T ooLEVE Ij

Technical Report 465[E ,

ALTERNATIVE MODELS FOR INDIVIDUALIZED

ARMOR TRAINING

Q0 Richard K. Matlick and Kenneth I. Epstein

tLitton 

Mellonics Systems Development Division

ARI FIELD UNIT AT FORT KNOX, KENTUCKY

U.S. Army

* Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

March 1980

4 Aproved for pUblic releaS; dIlStrbutiOn unlimited.

bi.5 14 ]

!7
U. S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

A Field Operating Agency under the Jurisdiction of the

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

FRANKLIN A. HART

JOSEP11 ZEIDNER Colonel, US Army

Technical Director Commander

£ Research accomplished under contract

for the Department of the Army

L~itton Mellonics Systems Development Division

NOTICES

IITR ISt L IIN Pfrv d(stritut ion of thi report has been mande by ARtI P lease address corrpondenze

nnrerwrnq tb~trtot,,u of etjorts to U S ArmyV Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Scrences. '5' ATTN- PERI TP, 5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexantdria, Virginia 22333.

FINAL ISPOSITION This *oot may he destroyed when it is no longer needed Please do not return it to

the U S A rmy Research I nibitute for the Behavioral and Social Scences

NOTEj The lrdngS in this report are not to be construed as en official Olepartmatnt of the ArmyV poston

tinless so designated by other ruthorized documents.

-A A.lLAI
SECIR'' :LASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When Data Entered)

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE BEFORE COMPLETING FORM

I H.-5'/WI N . .. GVT ACCESSION NO. 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER

Technical R ,rt!.

TITLE (end Subtitle) 5. TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOD COVERED

ALTERNATIVE MODELS FOR INDIVIDUALIZED ARMOR .IFinal Replt TRAIVE 30 March 1979-30 March 1980

TRAININC 6. PEROORWM6. O0G. REPORT NUMBER

7. AUTHOR(s) 5. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(s)

Richard K. Matlick aed Kenneth I. Epstein . MDA903-79-C-0331k

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT. TASK

Litton Mellonics Systems Development Division AREA & WORK UNIT NUMBERS

5265-A Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22151 2QI62722A777 /,

II. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS " I. REPORT DATE

US Army Research Institute for the Behavioral , March 1980

and Social Sciences, 5001 Eisenhower Avenue, 13. NUMBER OF PAGES

Alexandria, VA 22333 143

14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME & ADDRESS(f different from Controlling Office) 15. SECURITY CLASS. (of this report)

Unclassified

IS. DECL ASSI FI CATION/ DOWNGRADING

SCHEDULE

16. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of this Report)

Approved for public re caso, distribution unlimited

17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the ebtrect entered in stock 20, If different fro Report)

IS. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Technically monitored by Donald M. gristi,aien, ARI Field Unit at

Fort Knox, Kv.

19. KEY WORDS (Continue on reverse aide If neceaery and Identify by block nuober)

Individualized instruction ln.structional system

Self-paced Context of instruction

Methods of instruction Management of learning

Models of instruction

Instructional alternatives

20. A1SrRACT (Canthat ar " s a&% if noc*ewy md ideruty by block n,,eiber)

This report presents alternative generic models for the individualization

rf Armor training, along with a scheme for the classification and description

of the instructional environments (contexts) of Armor training and a procedure

for selecting alternative models for those environments and incorporating

Instructional System Development (ISD) procedures.

The classification scheme describes the contexts of instruction in terms

of three fundamental dimensions: setting, focus of instruction, and time -.

DOR 1473 EDITIONOF NOV6SISOBSOLETE UNCLASSIFIED

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (Vhon Dote Entered)

/..J
UNCLASSIFIED

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGZ(Whn Dat 5n1ef)

Item 20 (continued)

boundaries. Each context class is described in terms of the eight factors

treated in the review and analysis of the literature: time available, instructional personnel, facilities, management, student population characteristics,

course content/task types, instructional methods, and media/ materials/devices.

The sixteen alternative models of individualized instruction are built on four

fundamental variables: instructional treatment, required proficiency, learning

objectives, and time boundaries. Finally, the descriptions of context classes

identify certain links between the context classes and the alternative models of

individualized instruction.

UNCLASSIFIED

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(W?,.n Des Entered)

_OL,.
Technical Report 465

ALTERNATIVE MODELS FOR INDIVIDUALIZED

ARMOR TRAINING

Richard K. Matlick and Kenneth I. Epstein

Litton Mellonics Systems Development Division

Submitted by:

Donald F. Haggard, Chief

ARI FIELD UNIT AT FORT KNOX, KENTUCKY

Approved by:

E. Ralph Dusek, Director

PERSONNEL AND TRAINING

RESEARCH LABORATORY

U.S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22333

Office, Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

Department of the Army

March 1980

Army Project Number Individual Training Technology

20162722A777

SbAoProved for oublic rijem: distribution unlimited.

. i
ARI Research Reports and Technical Reports are intended for sponsors of

R&D tasks and for other research and military agencies. Any findings ready

for implementation at the time of publication are presented in the last part

of the Brief. Upon completion of a major phase of the task, formal recommendations for official action normally are conveyed to appropriate military

agencies by briefing or Disposition Form.

iv

-------------------------------------------
FOREWORD

The US Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

(ARt) has had a continuing program of research responsive to the training

development needs of the combat arms. Increasing sophistication of Armor

weapon systems coupled with a drive to maximize the efficiency of Armor

training have led to a search for training innovations.

The Armor community has recognized the potential value of training

management and delivery systems in the general category of individualized

(or self-paced) instruction. Initial attempts to develop individualized

programs of instruction in Armor have takon place for Turret Mechanic and

Track Vehicle Mechanic MOS. Both of these efforts were hampered by the

lack of a family of clear conceptual models to follow.

This report presents altornative models for the individualization

of Armor training, along with a sche-me for classifying and describing the

instructional onvironm,-nts of Armor training and a procedure for selecting

alternative models for those, environments.

This research was responsivo to Army Project 2QI62722A777, Individual

Training Technolov, and will provide part of the technology base from

which to develop specific programs of individualized instructiot, in the

Army.

SE.IP SP4 ZEI INER

NINF

I

4i

!..L -'*.. .~:
ALTERNATIVE MODELS FOR INDIVIDUALIZED ARMOR TRAINING

BRIEF

Requirement:

To increase the effectiveness of performance-based training by individualizing Army instruction according to an appropriate selection of the

most effective training model, this research classifies alternative models

and presents a system for selecting the most suitable model for a given

situation.

Model Development:

First, the instructional environments (contexts) were classified

into 24 context classes and defined in terms of three fundamental dimensions: the setting and focus of instruction and the time boundaries.

Eight factors influence or control the nature of instruction within any

context: (1) time available for learning, (2) instructional personnel,

(3) facilities for instruction, (4) management capability, (5) learner

characteristics, (6) course content or task types, (7) instructional

methods, and (8) the instructional media, materials, and devices. An

individualized instruction system designed to meet the needs of an entire

context class would be usable for any specific training activity whose

context is included within that class.

Next, general models of individualized instruction systems, with

discernible relationships to the constraints of the context classes,

were built on the fundamental training variables--instructional treatment,

required student proficiency, instructional objectives (content), and

time available for learning, each of which may be fixed or variable. The

constraints of a given context class identify which general model of

instruction system is most suitable and guide further development of

individualized instruction.

Utilization:

These procedures may be used, in conjunction with the Instructional

System Development (ISD) procedures, to develop systems of individualized

instruction for Armor training. With slight modifications, they may be

employed for the individualization of Army training in general.

vii 'PG LN-%rFLL

-
ALTERNATIVE MODELS FOR INDIVIDUALIZED ARMOR TRAINING

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1

The Methods of the Study 2

The Collection of Validation Data 3

CHAPTER I. CLASSIFICATION OF THE CONTEXTS OF INSTRUCTION 9

The Proposed Classification System 9

A Demonstration of the Classification System 14

CHAPTER IllI. ANALYSIS OF CONTEXTS 24

The Controlling Factors 24

The Description of Contexts 27

The Time Dimension 31

The Setting Dimension 45

The Focus Dimension 50

CHAPTER IV. SELECTION OF MODELS OF INDIVIDUALIZED INSTRUCTION 57

Dimensions of the Models 57

Description of the Models 59

ISD Procedures 62

Discussion of the Models 63

The Selection of Models 75

le Context Model Relationship 76

Design of Instruction and Simulation of Systems 83

Summarv of the Individualization Procedures 83

CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMFNDATIONS 88

ADDITIONAL REFERENCES 90

APPENDIX A A-1

APPENDIX B B-1

APPENDIX C C-I

APPENDIX D D-1

p"m ix r-4hB'-,,o i,
TABLES

Page

1. Data Collection Schedule 8

2. Classification of Contexts 15

3. Subject/Task by Context Class 19

3-1. Comparisons of Classifications of Identical Or Nearly

Identical Subjects/Tasks- Institution vs. Units 22

3-2. Comparisons of Classifications Of Identical Or Nearly

Identical Subjects/Tasks- Units vs. Units 23

4. Descriptions Of Dimensional Categories 33

5. Implied Generic Models 80

FIGU RES

i. Classification Matrix 6

2. Classification and Analysis of Contexts 31-A

3. Model 1 and Model 2 65

4. Model 3 and Model 4 66

5. Model 5 and Model 6 68

6. Model 7 and Model 8 69

7. Mode 1 9 and Model 10 70

8. Model 11 and Model 12 72

9. Model I1 Ild Mode l 14 73

10. Model 1 5 and Model 16 74

11. Instruct ional svstems as Examples of (;eneric Models 79

12. Relationship of Individualization and ISD Procedtures 85

I

A

{'x
Chapter I

INTRODUCTION

In a review of the literature of individualized instruction, Matlick et al.

(1979) addressed the need to develop "rational and systematic procedures for

selecting ways to individualize within particular instructional contexts" (p.

110, 111). This report presents such procedures, which begin by classifying and

describing the contexts of instruction and then proceed to the identification

of models of individualized instruction that are appropriate for the various

classes of contexts.

The procedures described must be considered theoretical. They draw heavily

un accumulated experience with individualized instruction, of course, as well as

on theoretical constructs, but whether they will result in the selection of a

feasible and effective form of individualized instruction for any given context

of instruction is in empirical question. And this same caveat can be said to

have applied also to the Instructional System Development (ISD) procedures in

their early stages of development. The ISD procedures have resulted in the

development of effective instructional systems -- if for no other reason than

that they cause the developer to systematically consider each step of the design

of instruction -- but at their inception they must have been regarded as essentially a theoretical construct whose validity would be determined empirically.

This is not to say that the bits and pieces of the ISD procedures had not gotten

beyond the theoretical stage. The various aspects of the ISD procedures when

they were developed represented the state of the art in such matters as task

analysis and media selection, to mention only two examples, but the procedures

themselves as a means of arriving at a coherent and effective system of instruction had to be considered a theoretical construct. So it is with the contextclassification-and-model-selection procedures described here: many of the bits

and pieces have been subjected to a great deal of empirical validation, but the

procedures themselves, as a means of getting from the perception of a particular

context of instruction to a model of individualized instruction that is feasible

and effective for that context, must be viewed as theoretical until they also,

as a functional whole, have been empirically validated.

Furthermore -- and not at all incidentally -- these procedures are consistent with, and perhaps complementary to, the ISD procedures. The ISD procedures

also treat individualized instruction, of course, but only in a molecular way.

That is, they identify the features of individualized instruction and draw the

developer's attention to them, but they do not necessarily lead to a consideration of whole systems or models as feasible alternatives, that is, to a molar

view of various approaches to individualized instruction. The procedures described here, however, do provide that molar view. Instead of offering the

developer a catalog of the various features of individualized instruction which

can be assembled into a system (a unity) of individualized instruction, they

offer models that need only to be fleshed out with specific content in order

to become systems. In this sense, then, the procedures described complement

the ISD procedures.

Two concepts -- those identified by the terms "context" and "model" --

are pivotal to the discussion that follows and thus need to be defined. The

context of instruction is the total environment of any given instructional

4

.4 '
.,dert aking. Th. at irt.s.truot ionail undertaking may bf, a whole course -- or even

, w,,ol:- , progra. -- of inst ru.t i,.n, but it may b e ,nly a lesson or even a

sinFlt instructional objective. If, for example, the total environment or con-

*oxt otf a six-weeks course in, say, tactics were not to change in any signifi-

.Ant w:y for the whole six weeks (that is to say, if the setting did not change,

if" thl. length, frequency, and number of instructional periods did not change,

.nd s, krn then the whole course could be thought of as having taken place

In-Ii.. i -,ingle context or environment. But if, in mid-course, the setting

. - -ticn should change, then the total ervir,-rr ent or context would be

,:'hac-d ~Liewise , if the time factor were to ch'ang in sore significant way --

say, f'r-ar, three 0 -minute periods a week to two 7-rrinute periods or to one 150-

minute- period -- then again the total environment ,'context) would be changed be-

.ue instruction cannot. be carried n In one or two lo nf periods exactly as it

would be in three equivalent but. shorter periods.

A model of instruction (in the case addressed ir. this volme, a model of

;.,iivixua i'ed instruction) is a representaticr of a whcle arrangement. for an

rach instruction. In a sense, it is a svstc-m -I' instruction stripped

c.' crftent so that it may be regarded without ccrr. f r i.ar icular content.

,nwe C v, it, is a fr.-mework for iinstruction tnat needs only content in order

tbc~ at. instructional system, that is, a, instructional system in the

,tstraot uch a model will be deflined by fundame-tal dimensions, such as the

rature th learning objectives, the criteria tc .e attained, the nature of

t- instruct ional treatment, the time boundaries, ard perhaps others, and it.

w de~cr.; I e the path of' the 'earner througF!- 'he instruct ion, the controls on

t, r'ner, and a nUmI.e'r of othier particulars cf instruotional arrangements.

s i,, er, erai, a model is a sim. Flitfi-d representation of a complex

re-ality, 7rd that is exactlv the sense in which the term. is used here. Within

-uny ral in-truct ional activity, with many students involved in learning, withir.'t rntars involved in, the management of their learning, with a plethora of

.T. -rials and devices, there are far too many events, variables, and paths to

be discerned or even -onceived of by any one, observer in any one instance, but

e lirection and purrose of the activity can he inferred if not directly appree!-nded, and to the extent that it is systematic (as opposed to spontaneous) it

an -- pieef by piece -- be caFtured in definitions, descriptions, and diagrams.

The models, then, ar- definitions, descriptions, and diagrams of actual or possible inst.ruetional activities.

The Methods of the Study

- This study has more in common with training development than with behavioral

research; that is, it is focused on instruction rather than on learning, a seemingly tine but nonetheless necessary distinction. Learning, of course, or the

lack of' it., will provide the ultimate test of the products of the study, but the

study nonetheless is concerned principally with the devising of instruction as a

means of learning and only indirectly with the nature of learning itself. That

is to say that. this study is in the province of educational technology.

Many authors -- Hilgard and Bower (1Q66, p. 542) among them -- have commented on the enormous difficulty of' getting from the psychology-of-learning

laboratory t.o the classroom, and that problem does not. need to be dealt with

here. Educational technology is an aspect of the bridge from laboratory to
classroom, of course, but this study is not directly cOn with that bridge.

It is concerned with establishing a bridge from one instance of instruction in

which the technology of instruction has been successfully applied to another

instance in which an effective technology is needed. Looking at a number of

successful instances of instruction, how does one decide which are models to

be emulated in another instance or, to be even more eclectic, which specific

technological applications or features should be emulated or replicated? This

decision would seem to require a technique. The essential purpose of this

study, then, is to develop a technique, one which may become another tool of

educational technology. One method of the study may therefore be said to be

invention.

The other methods of the study are more traditional. A thorough review

of the literature of individualized instruction (Matlick et al., 1979), through

all standard sources of scientific and technical information, has established

the foundation of the study, and the documentation of that review, in terms of

the number of pages at least, constitutes the dominant product. The administration of interviews and questionnaires and informal observations by researchers,

as means of gathering data to both test the validity of the technique presented

here and guide its development, constitute the other principal methods of the

study.

The Collection of Validation Data

While both the context classification system and the analysis of contexts

classified through that system are to be considered theoretical constructs

whose validity must be determined empirically within the instructional development process, it was considered necessary to assess the reasonableness and usefulness of these constructs early in their development. Even though the purpose of these constructs is to establish a basis for discriminating among the

various instructional environments (contexts of instruction) so that feasible

and appropriate models of individualized instruction may be selected for them,

the approach to this preliminary validation was to take the tentative classification system and the approach to the analysis of contexts directly to training implementers for comments. Training developers and training implementers

are usually not the same persons, of course, and training developers are the

intended users of the context-classification-and-model-selection procedures,

but training implementers will be the principal judges of the validity of those

procedures. If the procedures do not result in the selection of feasible and

appropriate models of individualized instruction, the training implementers will

be the first to know. Furthermore, training implementers know the environments

of instruction most intimately and should be able to provide a preliminary judgment of the validity of procedures intended to classify and describe those en-

*. vironments (contexts).

The procedure for the collection of validation data from training implementers included interviews, questionnaires, and direct observations by a

researcher (the principal investigator of the research project). Because the

researchers were, at the beFinning, not sure of how the idea of context classification and analysis should be broached or of what questions should be asked,

it was decided that data collection would begin with informal, unstructured

.. 4

" " ',. " .. . .... . - .- - - ...-. 
interviews and then proceed to more formal, structured interviews, questionnaires, and observations as the questions relevant to the issue of validity

emerged. The intent was, thus, to try out the tentative context-classificationand-analysis system on a population of training implementers (at the Armor

School), to revise it or develop a new one in response to the ensuing discussions, and then to structure data-collection instruments on the basis of the

revised or newly developed system. Data collection would then proceed to a

second phase (with visits to Armor units) in which appropriate questions and

observations would test the validity of a system that training implementers had

already been involved in shaping. The result of this effort was to be a pool

of data that could be used to test, direct, and constrain the evolution of the

context-classification-and-model-selection procedures in the later stages of

the study.

Very early in the study a tentative context classification system and an

approach to context analysis had been developed and partially documented. This

partial documentation became the starting point of the first, informal, unstructured interviews with some training implementers. The interviewer (the principal investigator) had previously examined (i.e., classified and analyzed)

some hypothetical contexts on the basj5 of the tentative classification system

and approach to analysis and found that these did result in some important

discriminations among contexts. Thus, early in these initial interviews he

described these hypothetical contexts to the interviewees to determine if they

intuitively (i.e., without reference to the classification system) felt that

there were significant differences among the hypothetical contexts described.

Three hypothetical contexts were described as follows:

o Sergeant Brown at Fort Knox has a shop (a classroom) in which

he teaches automative maintenance. He has 10 hours to teach an

AIT (Advanced Individual Training) module. He has the equipment

he needs, including parts of tanks, devices, simulators, etc.

o Sergeant Jones at Fort Hood has a shop (a classroom) in which

he teaches automative maintenance. He has the equipment he

needs, including parts of tanks, devices, simulators, etc. He

also teaches an AIT module, but he does not worry about time;

if he needs 20 hours to complete his module, he can get 20 hours.

o Sergeant Williams at Fort Carson has a classroom in which he

teaches gunnery. He has GTAs (graphic training aids), devices,

and other training aids. He has 20 hours to teach an AIT

module, no more.

The training implementers participating in the informal, unstructured

interviews (the first two interviews) immediately and unanimously saw that the

first two training environments above were different in terms of their time

boundaries; i.e., one was bounded by fixed time and the other by variable time.

They believed that this difference was significant in terms of the process of

instruction. They also saw, although less quickly, that the third environment

(context) was different from the first two in that the tasks being taught were

more mental (cognitive) than those in the first two. This difference, too,

they believed, made a difference in terms of the process of instruction.

4" -4-

. .. .
The dimension of setting is constant in the three hypothetical environments

or contexts given above (that is, it is instructional-indoor in each case), but

when the interviewees saw the three-dimensional matrix used to illustrate the

classification scheme (essentially the same as the one given in Figure 1), they

agreed that it described the concept that had been discussed. That is, they

agreed that it seemed reasonable to discriminate, or classify, instructional

contexts on the basis of the three general dimensions of instructional setting,

focus of instruction, and time boundaries. In various ways, however, they did

express the idea that other issues would have to be considered in developing a

precise description of a context of instruction. They seemed to believe, for

example, that the skill of the NCO-instructors usually found in a given context

would make a considerable difference in the nature of the context.

The discussion then moved on to the factors that within any given context

appear to strongly influence the process of instruction. A tentative list had

already been drawn up, and it was given to the interviewees. The list contained the following factors:

o time available

o instructional personnel

o facilities

o management capability

o task type

o learner characteristics

o feasible methods

o available instructional resources

Each factor was discussed in turn, and the interviewees noted that most

of them could be resolved into a set of sub-factors. The time available for

learning, for example, would not only be of a certain amount (even for selfpacing) but would also be available in certain units, such as an hour, a half

day, or a full day at a time. These units of time would also be available at

a certain frequency, such as all at once (one solid block of time) or daily,

or three times a week, and so on. As a further example, the instructional

personnel factor could also be resolved into several sub-factors: it could be

useful to know whether the NCO-instructors were skilled in their MOSs, whether

they had been trained as instructors, and how many students there were for

each instructor.

After each factor had been discussed and it had been generally agreed

that each of these factors did influence the process of instruction, and

probably in a different way or to different degrees in different contexts,

the interviewees were invited to delete from the list factors which did not

seem very influential or important and to add new ones which did. There were

no such changes, but the interviewees did maintain that it would be important

to discover each sub-factor.

After only two unstructured, informal, exploratory interviews (one with

an individual and the other with a group of trainers), the understanding of

.4 and agreement with the scheme for the classification and analysis of the contexts of instruction was so complete that there seemed to be no reason not to

structure subsequent interviews along the lines established during the first

two, and this was in fact done. It was also decided that a questionnaire would

-5-
Time

/

pa I- Mo 14

,lilt I IUt F.1

IuhI t L li.)4l -

VN\ / N -

' \1 -4c J

oopino 4-4

N , ' ~ \I\ / I /

\ 'T / -4

NI \ / .'u] - '-.

S/

I _ tIovnrs1_ I•

__ i" _ _ -- _

A l . ,
be developed to attempt an identification of all sub-factors. It would be administered to the persons in each group of subsequent interviewees who seemed

best qualified to describe a particular context. The structured interview and

observation instruments are included as Appendix C and the questionnaire as

Appendix D.

The interviewer had expected a considerable amount of dissent or confusion

in these initial discussions, and this dissent or confusion was to drive the

revision or reformulation of the context classification and analysis scheme.

But there was no dissent or confusion; nearly all interviewees -- both those

in the initial interviews and those that followed -- thought that the scheme

was an understandable and appropriate way to make distinctions among contexts

or environments of instruction. They seemed to see that the structure of it

was essentially arbitrary but suggested no alternative way of systematically

making distinctions or discriminations.

The schedule of data collection activities is shown in Table 1. The detailed results of interviews, the administration of questionnaires, and informal observations of instructional contexts are included here as Appendix A and

Appendix B. Generally, the data of observations only confirmed data from other

sources, but in several cases they were entered in the tables of Appendix A.

.

"4 -7-

-j
Table 1. Data Collection Schedule

Date

(1979) Data Collection Activities Interviewees

14 May Unstructured (exploratory) Civilian instructor of

interviews Weapons Depts, USAARMC;

S-3 and 3 senior NCOs of

Ist Training Brigade at

Fort Knox

15 May Discussion of purpose and Deputy Assistant Commandant

general methods of research for Educational Technology,

project. (informant inter- USAARMC

view)

15-17 May Structured interviews and Six (6) instructors of

informal observations Maintenance Dept., USAARMC; 4 six (6) instructors of Basic

Noncommissioned Officers'

Course (BNCOC), including

SGM in charge; two (2)

instructors and one training manager of 1st Training

Brigade (OSUT/AIT) at Fort

Knox; and two (2) instructors (gunnery) of Weapons

Dept., USAARMC

17 May Discussion of purpose and Chairman of Weapons Dept.,

general methods of research USAARMC

project (informant interview)

19-21 May Structured interviews, S-3 and several senior NCOs

administration of question- (instructors) of each of

naires, and informal three divisional Armor

observations battalions, Fort Carson

25-27 June Structured interviews, S-3 and several senior NCOs

administration of question- (instructors) of each of

naires, and informal three divisional Armor

observations battalions, Fort Hood.

