold. First, these settings have been identified as supporting and

benefiting fiwm technology use and have segments oftheir population who are novice

technology users. Secondly, these are areas in which Aptima has a high level ofgeneralizable

domain experience. We believe that the combination ofthese factors combined with the ease by

which our system is adaptable provides a very attractive incentive to trainers in these fields.

Successful commercialization will be achieved through a variety ofmethods including

professional conference presentations, full-scale validation studies in field settings, and direct

marketing through partnering with organizations who have a niche in the fields ofinterest. It is

important to note that these efforts directed to the private sector will serve to compliment our

commercialization efforts in the government/defense arenas. Aptima will continue to

aggressively market our technology to address needs both within the Army and other branches of

the military, as well as other government organizations. As evidence ofour commitment to the

goal of commercialization, we have submitted a proposal and pricing Ust in an effort to be

registered under the General Service Administration's Management, Organizational and

Business Improvement Services (GSA MOBIS) schedule. We are confident that our efforts will

result in successful commercialization both within the government and private sectors.

20
References

Alliger, G. (1988). Do zero correlations really exist among measures of different intellectual

abilities? Educational andPsychological Measurement, 48,21S-2W.

Alliger, G., Bennett, W., & Tannenbaum, S. (1995, May). Transfer oftraining: Comparison of

paradigms. Paper presented as part ofthe symposium "Searching for Solutions to the

'Transfer ofTraining Problem': A Multi-Disciplinary Approach, K.A. Smith and E. Salas,

Chairs. Presented at the 10th Annual Conference oftiie Society for Industrial and

Organizational Psychology, Orlando, FL.

Baddely, A.D., & Longman, D.J.A. (1966). The influence oflength and frequency oftraining

session on rate oflearning to type. In A.D. Baddely (Ed.), Thepsychology ofmemory. New

York: Basic Books.

Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation design and analysis issuesfor

field settings. Boston: HoughtonMifflin Company

Goldstein, I. L., & Ford, J. K. (2002). Training in organizations. Bebnont, CA: Wadsworth

Group.

Moses, F. L. (2001). Training challengesfor digitization (Special Report 47). Alexandria, VA:

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

Schaab, B. B., & Moses, F. L. (2001). Six myths about digitalskills training (Technical Report

1774). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social

Sciences.

Siebold, G. L., Sc Benton, M. H. (2003, March). Genghis Khan vs. MacGiver: Military training

for 2004 and beyond. Paper presented at the 66* Annual Meeting ofthe Southem

Sociological Society, New Orleans, LA.

21

Appendix. Walk-Through ofthe LSB Learning Accelerator Training Program

This Appendix describes the product from a user standpoint. It first walks through the

introduction section. The reader will then be guided through the introduction ofthe fii:st category

- computer networks, and through the introduction ofthe first topic within this Category -types

ofcomputer networks. The walk-through then precedes through one concept for that topic, in

this case LAN. In addition, the Appendix will demonstrate special features ofthe program

including "rollover" capabilities, instruction pages, progress pages, bridge pages, and help pages.

Our hopes are that this will provide the reader with an understanding ofthe capabilities and

features ofthe LSB training program.

A user begins by typing in the following URL into his Internet browser,

http://www.leamingskillsbridge.com/AFATDS/. Once on the AFATDS main page (Figure A-1),

users may access the program by typing in their user id and password.

jjjj^jj^^jjS^jj^^jgjw^iM^

LEARNING

SKlilSBRIDGE

login: [ passnard.

Forgotpassiwiri?

CspiTightSOOZ Aptima, Ina All lights tesereed.

®)

M

Figure A-1. Screenshot ofUser Login Page

For those who have forgotten their password, a link is available labeled "forgot

password". Clicking on this link takes the user to a page in which they are prompted to enter

their user ID, password, and confirmation ofpassword (Figure A-2). GUcking the "submit"

button sends an email to the global administrator prompting the global administrator to verify the

validity ofthe email address and user. Upon verification, the global administrator will then email

a new password to the user within 24 hours.