1

-8-

a5

-- " " - - - - - - : -: .... , ,,. 'r _ - _ - .[ -. . -__ , ": .'
Chapter II

CLASSIFICATION OF THE CONTEXTS OF INSTRUCTION

It is readily apparent that the contexts of instruction differ from each

other in a variety of ways. It is clear, for example, that instruction going

on in a classroom is contextually, environmentally, different from instruction

being conducted in, say, an outdoor training area. Some of the differences are

obvious -- the activities in the classroom are not constrained by weather conditions or by the time of night or day - but some may be quite subtle. The

extraneous sensory inputs from the outdoor setting may be much greater than

those in the indoor setting and may, in fact, be more than the instructional

stimuli can overcome. Because of the sheer physical distance of the activity

from the locus of managerial control, the time boundaries of the context with

an outdoor setting, whether actually fixed or variable, may be more elastic and

thus less constraining to the process of instruction than the time boundaries

of the context with an indoor setting. In the context with an outdoor setting

students may be seen with their hands on some piece of equipment and with procedural (that is, step-by-step) guidance of some sort nearby; in a context with

an indoor setting the nature of the learning may be far less observable as

learners simply look intently at an instructional presentation, whether a book

or manual or an instructor on a platform.

Because of these readily apparent differences among the contexts of instruction, it is only slightly less apparent that an approach to instruction

that is effective in one context may not be satisfactory in another. Instructional mediation through electrically driven or fragile devices, for example,

probably would not be reasonable in a context with an outdoor setting. It

would therefore seem to be important to be able to discriminate among the

various contexts of instruction on the basis of variables that can predict

which approaches would or would not be feasible and satisfactory within a

given context. This need suggests a system of classification -- a taxonomy --

constructed of such variables. Ideally, such a taxonomy would involve descriptive bases that are exhaustive, mutually exclusive, and logically satisfying,

but in the absence of the conceptual illumination that would provide such a

system of classification, any system that permits the discrimination of instructional contexts on the basis of variables that make a difference in the

effectiveness, appropriateness, or feasibility of approaches to instruction

would be satisfactory, at least tentatively. It may be that such a taxonomy

would not recognize or sort out all significant variables, but if it resulted

in the codification of most and a determination of the strength of their influences on the process of instruction, then its usefulness could be demonstrated, and revisions to capture all significant variables would become

inevitable.

The Proposed Classification System

The system of classification proposed here (already discussed in Matlick

et al., 1979; see pp. 2-5) defines the contexts of instruction in terms of the

setting of instruction, the focus of instruction, and the time boundaries. I Thus, it is represented by a three-dimensional matrix. See Figure 1.

-9-

., . - I-.. . . .- -
Each dimension contains two or more categories, and each category comprises a number of attributes:

Setting includes the following categories:*

o Operational. An operational setting is one in which

Armor tasks are performed by teams (crews) or by

individuals under conditions prescribed for those

tasks. While the training of units is the explicit

purpose of the activities within a context including

this setting, the training of individuals is also at

least implicit and is not necessarily precluded. For

different individuals at different times, there are

lulls in operations that provide time for individual

learning. The problem is simply one of devising

means of individual learning that are capable of taking

advantage of such opportunities as present themselves.

Some factors operating in contexts which include the

operational setting can be expected to be constraining

(time available for learning, for example, and facilities)

but others can be expected to favorably influence efforts

at individualized instruction (for example, a large

number of potential instructors in the persons of smallunit leaders and probably motivated soldiers).

o Instructional-outdoor. An instructional-outdoor setting

is one designed specifically for instruction but without

protection from the elements. The teaching/learning

activities found in contexts that include this setting

may be of such a nature that instruction in a context including an indoor setting would not be feasible or suitable, but absent or inadequate indoor

facilities appear to be an equally likely rationale

for the outdoor setting. Within contexts of which

this setting is a dimension the facilities factor is

likely to be constraining in the sense that many

media and training devices will be neither available

nor useable. The management factor may also be somewhat constraining in contexts including this setting

because of the difficulties that attend the administration of paper-and-pencil tests and the use of

student records. But most other factors suggest a

positive influence. Tasks taught in contexts including

the outdoor setting appear to be generally fairly

simple ones of the perceptual-motor type, and learners

may be in a more receptive state than if they were

seated at desks in an indoor setting.

*It should be noted that term setting is used here in a sense that departs

from the usual meaning.

- 1-, ;- 
o Instructional-indoor. An instructional-indoor setting

is one designed specifically for instruction and for

protection from the elements. Teaching/learning

activities are carried on in contexts including this

setting at nearly anytime, but some uses of equipment

(the operation of vehicles, for example) may not be

feasible, and some needed or desirable items of equipment (tanks, for example) may not be present. Media

devices and certain training devices, on the other hand,

may be available and may not be available in any other

setting. Student and other records (the data base

necessary for individualized instruction) will be

readily available, and the administration of paperand-pencil tests is enhanced.

o Independent. The independent setting is one in which

the soldier learns with little or no supervision. It

may be a designed setting, such as a learning center,

but it may just as frequently be a dayroom or the

soldier's own room or home. A reasonably high state

of motivation seems to be implied by learning activities in contexts that include this setting, and a

lack of motivation is therefore a strong constraint.

The nature of learning materials is also a strong

influence, a positive one in the case of materials

designed for independent study and a negative one in

the case of materials that are not (for example,

manuals or other texts that do not accomodate the

soldier's reading level).

Focus of instruction includes these categories:

o Equipment. The focus-on-equipment category identifies

training that is concerned with the maintenance, nomenclature, principles of operation, and functioning of

Armor equipment, that is, with equipment as mechanisms

or devices rather than as the means of accomplishing

combat objectives. It includes the operation of equipment that is an aspect of maintenance or of learning

nomenclature, principles of operation, and functioning.

In order for this category to be useful for the design

and conduct of individualized instruction, it must be

thought of in terms of the actual conditions and arrangements of instruction that prevail in the training of

certain Armor tasks, predominantly maintenance tasks.

Because the student's view of equipment in this category

is essentially analytic (that is, his attention is on the

constituent parts of equipment) rather than synthetic (as

it is when he learns to use the equipment to attain a

combat objective such as hitting a target, moving from

one position to another, or communicating combat information), the primary concern is with focusing his attention narrowly and closely on elements of the equipment

itself rather than on the uses of the equipment. Thus,

-11-

• __. L. " i " I, 1 1 I" t - " 1 i1 - 7'" . - .,-- .j " ,' , , . "
students, elements of equipment, and instructional presentations are arranged so that a succession of limited,

equipment-based stimulus conditions can be presented and

the responses closely guided and monitored. For the instructional developer or instructor, presenting the required stimulus conditions and providing the means for

student responses is a fairly simple matter, since no

more than equipment itself (or appropriate representations

of equipment), tools and materials, and instructions are

necessary. Because of the need to guide and monitor the

responses of individual students, however, the management

of learning may pose problems. Maintenance/inspection

tasks tend to be easy to learn but important to the preservation and operability of the equipment. Such tasks also

tend to be done frequently by the soldier, often as frequently as daily or weekly. There is, accordingly, a

marked emphasis on hands-on training in contexts that include this category. Facilities provided are usually at

least adequate, and the equipment itself (a tank, for example) can provide a kind of facility. In contexts including the focus on equipment the facilities factor can

be expected to be very influential, positively in the

sense that the equipment itself may be regarded as a facility, and negatively in the sense that some items of equipment require special facilities (tanks, for example).

o Technique. The focus-on-technique category refers to human

functions, that is, to the "how to" aspect of the implements

and methods of combat. It includes learning to operate

equipment so as to cause it to achieve its designed purpose

(rather than simply learning to operate or manipulate it

as an aspect of maintenance or inspection). While the

focus-on-equipment category emphasizes learning how to

maintain and operate the components of the tank turret,

for example, the focus-on-technique category is concerned

with the use of the turret to attain a combat objective.

The tasks learned when the focus of instruction is on

technique, therefore, can be expected to be more cognitive

than the tasks learned when the focus is on equipment.

Perceptual-motor tasks are an aspect of technique, of

course, but the cognitive tasks (or, more precisely, the

cognitive aspects of tasks) are considerably more difficult

to learn than the typical task associated with the maintenance, adjustment, setting up, or inspection of equipment.

The burst-on-target technique, for example, requires the

learning of a mental operation that is both moderately difficult for the typical soldier to learn and usually performed under demanding conditions. This category, too, if

it is to be useful for the design and conduct of individualized instruction, must be thought of in terms of the

actual conditions and arrangements of instruction that preN,! vail in the training of certain Armor tasks, principally

those concerned with maneuvering against and destroying

enemy targets. The student acquires concepts and learns

-12-

.7 

]
rules and principles that underlie techniques or methods,

then learns the techniques or methods, usually as procedures, and then learns to apply them under conditions intended to represent the environment (usually the battlefield)

in which they are relevant. Nearly all battlefield techniques or methods apply to the use or operation of equipnient, of course, but the student's view of equipment in

this category is synthetic (equipment as a part of a larger

scheime), rather than analytic (as when he considers its

elements), and his attention is thus fixed (or should be)

on the use of the equipment within its intended environment

to achieve its designed purpose, which is what techniques

or methods are about. For the instructional developer or

instructor, then, presenting the necessary stimulus conditions and providing the means for student responses can be

quite demanding. Management of' learning may pose a less

difficult problem than is the case in the focus-on-equipment

category, however, since the learning of cognitive elements

requires less guidance and monitoring, and the guidance and

monitoring of the application of techniques tends to be

inherent to the organization of teams/crews.

o Knowledge. The focus-on-knowledge category identifies

training directed toward the acquisition of knowledge

that is not a direct antecedent of performance. That

is, when a soldier is learning within a context defined

partly by this category, he is acquiring knowledge that

may or may not be of use to him at some time in the

future. If he should become a prisoner of war, for

example, he will find his knowledge of the provisions

of the Geneva Convention to be valuable, and knowledge

about race relations gained in similar instruction may

aid him in developing harmonious relations with his

peers. But such knowledge, typically, is not directly

related to the military (MOS) tasks he must regularly

perform.

Time boundaries include these categories:

o Variable. Time in variable-time contexts may be manipulated by developers or implementers of instruction,

within broad limits. The time actually available for

learning varies widely from instance of instruction to

instance of instruction, but instructional activities

are not arbitrarily limited to certain amounts of time

for certain units or tasks. Because a definite time for

Athe completion of instruction is not given, instruction

can presumably stop in response to an interruption of

some sort (end of work day, detail, other instruction)

and then begin again at the point of interruption.

o Fixed. Time for learning in fixed-time contexts may

rot be manipulated by developers or imiplementers of

-13-

, .. i; , ' , - . m . . .
instruction. Time is given by a schedule, and instruction is thus expected to be completed (for all students

regardless of learning ability) at definite times.

Presumably, if a trainee does not learn something he

will not have another opportunity until the subject/

task is rescheduled.

Thus, to classify a given context, one needs to know only the setting, the

focus, and the nature of the time boundaries. Knowledge of setting may be

gained directly from those involved in the implementation of instruction,

but it may often also be inferred from the nature of the content. It would

seem safe, for example, to assume that tank maintenance training in the unit

is outdoors (in the motor pool). The identification of the focus may be a

little more difficult. It should be possible to develop a taxonomy of MOS

tasks that would be largely or wholly consistent with the categories of the

focus dimension. If this were done, then the task description itself would

be a guide to the focus of the formal training that supports it. Determining

the nature of the time boundaries of a context may be even more difficult

because these boundaries are somewhat elastic in nearly all contexts, whether

the time is nominally fixed or variable. The best test seems to be the formal definitions of the two categories of the time boundaries: that is,

variable time may be manipulated by those responsible for instruction in

order to enhance learning; fixed time is not subject to such manipulation.

The system for the classification of the contexts of instruction is represented in more detail in Table 2. In this representation, the definitions of

the categories of the dimensions have been included (in abbreviated form), and

the context classes have been identified through an alphabetical code. Thus,

a context in which the time is fixed, the focus is on technique, and the setting

is instructional outdoors would be classified BFH (Cell #6). Likewise, a context given by variable time, a focus on knowledge, and an independent setting

would be classified DGI (Cell #24).

A Demonstration of the Classification System

To demonstrate the use of the system for classifying the contexts of instruction, several typical instructional activities are described below, and

by reference to the system their contexts are classified.

o Sub-calibre gunnery training is being conducted on a range

especially constructed for the purpose. At a distance of

about a small carriage mounted on a track slowly moves

silhouette targets transversely to the line of sight. Using

lasers mounted on the gun tubes to indicate hits, the soldiers

practice tracking and firing on moving targets. The commander

of the unit conducting the training wishes to achieve several

training objectives during the week, but he has assigned first

priority to the learning of the tracking task and has therefore

directed the officer in charge to continue instruction until 80%

of the soldiers have mastered it.

.

" -14-

I~AL
a) 0

C.)

4j 4j U 4

V00 0 00 0)

El-i 0) r

r- . '1 r- c -4 co

I-~ C. ) (a (3 C :J u E co 0) u

4--4i

0 0-- 44

44 "H L

C4) .4!> 2) Z HL '- '-

Ci)Q,

0/

X 0

.00& Q

H H

< 4 ')- w 0 4. CN .

L)fr ;0~ 00po 0b -5

-- x 

.,4

11 -15-

W--. -. -- -k - --
Classification

This instructional activity clearly focuses on technique; equipment is present, of course, and is essential to the task being

performed, but what is being learned -- i.e., the tracking task -

is a technique, and the instruction is principally concerned

with -- focused on -- the learning of that technique. The instruction is being carried on in an outdoor setting designed for

instruction, and the time for learning (presumably within broad

limits) is under the control of the implenenter and therefore

variable. The class of the context of this training is thus BFI

(instructional-outdoor -- focus on technique -- variable time).

o An Armor battalion is conducting an offensive operations

exercise. Because of many recent changes in staff positions and among headquarters personnel, the commander

has decided to conduct formal on-the-job training in

offensive operations for all staff officer's and headquarters personnel. The unit is scheduled to be in the

field three days.

Classification

This activity is also focused on technique, that is, the "how

to" of the functions of the headquarters during an offensive

operation. Armor combat tasks are being performed under prescribed conditions, and the setting is therefore operational.

The three-day exercise limits the overall time available, but

time to learn may be considered variable within this limit.

The class of the context of the training is thus AFI (operational -- focus on technique -- variable time).

o One hour each week has been scheduled for map reading, with a

different topic for each of about 10 weeks. The practice in

the past ias been to present some aspect of map reading in a

classroom and then move to a nearby drill field for a brief

practical exercise.

Classification

The third activity must operate within fixed-time constraints,

and it too is focused on technique. Put because the setting

changes during instruction, the activity appears to exist within

a double context. Seen this way, the context (or, rather, contexts) would be CFH/PFH (instructional-indoor -- focus on technique -- fixed time and then instructional outdoor -- focus on

technique -- fixed time). For the purpose of understanding the

constraints and other characteristics of the instructional environment, however, it may be more useful to consider this instruction a, consisting of two distinct activities whose contexts

would be classified as CFH and BFH.

I

,

.I
" CBR training has been scheduled for available personnel on each

Friday morning. An outdoor area well away from other activities

has been provided. In response to the commander's concern about

CBR proficiency, the S-3 has directed the companies to continue

the training until further notice.

Classification

This training activity appears also to be focused on technique.

Some segments may involve the use of equipment, but technique -

or "how to" -- is the dominant concern. Because required proficiency is given, rather than time, the time for learning is variable. The setting is outdoors and has been selected especially

for this training. The class of the context is therefore BFI

(instructional-outdoor -- focus on technique -- variable time).

" A course for the training of turret mechanics is to be conducted

at the Armor School. A large classroom and a laboratory-like

room containing turret trainers (real tank turrets modified for

instruction) have been provided. Students are expected to

achieve all course objectives within eight weeks but may take

more time if necessary. Most are expected to complete the

course in considerably less time.

Classification

In this activity the focus is on eouipment. The instruction

is carried on indoors in rooms intended for instruction, and

again time is a function of given learning (i.e., all the

students are expected to achieve all of the objectives). The

class of the context is therefore CEI (instructional-indoor --

focus on equipment -- variable time).

" In a training brigade at the Armor School, individual weapon

training (.45 cal. pistol) begins in classrooms where students

learn the disassembly and assembly, care and cleaning, and

functioning of the weapon. Then, in an outdoor area especially

designed for the purpose, students learn the techniques of

firing the weapon (positions, trigger squeeze, etc.). The

time for the instruction is controlled by a schedule, and at

a given time the students move on to other instruction.

Classification

This activity above, again, involves more than one context.

There is first a focus on equipment and then a focus on technique. There are also two settings, first indoors and then

outdoors. This instructional activity was described in such

a way by several instructors of the Armor School, and it was

clear that they thought of it as being unitary because the

same instructors and the same students were involved throughout.

Thus, they maintained that the activity existed within a double

context or, to put it another way, two cells of the classification matrix were required to enclose the context of this in- '1 struction. But, again, it would appear to be more useful to -the analysis of contexts to see that there are two distinct

4

-17-

, .. ~.. .* 
instructional activities and that their contexts may be classified as CEH (instructional-indoor -- focus on equipment --

fixed time) and BFH (instructional-outdoor -- focus on technique -- fixed time).

As will be seen more clearly in Chapter III, however, the fifth and sixth

instructional activities described above introduce an even greater difficulty

in the classification of the contexts of instruction according to the system.

being described: the fifth and sixth are carried on at the institution, and

because the institution is dedicated to training, each context of instruction

within it is somewhat. different from its counterpart within the units. This

difference cannot be fairly treated until the analysis of factors is presented

in Chapter III, but it can be pointed out that the factors that operate to define the various classes of contexts vary considerably from institution to urit

At the institution instructors are instructors by virtue of full-time assignment rather than one duty of many, and they seem to have adequate time for

preparation. Facilities at. the institution tend to be better matched to their,

purposes, resources somewhat more abundant, time for learning more readily

available, student-instructor ratios closer to optimal, and management-(cfiearning capability greater. In brief, institutional contexts are generally

more favorable for the individualization of instruction than their counterparts

in the units. Thus, in Chapter III yet another' dimension of classification is

introduced: On the basis of some parameters and constraints (student-instructor

ratios, for example) institutional contexts are distinguished from unit contexts. Tie general nature of a given context is the same whether it, is in the

institution or the unit, but where there are significant differences in parameters and constraints between institutional contexts and unit contexts, the

differences are noted because of their probable impacts on the design and

conduct of individualized instruct ion.

Table 3 displays the classification of the contexts of a representative

sample of instructional activities (subjects/tasks) at the institution and in

the units. Each cell represents a context class, and an X in a cell indicates

the classification of the instructional environment or context of the instructional activities listed in the left margin. Sample instructional activities

at the institution (Fort Knox) and two unit installations (Fort Carson and

F rrt Hood) are listed separately. These contexts were classified by training

implementers and some training managers. (See Chapter 1, The Collection of

Validat ion Data.) In several cases (map reading, tank firing, and individual

weapon training) the contexts of identical or nearly identical subjects/tasks

were classified both in the institution and in the units, and direct comparisons

may therefore be made. Table 3-l presents this comparison. Within the units

the contexts of several subjects/tasks (CBR/NBC, gunnery, and tank maintenance)

were classified twice, and these classifications may also be compared. This

comparison is presented in Table 3-2. It will be rioted that the contexts of the

same, or nearly the same, subjects/tasks vary in terms of one dimension or more

from instance of instruction to instance of instruction. The subjects/tasks

themselves are not, therefore, adequate guides to the selection of feasible and

appropriate approaches to individualized instruction. For the designer of systems of individualized instruction, the implication of this variability in the

contexts of the same, or nearly the same, instructional activities is that he

should: (1) design a system adaptable to all contexts in which an activity is

coniducted; (2) design a different system for each different context in which an

activity is conducted; or, (3) design a system only for the context in which an

activity is most frequently conducted.

4

• 1 -I1.-

A]
im INflNIdIO

0 ,1 0 (14 Ht 1. N'

(a I~~QN t.N. "o X

(V I 'vN iV d)

10) IN.cNdcN

D -) (DOOONjI HwsNI I x IX 

1 (81111000100 H SNI -- -

I IVNOILVH ](dOi

( 0) LN3IONl3IONI (M ON HO J ----- -~ ~ (H) 11000100 HISNI

L il 0 NRON3diONI

U3 a (DI3 HOOONI HISNI

) 0

c 9 (V I N10010 V11151

xV) 1~O1IfdO

z ~ 10? lNgON3d3ON1

-7

LI uj59 >0 ZI 01 -I - --

I) 1VN0I1V11~dO i- I ---

iNJ ,-I 

VI c 0 

LK u

I - Io I

13 ' C-
S (0) IN3aN3d3ONI

0 (Z) uooaiflO'tiSNI

(v) VNO~i3dO

(0) IN3GN3d3ONl

z: 0 3) UOONI)'UISN

Lu(b'I IVNOIVf3dO

- (0) IN3N~d9ONI

Lu z p) u0oo Nhi-'isNI

S(8) HoooLoaf0-UISNI

(V IN4lUd

44 43N~dON

C3 d,

AP z

z 0 -

(3) L iSN loOOI 

C') (V --.- I~k~d
(D~) kHOOCNI WISNI

S (V) IVNOtiVhU3dC

(0-)~) IN3ON3d3ONI

(- M O OIU.S N

x 91) HOOOiAO UJISNI

wOIk~Oxx (V 

N c

10) IN3ON3d3ONl

z 3 lIOI IN

19) 110 1 1o0±f-OKSNI xXf

w~~~ ~ I VNOIIVbl3dO

(0) 1N30N~d3GNI

a (3) HOOCINI- UISNI

191r uooaiflo- HISNI

0

ul x W IVNOIIVkH3dO

0, -

>I

)- U. ~l ~ ~ i

(3 OI- HIS13 (1 1014 NI ~

-21
4 01 11N3aN14d3alNI

0

oi D (3 OOUNI- H.1SNI

IV (01 NO~lr3dNI wt -

(a) IN3aN3d3ONI

(D) uoo0Ni I- iSNI

S(81Hooaiflo- UISNI

4 IV) 1IVNOliVH~3dO

w 10) lN3GN~d30NI

u U) 0 (3) WOONI - kIISNI

(aI) moooiflo HiSNI

Z r.IV) Lu IVNOlilf3dO -

~ - (0) 1N3(0N~d30NI

c - _ _ __ --- -- -

(j .J > nl 1)HOOCNI -HISNI X x

cal 2 LLJ z (8 OOIO ISNI Xx

I- 42s koolo

j ' IV) IVNOIIV8~dO

LL. (W) 1N3GN3d3(3NI

CA (DI HOOaNI HISNI

ow -(SI 8000100o- HISNI

o ~ ~ (I VNOIIV83dO

CL0

0

ccJ -x

z c

L1 ___ ___ 0 I

-22-g
10) iNION3d3C]N

0

z I V) 1VN0(±Vkid0

- - (0) IN~aN3d3ONl

ujw n jo 3 OOONI( HiSNI

< I u Hoooiflo kISNI x

IV) 1VNOl1VU43dO

(01l N30N3d3G~d

iii EtOOONI WUSWN7

CL x x( 3 IS) Uoo01lO- HiISNI

V)I VNOIIV'U3dO

z 2 0 la) IN30N3d3GNI

WUcooa 4 (lOOONI HiSIN1

o2x IV)I 1VNOIlVH3 do

cm ~2 10) iN3ON3d3O]Nl

LA. D 1YON) oI1V dOi 

CA I- 2 -l 0 xN0~~N

4 Z L31 x (a 800N Hon ISNI

ua LNL Vl3dO

L 0

LL (9 ,-r ooio-

(V NeI -, .E3dO

0- . U . U. W U . i: U

An- U .

-2 3-
Chapter III

ANALYSIS OF CONTEXTS

In Chapter II a system for the classification of the contexts of instruction was presented and discussed in some detail. It was found to be a satisfactory means for discriminating among contexts on the basis of the general

dimensions of setting, focus of instruction, and time boundaries. This information alone would lead to some instructional design decisions of a gross sort --

such as to generally limit employment of systems requiring audiovisual devices

to contexts with indoor settings -- but it is obviously not enough to allow the

training developer to select from among a set of alternative models of individualized instruction the one or two models best for any given context. There are

clearly other influences at work within the contexts. The capabilities of the

instructors usually found within a given context, including the numbers of them

in relation to the numbers of students, would certainly influence the selection

of a model of individualized instruction for that context. The characteristics

of the learners -- whether of low, medium, or high ability, whether motivated

or not -- would also certainly constitute an important influence. It also seems

likely that some instructional methods may be more suitable to some contexts

than to others (learning in small steps with immediate and frequent feedback,

for example, may generally be impracticable in contexts with the operational

setting) and these too should influence the selection of alternative models of

individualized instruction for any given context. Thus, in addition to a general

classification of contexts, there would seem to be a need to consult a catalog of

the factors which clearly influence or control the nature of instruction within

any context. Then, if it can be shown that the influences of these factors are

generally consistent and stable, within any given context class, to know the class

of a context is to know generally how these factors would influence instruction

conducted in it. And to know the influences or controls exerted by those factors

is to have the means for selecting a model of individualized instruction that is

feasible for a given context of instruction and likely to be effective within it.