BEST AVAILABLE COPY

A-1
„.^,....,,-,.,.....^.,p.,,;,,-^,^..^^.,.«^

LEARNING

Please insert your name and entail and we will send your password to you.

User name

Email Address:

Confinn email Address:

Figure A-2. Screenshot of'Torgot Your Password" Page

Ifthe user types an incorrect user id and/or password, the user receives the message

"illegal login, please try again" beneath the logtu text box (see Figure A-3). Once a user has

successfully logged in, they are taken to the introduction page (Figure A-4).

»»r««ry.>,...^~.~««>«...«*---.<.~.^..»-v,^^ „^..>.rr.^,.„,::„^„.-„r«^,p^--y,;,~

^i

UARNtNG

$iaU$BftH!>GE

lagiii: I ^^ j password: \

niegallogia, please tiy again Forj^et password?

m

©3!

Figure A-3. Screenshot of "Illegal Login" Page

The mtroduction page is highlighted by a variety ofcategories running horizontally

across the top margin ofthe page and topics running vertically down the left hand margin ofthe

page. The topic choices (left margin) will change depending on which category (top margin) is

highlights.

A-2 BEST AVAILABLE COPY
i Computer Electronic

ComtTUinications

- Vit*

Systems

i^* i' \j. \r.:^Mi-i:; -.. -^^.-

Introduction to AFATDS

• My progress

• Help

• Log Out

Application User

Software Interface

'g:

•- Mjf Pa>gr8va B^e * .

.-*

VVelcornel This program is designed to do three things:

1. diagnose your knowledge of computer-related information

2. provide you instruction in computer-related topics where you need it, and §,3

3. show you how this information relates to the Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System ^^

(AFATDS) on which you will soon be trained. ^>'

AFATDS Overview |,|'

VFATDS is a fairly complicated system, as illustrated in the figures below. This program is designed i?|^;

*o ensure that you have the background knov^ledge needed to get the most out of the AFATDS |;|

(raining you will soon be taking.

his first figure shows the hardware used for AFATDS

Figure A-4. Screenshot of "Introduction to AFATDS" Page

Walking through the introduction topics down the left hand side, a user is provided with

useful information regarding the purpose ofthe program (introduction), description ofthe

navigation layout for the LSB program (Figure A-5), descriptions and screenshots of assessment

pages (Figure A-6), an explanation ofhow instruction pages may assist users (Figure A-7),

descriptions ofthe bridge components (Figure A-8), and information regarding how users may

track tiieir progress through the program (Figure A-9).

BEST AVAILABLE COPY

A-3
BEST AVAILABLE COPY

Figure A-5. Screenshot of "Navigation" Page

Figure A-6. Screenshot of "Assessment Pages" Page

A-4
LEARNING ^F

SKILLSBRtDGE

My progress

Help

Log Out

irntradbcUiiniL .^..^ Coiiipuler Electronic

Networks Comiiiunicalioiis ^— sr ^'-^"-'"'•^^'' '•''•''' s!:!;!!::::^"'' "^^

Figure A-7. Screenshot of "Instruction Pages" Page

Figure A-8. Screenshot of "Bridge Pages" Page

A-5 BEST AVAILABLE COPY
^^StAVAMSLecopy

Figure A-9. Screenshot of "My Progress Page" Page

A-6
The introduction, as with the rest ofthe LSB program, is designed to flow from one topic

to the next through the use of a "continue" button at the bottom ofthe screen. For users who

prefer to focus on topics in a different order, they may simply cUck on the appropriate category

and topic in any order (see Figure A-10).

Figure A-10. Screenshot pointing out ways to start a computer skills category

BEST AVAIU^BLE COPY

A-7
BEST AVAILABLE COPY

By clicking on a category, in this case "computer networks," users are taken to an

introduction page for the chosen category (see Figure A-11). The introduction sections provide a

general overview ofthe selected category. Within the introduction, key or important terms are

bolded and are active (placing cursor over bolded text provides the user with a definition ofthe

term or terms).