The Controlling Factors

It is necessary to begin by identifying those factors that significantly

influence or control the instructional processes within contexts. During the

review and analysis of the literature of individualized instruction documented

in Matlick et al. (1979), eight (8) such factors were identified and explored

at some length. These factors are:

(1) Time Available - i.e., the amount of time available for

learning the relevant skills and/or knowledge. In this

case, time is not a dimension in the same sense as it

is in the classifying matrix (see Figure 1). Rather,

it describes constraints on learning, because whether

the time boundaries are fixed or variable (i.e., whether

under, !.e control of developers and implementers --

withirn broad limits -- or not under their control) time is

still available in discrete bundles that need to be considered for their influence on instructional processes.

4 -24-
a

Time will be available in one continuous block or in

smaller units such as an hour, half day, or full day at

a time. Even when the time boundary is variable, there

are generally accepted limits.

(2) Instructional Personnel - i.e., the availability of

personnel to provide the instructional functions, and/

or the planning and monitoring functions associated with

instruction. Included in this factor, at least by

implication, are the qualifications of these personnel

as instructors (many will not have been trained in the

methods of individualized instruction) and their attitudes

(negative attitudes towards individualized instruction

or toward any change in the process of instruction which

is perceived as being disadvantageous can sharply limit

the effectiveness of new instructional approaches).

(3) Facilities - i.e., the availability and type of facilities

for use in the instructional situation. As used here the

term facilities includes space for instruction whether in

a room in a building (a classroom) or a special area in

the field set aside and safe for, say, tank driving or

firing. They constitute whatever is required for the conduct of instruction that is not equipment, material, or

devices. They may be thought of -3 the most important

aspect of the instructional setting dimension. They include such mundane considerations as where audiovisual

devices will be plugged in and whether a tank can be

fired or manuevered over open terrain.

(4) Management - i.e., the methods and/or techniques employed

to manage and control the instructional situation. Implied

by the term management in this list of influencing or controlling factors are both the management capability that

typically exists within a given context and the management

requirements that attend a given system or model of individualized instruction. Thus, a relevant question as regards

the assessment of this factor is: Are there enough instructors in this context to handle the management requirement

of this particular approach to individualized instruction?

(In this report the answer to this questioi. is provided in

the form of a student-instructor ratio, i.e., the number

of students over the number of instructors; thus, a low

number -- say in the range of 4 to 8 -- represents a ratio

favorable to individualized instruction.) Or: Is the

typical instructor in this context capable of handling such

learning management tasks as the frequent and rapid administration of tests, the interpretation of tests and other

measures of learner performance, the development of prescriptions for learning, and the control of contingencies?

The questions arising from this factor are qualitatively

different from those arising from the instructional personnel

factor. It is important to know that, in raw numbers, there

-25-

21-:*;x--------------
are in any given context the instructional personnel required by a particular approach to individualized instruction. But knowing that the number is adequate is not enough;

it is also necessary to know that the skills and attitudes

of the instructors are consistent with the learning management requirements of any approach to individualized instruction that is under consideration.

(5) Student Population Characteristics - i.e., the learning

ch -acteristics of the students who comprise the population

to whom the instruction is addressed. These include, of

course, aptitudes or abilities, but such characteristics

as attitudes and learning styles should also be considered.

While considerable diversity in learner characteristics is

the "reason for being" of individualized instruction, an

extreme range in one or more characteristic variables may,

for example, preclude one proposed approach to individualized instruction while recommending another.

6) Course Content/Task Types - i.e., the content or the

subject matter to which the instruction is addressed. The

concern expressed by this factor is dealt with to some

extent by the focus-of-instruction dimension of the

classification matrix, and the factor may be a guide in

classifying a context. But once it is known that a

particular context involves a focus on, say, technique,

it is still necessary to know something about the content

or tasks. Some techniques are far more difficult, and

more important, than others and may require decidedly

different instructional approaches.

(7) Instructional Methods - i.e., the types of instructional

strategies and techniques which are applied to the subject

matter content. Within any given context of instruction

approac es to instruction, probably of the lockstep

variety, will already exist, and there will certainly be

a strong preference for certain instructional methods.

There may even be the assumption that because a certain

method has been employed for a long time in a certain

context for the teaching of certain tasks its validity

has been demonstrated beyond any need for change. Thus,

within certain contexts, given certain tasks or content,

some methods may be considered feasible and others not,

and the instructional methods inherent to a proposed

system or model of individualized instruction must be

considered in that light.

.&) Media/Materials/Devices - i.e., the training media,

materials and/or devices which are available and/or

appropriate for use in the instructional situation.

Because media, materials, and devices are costly,

those known to exist in or be available to a given

context of instruction should probably be considered

to be those through which any proposed system or model

-26-
of individualized instruction would be implemented.

The implementation of such a system may well involve

the addition of some media, materials, or devices, but

proposed systems should make use of those that already

exist.

The Description of Contexts

It is apparent, even without consulting this catalog of controlling or

influencing factors, that certain general and obvious inferences about contexts

may be systematically drawn from their classifications. In order to prepare

the way for the introduction of the above catalog of factors as a means of refining knowledge of the nature of the contexts of instruction, it may be worthwhile to demonstrate such a general and inferential description of contexts.

Consider, for example, the following set of contexts as classified by the

system developed in Chapter II. These are the contexts of the typical training

situations described in Chapter II:

o BFI = Instructional outdoor -- focus on technique -- variable time.

o AFI = Operational -- focus on technique -- variable time.

o CFH = Instructional-indoor -- focus on technique -- fixed time.

o BFH = Instructional-outdoor -- focus on technique -- fixed time.

o CI = Instructional-indoor -- focus on equipment -- variable time.

o CM = Instructional-indoor -- focus on equipment -- fixed time.

Referring only to the descriptions of the dimensional categories given in

Chapter II and a general knowledge of Armor training, these may be described as

follows:

BFI (instructional-outdoor -- focus on technique -- variable

time) - Particular arrangements for the instruction of individuals are present, but adverse weather may interfere with

learning. Facilities should be considered constraining, and

there may be no regularly available electrical power for instructional and training devices. The management of learning

will be constrained because of the restricted availability of

relevant records, but student-instructor ratios will probably

be favorable. The subjects/tasks to be learned involve pronounced cognitive aspects and may be moderately difficult to

learn. The time for learning may be manipulated by developers

and implementers so that, within broad limits, all students

can be expected to achieve stated objectives. Thus, selfpacing is implied, special physical arrangements at the training site may be necessary, and demonstrations of some sort will

probably be an aspect of instruction.

-27-

-~ - . ~ ~ ~ V .. i
o AFI (operational -- focus on technique -- variable time) -

The setting is appropriate for the performance of unit/crew/

team tasks but not necessarily for the instruction of individuals. Typically, unit/crew/team tasks are performed as

required by a developing tactical situation while the performances of individuals are monitored by unit leaders, and

feedback may be provided by leaders, either immediately or

after the conclusion of some phase of the operation. Some

time for individual instruction -- during lulls in operation -- will be available, but facilities are very constraining. Because of the presence of small-unit leaders, the

student-instructor ratios are favorable, however, and soldiers may be well motivated. The subjects/tasks to be learned

(e.g., gunnery, navigation, tactics) involve pronounced cognitive aspects and may be difficult to learn under realistic

conditions. Within the constraints imposed by operational

requirements, however, time for individual learning may be

manipulated by developers and implementers. Thus, limited

self-pacing is implied, and special arrangements for individual instructional communications are necessary.

o CFH (instructional-indoor -- focus on technique -- fixed

time) - Particular arrangements for the instruction of individuals are present and are not constrained by weather or by

the time of night or day. Appropriate practice may be constrained, however. Instructional and training devices may

generally be used, and the management of learning is enhanced

by the availability of student records, the variety of instructional materials, and the ease of administering penciland-paper tests. The subjects/tasks to be learned (e.g.,

map reading, troop management, tactics) involve pronounced

cognitive aspects and may be moderately difficult to learn.

Time for learning may not be manipulated by developers and

implementers; i.e., learning is a function of given time.

Thus, alternative methods to minimize differential student

learning rates are implied, and demonstrations of some sort

along with appropriate provisions for practice will probably

be necessary.

o BFH (instructional-outdoor -- focus on technique -- fixed

time) - Particular arrangements for the instruction of individuals are present, but adverse weather may interfere with

learning. Facilities should be considered constraining, however, and there may be no regularly available electrical power

for instructional and training devices. The management of

learning will also be constrained because of the restricu->d

availability of relevant records, but student-instructor

ratios will probably be favorable. The subjects/tasks to be

learned involve pronounced cognitive aspects and may be modprately difficult to learn. Time for learning may not be manipulated by developers and implementers; i.e., learning is a

function of given time. Thus, alternative methods to minimize

differential student learning rates are implied, and demonstrations of some sort will probably be necessary.

-28-
o CEI (instructional-indoor -- focus on equipment -- variable

time) - Particular arrangements for the instruction of individuals are present and are not constrained by weather or by

the time of night or day. Instructional and training devices

may generally be used, and the management of learning is enhanced by the availability of student records, the variety of

instructional materials, and the ease of administering penciland-paper tests. The subjects/tasks to be learned (e.g., tank

maintenance, care and cleaning of individual weapons, and the

nomenclature and functioning of individual weapons) tend to be

easy to learn but important to the preservation and effective

operation of equipment. There is a marked emphasis on handson training, and facilities are likely to be adequate though

they may be constraining in regard to some items of equipment,

such as tanks. The time for learning may be manipulated by

developers and implementers so that, within broad limits, all

students can be expected to achieve stated objectives. Thus,

self-pacing, ready access by students to equipment or simulators, and adequate guidance of individual students during

hands-on learning are all implied.

CEH (instructional-indoor -- focus on equipment -- fixed

t mw ,, - Particular arrangements for the instruction of individuals are present and are not constrained by weather or by

the t Imt- (f" night or day. Instructional and training devices

may erierAily be used, and the management of learning is enhanced Ly the availability of student records, the variety of

:nc-t ructi ral materials, and the ease of administering penciland-a-r s. The subjects/tasks to be learned (e.g., tank

maintr,_i.ct , ,are and cleaning of individual weapons, and the

nomlcliu", iid functioning of individual weapons) tend to be

easy t._ leir r but important. to the preservation and effective

(,),Pr't :-,t, (A- evuipment. IThere is a marked emphasis on hands-on

trair. r, -ird 'acilities are likely to be adequate though they

;iy b( erlcI:training in regard to some items of equipment, such

as tanks. 1'he time for learning may not be manipulated by dewel op .r ,l implfmenters; i.e., learning is a function of given

time. alternative methods to minimize differential student ,-rF rcates are implied, and demonstrations of some

sort n wih appropria t.. provisions for guided practice will

probaby -: !Pecessary.

Fach of tner, ke-scriptions if p Iver, by the categorical (marginal) definitions which attend the cell of the class ification matrix that "contains" the

cortext . Fach tJ irr ly a -mi (,' t hrew definitions (one from each of three

(imrsicns), ;0 t , 'as been demonstrated, each leads to certain general im-

;1iications "or in'truction. And if the implications for instruction are to be

decrived in m)re detail, then the contexts will need to be analyzed in more detail. In brief, each context needs to be analyzed to determine how it is contrcl led or influenced by each of the factors listed above. The analysis of

c'ontexts presPnted here proceeds from two bases: the first is the review of the

iterature of individualized instruction which led to a general understanding

o f the, influences of the factors (see Matlick et al., 1979); the second is the

dtimied information about the, instructional contexts of Armor training that

1, -29-
has been provided by training personnel (see Appendix A and Appendix B). But

the data provided by training personnel -- if they are to be useful to the classification and analyses of the contexts of Armor instruction -- must be drastically reduced, and such a reduction requires a great deal of freedom to interpret

and judge relative importance. The following attempt at such a reduction must

therefore be considered tentative and subject to revision as the system of classification and analysis is refined by use.

It is important to understand both the treatment and the use of the data

collected through informal observations, interviews, and questionnaires. Tables

A.1.1, A.2.1, and A.2.2, in Appendix A, contain data from observations and from

the administration of interviews and questionnaires at Fort Knox, Fort Carson,

and Fort Hood respectively. (See Appendix C and Appendix D for instruments.)

These data are descriptive of the contexts of instruction of specific subjects/

tasks. They were reduced by summarizing all parameters and constraints that

pertain to the same context class within the same cells of the tables titled

Parameters and Constraints of Variable Time/Fixed-Time Contexts (Table B.1.1,

Table B.1.2, Table B.2.1, and Table B.2.2). For example, all the data descriptive of all contexts classified as C (Instructional-Indoor) -- F (Focus on Technique) -- I (Variable Time) at the institution (Fort Knox) are summarized in the

eight rows of Table B.1.1 within the cell of each row given by the intersection

of the category Technique (F) and the category Instructional - Indoor (C). Each

row summarizes all data pertaining to one of the eight factors. It should be

noted that, at this stage of the reduction, the data from the installations

visited are still segregated; that is, the data from the institution are separate from the data of' the units. The purpose of this is to permit the detailed

examination of significant differences between contexts within the institution

and contexts within the units. It should also be noted that while the classification matrix is three-dimensional the parameters-and-constraints tables are

two-dimensional; for the sake of convenience in the presentation of data the

classification matrix has, in effect, been divided into two, one for variabletime contexts and one for fixed-time contexts.

The descriptive data (parameters and constraints) may be examined by rows,

by coluns, and by time-table so that the differences among contexts may be discerned. It is apparent, for example, that the time available for learning tends

to be described differently from setting to setting. It is also apparent that

in some cases there are no noticeable changes from setting to setting, or from

focus to focus, for that matter. It is also now possible, by summarizing whole

columns or rows across pairs of tables (the variable-time table and the fixedtime table) and by comparing tables within pairs, to derive the meanings of

the categories of the classification matrix beyond mere definitions. This

last stage of the data reduction is tenuous, but it is made necessary by the

large number of empty cells in the parafteters-and-constraints tables. So few

data descriptive of the contexts of Armor instruction were collected that all

contexts identified by the classification matrix have not ir fact. been described.

But if the descriptive information can be made marginal -- that is, if certain

elements of description, in highly condensed form, can be attached to each category of each dimension of the classification matrix -- then every cell of the

classification matrix can in fact be described. Given the amount of descriptive

data now available, the descriptions may be highly inferential, but they will

lead to some rational decisions about the selection of models of individualized

instruction and the design of instruction.

A

- 30-

.an • ,- <n' , " - ,..= ":-= . . • . < :, ., ',- .
This process of data reduction led, then, to the marginal or categorical

descriptions (parameters and constraints) presented in Table 4 and sumnmarized

in Figure 2. Table 4 has three parts, each part providing category-by-factor

parameters and constraints for a dimension. Figure 2 summarizes the classification and description of contexts to provide a conceptual overview. It includes

both the definition of each category of each dimension and a very brief summary

of some parameters and constraints associated with each category of each dimension. Through Figure 2 alone a context of instruction may be classified and

then described in brief, summary fashion. Thus, Table 4, perhaps supported by

Figure 2, yields essential descriptions of the contexts of instruction. Each

part of Table 4 also includes the implications of the categories for both the

selection of models and the design of instruction. These implications are, in

effect, the bridge from the classification and description of contexts to the

models of individualized instruction. The models are described in Chapter IV.

But the various categories of the classification system require a more

detailed treatment. What follows is a discussion of each of the eight controlling or influencing factors as it applies to each category of each dimension of

the classification system. The use of Table 4 for the selection of models of

individualized instruction or for the design of instruction should be preceded

by a review of the discussion.

It should be noted that the descriptions of categories which follow depend

more on the review of the literature of individualized instruction and on the

informed judgmt.its of the authors of this volume than on the descriptive data

collected training personnel at the installations where Armor training is conducted. These data, rather than primarily constituting the descriptions that

follow, should be thought of as sources of guidance and restraint for the authors,

as touchstones of reality.

The Time Dimension

The time dimension identifies time-related influences that the instructional developer needs to be aware of as he makes time-related design decisions.

This dimension will not tell him, for example, whether facilities are limited,

but it will alert him to the influence of limited facilities on the design and

implementation of instructional alternatives. Thus, this awareness, in conjunction with the information about facilities given by the other dimensions,

will guide his decisions.

A. Fixed time. Fixed time means, it should be recalled, that time for learninF cannot be manipulated by the developers (designers) or implementers of

instruction beyond narrowly imposed limits; that is, learning must be seen as a

function of given time. Presumably, such time is fixed as a result of the need

to systematically control the activities and resources of the organization in

which the instruction occurs. Thus, the instructional developer needs to anticipate the following conditions and issues in the design of instruction. He

may, for example, decide not to provide alternative learning strategies where

facilities appear, to be unduly constraining, and he may decide to give considerable attention to increasing student motivation in order to increase the efficiency of learning.

' -31-

"* ... . •*. .
L EGEND

" Delinitions of cateijories 'lrt mt shadled 'ectanijies

" Other tex p tresen ts so ... et pa reter s and

constraints associated wit) catteqotCs

More StadeutS (anl hte expected to taltitei obje,- - ~ jives liii rttnteneni of pamm rl n lst,m ltml~l

VARIABLE p 1ers,t,,tne I,,lit,,v TS~~rr ~l'Fi It. __,C . t t

used eftwentlv >

EDH Managemnenit of ledninq instttiltooniI pi, E c, o-;c

FX D(, sotluel and ,ro-ce, IS snitI .... iol t nul uay t >t------. - z > 

reprtesent elf 'c l .i.t I

t 

tu'ip o c >

2a S- 1 6- 3i.

2c

z 4 Z-Ci- .'~i'''>

-2 Z5,S >

a Z

47 Q

C,~-- (F)

wfha edfor talihing

r1"IAUof Uftkfu legrain rlatter tlimn by

Chummallai by the Merorimarm of wndidueil or collective Ie

0SMbI ilsrg a under o"*dmn praibWbe for thou
EMeans that time for brning -w be cgg"Aa by to

d..V. nss isplrensers of sigwmnbretu; V A1ABLE ~ (1)vIInwti

Le~. Iirn is Ame.. iwig giua a*mton of time.ng

EE

2 E -

AZ 1

oIenife oros trinn tndaining tow ONnu a"' ofi knowom

~tien~eecrbedfledgee that isa~ not aep1n diec ontog of taskmfllves

re ~ to-antsstm liw ofm then ~. o t1iW

Fiur 2Owlsiicto n

Analysise ofCotet

d-31-AIdnife us s;naaia h .

of kavidall r cowiv
coU

C) ~ W,. M EU -4 cu r

c 0U - 1~-4 4) -fCU

4. r. 0 -4a) 

'4 1- 0 C-CU C)U) -Hc 1

0 w x w~.C *4 ~ 0

r.'- CL0 0- ) 0) 4 a cc 4) C) 0 - V >1V u U 4L

wU V Q)C U)U U) -4 0 M

v- O wC 004~ %64U W W 0 '~O 4U cU 0 4-1C U ) i -4 cc

U 0000 a wU V-0 a )C 44 -U4 0 0 U4-~~ 16 00 ( Q w 1-444 ( "u u 00w 0 $4 ri

4) 4C V U ,4U4~ -4 w r.0

0-. 4 r. w u u (0Ev

S ~ -4 U CU J U -1 t 4~~ 4(4 C/) -4 t 0

- 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 c CU 0 0 U

w 09 10 m4 z

U) -a 0 44 ( W r

-X U U > n >44ca m

U W. 4 Q4 0- 0 'C > 0

-k4a -

U) * 0 (nI UU U .4 m 1

w U .0 0 1 (n 0 

Q.)- c 0 c -,4

4 -4 .C.1 ~-C U4- C-Cj 0 E -44 0 CUCU.'- Cr. L.' cc4 ,- w - U

~~ .I 1 0 CU$4 ,- C l

a) U)) tr CU cn 0 .0Cf ~ U U

.0 0 0 0- 0- 0U COZ~~E CU ,4-C * 0 - V (n 

(- o w~ C-4 1~ u- q U)CUU H C-. Ua W 41> )) w 0.0 

F4 0 0 U) w - 4 . w - 0.~ ~ 0 0U~ C0 CVCC 0- -W ) .C4 r-- 4)4C 0) 4V

'-4j CU--C c -0 >0. 4.cU L) U a) 00 L0 - .0OCU -

C O &j CZ> 4444 w- OU

0z " w w4U r.4 wCU ~-4U) w

c- Cf-C cc t 0 H0 Q) r- .

C. 0 u >>~UUf 4 0UU

(-~ ~~~ CU,4 W U''C --W 4-' 

0 w0 0 0

W u

CA U O 'n r- .

0* u 0 - - (0 '0 0 0 v U) U-' *.0 0~~~ ~~~~ U CUW -4 Vf

C-o CU00 r-~0C CU

CU4nu V0 - ~ ~ ~ ~ - 00)C ~ c rr C:0-U w-. m-W

C-. 00> U I tn cU) ) wUC mCU m

m 0

r_)V

w I tv7
a) a) J 0w 0 4

U)00)"-U) 0)0

4j .J 4.0 4 4 4-4wirco r

n 4~ U~'- 0U0 Q) v )

*-4o0r-4 4. .0 IV -,q mI -0- 0 -1

0 4 0 00 ' 41

0 o 400 )0u-4 C: 4 u. 4 0)4 4 0 0

0) m -- U ~ 0' 0 )-4 -,4 (A ~ I -Q

" r- 0 4-4 .1, m t CC (.~0

0m .00.0 l ("- mw~ -1 0,- 4 4,- 00 U)o

CJX (1~0 ) Z -44M0 fn o0 .. Jliu u00W4 &j

0 00 0

U )

.14 0) r.0

cc 4) 0) 0LOU)

n'4 4- ca >0 a))4 ~ 40 )0 0'4 m4 .4 '0 cc )4 u0 0) (

400 ) w U) .4 .4v 44 4.0

4-I 00) r -. ,4.j m m~ w )- 4400 z0

a ) U4j 4-j4 ,-4U ca) ) > 4 0 

=l a. .rn.

40) 04m (n- j n 0 4 C: cc444 0 M0 4 40

04 0)0-i r40 - -f mS:4m 0 441 r_ .- 4

c44- C-4 a)' 1-1 a) I) 0 00 0 Q

>0 44 40 0) -4 U)~I4- ca 1 >1r- 4-0 

40 .001 ~ ~ 00(u00 : 0~0 -44)

0 i ) C4444 - 0'0 U ) '-4) 0 0 .004W0-(AC) 0))- 44 W~ *U-4 .40000> 4- Ia M - E

4g U44404 CO)U)U 00)-4 Z4$.4,-M0'H V)0 (4)C 04 W

o 4 0 0. 4U)-co04444-~U 4- UJ0)'-

0 , - r0. 0) (0.4 U (x00 C: 444.C: 0.00 ) uU

Q)4-<0 -10 .40 4 U

Lna 0) 0 4 ) c _ _

ia 0)) m

4- 4-4 4 4 0 40 c0

441 *0-'4 (2) W CO0-t~ a) 0- ).

. -4 0 w w .'-'0) ) 0 U) 0 - A

( 0440a f) LOc WI

r- 0

0 u44 0.-4 4.--. 3t0) '1 ) 40 00 14 000

-4 C:-4 4-). 0) 0 M0 "0 0> .4

S m m- 4 4J 4 04- u M

-A a ~0 a 0 0. s 4->45 44-, r

v ) , .. c) >0 o U 0)r 0-(a C:4 x 0 Q) r0 0.--- * 0-- w10 - 4) '-m

44~ -,4C 40U0-.0 4- 4 .0 0 LO' 0

(4 ~ 44.41)-04~4 ,u~J-0 44-,Udb

0n 0 0W

-4 0 0 a 0 x Q

) Q) 0)0 M4 04 r: a a > .M0 40 . UU) OL)- >-04 U Q)'40

-u 404-4'U a) u- 40) u- .0 wO)

>). 4)a w n-o 3mM 4.). o> .0 0

0) ri4 0 0U)0~ a) 0 U40 0:4 I :3 r))4- - 4104 M 004H04 m0C0-4 -4 -40- rA w > C qU-- -q>4 0 0 n>0i 44 41 W

W 3 M ") 4 H)00 04 -. r-4 W 4- Z) -4-d -..- o

U) 0--- 4-440 - -0 r-4.--I 0. ) 0--4 14 0 )4 4

04i 4 ) H-0 :2 w 0 4j )U0r_ 0m 4 m)w c

CL 0 0 0

0 a) 

o U))

~ 041

0).oUu 0 04m

U - T

- - - ,-- w- -
w 0 0 C: cc

UO (31&jm -i4 (1)~ w >

> 0 0uu .- 4~ rm b-4

C)10 0 ).j V00) 4. 0H

0.n 4.0 (4) -4 U r-, ca 1-) ) 0-In C. 0 .. -4 C

U; 00 >,,0 -1 u _4,,4 j >1 , -4 c 0 .. n --q u

0) -4 -. W c .C0)>In4 0.0o.. w~ 0 - 0 o 

00(1. 0 ) -4 r. H n w

I a 0 - 01o 0 o10 r- m()

1000) > 1) 4) >,c> w 

0 0 0 c

4.-u 10)Q rU j

) (1-4 '-40>

0040 (11 En 0't 4 0)0 

M -~ a) 0 H

a) _c 0 0j aQ) 0 

r .00 4,.Q 

a'-rJ4N0> .0 0)4,

.r, n - -

.'X M*~ la = -0c r IV )-

w~4 - >0) 0)0> 04, 10 

4- n 0)', >~0 U4 4n -) (: 0V

10 w 41 c

0 L Q10.0 0 r(0 w m ~ w 00 4 

m01 .1 m 0))0. ..M0,010

4, c: m~0 a,0 C) c0 0-Q,. v-)

cr14 *c 40 10r

-a 0) -u 10 u- W01.1 *

C-. n10f I Q) r 10m 7: LI -4..0- 4,a. Ij a1 0 . Q)'-~- 4

- 0 _ c 0 0 0 0 0

m (I :IInQ - w

'-4 In 'V * -

! 0 4 0) 10 N 4. 0 . (n - 0.r 'n- >.. 

7 131a, r_ m r- )) 0 ~4 04, -4, M 0

a)4 En4..0010 0 M10) .1 0 *.- E 04 0) 0) 4 Q).4 0 -l4 (1)0Q).

10 0 M0Ia 0 .0 44>(3) . -- 10 > (1 1 C

0. o) c: - 0 )4. )4 r-4 > Q) o

E "0'40'V 0) 0 04.0 i ". oo~ o0-4) uc.4 -

Io ,- (A, r-4.~~(0 w. 0.10 w u Q) r_

o 0 0 0 0

M L _ _ _ - -f

4, , w a

4 0>

Vft~~~~~- E0a) 'a0 1 " (-.10 m-4,0) &jct

-r IJ 0 4"- C. (t " :) M - 1

-4 0 zE w0 350ur=F 'Ij 0~-- ---------- w-*, '
C) oj -

.- n (1C U) >

C~~~( U)U)UO~C '

T- ''u) wlU)) U3

Ci oC U) >O~~U

U) u ~~~ CU ~ u-CUU 'U>~E))

C ~ ~ ~ )-Q. 1 CLUC C .- U

a-Mm.. z Q)CU) CU)j

E~.0 )U ~ ~ () Q " a. a) m))C U)'

a) m) C 

-I ;,U u.C) I C. NC I

XCCCjU c a C w Q cd C) tc Q) 4 0 U)

-, C Q, -1 C ' > l-UU) M (n U -C 

CC C- c- w)))C C UUUUC

C:- m- j .>) c a m o U) ) U Cr) > -.

C'.i)C- U)0 X C ).- C CUC)-.

CCUU a) 00 m C- C-..- C. "-. > .

U) U) U)N a).U U .- U) I q ) C -4W.-

'AC-- CL --e A . o ' 0. 'A u )U U) - . .C. U)c 0 U) 

U) r- OX ' .> U O C: m0 m-.~ (.U U .

U) o ' C) C'- " z'). m u'' ) w . U C C

C C -r 0 0 _'A

J) C' '27- :11 1 4 -C

E3 02 ~ 0 .~) a') C )

U)C *C z.. . -a -- >

rc a, C) .,UCO c.U Q 

sU U) 01I C U ) 0 U U

'CU)UC U)'CC'-.-' U) 'C'.' 0)-.-C C-I-., *)U). EU -~~ ~~~~~~ m..-U---CIU )) C) * ~ C- ~~~~ U I O ) C- ''I ) ~~ U -U)

U), U) Cu'' tn C) Co Q. o 

C'C' >'C' *.>,C )U)1.). UCC'' -'-V)

CC-'U)C XC.~~~~~-V ) ) U C )- 0C,' 

0..-~~~~~.-~~~~ C . -C C O 'I-- I . . '

CC UE 1- 0. U) )-.16).

U) -C UZ.0 ~' ) C..C.-' Cf~~'~ U< >U) C. 1U
-4 -4

04 0

0 0 (A4 

_rt 24: ) 440

:,' 0 .00 -,j 040

n m m

0 co 0 * $4

* : 00 'HUW 00 0- W W 000..I ~ -

00u 0 . H 00 0. (v-o06 > .14 >1 0 0 0 * 0 a) 4 00 C4 a)04-M4-4 .0 w a0 0. .0 I IVQ0 w

r. r- _" " 0 -'- 00 .a 00n .10.4 -40 >~ 0U -4 0 0 m w Mr- 04. -- 00CI 1

w 0 . )-4( ~ - l-4 .4 0 r-41 .- )- r- 0 .0 D ~ ,'4OC- Q U M

C0 H C-4 *H1-OO w0 CO 0 0 O00 Q) co 4 U u WO -4-' 41. 0W0H -4

c u-o .- 0 =0 w000 ww0 0 0cfH- a 0 0 wu 0 1 .A 04

j0 a 0 ) 0n 0L >,_ 0 0 0 0-

0

M CL0 0 0

0~ .r.-. 004 

71>, 0>U .0-k a C

-M0 C0 a) m c0 -,q Q

-O >o - U 0 .4H W**0 00'Ai

00 m w .4.0:3 CC C.) w> w.~ > u

00 0*.4> H >1 0.0 u.- m.0 >00 0 C: 0r- 040. 00 04'0

.0 0 . 10 0 OCV. w 0 0. W .- j w a.

.4)~.-4. a4 00V) 00440 -o"- '- - ~ ~ 4) Vi>00 "-0 0 0 0 0: J0 '''4 0 ~ o COq 40L0 (n.0 4

-j .. 0 " ** .

0 woOO * 0 Q) > HH a)J0 *H0 -k 00

tn o-0 V)W0 0 z w00u Q

0- 0 0 

oocou 0 a w0040 00c 

0~. c 0

00 0~

0 0 '0-' .. ~0 00Z 0.4

0~ 00 -4. 0 )>0>-1~- a4 

00 .C C44 0a) r. 0 U ) 04 0

~o0 ) ) 0

w0 u "10 CL0 (ZV 0H 00 0

0~~ 0 0 0 "a 4J a44 W0 0 4 C7 (v 0 00 0 a) >0

00.-4 . 0 O-~ 0-h 00'' 0. u

.0 > - L IV * C 0o -,-

00 :jc m9 _ 0 0 -E'd .u 0C.0 0> fA ,~'- 0 u 0 > 0

0CO ml 0'H0 r_ L4Od m) 0 >,0

0 ~ ~~~ 00 0'-' 0U0-0 o . 0 N 0 0

0. .0.. 000l- -'-U. C 0 0 NH 0'-'co 0.4 W4'U w0a0000 00 04- 00 

0 0 00 0 0 0 -0 __

0)0

o n - 3 7-f
0 , 1 0 1

0n ca 40 -0 0 >0) : ca 4 () u >1 CH 4j:

0)00141- .0a 0 CL

w)) c- 0 00 -40 0 w

0or0- ) 0>a0 ED Q)CL >

0 ' --0 a1 -40 0 .14Co -aU a) a)0 0. X00

40.4-40 a >C 010 000

r-C .14 )-4 C- 4j m > CL.0 u

4) ' w ) 0 ,-4> 0 0. -4 c0

0 r.(a ) ca C co 4- 000V) r_

OCC 0 1 000 co00,- co

u1-. 0(U00 >

1 00 r. r . 14-1 4 , cu (1

u>0a0 CCn. ,- 0 U0) 0

00 WUU - M UC 0)o 0-4)0 n) -4)-

w 0 01 -0 0 ) 1- () .0 )0

'-u4- 0. 00 C 0 1 M0 40)0

0 00 0 0 00

'.i~~~> '10 Q)C"41 

r.40C OE m 0

u 0~~ "" m) 2 0)0C. 0 00J

a) 0 a) - " '-4 w 0)11> 00 U, C C ~ 0 E

0 0 -4"4 -4 U Q) F-4W

00U - U0 - 01 Q) m0 w .0 ., 0

> 400 ))) a0.4w0) C0).44 0)0--)C0 E

W0 - W 0C w40 01 01 'a-CW

U 01 -4- r1.C cz COO> u . 0 001 M

ca W 010" - Q 1) >0 w 00r.u 1

C 00 0) -Ql 4-4 En1 C1. 00 00C U) 0

0 w CL 1- z. 40) r 6 00" 0 C r- C0 00 'a. 1 001. 0 ) )

m~.0 0) 00) u00X 4C. -C 4 0 0 .0 0. 0142 Eo01 0a 0C 04- 0 Ia.00 m0

01. m00.0 w) *')0C-. 0) 0 w 0 U~)C)0

01 cu u .4C 0 000)- 0w00 -

01 0 0 C:.- 2 CC000r0a)0"C00 m E Z-0 0 &C- .0 '14 (n m 0 ) 0 r_-4 > rI CO r:.C .4 -4 *i 00

H C0 0 3'0 00 .- m0). 0 OC

(n L4 0)

I) U00 m~ 0 C

(n CE) z 0 01

0 0 0 CM 0 H 00)a

EiH0 4 00 ) >0 00 CC

0Q 0 ) 0 01 W o

Co Q)~ CL0 0 Q)~ 

)0.> 010." .- I 601 'n 0C 1 Z

0 m1 a) 0) 01 C0

00 w.010 4 0

ca 00H0 (n 0 0). 0)E r-~ 

0') 04 -' . 0 r-C & 0. 0) m

. Oq 0.4 C: w) cl0 C_ r- u Cl QO 

U ) C) -4 r- 01

CL 0)r 0 r-O * m0 01 0 C<

EiW OOC c 6 Q0-0 )C-4 00) 4 00 4 0 P 0

00 0 '-0 04 0 0~0 -C0)

0 QC> VOC- 4 

0) 011 4 .40-0

w0 00 0 0

Ca ;P -38
0

aC 0 -n co. Q .o (n- -oC

'n ( .co : , - (" w : u 4 0 a) a) :3 0 0 (n 4 t r-4 ca 0 U)-rA ) u 0 (fl 'I

C C4 . Q) -4 CC ,4 (A .- w0 0 0 0 (J 0 0 1-4 0 0 - W c r (n" 4 a (v a (4) Q.0 m 0.. ) 0 ) = .04 4 - -4) c0 4 Aj- 4 .1'0'0., 4.-4 .4H 00 'n 1 . "- C) r 0

0 C m4)0 M)4) Fm ( -'C r.0

(J 0 C c 0 cu = a En >1 ., o1 1 c .>

cc C ) 0 U)0-4." 0 0 0 a)

L .,.a) '4.4j (u4 o 0 0 >,

j W u 'w w W W ) o. 4 0 0 0) ,

>- .o H

• 0,-4q r- > 'o

." 0 r-4C u M 0 > r- 0a. Co4 aA Vc "

. .

z4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

c:n

N ) Uo 0- O >.a 0 W40 -OO

>t>00 OOUO0

E cu-H 4 0 "' a.

-4 J.J (4j4404 M04- -,b(4 4 )0

.0 AU4) c.0 u) H~

(1)~- 0 W 0 U -0

m 0 O O >0~ 00 - W4.j ) 4)0

0z w 0 

0 0 -3 9- WX 0 n0 M W 0 00H0 (~.O0 w v 0 X. ( r-4 C4)U) $ -C OzUr O U 4j 0()

Li..~u UC4 0C(,4 Q)) '- 0 (4 0 44 u-0

0 04 0 z 4lW> ) )0 .U 4. fn4) C(O, 0 4

-o 410 ,-0( ))O 144 0044a)'- 

Q) . - '0 U-0.0) 4 m Q) co -HU m440

cO A 0 C c0 , w44~0- .(V 0. 100 a) 4 CL 00.~. "00 - a) LI E 0Xz0"

H 00 0 0 0 0

0 >0

0 0 00- zJ~ a o) a 0

.u 0- ,- .0 Cl. )0 v w. 0 a 0n

a) a) 0 o J- 0 -~ 4 -4 '- A.0 0 vi o w 0.0.n0V 0 4j 0. d4( o)>.n.- z (

-4.0.0)_o .00 4 60.O0 m 0-4 m Cwos cc c4.0 .,4 CO m4 V C O) OQ(4)co) - C 0 a 0

> -4 r.U U) C.j w 4Uw 4 Z4 w -4 0 O 44 0 () u-44 O0. 40 0. 4M0a 4 M-w0w0 -()4()40 4 "

C A C444 04404 C0U -.- 40) -H w

4.44)0 )O. 0.) UO() 000 0 .4j w 06 w 0

(4) ) c r-4. "10~ 45 U 0,- w 0 = 4 o4 .40 q j., 0 W0( > . 4) ) .0 fn 4 a) ,4 -. Q U> D .0 Q ) .-0.0 ' a 0H 0o M, 440 r. 0 0 v)0 b

o l0u )Or A-, ) Q4 w 4 &j A 0-4 CEu. .,o. - 10 tO ) )~ ~ ' $WO0)0)0 U 

w .- x > 0 00 0a = 0a) 0U i 0 Q) a) 0

j c4 V 0.-4- o4 m~.- m4 (44- " -- 0 U.)X() x 0 O > >.O-40U4> m x u to cc 40.H0 wU)

W 00 0 0 0 0 0 0

'0 0

0 0

cu 0 '-

(/0

0 0-

-39-

V 'i
Table 4 (cont'd)

C. THE TIME DIMENSION

Factors Fixed Time (H) Variable Time (I)

" Time available for given task o Must not be thought of as

or unit of content probably unlimited time but as limits

determined from experience, within which some individual

differences may be accommodated.

o Time may be more than is needed o Time may be determined

_ when appropriate technologies empirically.

are employed.

o Distribution of practice,

" Distribution of practice, skill skill decay, etc., should be

decay, etc., should be considered considered in light of how

in light of how time is provided time is provided (solid blocks,

(solid blocks, one-hour periods one-hour periods three times a

three times a week, etc.). week, etc.).

o Allows for simple management o Training of instructors in

of personnel. methods of individualized

SL u i cinstruction an important

r- o Low student-instructor ratios ,consideration.

and specialized personnel (proctors, tutors) may be o Low student-instructor ratios

necessary if individualized are favorable to individualized

instruction is to be attempted, instruction.

o Scheduling may be simplified. o Limited facilities constrain

individualization.

o Alternative strategies of

individualization (to minimize o Scheduling may be difficult.

differential learning rates) may

require additional facilities.

o Variability in achievement must o Progress management is needed

be expected (proficiency or ob- where self-pacing is employed.

jectives will vary). 1- C: o Fairly complex management

• ' o Variable treatments may reduce strategies may be necessary.

~ variability in achievement.

o a Selection may reduce variability

in achievement.

-40-
Table 4 (cont'd)

Factors Fixed Time (H) Variable Time (I)

o Motivation is of interest o Broad range of aptitudes and

u because high motivation would learning styles less a problem

imply more efficient learning, than in fixed-time contexts,

• but extreme ranges may constrain.

u Achievement likely to be highly Q) -. variable unless students are

selected on basis of fairly

uniform learning rates.

o No apparent implications. o No apparent implications.

o.i

o Conventional or group o Self-pacing fully appropriate.

("lockstep") instruction is

appropriate. o Most methods of individualized

instruction are implied.

o If individual differences are

to be accommodated, methods

of mastery learning may be

appropriate.

o In conventional or group in- o Methods of individualized in-

-n struction will be conventional struction generally imply a

c; and probably minimal, wealth of media, materials,

and devices.

4 o If instruction is individualized,

• a variety will be required to

z implement alternatives.

9 . ,,

-41-

A-- C - i.~.C'* -
Table 4 (cont'd)

Implica- Fixed Time (H) Variable Time (I)

t ions

o Fixed-time models should be o Variable-time models should be

selected, selected.

0

o If all students must be at 4 0 least exposed to all objectives

and student-instructor ratios

o are high, select conventional

instruction.

o Exemption pretests should be o Use learner characteristics to

employed to free some students predict time on task, record

to act as tutors or proctors. actual time on tasks, and

counsel student accordingly.

o Student records should include (See tank turret mechanic course

objectives not achieved when and the Air Force AIS in Matlick

instruction stops. et al.,1979, Chapter IV.)

o Instructional alternatives

should be designed to deal with 0 learner characteristics that

contribute most to individual

learning rates (reading ability,

U memory ability, motivation, etc.)

See Air Force AIS in Matlick

et al., 1979, under Learner o Characteristics.

o Double check task analysis to

assure that no irrelevant or

unnecessary knowledge or skills

to are included.

o Determine if selection may be

employed.

o Use motivation management and

contingency management techniques to increase learning.

..

-42-

"1': -- 7 "
1. Time available. The time actually available for the learning

of any given task or unit of content, when the time is fixed,

is apparently determined from experience over a considerable

period of time. The time needed by an average person in the

training population to learn a given task or unit of content

eventually becomes established within instructional schedules.

But the evidence suggests that the time required to learn given

tasks or content units can be reduced through appropriate technologies. Thus, the time actually given in fixed-time contexts

may not be a reliable guide to the time actually needed. The

way in which available time is provided (solid blocks of time

or one-hour periods scheduled daily or weekly, for example) may

be of interest when such issues as distribution of practice and

skill decay (forgetting) are of concern.

2. Instructional personnel. Fixed time allows for simple management of instructional personnel, but if efforts are made to

minimize the effects of differential learning rates (so that

all or most students will be able to achieve stated objectives

within the fixed time allotted) a large number and variety of

instructional personnel may be needed.

Facilities. The scheduling of facilities is simplified when

the time for learning is fixed, but, again, if efforts are

made to minimize the effects of differential learning rates

through alternative strategies, additional facilities may

be needed. To put this another way, the lack of facilities

can severely constrain the employment of alternative strategies.

4. Management of learning. Fixed time implies variability in objectives

or proficiency levels or both. Thus, in fixed-time contexts considerablP variability in achievement must be expected though this

variabilitv can be reduced somewhat through the introduction of

variu bie treatments (instructional alternatives matched with individual

differences; see above). Selection for instruction on the basis of

ability which predicts success can also reduce variability in

achievement. It may be neccessary, however, to train instructors in

the management methods employed.

Learner characteristics. Unless the learners within fixed-time contexts are selected on the basis of homogeneity in characteristics

that influence learning rates, achievement will be highly variable.

2ee above. Because the evidence suggests that all students engaged

in learning spend a good deal of time in irrelevant activities,

motivation appears to be a characteristic of some importance for

the fiYd-time category since high motivation would imply less

time in irrelevant activities and thus more efficient learning.

F. Course content/task types. This factor appears to have no differential

implications for fixed-time contexts.

7. Irstructional methods. If individual differences among learners are

not. to be accommodated, the methods of conventional or group instruction

I"lockstep") are appropriate. Through lectures, demonstrations,

-4 3-

A 6- .
practical exercises, and other such methods, the group is paced

through the fixed-time. If individual differences (i.e., different

learning rates and styles) are to be accommodated, however, a variety

of individualized methods - such as those of mastery learning, for

example -- will be necessary to minimize the effects of these

differences.

8. Instructional media, materials, and devices. Again, if individual

differences are not to be accommodated (and considerable variability

in achievement is to be tolerated), media, materials, and devices

may be conventional and perhaps minimal. But if individual differences are to be accommodated, a variety of media, materials, and

devices will be required to implement the variety of instructional

alternatives.

B. Variable time. The meaning of variable time, it will be recalled, is that

the time for learning is controlled by the designers and implementers of instruction within broad limits; that is, time is regarded as a function of given

learning. In order to fully exploit variable time the instructional developer

must carefully consider the following influences. He may decide, for example,

to include materials for the training of instructors or group-instruction alternatives to be employed when student-instructor ratios are not favorable to more

common forms of individualized instruction.

I. Time available. Variable time does not mean unlimited time;

it means that the instructor or designer is able to make

individual adjustments in the time allotted to the learning of

given tasks or content units. For any instructional activity

(course, unit, lesson) the time actually allotted may be

determined empirically. The time required by the slowest and

fastest learners as well as the average time may lead to decisions about the time to be allotted for learning given tasks

or the content of courses. Again, the way time is scheduled

(a solid block, one or more hours a day, one or more hours once a week, for example) can influence decisions in regard

to such issues as distribution of practice and skill decay

(forgetting).

2. Instructional personnel. If variable time is regarded as an

opportunity to accommodatr individual differences through selfpacing and other feature, of individualized instruction, then the

training of instructors in the methods of individualized instruction becomes an important consideration. Further, low studentinstructor ratios are generally favorable to individualized

instruction.

3. Facilities. Again, if variable-time contexts are seen as

opportunities to accommodate individual differences of learners,

there will be a need to provide a variety of learning activities

simultaneously. Limited facilities are therefore constraining

as regards the provision of instructional alternatives. Facilities are usually shared, and scheduling may therefore be difficult.

-44-

'-".
4. Management of learning. Progress management is needed where

self-pacing is employed. Accommodation of individual differences

within variable-time contexts generally requires fairly complex

management strategies since learners are treated one at a time

rather than in groups.

5. Learner characteristics. A broad range of aptitudes and learning styles within the population of learners is less a problem

in variable-time contexts, but extreme ranges may nonetheless

be constraining. It may not be reasonable to expect learners

of lowest aptitude to achieve the same objective as learners

of the highest aptitude within any feasible overall time no

matter what instructional alternatives are employed.

6. Course content/task types. This factor appears to have no

differential implications for variable-time contexts.

7. Instructional methods. Self-pacing is fully appropriate but

should probably be employed in conjunction with progress

management. Most other methods of individualized instruction

are also implied.

8. Media, materials, and devices. The methods of individualized

instruction (self-pacing, instructional alternatives, etc.)

generally imply a considerable wealth of media, materials,

and devices.

The Setting Dimension

The setting dimension identifies the setting-related conditions (parameters

and constraints) and influences that the instructional developer must consider

as he makes design decisions. The system he develops should reflect the range

of realities identified. He could, for example, provide one management plan to

be used when the student-instructor ratio is below a certain value and another

to be used when the ratio is above that value.

A. Operational. This setting is characterized by the performance of individual and collective Armor tasks under simulated or actual combat conditions, and

any instruction of individuals must therefore be compatible with operational

requirements and conditions.

1. Time available. Time for individual instruction will probably

-be available to different individuals at different times in

different amounts during lulls in operations, but the requirements and conditions of the operations must be considered as

severe constraints. Fairly long blocks of overall time appear

to be associated with this setting and 1 to 3 days may be typical.

- 2. Instructional personnel. The instructors are also small-unit

leaders whose time and energies are largely taken up by opera- tional responsibilities, but student-instructor ratios are

favorable, apparently of the order of about 3 to 6.

-S
3. Facilities. Facilities for the instruction of individuals, in

the ordinary sense, probably do not exist, but some items of

equipment -- tanks, for example -- provide a kind of facility

for some kinds of tasks. Ranges and tactical areas probably

exist and are available.

4. Management of learning. Management of learning under operational

conditions must be very simple both because the instructor's

primary responsibility is most likely to be the operation itself

(not true in the institution) and because of the operational conditions. There could, for example, be little or no reliance on

written tests or student records as means of making instructional

decisions. There appears to be some testing but probably more in

the institution than in the units.

5. Learner characteristics. The motivation of learners may be high,

especially at the institution. Entry-level students will be low

in ability, advanced students high.

6. Course content/task types. Tasks are predominantly collective,

as defined by the operation (e.g., engagement of targets, navigation, communication), but individual contributions to such tasks,

as well as individual combat tasks, are appropriate subjects for

individual instruction.

7. Instructional methods. Two of the "major methods " of individualized

instruction identified by Hess and Lehman (1976) (See Matlick et al.,

1q7Q, pp. l, 52) appear to be generally relevant to contexts that

include this setting. If an individual is unable to satisfactorily

perform the tasks required by the operation, it may be that he has

failed to master prerequisite skills and knowledge. If that is the

case then any individual instruction should concentrate on such

skills and knowledge. The hierarchical ordering of learning objectives is characteristic of mastery learning. Further, because

small-unit leader.; (who are also the instructors) must devote most

of their time and energy to the operation itself, there must be

heavy reliance on peer instruction (the use of proctors or tutors)

and written materials to communicate the content of instruction.

These needs suggest several characteristic features of Personalized

System of' Instruction (PSI).