mxsmm

• k^ progress

• Log Old

Introduction to Computer Networks

A camynHwr netwoik is iMinsd as two w more computns (or osm|Hitarized ilevicss) connected

in «i«-h « wv thai infofiwaiiftiv faiirh a« iiiHi> r«n ho <Aat»A and the toH^tdSTS c«n cwnmunictts

f« aefi|ft*<**«'wtfc*|*top<ftwcria<aBy«^^ two compilers Of compiflwiztd

dwicmlTOy^.fffff!iWP;.Bl|'i!W,y.MSl^^^ JBairt. wid one prtmding infarmation,

ttlM the sanrar (although Ihey cotdd han equtntent C3|>alMliti6s ^nd KSponsa^ililies in a peer-top»er network), and tttese computerized devicos must have a comecfion (which may be wiireteas

or cable). Computers in a ne^M>l1< nnay permit people to commurucale. but they maybe designed

to allow dmK96or^)f>lKOtior)Btc comnwnlcate. that i».lo iWki and receive information amortg

each other. Howewr, there aie usually humans chsng'mg or contmunicaling through the nelwoih.

even V the network is mainly set up to let machines talk* to one another.

So, networks are suppose*! to enaWe fest and corftrensenJ sharing <^iiifonnr>ation. resources, and

capaWWies tike prinJing Productivity increases »^h such sharing for example, fet's say yow

computer cannot hartdle large anwunis of data analysis. You can use a networli to borrow or

"(bare' a data analysis p»gr«n. The network would allow your computer to send the data to the

olber compiiler, teSt It witat analyses io run, and receive the testms when the other computer is

done.

Mi

Figure A-11. Screenshot of "Introduction to Computer Networks" (Category) Page

A-8
Clicking continue at the bottom ofthe screen takes users to the introduction page for the

first topic within that category (see Figure A-12), in this case "Types ofComputer Networks".

The topic introduction pages are organized similar to the category introduction pages (i.e.

provide general overview oftopic and bolded terms with roll over capability when needed).

yiiiRiifiiG

1 tletwatin^'

^etwOflc CpAiiJUtatinr-^

n\iAfizff Coinp&nentf'

My progress

Help

Log Out

Electronic Components OP^/^^'''^ Visualization/Mapping JP£fr!°" "^1^,,, Communications , ' _ Systems .^ Software . Intertace

Introduction to Types of Computer Networks

A network can be large and serve many people and computers or small and seive only two or

three people and computers. Networks may also serve a small area (as in a Local Area Netv^fork)

or a large area (as in a Wide Area Network). Here we review Local Area Networks (U\Ns), Wide

Area Netwrks {W.AJ\ls), and the internet/intranet distinction.

To start answering questions within this topic, please select a concept to the left. If you are unsure

ofthe answer, you may select the 'Instaiction" button to read more about the concept.

Confinae -

Figure A-12. Screenshot of "Litroduction to Types ofComputer Networks" (Topic) Page

BEST AVAILABLE COPY

A-9
BEST AVAILABLE COPY

By clicking continue at the bottom ofthe topic introduction page, users are taken to the

assessment pages for flie particular concepts, in this case "LAN" (see Figures A-13 and A-14 for

Assessment Page examples)

The assessment pages contain questions for each ofthe concepts and ^pear in a random

order. Questions take the format oftrue/false (Figure A-13) or multiple-choice (with at least 3

response options; Figure A-14).

»-,-».->»—»»„—,—wv—... ^,^.^„^.^.....—^^ „...^^.,^.,^—

lEARIiUIIG

IKUXSffillpGE

• My progress

• Help

• Log Out

Figure A-13. Screenshot ofAssessment Page with a True/False question

A-10
LEARNING

• My progress

• Help

• Log Out

Introduction Computer

Notwiirk

Electronic

Communications Systems

Application User

Software Interface

N^fjIpdurtHin/- >

. >'«intr>ic!uGtnib~

. ' latian^'' '

• -ondge >>- »

'* ''tiKiiiio'vCpnlBuriitiOT

* Nehiorii. Con^pcnls

'. Ne'«n.rh ArL''tte::lJre

. Net*-'!* Pra*3CDl •

Question:

When a LA.N is used by a single organization or group of people, it is termed an;

O intranet.

C extranet,

n Single LAN.

C Internet.