5. Media, materials, and devices. Probably only printed materials

FMS, TMS, ind perhaps brief instructiona l packages) are usable

,n cont,,xts ircluding the setting. Some types of simulation may be feas i b I.

1'. 1 rstruct i oral -outdor. This set t ing is characterized by part icular

trr'aritfntrits tkr the instruction of individuals but is without protection

t rom the el-iert.s. It is thus constraining in terms of' both weather

(,€),dit ions and the time of' day.

1. Time available. Time for instruction is likely to be available

in fairly large blocks, half a day perhaps being typical. Time

may be constrained by adverse weather.

o4

- . ,. 7 ~ - -
2. Instructional personnel. Student-instructor ratios tend to be

favorable, perhaps as low as 3 to 6, but ratios tend to be much

more variable and somewhat higher in the units than in in the

institution. Instructors tend to be experienced in tasks/subjects.

In units they are usually troop leaders while at the institution

they are full-time instructors by assignment.

3. Facilities. Training areas are generally adequate, but the

kinds of facilities usually associated with individualized

instruction do not exist, and the use of electrically powered

instructional and training devices is usually not feasible.

Some items of equipment, tanks, for example, may provide a kind

of facility. The lack of suitable ranges, tank driving areas,

and similar facilities is severely constraining for some tasks,

and the difficulties inherent in scheduling such facilities

may also be constraining.

4. Management of learning. Individualized management-of-learning

capability probably exists because of generally favorable

student-instructor ratios, but testing in contexts including

this setting tends to be infrequent in units and access to student records is restricted. Informal performance tests appear

to be compatible with the setting. Probably only simple management strategies are feasible.

5. Learner characteristics. This factor appears to have no

particular consequences for contexts including this setting,

but primary equipment (tanks, etc.) is motivational and this

is more likely to be present in outdoor settings.

6. Course content/task types. This setting does not necessarily

preclude any content areas or task types, but there appears

to be an emphasis on hands-on learning in contexts that include

it. It may represent a second choice for some content areas

or tasks when indoor settings are not available.

7. Instructional methods. Most "major methods" of individualized

instruction (see Hess and Lehman, 1976) appear to be generally

applicable, as do most features of individualized instruction,

but limited management capability and limits on the use of

instructional media both constrain methods. Audio-tutorial

and computer-assisted instruction, for example, would not be

feasible in contexts including this setting, and multi-media

presentations would be difficult.

8. Media, materials, and devices. The limited usefulness of

most media and some materials and devices is constraining.

Furthermore, instructors may regard reading as a last choice

for the presentation of content when learners are entry-level

soldiers. Instructors are likely to be the principal means

of presentation of content. Devices used in this setting, such

as the lasers used for gunnery training, are frequently not

operational in units, but the tank itself may be seen as a

training device.

-47-

7
C. Instructional-indoor. The setting is characterized by particular arrangements for the instruction of individuals and is not constrained by weather

conditions or the time of night or day.

1. Time available. Time for learning is likely to be available in

50-minute periods scheduled two to three times a week or solid

blocks of a half day or more.

2. Instructional personnel. Student-instructor ratios may be unfavorable in the units, perhaps as high as 60, though 15 to 30

may be more typical. Ratios tend to be lower in institutional

contexts including this setting than in corresponding unit contexts.

3. Facilities. Facilities consist of classrooms (sometimes multipurpose), trainer/simulator labs, shops, and sometimes areas

intended for other purposes, such as storage. They may be

constraining both because of inadequate space and because they

must be shared with other activities.

4. Management of learning. Management of learning is enhanced

by the ease of administering pencil-and-paper tests, by easy

access to student records, and perhaps by a wealth of media,

materials, and devices, but it may be constrained by high

student-instructor ratios (see above). Generally, established

practice in unit contexts including this setting does not ap-

:Par to include much testing or counseling of learners.

5. Learner characteristics. This factor appears to be of

little consequence for contexts including the instructionalindoor setting, but the increased availability of printed

instructional materials should be considered an asset only

when warranted by the reading abilities of learners.

6. Course content/task type. The instructional-indoor setting

appears to be favored for, and may often be most suitable

for, subjects/tasks with pronounced cognitive aspects,

especially basic knowledge and skills. The teaching/learning of some subjects/tasks in contexts including this setting

may be severely constrained, but appropriate simulation may

overcome the constraints somewhat.

7. Instructional methods. Nearly all "major methods" and features

of individualized instruction are feasible within contexts that

include this setting, but the predilections of instructors and

students must be considered constraining. Some features and

methods of individualized instruction -- such as self-pacing

and contingency management -- may be more acceptable to instructors and students than others, but individualized instruction,

as a class of instructional practices, may be accepted only with

reluctance. Furthermore, the preeminence of the platform lecture

in contexts that include this setting suggests that even highly

experienced instructors may be deficient in the teaching skills

required by the methods of individualized instruction.

-48-
8. Media, materials, and devices. Nearly all audiovisual devices,

types of instructional materials, and instructional/training

devices are usable and many are present, especially in the

institution.

D. Independent. This setting delimits the activities of the individual soldier

as he acquires skill and knowledge without supervision -- by reading, by using

independent learning materials, or by interacting with peers -- and it must

therefore not be thought of as a definite place. It could be a learning center

but it could just as well be a dayroom or the soldier's room or home.

1. Time available. If the student chooses a learning center for

independent study (or is encouraged or directed to study in a

learning center) the hours of operation will be a constraint

in addition to the requirements of the workday. The time for

learning may also be constrained by deadlines for acquiring

skills needed for Skill Qualification Tests (SQT). If the

learning within contexts that include this setting is an aspect

of instruction being carried on in other contexts, then the

time boundaries of that instruction apply also. The instruction in some contexts including other settings apparently requires some independent study.

2. Instructional personnel. Instructional personnel are

necessary only in limited ways. When the learning center

is the locus of the independent setting, personnel are

needed to staff it. The student who learns in contexts

that include this setting needs to have access to subjectmatter experts and perhaps to media, materials, devices,

and those needs imply some use of personnel.

3. Facilities. This factor appears to have little consequence

for the independent setting. Independent learning can

occur nearly anywhere, though the use of some materials

(TEC lessons, for example) requires learning centers or

similar facilities.

4. Management of learning. The independent setting does not

imply learning without management. The mere fact that a

student chooses to learn within a context that includes

this setting indicates that he has begun to manage his own

learning, and this development can be encouraged through

the design of systems that include self-check tests and

other self-management devices (see, for example, the time

management modules incorporated by the Air Force AIS).

Offering study within contexts that include this setting

as an alternative to classroom or other formal instruction

is another form of learning management that applies to this

_;etting. Management capability within contexts including

this setting appears to be limited both in the institution

and in the units.

£. Learner characteristics. Learner characteristics need to

be assessed so that appropriate systems and materials may

-49-

r2-'r-a .4--
be designed for contexts that include this setting. Poor

reading ability, for example, would indicate a need for

heavy reliance on audiovisual materials or programmed

instruction, while poor memory ability would suggest the

inclusion of memory aids.

6. Course content/task types. Nearly any kind of content or

tasks can be approached in contexts including this setting,

but cognitive learning appears to be most common. Perceptualmotor learning may require the use of equipment, and it seems

certain that safety considerations would restrict the use of

this in contexts including the independent setting. But because all military tasks include some cognitive elements, at

least some elements of all tasks could be learned in such

contexts.

7. Instructional methods. Programmed instruction and computer

assisted instruction (CAI) are the obvious methods for

contexts including this setting, but other "major methods"

(see Hess and Lehman, 1976, in Matlick et al., 1979), or at

least features of them, need not be ruled out. Contingency

management in the form of contracting, for example, would

seem to be appropriate. The informal use of proctors (a

feature of Personalized System of Instruction), especially

to provide some feedback and praise, would also -ippear to

be appropriate.

8. Media, materials, and devices. Though the most common

materials in contexts including this setting are certainly

manuals (FMs and TMs) and other training publications, other

media are appropriate and may be available, especially when

the locus of the setting is a learning center. Training

devices may not be available, however, especially if they

are hazardous.

The Focus Dimension

The focus dimension identifies conditions (parameters and constraints) and

influences related to variatior 3 in emphasis on kinds of learning. In a sense,

this dimension can be seen as a psychological variable of the classification

matrix (just as the setting dimension can be seen as representing a physical

variable and the time dimension a time variable), and the instructional developer should therefore be guided by it in providing the arrangements and

conditions for learning. He may, for example, include in his instructional

system both a set of instructional alternatives based on differences in motor

ability and a diagnostic pretest to assess motor ability.

A. Equipment. This focus of instruction identifies training that is concerned

with the maintenance, nomenclature, principles, functioning, and inspection of

Armor equipment; that is, with equipment as things in themselves rather than

means to an end. It implies an emphasis on hands-on training (perceptual-motor

learning).

50

i -50-
1. Time available. Because the time available for learning

in contexts that include the focus on equipment appears

to be more than adequate, this factor should not be

constraining unless queuing problems arise. Time appears

to be scheduled in substantial blocks, perhaps eight (8)

hours.

2. Instructional personnel. Instructors need to be expert,

especially when instruction involves major items of

equipment. Student-instructor ratios appear to be low

in most contexts that include the focus on equipment --

in the range of 3 to 8 -- but they may at times be much

higher in the units. Ratios of 10 to 12, or higher,

are probably severely constraining both because of the

nature of the tasks being learned and because of the

requirements of appropriate instructional methods.

Facilities. Major items of equipment -- tanks, for

example -- require special facilities such as shops

(sheds) and mot- parks.

4. Management of learning. Because handling or manipulation

of equipment is likely to be essential to learning, and

equipment (or simulators of equipment) is likely to be

limited, learning management strategies must be designed

to avoid queuing. Because of hazards in the use of equipment and the possibility of damage to equipment, management strategies will also provide for close monitoring of

student use of equipment. Generally low student-instructor

ratios suggest high management capability.

5. Learner characteristics. Assessment of motor abilities may

be of value if alternative instructional treatments are to

be provided (see discussion of Fleishman's taxo.iomy of motor

abilities in Matlick et al., 1979, pp. 44, 45). A gross

lack of motor ability or mechanical aptitude may be constraining. Motivation and achievement of entry-level students are likely to be low.

6. Course content/task types. In contexts that include the

focus on equipment the emphasis is on hands-on, perceptualmotor tasks. The tasks are typically easy to learn but

important and done frequently. Consequences of inadequate

performance may be serious.

7. Instructional methods. Of the "major methods," Personalized

System of Instruction (Keller Plan) appears most appropriate

because of the requirement for mastery before progression

and the use of proctors to monitor small groups. Self-pacing,

small-step learning, and contingency management seem to be

feasible.

-51-

- . A- 4.- -
8. Media, materials, and devices. If the context including the

focus on equipment is institutional, materials (such as jobperformance aids) and training devices are likely to be

plentiful. If it is in the unit, there may be no more than

actual equipment, necessary tools, and a few manuals. Jobperformance aids (or Skill Performance Aids) will be very

useful, and training devices may be both more effective and

less costly than actual items of equipment.

B. Technique. This focus of instruction refers to human functions such as

methods, processes, or the man-part of the man-machine system; that is, to

the "how to" aspect of the implements and methods of combat. It implies a

pronounced emphasis on cognitive learning.

1. Time available. Time tends to be scheduled in solid

blocks of from several hours to more than a day, but

for some content areas/tasks one-hour periods may be

scheduled several times a week, weekly, or monthly.

It must be sufficient to allow for practice and

demonstration of skills.

2. Instructional personnel. Personnel highly skilled in

techniques being taught are desirable but may not be

available in the units. Instructors in gunnery appear

to be highly skilled, however. The range of studentinstructor ratios is extreme, from low of 2 to as high

as 80.

3. Facilities. Facilities must provide whatever is needed

to practice techniques, such as tank firing ranges and

driving areas. Gunnery facilities for training in units

may be inadequate.

4. Management of learning. Testing may be more frequent in

contexts including this focus than in other contexts.

Management strategies may be fairly complex when instruction is individualized because of a need to provide practice

time, verify learning, and avoid queuing. Management capability varies widely as shown by range of student-instructor

ratios.

5. Learner characteristics. General aptitude and achievement

of prerequisite skills and knowledge are likely to influence the design of instruction. Poor reading ability may

* constrain the learning of complex techniques. Entrylevel students tend to exhibit low motivation and ability

while advanced students are average or high in motivation

and achievement.

f6. Course content/task types. Content areas/tasks learned in

contexts including this focus include pronounced cognitive

aspects though they may often be regarded as essentially

perceptual-motor tasks (as in gunnery). Fairly complex

mental operations may mediate performance, as is the case,

*-521

' -52-
for example, in the burst-on-target method of fire adjustment. Tasks tend to be difficult to learn but important.

7. Instructional methods. The cognitive elements of learning

suggest that most of the "major methods" of individualized

instruction would be appropriate, depending on setting and

time constraints, since these methods were developed primarily for cognitive learning. Self-pacing, learning in

small steps, and adaptive training may be feasible. Peer

tutoring or proctoring and demonstrations of various kinds

will be useful but lectures and printed materials are likely

to be of limited value.

8. Media, materials, and devices. Simulators are of great

value and some are present, especially in the institution.

Demonstrations of techniques through audiovisual presentations or human models is probably necessary. Materials

and devices needed for some content areas/tasks (CBR, for

example) are limited or not available.

C. Knowledge. This focus of instruction identifies training directed toward

the acquisition of knowledge that is not a direct antecedent of task performance.

1. Time available. One or two hours are scheduled as needed to

comply with regulations or other demands. Other times, perhaps three (3) hours at a time, may be arranged for independent

study. Other activities with higher priorities are likely to

be severely constraining. Time in learning centers is less

constrained.

2. Instructional personnel. This factor may be of little

consequence for contexts including the knowledge focus.

Student-instructor ratios may be quite high, however, up

to 30 or 40 or more.

3. Facilities. This factor also appears to be of little

consequence. The setting is most likely to be

instructional-indoor but it may also be independent.

4. Management of learning. If the setting is instructionalindoor, management capability is likely to be severely

constrained because typical practice is to provide one

instructor per class regardless of its size. In any event,

management strategies are likely to be quite simple and

possibly built in to the materials.

5. Learner characteristics. Poor reading ability and low

motivation may be constrainIng.

6. Course content/task types. Typical content areas include

the provisions of the Geneva Convention that apply to

prisoners of war, race relations, and basic skills

remediation (reading, arithmetic, etc.). Learning is

likely to be essentially cognitive but may involve some

affective elements.

' -5 -

i . i " - - ' - , " i... - - -
7. Instructional methods. Programed instruction and

computer-assisted instruction are strongly indicated,

but lectures and peer tutoring are also likely to be

effective. It is necessary to keep students from being

passive.

8. Media, materials, devices. Instructional materials are

likely to consist largely of texts, but some audiovisual

and programmed materials will be available, especially in

learning centers.

Given more detailed descriptions of the categories that define the contexts

(or, more precisely, the context classes), the contexts may now be described in

considerably more detail. As an illustration of the greater detail now available, one of the context descriptions given above -- that of the contexts classified BFI (instructional-outdoor -- focus on technique -- variable time) -- is

expanded considerably below. This expanded description may be compared with the

one above:

Particular arrangements for the instruction of individuals

are present, but adverse weather may interfere with learning. Facilities should be considered constraining, and

there may be no regularly available electrical power for

instructional and training devices. The management of

learning will be constrained because of the restricted

availability of relevant records, but student-instructor

ratios will probably be favorable. The subjects/tasks

to be learned involve pronounced cognitive aspects and

may be moderately difficult to learn. The time for learning may be manipulated by developers and implementers so

that, within broad limits, all students can be expected to

achieve stated objectives.

1. Time available. Time is likely to be available in fairly large

blocks, from half a day to a full day or more, but for some

subjects/tasks one-hour periods may be scheduled several times a

week, weekly, or even monthly. The time provided must be sufficient to allow practice and demonstration of skills.

2. Instructional personnel. Student-instructor ratios tend to be

low, perhaps as low as 3 to 6, and these are favorable to individualized instruction. But if this variable-time context is

to be considered an opportunity to accommodate individual differences through individualized instruction, the training of

instructors in the methods of individualized instruction must

be carefully considered. Though the instructors tend to be

'%. experienced in the subjects/tasks they teach, they may not be

hi 7hly skilled.

3. Facilities. Again, if this context is seen as an opportunity

for idividualized instruction, there will be a need to provide

a variety of learning activities simultaneously. Furthermore,

facilities must provide whatever is needed to practice techniques, such as tank firing areas and driving areas. Training

-54-

'Sa
areas are generally adequate, however, though the facilities

generally associated with individualized instruction do not

exist. Limited facilities constrain the provision of instructional alternatives.

4. Management of learning. Management strategies adopted

should reflect a trade-off between the complexity generally

required by individualization and the simplicity indicated

by the setting, but individualized management-of-learning

capabilities probably exist because of low student-instructor

ratios. Testing tends to be infreolent in this setting, when

the context is in the unit, though it may be more frequent in

the focus of' instruction than in the other focuses with outdoor

settings, and access to student records is restricted. Still,

progress management is needed when self-pacing is employed.

Informal performance tests appear to be compatible with this

context.

Learner characteristics. A broad range of aptitudes and

learning styles within the learner, population may not be

a serious problem, but extreme ranges may be constraining.

It may not be reasonable to expect learners of the lowest

aptitude to achieve the same objectives as learners of the

highest aptitudes within any feasible overall time no matter

what instructional alternatives are employed. Poor reading

ability may constrain the learning (-" comFlex technioues.

Entry level students tend to exhibit low motivation and

ability while advanced students art, average or high in

motivation and achievement. Primary equipnent (tanks, etc.)

is motivational, and this may be present.

6. Course content/task types. Content areas/tasks learned in

this context include pronounced cognitive aspects though

they may often be regarded as essentially perceptual-motor

tasks (as in gunnery). That is, there appears to be an

emphasis on hands-on learning, but fairly complex mental

operations may mediate performance, as is the case, for

example, in the burst-on-target method of fire adjustment.

Tasks tend to be difficult to learn but important. The

context. may represent a second choice for some content

areas or tasks when indoor settings are not available.

7. Instructional methods. The cognitive elements of learning

suggests that most "major methods" of individualized instruction would be appropriate since those methods were developed

primarily for cognitive learning. Self-pacing, learning in

small steps, and adaptive training may be feasible, but limited

management, capability and limits on the use of instructional

media will constrain methods. Peer tutoring or proctoring

and dfmonstral ions of various kinds will be useful, but

* otures :.,1, printed materials are likely to be of limited

Va ...

" "q[ "[ .
8. Media, materials, and devices. The methods of individualized

instruction generally imply a considerable wealth of media,

materials, and devices, but most media and some materials

and devices will be of limited usefulness. Materials and

devices needed for some content areas/tasks (CBR, for example)

are limited or not available, and instructors may regard

reading as a last choice for the presentation of content when

learners are entry-level soldiers. Simulators are of great

value, however, and some will be present. Instructors are

likely to be the princ-pi means of presentation of content,

and demonstration of techniques through human models is

probably necessary.

The implications for the design of instruction are that

self-pacing through small steps is a probable feature,

physical arrangements at the training site -- especially

to provide the means for individual practice and

,dmonstrations of techniques -- may be necessary, and

(irionstrations of techniques by instructional personnel

tho best choice. Management of learninF, including

t r ; -'anagnment, should probably be based on informal

.:,r'tnaroe ttests and the intimate knowledge of learners

t t t:.e instrutc rs ire likely to have. One-to-one

g -- perhaps peer tutoring -- should be provided

for slow learrters. Pm e ',l guides i to the conduct of

instruct ,on should be p,, - aretd for inst ructors and simple

Job-perfcrnance aids Fr -'udentc.

It slhoulJ be noted that this oarrai v, description of a context is for the purpose of illustration only an h t C 'or practical purposes contexts would be

classified and much more tersely 1,- -ihed by reference to Table 4 and Figure 2.

It should also be noted that no attempt has been made in this volume to

describe each context class given by the classification matrix. It is clear

that the dimensions of the matrix interact and that the way in which contradictory or divergent indications are resolved is a matter of judgment. One

instructional developer, for example, might look at the very simple management

of' learning dictated by the operational category of the setting dimension and

then at the fairly complex requirements of the equipment category of the focus

dimension and describe the context as one in which the management of learning is

demanding. Another developer might examine the same divergent indications and

describe the context as one in which fairly complex management of learning is

not a problem because of the low student-instructor ratios. Thus, because each

cell of the classification matrix delimits a class of contexts rather than only

a single context, any description of a context class may be closer to a single

context within that class than to the class itself, depending on the biases and

perceptions of the person doing the classification and description. That is, a

context class is delimited by a range of indications coming out of each factor,

and the categories of Table 4 yield the range for each factor. Simply presenting a stur of all indications in each of the twenty-four cells of the classification

matrix would probably only obscure the nature of a context class. 'I

h -

: - 7 
Chapter IV

SELECTION OF MODELS OF INDIVIDUALIZED INSTRUCTION

Sixteen instructional systems models are discussed in this chapter. These

were introduced in Chapter III of Matlick et al. (1979) and the numbering system

used in this chapter is consistent with Figure 9 of that report (p. 86). The

sixteer models arise from a four-dimensional space in which each dimension represents an instructional design variable. The four dimensions are instructional

treatmr.-t, student proficiency, instructional objectives, and time available

for learning. Each dimension may be either fixed or variable.

Dimensions of the Models

Instructional treatment refers primarily to how the instruction is delivered. Examples of instructional treatments include textbooks, lectures,

various audiovisual devices, study guides, and tutorials. A fixed treatment

model is one in which the same treatment is used for all students. Most traditional instructior is fixed treatment. In most academic settings, for example, the treatment combines lectures and textbooks. No special provisions

are made for SuIch individual student differences as reading ability. A variable treatment model, on the other hand, is one it which the intent is to match

Yhe instructional treatment to the individual characteristics of the students.

For example, students might be administered a reading level test upon entering

the instructional system. Then, good readers might be given a textbook and

allowed to proceed independently, while poorer readers might use a study guide

to supplement their reading of the textbook in order to insure their understanding of the most critical material. Students with severe reading problems

might attend tutorial sessions to supplement their reading.

A fixed-treatment model may present problems for the individualization of

instruction; a variable-treatment model implies individualization by definition.

On the ether hand, a fixed-treatment model presents fewer management problems

and will have lower development costs than a variable-treatment model. In general, a variable-treatment model is preferred if the particular application can

3up~r't it. Fixed-treatment models can also provide effective individualized

instruct ion, however.

Student proficiency refers to the performance levels expected of students

who complete an instructional program. Fixed proficiency implies that all students are expected to reach the same performance level, as in mastery learning

programs, which are examples of fixed-proficiency models. The required profi-

-werncy level is usually set at the level of performance necessary to perform a job, to continue on to the next segment of instruction, or to attain some other

criterion external to the instruction. Students who perform at or above the

preset proficiency levels are considered successful and pass. Students who do

not reach criterion fail. Fixed proficiency does not recognize individual

lifferences among students. All students must achieve the same fixed level.

Many applications of fixed proficiency instructional models are, however,

individualized in that some method of individualization is used to permit all

students to achieve criterion performance.

-:Lt.

4 %7

- 'I

Ii
Variable proficiency models do not .ave set criterion performance levels for

all students. Variable final performance within such models may occur because

individual differences among students are not accommodated in the instructional

systems as is the case in most traditional instruction. Consider once again the

traditional textbook-with-lecture classroom. At the end of some period of instruction it is usually found that the students vary in their abilities to perform.

If a variable-proficiency instructional model described this classroom, the result would be as expected. Notice that this case is not an example of individualized instruction.

Variable performance may also be a method of individualization. In such cases students with differing needs or desires could have unique expected final

performance levels. For example, imagine instruction designed to teach introductory automobile engine maintenance. For those students who intended to become

skilled mechanics the final proficiency levels would be high. Other students,

however, might desire to gain only a sufficient amount of information to become

reasonably well informed consumers. For those students, the proficiency level

could be set much lower. Variable proficiency as a technique for individualization is relatively easy to implement; it does not demand particularly sophisticated

management, and it does not involve costly multiple treatments. Variable proficiency must be employed with caution, however, to insure that proficiency is not

permitted to fall to unacceptably low levels.

The third dimension is instructional objectives. Most traditional instruction represents instructional models with fixed objectives. That is, all students are expected to achieve the same objectives within any particular instructional program. Different programs will, of course, have different objectives,

and one of the early methods for introducing individualization into instruction

at a relatively high level was the multi-track (academic, business, vocational)

system. Requiring all students to achieve the same group of instructional objectives does not, of course, recognize individual differences, but for many

applications a fixed-objective model is required. This is particularly true for

instruction which has been designed around a critical set of objectives.

Variable instructional objectives can help individualize instruction when

the context permits this strategy. One application of variable instructional

objectives is the technique of performance contracting. In performance contracting, the student and instructor select a set of objectives to be achieved

d,,ring instruction. The objectives will often contain a core of objectives

required for all students as well as objectives keyed to the desires, interests,

or abilities of individual students. This technique can easily be combined with

a variable-proficiency model to permit considerable flexibility and individualization. A corollary to performance contracting is a system which ties groups of

objectives to grades or some other end-of-instruction reporting system. Under

these conditions the objectives would be grouped into objectives required for

minimum competency, objectives representing greater depth or breadth of the subN. ject matter, objectives concerned with side issues, and so forth. Students who

chose to achieve only the minimum competency objectives would receive a minimally

acceptable evaluation. Those students who chose to go on would be appropriately

rewarded. The main difference between this approach and pure performance contractingis that pArformance contracting takes place before instruction begins.

The corollary system could be implemented in a way which permits students to

decide whether they want to continue at the time that they finish the minimum

requirements.

-58-

A. L 2&
Variable-objectives models can present management and cost problems. These

models tend to incur higher instructional development costs than fixed-objectives

models because instruction must be available for whatever mix of objectives is

chosen. Having different students working on different groups of objectives

also presents problems in scheduling presentations, making sure that students

achieve the objectives for which they are accountable, and providing counseling

to students who need help in choosing objectives.

The fourth, and perhaps most important, dimension is time. Time refers

to the amount of time made available for learning. In a fixed-time model, all

students must complete the instruction within given time limits. The amount of

learning possible is, to a great extent, a function of time. Within a variabletime instructional model, the time available for learning is guided by what is

learned. Students who are able to may complete the instruction quickly. Students who need more time are permitted to have it. But to some extent, all formal instruction takes place within fixed-time constraints. The difference between

fixed-time and variable-time instructional models is, therefore, in one sense a

matter of degree. But it is also a matter of emphasis. A fixed-time model emphasizes time; a variable-time model emphasizes learning.

There are methods for individualizing instruction within fixed-time models.

One method is to explicitly recognize that some students will need extra time

and schedule review time into the instruction. Other methods rely on variable

treatments, proficiency, or objectives to accommodate individual differences.

Regardless of the method used with fixed-time models, there remains the problem

of what to do with the student who has not achieved whatever was required within

the time allowed.

Variable-time models permit the widest variety of approaches to individualization. At the simplest level, variable time means that students may take as

much time as they need to review or repeat the instructional materials. As

variable-time models become more complicated, they permit recycling with different objectives, allowing students to attain higher proficiency, or trying

alternative instructional treatments.

The primary problem with variable-time models in general is that a management system must be made flexible enough to accommodate students leaving the

system at different times, perhaps entering the system at different times, and

probably working at different stages of the instruction. These problems can

be overcome with a variety of methods including the use of self-instructional

materials to as great an extent as possible, the use of faster students as peer

tutors or proctors, and the development of empirically based measures to predict

the time likely to be needed by various types of students. If the desire is to

individualize, variable-time models will be less costly and more likely to be

successful than fixed-time models having the same values of the other dimensions.

I.

Description of the Models

The models are illustrated with flowcharts (Figures 3-10). The flowcharts

show the basic processes and decision points which characterize the models. They

are intentionally not detailed to permit maximum generalizability across content

and particular management systems and to take full advantage of procedures which

#-59-

- . :-- -

-..- --
are well documented in the Interservice Procedures for Instructional Systems Development (ISD; TRADOC Pamphlet 350-30). The application of ISD procedures with

respect to the models discussed here is addressed later in this chapter.

The flowcharts have several characteristics in common. Processes are

designated with rectangular boxes, decision points with diamonds. The solid

lines show the basic characteristic flow of each model. The broken lines indicate common optional paths. Specific applications of the models will probably

require additional details of flow. Each flowchart represents two models which

are identical except with respect to the proficiency dimension; one model employs

fixed proficiency, the other variable proficiency. The two flowcharts can be

combined because the only change in the flow is at the pass-fail decision point.

In fixed-proficiency models all students are judged by the same criteria. In

variable proficiency models the passing criteria vary from student to student.

An application which includes counseling for students to help them choose a proficiency to work for is considered a special case, and the detailed flow required

to describe the counseling process is left to be added at the time of design of

instruct ion.

All of the models show an optional "exemption pretest" loop near the beginning of the flow. This loop is made optional, in contrast to many published

instructional design models, because strictly speaking the instruction can take

place without it. It is true that allowing able students to exempt instruction

by examination is generally efficient, well accepted, and a relatively easy way

to individualize. It is, however, expensive to develop a good exemption test,

it is time consuming to use it, and the management system must be ready to accommodate students who pass the test and have no need to pursue the instruction.

Therefore, in certain cases, particularly if it is known that the students are

not likely to be able to achieve the instructional objectives, it may be better

to omit, an exemption pretest. If an exemption pretest is elected it should occur very early in the system flow, and the pretest design should be consistent with

the instructional design.

The flowcharts assume that objectives guide the instructional system. Hence,

the pretest is designed around the instructional objectives. According to the

flowchart, a student would be tested on each objective in turn. The flowchart

therefore implies that. instruction would be necessary only for those objectives

that are not passed. This is not possible in many applications. In those cases

in which the instruction cannot be divided, that is, where the entire group of

objectives must Le exempted or nothing is exempted, the flow would have to be

modified to reflect a single multiple-objective pretest and one decision point. If the test is not passed, the student would enter the instructional flow. If it

is passed, he or she would exit..

Another option that appears in all the models just before the exit process

- is labeled "assign." "Assign" refers to the process of making some decision about

, what happens to each student next, an implicit. part, of the instructional process.

The "assign" process is optional because a given management system of which the

instruction is only a small part may already be performing this function, becaus , it is not required for successful delivery of instruction or student

learning, or because the prevailing philosophy does not include such decisions

within the purview of instruction. The process is included here because it is

extremely important, particularly in individualized instruction where students

2 -4. 
may be leaving the system at different times, having achieved different objectives at a variety of proficiency levels. In many applications of individualized

instruction, students will follow particular paths through the content because

of their unique abilities, interests, and plans for the future. In such cases,

it is only reasonable that provisions be made within the instructional system

to assign graduates to the appropriate next step.

Each of the variable-treatment models (Figures 4, 6, 8, and 10) includes an optional "embedded-test" loop as part of the treatment. This is included to encourage designers to take full advantage of the opportunities offered by multipletreatment models. It is optional because the instruction can take place without

it, it may be expensive to develop, and it increases the load on instructional

management. The rationale behind the embedded-test loops is that it is worth

verifying the choice of instructional treatment early in instruction so that

changes can be made in time for their effects to be seen in improved performance.

The process simply calls for a progress check early in instruction. If the student is progressing at a reasonable rate nothing changes. But if the treatment

is not working as expected, then a change in treatment can be implemented early.

Each of the variable-treatment models also includes a non-optional diagnostic pretest. The diagnostic pretest is specifically designed to suggest an instructional treatment; it is not an exemption test. Diagnostic pretests may

assess reading ability, media preferences, previous experience directly related

to the instruction, and other characteristics which can be helpful in choosing a treatment. Notice that the results of th( diagnostic pretest feed directly into

the process of choosing and assigning an instructional treatment.

All of the models include post-tests. As they are written, the flowcharts

imply that post-test decisions are made on an objective-by-objective basis. A

problem similar to that noted in the exemption pretest can therefore arise with

the post-tests. Not all instructional system applications can operate at the

single-objective level for decision making. For those cases where objectives are grouped into instructional units, the flowcharts should be read as if decisions

keyed to single objectives are actually keyed to the functional groups. A similar

change in interpretation is necessary if the entire course must be treated as a

unit. Notice that as the number of objectives considered simultaneously grows

larger, from each objective by itself to all of the objectives as a single group,

the opportunities to accommodate individual differences decrease. A compromise is

necessary between the management problems of individual-objective decision making

where the number of decisions becomes unreasonable, and the overly rigid, single

end-of-course decision.

Each of the fixed-time models has "time available" decision diamonds occurring at two points where the model iterates to the process of instruction. These

decision diamonds explicitly recognize the heavy time-dependence implied by the

-fixed-time models. If the instruction is well planned to fit within the given

time, and if unexpected problems with the instruction or the students do not

arise, then the decisions will not cause problems. In each case, the answer

will be "yes, time is available," and the flow will continue uninterrupted. However, if the answer is "no, all the time is used up," the flow runs into a dead

end. There is no provision in these instructional systems models for the case

where time runs out. The process simply stops. In considering applications of

fixed-time instructional systems models, designers and managers should be aware

that this problem exists and should consider how they will respond if it occurs.

shul w-

- w -l--.

.... ii
ISD Procedures

All of the flowcharts contain one or more (more in the case of variable

treatment models) boxes labeled "instruction". It is at this point that the

discussion of instructional models overlaps ISD procedures to a very great degree.

In fact, if the ISD procedures are followed, each of the 16 generic models can be

the common skeletons for a wide variety of instructional models specifically designed to meet a particular training and training management need. The relevant

sections of ISD are Block III.1, Specify Learning Events/Activities and Block

111.2, Specify Instructional Management Plan and Delivery System.

Block III.1, Specify Learning Events/Activities, is primarily concerned

with the basic instructional design to be developed. It consists of four steps:

Identify General Learning Guidelines, Classify Each Learning Objective According

to Category and Sub-Category of Learning, Identify Specific Learning Guidelines

for Each Sub-Category of Learning, and Specify Learning Activities. Since it

is assumed that the reader is generally familiar with the ISD materials, no details will be provided here. There are, however, several important points to be

highlighted. First, the four ISD steps apply equally well to all 16 of the generic

models. Second, through the guidance provided, ISD allows one to elaborate in

considerable detail the learning activities and options that are most likely to

lead to student learning. Third, the detail gained through the use of the ISD

procedures can improve planning for effective instructional management.

For example, imagine that the bulk of a set of objectives described learning

which fell into the "Rule Learning and Using" sub-category. In addition to the

ISD guidelines common to all instruction -- (1) inform the learner of the objectives, (2) provide for active practice, (3) provide guidance and prompts for the

learner, and (4) provide feedback to the learner -- this sub-category suggests

that certain other activities take place. Some of the more important activities

are: insuring that trainees know the basic concepts behind the rules they are to

learn, providing remedial instruction to those who need help, teaching in each

rule independently, training in selecting the correct rule and applying it, and

anchoring the example to real-world problems to encourage transfer.

These guidelines can be applied to the design of instruction within any of

the generic models. They also contain a number of implications for the models.

For example, regardless of the model, a pretest based on prerequisite concepts

must be a part of the instruction. For a variable-treatment model such a test

would probably be incorporated into the diagnostic test since the results would

probably influence the choice of instructional treatment. For the fixed-treatment

models, such a pretest would represent an addition to the basic flow. The guideline that rules be trained independently suggests that if the exemption pretest

loop is chosen it can be implemented on a rule-by-rule basis. This also implies

that it might be useful to consider a management system that permits a variety of

activities (in this case, different rules being learned) to occur simultaneously.

One more example of the implications of the ISD guidelines in this case is that

if a fixed-time model is chosen, the time available must accommodate the probable

need for remedial training for some of the students. Other sub-categories and

mixes of sub-categories of learning will, of course, suggest other courses of

action.

-62-
ISD Block 111.2, Specify Instructional Management Plan and Delivery System,

continues the process of providing detail to the model. Four steps occur in this

block: Select Pool of Media Mixes, Make Media Selection, Determine Management

Guidelines, and Develop System Master Plan. ISD Block 111.2 also shows, through

the procedures suggested, how the instructional contexts and the factors affecting

those contexts (see Chapters II and III) bear on instructional design.

The ISD procedures provide very detailed guidelines for choosing instructional media. Through a series of charts keyed to the type of learning implied

by each objective, and the particular stimulus conditions required by the context of each objective, media suggestions are made. Step 1 of Block 111.2 is

the process of selecting candidate media for each objective. Step 2 of Block

111.2 is the process of making final media choices. The media choice will be

partly a function of how well one or more media generalize to all of the objectives. It will also rely on the implications of the instructional context and

factors. For example, if instruction is to take place outdoors in an operational setting, then elaborate audiovisual equipment would probably not be advised. The consideration of contexts and factors can aid in the ISD process as

the ISD process aids in better defining the instructional system.

The third and fourth steps of Block 111.2 draw even more heavily on the

factors considered in the earlier discussion of instructional contexts. These

two steps, in effect, operationally define the instructional system by outlining the management required to make the model work. Some of the issues

which must be dealt with are: specifying who is in charge of course management;

scheduling of facilities; control of students; making provisions for differences

in student abilities; the types, roles and numbers of instructors and other professional staff, facilities and equipment, and consumables and courseware. In

other words, all of the detail required to make a course work.

The instructional contexts discussed in Chapter II and Chapter III and the

generic instructional models described in this chapter can provide a general

framework for applying ISD procedures. It seems likely that the choice of a

generic model will occur very early in the planning for new instructional development simply because the dimensions on which the models are classified are very

general. As the ISD Block III.1 and Block 111.2 procedures are applied in operationalizing the generic model, it will become clear whether a change is required.

However, since the ISD procedures and the generic models are complementary and do

not constrain one another, it is neither costly nor inconvenient to experiment and

explore alternative configurations in order to find the best approach to a particular instructional problem.

Discussion of the Models

,a. In this section each model is briefly discussed. The component parts of

the models have been described in some detail so they will not be addressed in

the context of the individual models. Rather, a more wholistic view of each

model will be presented.

-63-
Fixed-Time Models

Figure 3 presents the fixed-treatment, fixed-objectives, fixed-time models.

Model I has fixed proficiency and Model 2 has variable proficiency. Model I is

very restrictive and presents difficult problems for individualization. All

students are expected to reach the same proficiency in the same time with the

same instructional treatment. This is only likely to be possible if groups of

students are kept small, if the treatment provides a lot of individual help,

and if the students are homogeneous in ability. The master gunnery program, as

represented by Target Acquisition and Identification (see Appendix A), is a good

example. The class sizes are small and the classes are conducted by a master

gunner. It seems reasonable to assume that a tutorial atmosphere could exist,

allowing students the opportunity to get individual help. Homogeneity is assured since students are prescreened by their superiors before beginning the

instruction. Thus, even under this restricted model, good instruction can be

implemented if careful attention is paid to detail.

The change from fixed to variable proficiency in Model 2 can dramatically

change the instructional system depending on how variable proficiency is implemented. If variable proficiency is accepted as a consequence of the constraints

placed on instruction by the other dimensions being fixed, then Model 2 describes

most traditional instruction. That is, in most classrooms all of the students

are taught the same way for the same amount of time, and they perform to different

levels of proficiency. Their performance differences usually lead to differences

in what they do subsequently; they continue with training, drop out, repeat. It

may also be possible, however, to take a more active approach to variable proficiency. For example, the different gunnery ratings allow for variable proficiency, but they also set definite minimum standards. If the pretest option is

chosen, it may be possible to set proficiency levels based on the entry behavior

of students. For example, students already skilled might be expected to perform

to higher levels than novices. Creative ideas will be necessary to provide high

quality individualized instruction under the constraints of Model 1 and Model 2,

but there is no theoretical reason why it cannot occur.

Figure 4 illustrates Model 3 and Model 4, the variable-treatment analogues

of Model 1 and Model 2. Providing variable instructional treatments as a function of individual abilities, learning, styles, previous experience, or preferences can be very effective. For example, technical maintenance manuals have a

tendency fo be difficult to read. Supplementary material, in various forms,

could be nade available to students to help them with the manuals. The particular choice of supplementary material would depend on the student. More elaborate

differences in treatments are also possible. Some students might begin with

hands-on training and lectures or tutorials and rely very little on manuals

while other students used some sort of mock-up and made much heavier use of the

manuals. The choice of treatment would depend on the student. For treatments

that are very expensive, such as individual on-the-job training, assignment to

that treatment might go only to the students who could not reach the instructional goals any other way. Variable-treatment models have, in general, not

been well researched because the research tends to be difficult and expensive.

However, given the importance of adapting instruction to a wide variety of Armor

trainees, they may be models which bear serious consideration in the future.

-64-

- -===.- - I.
xI

I u *4 - -j u V)

W w

I9 S

Iv L o

I Ir -a 61

cL 

I.. LI

Ij u

XNo I-

-65- ~
A : I - I

A -

, .

I . . .

I I

' I '. , . ,, .

' ' K Z[- H - "

,*- ,- U-

,III - - , C.

II I a, . . €

, - " I " - - -- a ,a :

, . I - K

i 3: I-->, C

cU i

HH I-

-66

I Ha,
Figure 5 illustrates Model 5 and Model 6. In these two models treatment is

fixed, but objectives are permitted to vary from student to student. Variable

objectives provide an alternative to variable treatments as a method to individualize. Within Model 5, with fixed proficiency, trainee differences would

probably be reflected in the number of objectives they were able to complete

in the allotted time. If trainee skills were determined in advance, a list of

objectives matched to the needs of each trainee could be assigned. If such

pretesting were not possible, the ordering of the objectives for presentation

to the trainees should start with the most critical objectives so that all

trainees would be exposed to them. The least critical objectives would be

reached only by the most able students. Model 6 adds variable proficiency.

The combination of variable proficiency and variable objectives would result

in a very flexible system. For example, the proficiency required for critical

objectives might be set high, while the proficiency for less critical objectives

could be allowed to drop. In this way, the less able trainees might be able

to gain some proficiency in a greater range of objectives than in the case of

the fixed-proficiency models simply because their required proficiency on these

objectives would be permitted to drop to some degree. Applications of variable

objectives models are not commonly found in the literature. They may, however,

provide a relatively inexpensive and easily implemented approach to individualization, especially when they are coupled with variable proficiency as in Model 6.

Figure 6 presents the most complicated of the fixed-time models. Model 7

incorporates variable objectives and variable treatments. Model 8 includes

variable proficiency so that only the time dimension is fixed. But these models

allow great flexibility in individualization. They incorporate all of the possibilities of the simpler models as well as the even greater opportunities of

combined variable dimensions. One problem with these models, however, is that

they may be too complex, with too many possibilities and management demands, to

be economical. It may be worthwhile to gain experience with variable objectives

and variable treatments in separate instructional development efforts and then

combine them in the f'rT ,,f MOdel 7 and Model 8.

Variable-Time Mo I

t

e s

Figut.res " trugt 'rlt a; the variable-time models. Variable time adds

he unport ant ;xss i t i. si r -pa'cinp to the previously described models.

elt-pac11W :'+Is vi's Ir, ... t, rigidity of the earlier models and permits much

greater indivi 1.o, : " -r the other hand, self-pacing significantly in-

'reates ' InarpIl. iwt iora, management. Despite the greater difficulty

: 110 inglirtri vr. m# mdels relative to fixed-time models, self-pacing

ir .ua,, i.v , Ief I, ',t a meanrs of individualization.

f .gnr" ;ts,,ws mic,,, 'j arid Model 10. These models have fixed objectives

] "Treatme i:; t <,t M-.' '- has fixed proficiency. In fact, with the exception

-f self-paing, Qd.i . is identical to the very rigid Model 1. Yet it is

Ir-'bably the rst oxrmin form of" individualized instruction to be found. In

many un; Imerit,at i ons tne form of instruction used with Model 9 is some type of

self-instruct iral package such as a programmed text, computer-assisted instruction, or detailed tudy guides md practice exercises accompanying a traditional

text. With such materials, students can continue to study until they master

the- object ives.

-67-

- r - .- I. - , '1k
r t z I

I .,

I

od

47,

w b C

~ 

to

I -- C

2.2Z

I < , .. - . I..4,

,.-- . , - -, . 1-- -

w w--- >>to

,"~~ w. t,-- -A

nS A

to m

:tt

" -68-

, ,4
IC

> 4

VI k -

Ir. -) 

I 0c

Q C,

SCL

zm

CII C: cw~ <

U~ 

0)

rr

Li -69- 
71

I Z 

I

-

I

I I 

I L- .----i

C 

K

z

~ 

c ~ K

4 

-- 

K

lI~. 

K

'C

l.~ -- C

z I-I-. o~ 'CU ~ *C

OK 

0

-E

C

1 

K

L.~ £ 

~

I ~- >-.- 

C

__ 

- uu 

-

I 

-

K

I L.. ~ I..

HH ~. 

-

U2 Cfl ~. 

- 0~ 

K

~ IK C

-~ *0~

Qj~ ~' 

~

'.' ~- '. 2 2 L. * 

K

~ C C .~ 

K

- .. ~£ 

C

* C / I I- 

-

t U C~ 

C

/ Ir-J 

~ 'C -~ ~

2 L.~1.2Z 0.1.. 

K

- ~,K. I..1 

- I-' K0.

0 -~

CI 1 .v' I..C

Z K-I 

~

I I-~IJ~ ~I.. -~

.3' I..- I--

r -~*~ I ~ --

-- -~

0~1.. OK

0.0. K~.

HI- I *V~C KK

'CL2 00 0.~E

WL.~ 22 

4

ZI 

I

H2

Zm 

I

f

I

*1 -70-

..
Many applications of Keller Plan (PSI) instructional systems are illustrative

of Model 10, which expands on Model 9 with the addition of variable proficiency.

In these applications the instruction is in the form of self-instructional materials and tutors or proctors. Note that although two media are used, selfinstructional materials and human tutors, the model is not a variable treatment

model because all students are exposed to the same two media in about the same

way. Model 10 differs from Model 9 in that students can achieve the objectives

to different levels of prof.ciency. Thus, one finds students who reach minimum

criteria and get a minimum passing grade, while those who exceed the minimum

criteria are suitably rewarded. In most cases the students themselves decide

how hard they want to work and, hence, what criterion level or proficiency they

will achieve.

The relatively large literature discussing applications of Model 9 and

Model 10 make it clear that variable-time models can be implemented in formal

instructional settings. They are not restricted to individual, independent study

settings. However, the literature also makes it clear that careful attention

must be paid to instructional materials development, especially formative evaluation (ISD Blocks 111.4 and 111.5), and management in order for the system to

work properly and successfully.

Model 11 and Model 12 are shown in Figure 8. These models expand on Model

9 and Model 10 by adding variable treatments. Much of the current theoretical

literature addressing aptitude-treatment interaction (ATI) phenomena and instructional materials development suggests that these types of models are representative of the direction that the field should be moving in. These models combine

the flexibility afforded by self-pacing with the direct accommodation to individual differences characteristic of variable-treatment models. As the theory

pertaining to ATI becomes more developed, and workable management systems designed to assign students to appropriate treatments become available, these

models should begin to replace the currently popular, but more limited, Model

9 and Model 10.

Model 13 and Model 14, shown in Figure 9, combine self-pacing with variable

objectives. These models are likely to see application only in conditions where

trainees are given considerable freedom to choose their own programs of study or

training. This is true because self-pacing permits the system surrounding the

instruction to demand that all required objectives be completed; that is, for

required objectives Model 9, Model 10, Model 11, and Model 12 are appropriate.

Thus, the variable-objectives models with variable time, Model 13 and Model 14,

would be appropriate only where trainees, not the systems, choose the objectives.

While these models certainly enhance individualization from the students' point

of view, they are not as important a method from the overall system's point of

view as the fixed-time, variable-objectives models, Model 5 and Model 6.

Finally, Figure 10 illustrates Model 15 and Model 16. In Model 15 all of

the dimensions except proficiency are variable. In Model 16 all of the dimensions are variable. These models have the same problems as Model 7, Model 8,

Model 13, and Model 14. Like Model 7 and Model 8, they are very complicated

and very possibly too complex to be worth the small addition in flexibility

offered relative to the other variable-time models. Like Model 13 and Model 14,

they are not likely to be necessary except in those situations where students

are given a large amount of control over their instructional programs. Where

-71-

Ai
I -

I.

O ,_. I

--- f -

I L -. :

r1

-' L _-: -- I --°- : "

I~ ~ I

II~ i I /: I . . . . I .. i.. .
r I

Q m - tr' > t-

' Ic _ _- _( -

C :I ,.-, I . ..

--- 1-, V

..... J .' - . -

- - -H -G

.'I--... -

1.

-" L -73-

W7. z ... . -C '

• " ; i "If C\ ' iI - ',- ": : .- ,- , ,, .. ,
z V..

4 U,

x

>

x

z w i ~ ~ -

'4 U 

r~ ' ~0
the system has definite needs, expressed as instructional objectives and a

desire to implement a variable-treatment model, Model 11 and Model 12, with

variable time and variable treatment, will suffice. Therefore, these last two

models, while evoking some theoretical interest because of the flexibility they

provide, are not likely to see much application.