^Submit

'•CbjraLlHn::ticc

|sln8tru"d&on'"|

Figure A-14. Screenshot ofAssessment Page with Multiple Choice Question

BEST AVAILABLE COPY

A-11
BEST AVAILABLE COPY

Users simply click the radio button associated with then- choice of answers to the

particular question and then click the "submit" button. Ifthe user does not choose an answer,

fliey are taken to a screen indicating that they did not do so (Figure A-15), and by clicking the

"continue" button are taken back to the specific question.

Figure A-15. Screenshot for When a Student Does Not Select an Answer

Iftheir response is correct, they receive confirmation that their answer is correct and are

prompted to click continue to the next question or topic (Figure A-16).

Figure A-16. Screenshot ofa "Correct Response" Feedback Page

A-12
Ifthe user's response to a question is incorrect, the user receives a message indicating

that the answer is incorrect (Figure A-17).

LEARraN@

SKILIIBRBJSI

Introduction

'•v

• My progress

• Help

• Log Out

Electronic ^ Operatinq ,,. ,. ^. ,,, . Application User ^ . ,. Components _' ^ Visualization/Mapping c L ,,.„ i.,*orf„-o Communications ' Systems " •^ Software Iritertace

>Cpm|iumr'

NBIWOFICS''-

t i-u."!- s.rjb<_« . _ .'tta x i».jS«««-fc C- di -«>rt.i£!c

."■■■t

" Irflpdjclion "'Sfiii-lntern-itte' f

" '*' - ?

>- * NetWb'h ConfiquratiuitIncorrect, LANs do not route computers to third party hardware or computers.

e?^*'^^ Click continue to read the instructional page for this concept

• Continue

«^J

Figure A-17. Screenshot for a "Incorrect Response" Feedback Page

BEST AVAILABLE COPY

A-13
BEST AVAILABLE COPY

They are then prompted to continue on to the instruction pages for that topic. Tlie

instruction pages (See Figure A-18) provide important information for the current concept, in

this case LAN, which may include definitions and information ofhow this concept relates to

other concepts in the topic.

UPi»^iG

• My progress

• Help

• UgOut

C()iii|iminnl,s UpHI.lllIl(J

Systems VisiializatioirMappinrj ! Applicdiiun

i Suflwdie

IJsHf

Interface

A IMi is a network that is limited to one geographical area - often within a single building or set of

buildings. When a LAN is used by a single organization or group of people, it is termed an

"intranet" An intranet, like an intrastate highway, links people within a limited area (the interstate

crosses state borders, but an intrastate road is a local road that does not cross state borders). An

intranet is closed off to users outside it through security measures like a "firewall" or pass codes.

A LAN of computers, or network nodes are formed simply by direct cable (or wireless) connections

between at least two computers. A lAhJ can be as small as two computers, or as large as

hundreds. The important concept is that every computer on a given LAN has a direct connection to

that specific LAN and its hardware - no routing or indirect connections apply.

Figure A-18. Screenshot of "LAN Basic Instructions" Page

A-14
It is important to note that users may access the instruction page for the concept at

anytime during the assessment process by simply clicking the "instruction" button (Figure A- 19).

Figure A-19. Screenshot pointing out button to access Instructions from the Assessment Pages

BEST AVAILABLE COPY

A-15
BEST AVAILABLE COPY

After answering the predetermined number ofquestion for a concept correctly, the user is

congratulated (see Figure A-20) and then taken to the assessment page for the next concept

within that topic, in this case "WAN."

.V-,—,^,v,..n.,_.-^, ,„^,_ .„-. „-„_„,_„„■■

UARN»«G

fKHisam^E

• My progress

• Help

• Log Out

r- . 0[)Hi^iliri(j ... .. ,. ,, Ann icdtiiin USKI

otitiiis ' ' Sys ems ' ' ^ : Software riterfdce

Figure A-20. Screenshot ofPage Indicating When a Concept is Finished

A-16
Once the predetennined number ofquestions for all the concepts for a topic have been

answered correctly, users are taken to the bridge page for that topic, see Figure A-21 for a

sample bridge page. The bridge pages provide an explanation ofhow the current topic appUes to

the target computer system, i.e., AFATDS (for export control purposes, Figure 33 does not

contain AFATDS-specific information). The bridge pages often include both pictorial

representations ofhow the topics relate as well as important bolded terms with rollover

capability.

rr'fimfrnrmnii'rfriTi -■■^r-.-,.:.-.)v^^.-.-^-^--.^^-.Y^^^V-^^^-^--^-^~-'-^/^'-^V----

rGbmpnter

* Help

* Logout

fiitrnstuctian Elfidrenic

Communicalians

sOperaSietu i,- ,- .• -„ i ApaSiMSton I User

C^mt^on^mi^^J h^"^''^^'«'^""^P»""9j Software Interface

iv t*'-.i.*;^. .T t>i< V. ^1. k.* -f^n. / I ^ 'W ^' i/ ^ .- c JIAM- :^

'Typfs'qfCoRipuer

rtMwartc^ " ^

^Jtfetaoifc Cqmponenls

..jiinPratoeol

hjitfioduGlUMi

Yogrwi3rt{gt8tbtt„is(hen eotintctwj Jrilo s l^, ase$ Ute tCP^ nrffltoenl TCP/IP is pm of Ihe

UI®C aperaiiaf system, and te Wit using (hs UMK Oi.

P «d*8sse«, used by TCPflP. ara m^smm in youf opewlions. IP addresses «w asslgnsd !o

e«ch sKpilss-Wion on the lAM, bs faet, sssiy node on the n^lwo* hs? »n JP si^ress, Soj fer

eianspli, a network maji have a nafwork-capatte printer that any oTlhe >iwirtfs14!jons can tsm -

mch a printer will hsw fts own IP address.

f a<i#esses sometmits wiB neecl to te enlwed into $ dteto| box. Reineraberthat P addresses

»e to Mse form of tef s;fils «f nombsfS-, fiic'h as t23.mS.34S. S4, fcr eiesmpte. yas i»ght need to

galer in an IP -addres'S in 3 dialog bss. Bomethini Kke thir

1 &>l»Tift« roater'^IP addnesK '

'

1 ?I4 [ 1 7^ 1 f4 IL141 3

After yoa enw ih» corred: IP aJIdress, your worfcststion wtf b* able to "sea"the eihsr nsdis,

feOonSntiar

Figure A-21. Screenshot of "Bridge" Page

BEST AVAILABLE COPY

A-17
BEST AVAILABLE COPY

This general process continues throughout the program. After finishing all ofthe topics

within a category, the user is taken to a "Category Status" page (see Figure A-22), that provides

information regarding the number of correctly answered question required to complete a

category.

Figure A-22. Screenshot of "Category Status" Page.

A-18
It is important to note that users may access their "My Progress" page (Figure A-23) at

anytime by clicking tiie "my progress" links located in the upper right portion ofthe screen and

the bottom ofthe left vertical navigation bar.

LEARItrNG

aciasBRiDSE

Current Progress

Student Name: sarah4

Computer Networks

Types of Computer Networks

Network Configuration

Network Components

Network Architecture

Network Protocol

Network Characteristics

Electronic Communications

Fixed Transmission Systems

Fixed System Transmission Types

PCS Wireless Systems

Number

Correct

9

Number

Remaining

67

9 9

0 . 5

0 28

0 4

0 6

0 15

16

8

4

4

Figure A-23. Screenshot of "My Progress" Page pointing out also how to get there

Another feature included within this program is the "help" option. By clicking either of

the two "help" links located just below the "my progress" links, users are taken to the navigation

page (See Figure A-5), which provides users with assistance related to navigation ofthe site

including program flow, assessment pages, instruction pages, bridge pages, and my progress

page.

A-19
BEST AVAILABLE COPY

As mentioned earlier, navigation through the program is designed to be non-linear, users

are free to complete the program on their on schedule and in the order they desire. Once they

complete the program, they are taken to a screen congratulating them and indicating that they

have completed the LSB training program (Figure A-24).

Figure A-24. Screenshot of "Certificate ofCompletion" Page

A-20