The Selection of Models

Choosing which of the generic models to use in a particular application

will involve consideration of the parameters and constraints of the context of

instruction. The discussions in Chapters II and III and the earlier pages of

this chapter should provide the hackground necessary to analyze each potential

application. A thorough understanding of the ISD procedures will also be useful.

The choice of which of the 16 generic models applies actually reduces to

four questions. One question corresponds to each of the four dimensions of the

models, the implications of which were discussed in detail earlier. Therefore,

each dimension will only be highlighted here with respect to choosing a model.

The Time Dimension

The question about the time dimension reduces to whether time will constrain learning or be permitted to expand and contract as a function of learning. Nearly all instruction takes place within some time constraints, of course,

but in a fixed-time model, the time is an overriding factor controlling both

the delivery of instruction and learning. Material is presented at a particular

rate, regardless of the differences among students, and at the end of the allowable time instruction stops. In a variable-time model, students are permitted

to move through the instructional materials at the rate best for each individual

student. Some students will move quickly, others more slowly, and some quite

slowly. Nevertheless, the average time to complete the instruction under a

variable-time model is likely to closely approximate the time allotted in a

carefully planned and researched application of a fixed-time model. The first

decision in choosing a generic model yields fixed time or variable time.

The Proficiency Dimension

The choice of whether proficiency should be fixed or variable is partly

a matter of philosophy and partly a matter of needs. If the prevailing philosophy is one that holds that a single proficiency level, often mastery, is the

only meaningful quantity to measure and aspire to, then fixed proficiency is

indicated. Such a philosophy implies not only that sub-criterion performance

is unsatisfactory but also that performance above criterion is not necessary.

This might often be the case in man-machine systems where sub-criterion human

performance degrades system performance and where machine constraints suggest

that human performance above criterion makes no difference to system performance. The opposing philosophy dictates that there are several meaningful

levels of proficiency and that it is useful to discriminate among persons on

the basis of their relative proficiency. In this case, a variable-proficiency

model is appropriate. Needs dictate fixed or variable proficiency in a manner

similar to the dictations of philosophy. Thus, if the training leads to a job

4 -75-

-1 A I
in which all tasks are critical, a high fixed-proficiency level is required.

For other cases, a variety of levels of expertise might be acceptable. In these

cases, a variable proficiency model could be implemented. The second decision

in choosing a generic model yields fixed proficiency or variable proficiency.

The Objectives Dimension

The considerations leading to a choice of fixed or variable objectives

parallel those for fixed or variable proficiency very closely. If the system's

philosophy and needs permit flexibility in what trainees must be able to do as

a function of training, then a variable-objectives model may be appropriate.

Note that the variable-objectives feature does not necessarily apply to all objectives. In fact, many applications are likely to have a core of required objectives and a list of supplementary objectives from which an individualized

program can be built. If, on the other hand, the system is such that all

trainees must be able to do all of a collection of objectives, then a fixedobjectives model is required. Many Armor training programs are likely to fit

the conditions of a fixed-objectives model simply because such training programs

are typically constructed around a pool of objectives that has been screened to

include only those most critical to the job. In addition, most training programs also cannot afford the time to permit trainees to go beyond those critical

objectives included in the training. The third decision in choosing a generic

model yields fixed or variable objectives.

The Treatments Dimension

The choice of fixei or variable treatments is likely to be mostly a matter

of the time, money, and instructional design expertise that can be brought to

bear on an instructional design project. Fixed-treatment models require that

one set of instructional materials be developed, validated, ard implemented.

Variable-treatment models require that the instructional design process be repeated for as many treatments as the system calls for. In addition, a diagnostic test must be developed to allow trainees to be assigned to the appropriate

treatment. While the theoretical literature and the small amount of empirical

data suggest that variable-treatment models can produce excellent results in

individualized instruction, the designers or managers of each system must decide

whether the additional investment is worth it for their particular case. The

fourth decision in choosing a generic model yields fixed treatment for all

trainees or variable treatment, depending on the training needs.

The Context-Model Relationship

As a result of the four decisions discussed, one cell in the generic model

matrix will be identified, and that cell could be chosen as the tentative model

for implementation. As a practical matter, however, and as will be explained

below, each cell (i.e., each class of instructional contexts) will most likely

suggest a set of alternative models rather than only one. Thus, even though

further development of the instructional system may indicate that a change in

the model is necessary, such a change is not to be viewed as a serious problem

in mo.t cases. This discussion has emphasized the flexibility in the approach

taken to the definition of generic models. The flexibility should be extended to

use of this approach to implement the most effective model for each application.

-76-

I
So far, the discussion of the choice of a generic model has made no effort

to tie that choice to a particular instructional context because, for ,he most

part, one-to-one links from the cells of the context matrix to those f the

model matrix do not exist. The models and the contexts are complementary, however, and decisions about one influence decisions about the other to a greater

or lesser extent. The one exception to this lack of direct links is that the

time dimension of the context matrix maps onto the time dimension of the models

directly. That is, if the context is variable time, then a variable-time model

should be chosen. If the context is fixed time, then a fixed-time model is indicated. The focus of instruction, however, (equipment, technique, or knowledge)

has a much more restricted influence on the choice of a generic instructional

model. There is no reason why any of the models could not accept any focus,

though the parameters and constraints associated with each category of the focus

dimension do have some implications for the selection of models. FocuF will, however, be very useful in designing the instructional treatment or treatments.

Careful consideraticn of focus will make the ISD procedures in Block 111.2 much

easier and will do much to insure that the mesh of context, model, and ISD is

tight.

The instructional setting (operational, instructional-outdoor, instructionalindoor, and independent) falls somewhere between time and focus with respect to

its link to the generic models. The relationship between settings and models is

not one of cause and effect, but rather one of constraints and needs. For example, an independent setting is most likely to provide the environment necessary for the very flexible models incorporating several variable dimensions and

is probably most likely to require flexibility in order to meet the needs of

students. An operational setting, on the other hand, with the constraints asso- ciated with the operation itself, is more likely to require a rigid, fixeddimension model. In considering the choice of generic model, the setting and

the factors operating on that setting should certainly influence the decision,

but as considerations rather than absolutes. Thus, the parameters and constraints associated with each category of the setting dimension also have implications for the selection of models.

The function of Table 4 now becomes apparent. The classification of a context of instruction leads to an examination of all parameters and constraints

that appear' to be associated with that context and then to a consideration of

the implications of that c-ntext for both the selection of models and the design of instruction. One or more suitable generic models can then be selected

and the design of instruction begun.

It will be noted that the implications for the selection of models given

by the time dimension (Table 4, Part C) are clear-cut and unqualified. The

implications given by the other dimensions, however, (the Setting Dimension,

Part A, and the Focus Dimension, Part B) are judgmental. The constraints of

the operational setting, for example, are severe enough that a variabletreatments model of instruction sinply does not seem reasonable, while the

nature of the tasks learned in contexts including the equipment focus seems

to argue for fixed-proficiency models.

This procedure for the classification and descripticn of the contexts of

instruction and the selection of generic models of individualized instruction

for those contexts does not envision that instructional designers will attempt

to closely emulate or replicate existing successful systems of individualized

o.4-77-

"S
instruction, but it is certainly worthwhile to consider such systems for whatever guidance they may offer for the design of instruction. The generic models

of individualized instruction presented here are, after all, forms without

content, and it is useful to see what these forms become with the content and

other specific features added.

Below is a list of the systems of individualized instruction described in

Part I of this report. The name of each system is preceded by an abbreviation

that identifies the system in Figure 11:

o AIS -- Air Force Advanced Instructional System

o CTS - Computerized Training System

o IETS - Individual Extension Training System

o IPI - Individually Prescribed Instruction

o PSI - Personalized System of Instruction

o TTM - Tank Turret Mechanic Course

Figure 11 is a reproduction of Figure 9 in Matlick et al. (1979). The

abbreviations above have been added to show which systems may be considered

to be examples of which generic models. Parentheses indicate that the system

in its present form probably is not an example of the indicated generic model

but would be if it were modified to include variable treatments. An asterisk

indicates that a system in at least one of its forms is probably an example of

the generic model indicated. Note that all of these systems are primarily

examples of variable-time generic models. Only IPI, because it is typically

employed in elementary schools, must therefore operate within fixed-time

boundaries, and presumably does not manage to get all students through all

objectives, is a possible example of a fixed-time generic model. Systems of

individualized instruction based on mastery learning strategies (see Matlick

et al., 1979, under Instructional Methods) probably would be examples of

fixed-time generic models, but none were identified during the review of the

literature.

It is immediately apparent that the figures in Matlick et al. (1979) that

represent the management of the systems listed above (Figure and Figures 10

through 11) are somewhat more complex than the figures which represent the

generic models. This is true primarily because the generic models do not

elaborate instruction, but within each system-management flowchart the structure of the underlying generic model may be traced out.

It may also be useful to see at a glance the applicability of the generic

models of individualized instruction to the various contexts of instruction

given by the classification matrix. Table 5 is a reproduction of Table 2 in

this part. Each cell of Table 5 lists the generic models implied by the various parameters and constraints attending that cell. Table 5 represents, to

some extent, the judgments of the authkrs, of course, but each model selection

in the table may be verified against the implications of Table 4. Furthermore,

-78-

* * .. . A
AC

FIXEDVARIABLE

FIXED VARIABLE FIXED VARIABLE

1 2 (Most 3 4

common

methods of ~~ins truc tion)

6 7 8

" IPI*

9 CTS '10 Psi l AIS 12

IThM IPI

PSI*

(CTS)

(TTM)

13 lETS 14 15 16

0.

Figure 11

Instructional Systems as Examples

of Generic Models

I9

* .. ,. .
>1~ s n JO 0d

-44

r.0

14 V C 4

to 0

9 Q) 0 C 

0J 0 0

CLJ-4 -4 C4 -4.

Q'-44-

u~j ~ 14 e 0 11

94t

-- -1-0 8u 
it must be kept in mind that the mudeis shown are only implied by their contexts and that any fixed-tine r,, ' oi is at least a possibility for any fixedtime context .ny zn ivariL, --uL.me model for any variable-time context. As the

design of instricttion pr' ieeds, however, the imilications of the contexts for

the design of i.istru-tior; would almost certainly result in one or two models

within any set eie,% 7 as best choices.

To clarify th .,s;j.gnment of models tc Table 5, consider the cell given by

the intersection of ti,, operational setting (A) and the focus on equipment (E)

under fixed time (H). This cell identifies context class AEH. Table 4, under

A. The Setting Dimension, shows that for the operational setting treatments

s hould probably be fixed (because of the limits on facilities, instructors, and

management capability), objectives could be variable (because most tasks are

collective and soldiers at different skill levels would be trained at the same

time), and proficiency should be fixed (simply because an operation is in progress and proficiency is controlled by doctrine). Thus, on the basis of the

setting above the models to be considered would include fixed treatment and

proficiency but variable objectives. That is, only fixed treatment and proficiency wou- be provided, but objectives could be fixed or variable.

Under 6. The Focus Dimension, Table 4 shows that for the focus on equipment variable treatments appear to be desirable and feasible (because of the

low student-instructor ratios, which would apply even in the operational setting if it is assumed that maintenance training would take place during lulls

in operations), objectives could be fixed or variable (fixed in the unit because

tasks are easy but important; variable in the institution because personnel of

broadly different MOSs might be trained at the same time), and proficiency

should probably be fixed (because tasks are basically simple but important).

Thus, on the basis of the focus alone the models to be considered would indicate fixed proficiency but variable treatments and objectives. That is, only

fixed proficiency would be provided, but treatments and objectives could be

fixed or variable.

Now it is necessary to resolve the conflict between the implications of

the setting and those of the focus. This conflict occurs in the selection of

the treatment variable: the operational setting points to fixed treatment, but

the focus on equipment indicates variable treatment. Because the two categories

are in essential agreement on proficiency and objectives, it seems reasonable

to resolve the conflict by including both fixed and variable treatment modelz

so long as variable treatment and variable objectives do not occur together.

Concurrent variability in treatment and objectives would make the management

of learning more difficult, and the limit on management capability was cjne ',ason why fixed treatment was implied by the setting dimension. Thus, with tr

conflict resolved, the models to be considered include both fixed proficiency

and fixed or variable treatment and objectives so long as variable treatment

and variable objectives do not occur together. The models in contention to

this point are MI, M3, M5, M9, MIO, and M13.

Under C. The Time Dimension, Table 4 shows that for fixed-time contexts

fixed-time models (by definition) should be selected. M9, M1O, and M13 are

variable-time models and are thus eliminated, leaving M1, M3, and M5.

-81-
This same kind of rationale for selection, with only minor variations,

applies to all the context classes. For example, in the cell given by the

intersection of the operational setting (A) and the focus on equipment (E)

under variable time (I) -- that is, the variable-time counterpart of the context class considered in detail above -- only M9 and M13 are listed. Model 9,

of course, is the variable-time counterpart of Model 1, and Model 13 is the

variable-time counterpart of Model 5. Both Model 1 and Model 5, it will be

recalled, were selected for context class AEH (above). But Model 11, the

variable-time counterpart of Model 3, was not selected for context class AEI

even though Model 3 was selected for AEH. The reason for this is that in the

presence of variable time variable treatment does not seem necessary because

the usual tasks are simple and, given a reasonable amount of time, the student

should be able to learn. Considering the constraints of the context class,

therefore, it would probably be best to not consider a variable-treatment model.

In a limited way, the reasonableness of the models selected for the various context classes may be verified by considering the possible applications of

them to the training activities classified in Table 3. As an example of this

limited kind of verification, consider Gunnery -- Table VIII, under Units -

Fort Carson.

The context of Gunnery -- Table VIII has been classified as AFI, and Model

9 and Model 13 should therefore be appropriate. Both of these models include

fixed treatment and proficiency, but one establishes fixed objectives while

the other allows objectives to vary. In the systems based on these models,

objectives could be developed and sequenced so that the soldiers would receive

review instruction on the skills and knowledge essential to successful firing

of Table VIII, then demonstrate the skill/knowledge in dry-fire mode, and finally (the final objective in the sequence) fire Table VIII. Alternatively, soldiers who consider their skills and knowledge adequate (or whose skills and

knowledge are considered adequate by the instructors) would take the exemption

pretests. These pretests would consist of demonstration of the required skills!

knowledge, with live firing considered to be the final exemption pretest. Soldiers who pass the pretests -- any or all of them -- could serve as tutors to

soldiers who do not pass.

Training would begin on tanks parked well behind the firing positions, and

all available and appropriate devices would also be used in order to reduce

queuing. Soldiers reaching the final objective would move their assigned tanks

into position and fire Table VIII. The composition of provisional crews for

firing would vary with the model employed.

In the case of Model 9, the assumption is that each soldier present for

training will fire if he can get through all of the objectives in the available

time. Thus, cross-training is implied, and as each soldier passed the next-tolast posttest (or exemption pretest) he would be assigned to a tank with an instructor (or tutor) as Tank Commander. The tank would then be moved into a

firing position, and each soldier would become Gunner for a firing of Table

VIII. Failure at this point would mean repeating at least some of the instructional units.

In the case of Model 13, the assumption is that not all soldiers would

fire Table VIII, perhaps because of limits on ammunition or time. Thus, on

the basis of one or more criteria different objectives would be assigned to

-82-
different soldiers. All gunners might be assigned to the live-fire sequence

of objectives, for example, while loaders and drivers are assigned to other

objectives indicated by their diagnostic pretest scores. Gunners to be soon

separated might not fire, while loaders and drivers soon to become gunners

would fire.

Design of Instruction and Simulation of System

The context-classification-and-description-and-model-selection (individualization) procedures described in this volume are not considered or intended

to be separate and distinct from the ISD procedures. They are, rather, an

adjunct to those procedures, providing additional guidance as regards the development of individualized instruction. For this reason, the details of the

development of systems of individualized instruction, while they have been amply

treated in Matlick et al. (1979) (the review of the literature), have not been

included ?, the individualization procedures.

As the development of systems of individualized instruction proceeds -- with the ISD procedures at one hand and, perhaps, the individualization procedures at the other -- computer simulation of the evolving systems may become

advisable. It may be necessary to examine the cost impacts of model selection

or system design, to determine how the model will influence both input and output of students, or to test the feasibility of models and systems within personnel and resource constraints.

The generic models of individualized instruction do not, of course, provide the details required for computer simulation. The context descriptions,

while they permit estimates of such parameters as student characteristics and

subject matter types, do not add to the models sufficient detail to permit

simulation. But whether simulation is to be accomplished through MODIA (Method

of Designing Instructional Alternatives) or some more general system such as

General Purpose Simulation System (GPSS), the generic models and the context

descriptions point directly to some questions posed by the simulation technique

(What is the medium of instruction? Is the rate of assignment to the field

uniform?) and, for some questions, provide the answers (Will content be different for different students? Will the course be taught differently to different students?). Thus, if the context descriptions and generic models are

taken as a beginning, only a relative few instructional design decisions and

analyses need to be accomplished before simulation can begin.

Summary of the Individualization Procedures

meanThis report reflects the assumptions that it will serve primarily as a means of assessing the validity and potential usefulness of the individualization procedures described in it and that practical use of the procedures for

the development of individualized instruction will therefore await the preparation of a procedural guide. But both as an aid to the assessment and as an indication of what a procedural guide would entail, a summary of the individualizatior procedures is presented below:

-83-
o ISD procedures preliminary to the individualization procedures.

Once it is known that an instructional system is to be developed -- even if it is known that an individualized system

is desired or required -- development should begin without

reference to the individualization procedures. The work of

1SD Phase I (Analyze) and Phase II (Design), as prescribed

by current ISD procedures (TRADOC Pamphlet 350-30), is concerned primarily with the content of instruction and should

be accomplished without reference to the eventual shape and

environment of the system of instruction. When the developer

gets to ISD Block 1.5, Select Instructional Setting, he may

want to look ahead to the classification system of the individualization procedures, but this anticipation is not necessary. If he correctly carries out the procedures of Block

1.5, the beginning of Block III.1 will be soon enough to consider the classification of the context of instruction for

which he is developing a system. Again, when he develops

tests in Block 11.2, he may look ahead to the classification

system, to Table 4, and perhaps even to the models for guidance in the selection of test-item types, but if the procedures

of Phase I and Phase II are followed this forward look is also

not necessary.

o Concurrent ISD and individualization procedures. When the

work of ISD Phase II has been completed and work or Phase III

is about to begin, the individualization procedures become

highly relevant. They will provide basic information of considerable value to the developer. First, they will provide

general models of instruction that the developer can use to

guide his decisions about how the learning guidelines and

algorithms will be implemented: that is, the descriptions

of the models and the flowcharts will give him a "box" into

which to put the learning activities he is considering so

that he may examine them in relation to an overall instructional framework. Second, they will give the developer detailed knowledge, including real-world information, about the

context in which his system must function; the design decisions he makes, especially those in Block 111.2, Specify Instructional Management Plan and Delivery System, will thus

be influenced by a view of reality not included in the ISD

procedures. Third, the instructional models he has selected --

both descriptions and flowcharts -- will give him the beginnings

of a management plan. This relationship between the individualization procedures and the ISD procedures is illustrated in

Figure 12.

At the beginning of ISD Block III.1, the developer

begins the use of the individualization procedures by characterizing the system under development to identify the

subject(s)/tasks to be trained, who is to be trained, and

the agency (institution r, hw units) that will conduct the

training. With this basic information he can enter the individualization procedures. Next, he will determine the classification of the context(s) of the instruction. If he is

- ! -8 i
r - ~ BLOCK -

ISD 11 , .I

I ID

BLOCK -

111.2

ISD rro

------ ---- - .......-- INDIVIDUALIZATION -- - - - - --- - - - -

, PROCEDURES

Figure 12 i o

-I ,

I I

I • i .. , - :- : . . .. I . . . I ' - " .. .
developing a system for instruction that is already being

conducted, he will be able to determine the classification

from information obtained from potential users, or he may be

able to get the classification directly from Table 3. If he

is developing a system for the training of new tasks or con- tent, he can compare the new training with the training activities listed in Table 3 and thus determine the most probable

context classification. After he has determined the classification of the context of the instruction he is developing, he

will consult Table 4 (after reading the descriptions of the

categories) to find: (1) the description of the context class

(that is, influences and conditions in terms of the eight controlling factors); (2) implications for the selection of instructional models; and (3) implications for the design of

instruction. It is at this point that he will probably make

a decision about whether to individualize. If an individualized system is required, his decision is made for him, but if

it is only desired, he could decide on a conventional, "lockstep" form of instruction if he considers the context too

constraining for individualized instruction.

Supported by this information -- and if he decides to

individualize -- the developer would then select one or more

models of individualized instruction that he will consider as

he continues to develop his system. His selection could proceed in at least two ways: he could take the models directly

from the relevant cell of Table 5, or he could take the implications for model selection from Table 4 -- perhaps confirming

or revising them after a review of the factor-by-factor descriptions of the relevant categories -- and use these to

select models.

Once he had selected models, he would begin ISD Block

III.1. Guided by the models and the description of the context class, he would develop the learning activities. He

would then make the design decisions required by ISD Block

111.2, again checking each of his decisions or choices

against the models and context description. By considering

each candidate delivery system as it would apply to the

selected models within the given context class, for example,

he would avoid selecting an inappropriate or unworkable delivery system. By the time he had completed Block 111.2, or

sooner, one of the models he had selected would emerge as the

best choice, and he would continue to develop it, discarding

the others. In some cases, however, because of the range of

,* conditions (parameters and constraints) within the context

class of the instruction he is developing, he may continue to

develop two or more models in order to provide alternatives

for the different conditions that instructors might encounter

at the time training is conducted. He could, for example,

provide a variable-treatment option for groups of students

of widely different abilities or backgrounds, and a fixedtreatment option for essentially homogeneous groups.

-86-

r --
o ISD procedures subsequent to the individualization procedures.

After he had completed ISD Block 111.2, the developer would

not need to consult the individualization procedures again

except to reconsider or confirm previous decisions. From

Block 111.3 on, he would carry out the remaining ISD procedures by reference to decisions and choices he had already

made.

, .4. -

i: -87-

. -" . . | ' :| .. .... 'i ll . . .. k - : } i i ! i n I-.. . . ,. .. . -.. .. . "
CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This volume has presented a method for the classification, analysis, and

description of the contexts, or whole environments, of Armor instruction. It

has discussed the rationale for the method, demonstrated its uses, and established its explicit and implicit links with the generic models of individualized

instruction proposed as guides to the development of instructional systems for

the various contexts.

It has also presented sixteen generic models of individualized instruction,

described the scheme of classification that organizes the models, discussed the

implications of each of the dimensions of that classification scheme, described

the probable impacts of each model, and offered guidance for the selection of

models. But the models are not meant to stand alone. Rather, they are seen as a part of a general approach to instructional design that includes the identification of the context of instruction, a careful consideration of the factors

that influence instruction within the context, and the ISD procedures.

The review of the literature of individualized instruction that informed

the development of this general approach or procedure was fairly extensive,

but the data descriptive of the contexts of Armor instruction that guided and

restrained the development were neither extensive enough nor precise enough

to answer the question of the general validity and reliability of the context

descriptions. Should this procedure be seen as a potentially valuable tool for

the development of individualized instruction, a much broader and more precise

base of descriptive data would be needed.

The validity of the procedure itself is a question that appears to require

an operational test. If the procedure appears to have at least face validity, a few developers who are or will be involved in the early stages of the development of systems of individualized instruction should attempt to use it. Even

before these systems are fully designed or developed, any benefits derived from

the procedure should become apparent, and implementation would reveal the extent to which the procedure had contributed to the development of systems well

tailored to their environments.

It could be that the system of context classification and description will

be useful not only as a basis for selecting appropriate models of instruction,

but also for identifying opportunities for training. A quick glance at the

classification matrix (see Table 3) reveals that most of the cells appear to

be empty. Admittedly, the sample of instructional activities on which Table 3

is based was small, but it was probably large enough to show the relative frequency with which instruction occurs within at least theoretically possible

contexts. Table 3 shows, for example, that just four (4) context classes

(A-F-I, B-F-I, C-F-H, and C-F-I) account for 70% of the instructional activities

in the sample. But if the training developer or manager were to look at the

empty cells of the matrix and try to imagine what kind of training might exist

within such contexts, he could discover opportunities for training that he

would want to exploit. Suppose, for example, that a training manager or comnmander, concerned about the number of soldiers in his command who seem to be

deficient in certain areas of knowledge, attempts this strategy and discovers

-88-

'I
that one empty cell -- D-G-H -- pretty well describes the limits of the resources he can dedicate to the knowledge problem. The setting is independent

and thus requires few or no instructors. (He has few or no qualified instructors to assign to this training.) The time is fixed. (He could schedule one

or two hours a week for six weeks for soldiers not otherwise occupied.) The

focus is knowledge, what he is concerned about. (Because the setting is independent, the appropriate models of instruction give him great flexibility.)

Suppose he then decides to schedule two hours of independent study each week

for six weeks for knowledge-deficient soldiers not otherwise occupied. He

would have appropriate independent study materials placed in the learning center or dayroom. He would direct small-unit leaders to identify deficient areas

of knowledge soldier by soldier. He would have appropriate tests developed

and assign contingencies to various levels of test performance. Then, at the

scheduled time each week, each available knowledge-deficient soldier would go

to the learning center, the dayroom, or some other place of his choosing, to

study his own content, guided by his own set of objectives (probably the test

questions in alternate form). As he completed each objective (within his own

set) he would go to an assigned place to take a brief but discriminating test

and reap the consequences of his performance. The generic model that has been

employed is Model 6, fixed treatment, variable proficiency, variable objectives,

and fixed time. At the end of the six weeks not all soldiers would have studied

all of their deficient areas nor would they all have scored as well on tests

as might be wished, but most will have made significant progress -- largely

at the expense of resources that might otherwise have gone unusued. The constraints within which units now operate suggest that there is a need to explore

the possibilities of this strategy for discovering and exploiting opportunities

for training.

There is also a need to examine the policy implications of the generic

models of individualization instruction presented in this volume. Table 5

shows that Table 4, as it is now constituted, recommends relatively few generic

models for most contexts; a broader application of models to contexts awaits

changes in policy. Suppose, for example, that a change in policy were to make

feasible the use of variable-objectives generic models in MOS courses at the

institution. The variable-objectives provision could result in soldiers with

limited ability and motivation getting through a limited set of objectives,

unmistakably at criterion level, and into productive work in the units. Their

supervisors would know that they had not learned all their MOS tasks but that

they were likely to perform acceptably on those they had learned. And the

tasks they had learned would most likely be those performed by new soldiers

in any event.

Recommendations are as follows:

o Survey more training activities in order to refine Table 4.

o Conduct an operational test of the individualization procedures.

o Determine the utility of the system for context classification

and description as a means for identifying training opportunities.

o Examine the policy implications of the generic models of individualized instruction.

-89-

+ l" "+ l '+; : + • ,, "it " 5" , ..... , ,- .. + ,,+- , +, +,, *-. " i , r
Additional References

Hilgard, Ernest R. and Bower, Gordon H. Theories of Learning. New York:

Appleton - Century-Crofts, 1966.

Matlick, Richard K., Swezy, Robert W., and Epstein, Kenneth W. (LittonMellonics). Alternative Models for Individualized Armor Training.

Interim Report: Review and Analysis of the Literature. ARI Research

Note 80-1, January 1979. (AD A082 922)

.

I

4 -0

' 4
Appendix A

Detailed Results of Interviews,

Administration of Questionnaires,

and Informal Observations

Part I

Data of the First Phase

(Fort Knox)

(See Table A.1.1)

NOTE

The data collected for the purpose of providing a preliminary test of the

validity of the context-classification-and-analysis system, and also for the

purpose of establishing guidelines for the subsequent development of the context

classification-model selection procedures, is presented here in as raw a form

as in consistent with clear communication.

As has been explained in Chapter I, data collection was carried out in two

phases: the first phase consisted of interviews (unstructured at first and then

structured) and informal observations at Fort Knox; the second phase, begun

after formal instruments had been developed as a result of the visit to Fort

Knox, consisted of structured interviews, the administration of questionnaires,

and informal observations in Armor units at Fort Carson and Fort Hood. The data

of the two phases are therefore in somewhat different form.

The data of the first phase are presented almost exactly as they were recorded during the interviews (both unstructured and structured) at Fort Knox and

are also summarized in Table A.1.1. The data of the second phase, collected

largely through formal instruments, are presented in a partially reduced, tabular

form. See Table A.2.1 and Table A.2.2.

L2.
Study Plan - Fort Knox, 14-17 June

The objectives of the study phase of the trip to Fort Knox are to assess

the appropriateness of the proposed context classification system and to select

(and perhaps rank in order of importance) factors on which the definition of

contexts will be based. Non-survey methods will be employed, including informant interviews, unstructured interviews, structured interviews, and participant observations.

First, informant interviews will be conducted with ARI Field Unit personnel. Next, after a brief period of planning, unstructured interviews will

be conducted with focused groups consisting of relevant training managers and

instructors. These unstructured interviews will be followed by structured

interviews with other focused groups of relevant training managers and instructors to explore in depth areas shown to be of interest by the unstructured

interviews. Interviews will be followed by (or perhaps be concurrent with)

participant observations of training in progress during which the evolving

context classification system will be employed.

(Data-collection activities are given in order of their occurrence)

194th Bde -- 14 May

Unstructured interview with 4 respondents, including S-3, to determine

validity of system for classification and definition of contexts of Armor

training. See Unstructured Interview Procedure.

Interview began with explanation of research problem. Then "training

environment" was defined through an illustration. Respondents agreed that,

given a training environment (context) defined by setting, focus, and time

constraints, a difference in setting, focus, or time constraints from one

situation to another would indicate a different training environment.

They did not suggest adding or deleting any factors through which training environments (contexts) are to be defined but did suggest that, under instructional personnel, it is important to know that an instructor has been

trained as an instructor and to know that an NCO is good at his MOS, i.e.,

what he teaches.

When the question of whether the factors (see list) had been arranged

in descending order of importance (actually, only a very approximate order

of importance was intended), one respondent suggested that the management

capability factor was more important than the facilities factor.

A!

This one unstructured group interview, along with the one-on-one

validation of the unstructured interview conducted earlier (see Table 1),

appeared to establish an adequate basis for the development of a structured

interview, and all subsequent group interivews were structured. See Structured Interview Procedure.

A-2

A -... AN ILL " '- : :
Maintenance Department, USAARMS -- 15 May

Structured interview with 6 respondents including NCOIC of program.

Responses to interview questions:

#1. Yes; no dissents

#2. Yes; no dissents

#3. No; no dissents

#4 Yes; no dissents

#5. (Parameters of factors)

(1) The length of instructional periods matters. Length of breaks

in courses also important; "Christmas is a wipe-out."

(2) Ability as instructor more important than MOS ability. Respondents believe that it is not necessary in self-paced instruction for an instructor to be extremely knowledgeable. An instructor's supervisors and colleagues

are aware of his effectiveness as an instructor and would be capable of judging

him fairly. Versatility is also important to a self-paced instructor because

he must be able to occasionally fill in for another instructor. Leadership

ability, as indicated by ranks, is also thought to be important.

(3) Under facilities, lighting, ventilation, and available space

are thought to be important.

(4) Management capability is important to definition of a training

environment (context).

(5) Under task type both type and difficulty were thought to be

important considerations.

(6) Under learner characteristics the following parameters were

considered important:

- reading ability

- motor ability

- language ability (e.g., speaks English if native

speaker of Spanish)

- achievement (prior military or civil)

(7) Knowledge of feasible instructional methods important

to definition of a training environment.

(8) Knowledge of available instructional resources important

to definition of a training environment.

A-3
BNCOC -- 16 May

Structured interview with 6 instructors including SGM in charge.

Responses to interview questions:

#1. Yes; no dissents

"2. Yes; no dissents

#3. No; no dissents

#4. Yes; no dissents

#5. (Parameters of factors)

(I) It is important to know what possibilities exist to self-pace

within fixed time. BNCOC instructors are able to vary time for small segments

of instruction in response to individual learning rates. That is, when all

learners in a group have completed a learning activity, the group moves on to

the next activity whether in less than or more than the nominal time. The time

for all activities must, of course, fit into the overall fixed time for the

course, but there is, apparently, ample overall time.

(2) It is important to know something about the instructors' ability

to function in individualized instruction.

(3) Important to know something about available space.

(4) Important to know something about management capability, e.g.,

ability to administer, score, and feedback results of a large number of tests

in a short period of time.

(5) Respondents felt that it would be important to know whether

tasks being learned are predominantly perceptual-motor or predominantly cognitive, for example, but their judgment was that Armor training leaned about

75-85% toward perceptual-motor.

(6) Under learner characteristics the following parameters were

considered important:

- achievement

- motivation (e.g., reenlistment plans)

- how long in MOS

- how long in service

- jobs in MOS

(There was not much interest in aptitude.) (This course uses an instrument to

assess learner characteristics, including the above.)

A-4

-AL-* Ls
(7) Knowledge of feasible instructional methods is important.

Some may not be compatible with military requirements. Discovery learning,

for example, may not be compatible with military resource management

requirements.

(8) It is important to know how good or how operational resources

are, whether they are what is needed, and whether they are appropriate for

the skill level involved.

Exercise of the classification system conducted with two respondents from

above group.

- Context of Fire Commands (4 hours, nominal)

- instructional, indoor

- focus on technique

- variable time (i.e., unit or module time

is variable within limits of overall

course time.)

- Context of Map Reading ( 6 hours, nominal)

- instructional, indoor moving to

instructional, outdoor (thus 2 cells

of matrix are required to inclose

this context.) - focus on technique

- variable time

- Context of Tank Firing Exercise (1 day and 1 night, nominal)

- operational setting

- focus on technique

- variable time

- Context of Range Estimation (3 hours, nominal)

- instructional, indoor (classroom)

moving to operational setting (thus

2 cells of matrix required to inclose

context)

- focus on technique

- variable time

- Context of Troop Management (2 hours, nominal)

- instructional, indoor (classroom)

- focus on technique - variable time

(In BNCOC, the respondents said, time is a guideline.)

9-.

A-5

2 ' , -A L k u L
1st Bde OSUT/AIT - 16 May

Structured interview with 2 instructors and 1 training manager to classify

and define two contexts of Armor training. Thus, purpose of interview was primarily to exercise system rather than to assess its validity.

Each instructor provided the data for the classification and definition of

one context.

1. Context of Individual Weapons Training -- 45 cal. pistol

- instructional indoor moving to

instructional outdoor

- focus on equipment followed by

focus on technique

- fixed time (some flexibility in

contraction of time but none in

expansion)

(Thus, 2 cells of matrix are required to inclose context.)

Factors

- Instructional personnel

o instructor/student ratio

o indoor 1/15

o outdoor 1/15

o at range 1/3

- Facilities

o indoor dividable room

o outdoor training area with

electrical power but no

covered space

- Management capability

o reported that management

capability probably meets

individualized instruction

requirements but that 500-

600 instructional decisions/

day would be too much (based

on 50-60 students taking an

average of 10 pretests and

posttests each 8 hour day.

Small steps asssumed.)

- Task types

o predominantly perceptual-motor

I. A-6

2
- Learner characteristics

o no prior service experience

o 8th grade reading ability (students

generally can read but reading is

last choice for instructional

delivery)

o most have finished high school

but without acquiring skills

generally assoicated with high

school students of the past.

o motivation generally high at

beginning of cycle but may decline

later (testing may have impact).

(Primary equipment is motivational.)

- Feasible methods

o problem-solving not feasible

o small-steps not feasible

o contingency management feasible

o impromtu scheduling of learning

not feasible

- Available instructional resources

o reported that personnel and equipment are tightly controlled by

TRADOC.

2. Context of Indirect Fire (IF-I and IF-2)

independent and instructional indoor

- focus on technique

- variable time (to some extent)

(Thus, 2 cells of matrix are required to inclose context.)

Factors

- Time available

o 3 hour block and 4 hour block

(review and independent study are

separate) (3 hour/IF-1 and 4 hour/

IF-2)

- Instructional personnel

o instructor/student ratio

o in IF-I 1/60-80

o in IF-2 1/20-25

4

. A-?7

.. . ." . . .. J .. Jk .i.: . .. .. I .. . a ' I I I , ;" . . .. I _:: .: :, . ... ... . .. . . -,
- Facilities

o fixed -- a classroom

- Management capability

o no additional management

capability

- Task types

o cognitive

- Learner characteristics

o 3-4th grade reading ability

(manuals are at about 6th grade

level but students can't read them)

o most have finished high school but

do not have skill usually associated

with high school students of past

o typical soldier wants to learn but

doesn't have ability

o motivation appears to remain constant

during training

- Feasible methods

o small-step, immediate feedback/

reinforcement method feasible

o contingency management may not be

feasible (not enough control of

contingencies)

o problem solving approach not

feasible

- Instructional resources

o adequate

o additional resources are

available

o additional simulators may be

available

Weapons Department, USAARMS -- 17 May

Structured interview with 2 instructors to classify and define

one context of Armor training. Purpose of interview was to exercise

classification system rather than to assess its validity.

A-8

7S
Context of Target Acquisition and Identification

- instructional, indoors moving to

instructional, outdoors

- focus on technique

- fixed t i.ie

(Two cells of matrix required to inclose context.)

Factors

1. Time available

o solid block of instructional time

o 16 hours

o 4 + 4 1st day

o 4 + 4 2nd day

2 Instructional personnel

o 5 instructors for instructor/student

ratio of 1/3

o instructors trained by peers

o master gunnery instructors must be

master gunners; otherwise, no criteria

for selection of instructors. All

instructors know subject.

3 Facilities -- a little cramped on space

4. Management capability -- capability for management

of individualized instruction exists.

5. Task type -- mental abilities predominant

6. Learner characteristics -- (NCOs)

- 12th grade or higher reading level

- highly motivated (recommended by commander)

- above average in mental ability

7. Feasible instructional methods

- contingency management not feasible

- nurturing system not feasible

- ordering from easy to difficult

feasible and used

- problem solving not feasible

8. Available instructional resources -- additional

instructional resources are generally available.

A-9
Weapons Department, USAARMS -- 17 May

Informal interview with several instructors of Tank Turret Mechanic Course,

which is individualized (self-paced). Because of queuing problems, this course

has gone to the same double-shift arrangement as Tracked Vehicle Mechanic Course:

6 am-3 pm and 3 pm to midnight. Chairman of department said that instructors

like this arrangement, but his observation is questionable. Many revisions are

underway; one instructor claimed that they are in their fourth rewrite, and

course began in January 1979.

Classification

setting-- instructional indoor

focus -- equipment

time - variable (6 weeks is average and range is about 4

weeks -- 8 weeks; after 3 weeks + 3 days man should be evaluated for retention.)

1. Time available -- nominally, 8 weeks + 3 days. Only 1 man

out of 20C has gone over, 8 weeks. (Early graduates go to next station

and are not assigned to fatigue duties.)

2. Instructional personnel -- instructors are trained first in

"lock-step" methods and then as self-paced instructor. Trained on the

job by peers in self-paced methods. The claim is that self-paced

instructors do learn to reinforce trainees. "They don't let a man

goof off or hurt himself, but they don't interfere with learning."

3. Facilites -- large lecture room with individual carrels plus

lab with trainers (about 20 modified tank turrets on special mounts).

4. Management capability -- Queues of 7-8 trainees occasionally

develop, but there are no additional personnel to handle queues. This

claim in spite of fairly heavy organization chart (see management guide)

and 6-8 instructional personnel in evidence.

5. Task types -- motor -- 11 of 13 exams are hands-on.

6. Learner characteristics --

- reading grade level is 4-6

- some trainees are beyond the resources

0, of the system, but it is very difficult

to remove them from the course.

I.

A-10

4L-
Table A~l.l

Descriptions of Contexts

Source of Data: Iort Knox (Instituti

CONTEXT _DEFININC FACTORS

OF Time Instructional Management

(Subjact/tasks) Available Personnel -_.... Fac Ilites..__._ .. C~pability Task Ty -

C-F-I Normally 4 hours but. NCO who are judged to Adequate classroom Already managing some Cognitive

(Fire Commands total time and period be good role models. space, but building aspects of individual-

-BNCOC) length can be varied Student-instructor is small and instruc- ized instruction. A

to meet need of ratio probably about tional space probably great deal of testing.

individuals, 3 to 5. -- no t expandable . --

C-F-I xOninally 2 hours but CO who are judged to Adequate classroom Already managing some Cognitive

(Troop total time and period be good role models, space, but building aspects of individualManagement length can be varied Student-instructor is small and inscruc- ized instruction. A

-BNCOC) to meet needs of ratio probably about tional space probably great deal of testing.

individuals. _ _____t3 -- _5.__ not exandable.-

A-F-I Nominally 1 day and NCO who are judged to Traii lg areas of Already managing some Cognitive and

(Task Firing 1 night but flexible. he good role models. USAARMS. aspects of individual- perceptual---

Exercise Student-instructor ized instruction. Perhaps 75Z p

-BNCOC) ratio probably about ceptual-=Dtot

3 to 5. and 2 cognt

D-F-I/A-F-I Nominally 3 hours but NCO who are judged to Training areas of Already managing some Cognitive

Estimation - varied to meet needs be good role models. USAARIS. aspects of individualBNCOC of individual Student-instructor ized instruction.

trainees in groups, ratio probably about

* 3 to 5.

C-E-I After 8 weeks and 3 Trained in "lockstep" Large room with Queues of 7-8 occa- Motor-percept,

Tank Turret days trainnee is Instruction first and individual carrels sionally develop, but (11 of 13 tee,

Mech. Course - evaluated for reten- then trained on job and lab with 20 no additional personnel are hands-on)

(AIR) Weapona lion. Only I of 200 in "self-paced" turret trainers, to handle queues.

Department has gone over 8 weeks. Instruction. StudentUSAARMS instructor ratios of

about 4 but sometimes

C-F-I/B-F-I 6 hours, nominal, but NCO who are judged to Adequate classroom Already managing Cognitive

(Map Reading can be varied to meet be good role models, space in small some elements of 14

-BNCOC) needs of individual Ratios probably about building and outdoor a great deal of

trainees within 3 to 5. training areas of testing

groups. USAARMS.

C-F-H/B-F-H 16 hour block: 4+4 5 instructors for Indoors a little II management Cognitive

(Target lst Day,4+4 2nd day. student-instructor cramped for space. capability predominant

Acquisition ratio of 3. Master reportedly

and Identifi- gunnery instructor exists.

cation must be master gunner;

Weapons otherwise, no selecDepartmeot tion criteria.

USAARS)

C-F-H/B-F-B (No Data) Student-instructor Indoor, classroom. Probably meets II Predominantll

(Individual ratios - Outdoor training requirements, but perceputalWeapons 5 indoor, outdoor area with electric 500-600 instructor motor.

Trainin ? at range. power, decisions/day would

-OSUfl __be too much.

D-F-HIC-F-H 3 hour block and 4 Student-instructor Classroom No additional Cognitive

(Indirect hour block (Review ratios: management

Fire - OSUT and independent IF-1 - 60-80 capability.

(I7-1 and study are separate) IF-2 - 20-25

I -2)

- - --- --- ---- ----- .- 2%
Table A.l.1

Descriptions of Contexts

Source of Data: Fort Knox (Institution)

DEFINING FACTORS

Management Learner Instructional Instructional

Facilities Ca_p-abli1iy q - - - Task Type Characteristics Methods Resources

Adequate classroom Already managing some Cognitive Well motivated junior Self-pacing already Necessary sources space, but building aspects of individual- NCO. present to an extent, generally available. is small and instruc- Ized instruction. A is apparently

tional space probably great deal of testing. feasible.

no.. gepnda avai

•

l....

Adequate classroom Already managing some Cognitive Well motivcted junior Self-pacing already Necessary sources space, but building aspects of individual- NCO. present to an extent, generally available. is small and inscruc- ized instruction. A Is apparently

tional space probably great deal of testing. feasible.

not exsjadable.-

Training areas of Already managing some Cognitive and Well motivated junior Self-pacing already Necessary sources USAARMS. aspects of Individual- perceptual-motor. NCO. present to an extent, generally available.

ized instruction. Perhaps 752 per- is apparently

ceptual-motor feasible.

and 252 cognitive

Training areas of Already managing some Cognitive Well motivated junior Self-pacing already Necessary sources USAARMS. aspects of individual- NCO. present to an extent, generally available. ized instruction. is apparently

feasible.

Large room with Queues of 7-8 occa- Motor-perceptual Reading grade level Self-pacing.contin- No apparent individual carrels sionally develop, but (i1 of 13 tests 4-6. Some beyond gency management, constraints.

and lab with 20 no additional personnel are hands-on) resources of system, little selection.

turret trainers, to handle queues.

Adequate classroom Already managing Cognitive Well motivated junior Self-pacing already Necessary resources

space in small some elements of II, NCO. present to an extent are generally

building and outdoor a great deal of and is apparently available.

training areas of testing feasible.

USAARMS.

Indoors a little II management Cognitive 12th grade reading Ordering from easy Additional resources

cramped for space. capability predominant level or higher, to difficult, generally available.

reportedly Highly motivated.

exists.

Indoor, classroom. Probably meets 11 Predominantly 8th grade reading Contingency Available but tightly Outdoor training requirements, but perceputal- level management self- controlled.

area with electric 500-600 instructor motor. pacing.

power. decisions/day would

be too much.

Classroom No additional Cognitive 3-4 th. grade read- Small-steps, Adequate. Additional

nanagement ing leveltrainees Immediate simulators my be

capability, can't read manuals feedback, available.

(at 6 grade level).

Aill

-4L
Part 2

Data of the Second Phase

(Fort Carson and Fort Hood)

(See Tables A.2.1 and A.2.2

A- 13

11GMAMU tI M WbTI nlkiD

AL -A-
STUDY PLAN

Fort Carson and Fort Hood

Structured interviews will be conducted with Bn S-3s and certain instructors. During the interviews as many contexts as possible will be classified

(using the matrix), and instructors with intimate knowledge of those contexts

will be identified. After the interview these latter will be administered

questionnaires.

During the p.m., training activities dealt with in the interviews and

questionnaires will be observed in the company of one or two persons who participated in the interviews. Data collected through the interviews and questionnaires will be tested and, presumably, insights will be gained.

During the interviews, anecdotal data on contexts will be recorded, and

this process will continue during the observations of training activities.

,i.

-1

A-14

I
Table A. 2. 1

pescript Ions of Contexts

--Source of Data: Fort Carmon (Unitse)

(@ubject/taaks) Available Personnel Facitlitea jCqpakbLI tJ. _ _ Task lyeCharacterist Ica

A-V-I 6 hours per day Instructors Adequate only. Tests given every 2-3 Perceptual-motor. Los f l. achievement

(Rdy- scheduled In 50 atm eoperienced In sub- Classroom (large and instructional periods. Average difficulty. Average motivation.

tactics) periods. Self- ject and individual @mall). Outdoor Returned In 2-3 days. Serious consequences Los reading. high

pacing possible. Iostrucion. training areas. Used for learner tn mission, motor ability.

Solid block. Frequently eustt- tactical areas. assessment. Traliees Average language

tute for each are counseled, ability.

_______________ ____________other.________

D-F-l/A-F-t Weak at a time. Ratios about 3. Adequate classroom, Little testing, Pece'ptual-motor and High Is achievement (Tactical every other month. Instructors hae" indoor areas, out- Instructor* flexible. c gnitive. Diffi- and motivation. operationas Self-pacing probably soce experience with door/tactical are" . Trot n..a are cult, very fasortant. Hi1gh In reading and Center not possible because tasks and both It counseled, frequent language, average Training) of coordination ad "lorkatep" serious In failure. In motor ability. ___________ requirements. instruct ion.

DGIAbout 3 hours at a Ineoperienced. Usually Inadequate (this Frequent testing. Cognitive. Easy Loa, achievement and (gaaic Skills tise when personnel sowe experience in apparently refte to Inosodiate scoring, and of average motivation. L Remedial are available. "lockatep" but none Learning Canter), tests uaed for ivqrortanre. Daily language ability.

Training In Individualized diagnoses of both requirementa for Reading. Instruction. Sub- trainee and instruction. task, failure can

etc.) @tit ue for each ocher, be serious.

Student- Instructor

ratio about 15.

6-F-1 10 houra ove r a Student-instructor Miore than adequate Tests given only at Perceptual-motor Average achievement (CBR) period of it.. 160 retinas: outdoor areas. Ho end of training or and cognitive, and lou motivation. (Sam as min. periods of - for specialized constraints. never. Trainees Failure to perform NBC) Instruction. Self- team 5-10 not coun-eled, may be serious. pacing could be - for company 20-10

Instructors experienced In "lorbatep,'

seldom substitute ______________for each other.

S-V-I 6 hour block self- Instructor has soe Inadequate outdoor Frequent testing and Fe rrept ual-antor. Average In motivation (Gunnery - pacing possible. training/experience and tactical train- diagnostic use of Average difficulty, and achievement. hands-on In both 11 sod tng areas, test. hot Blow Importance to mission. Reading ability, motoir conponent) "inckstep". Scudenc- acco nd return. Failure apparently ability, language

instructor ratio Trainees not not serious (1) ability average. _________________________ about 30. _____ crinseled.___________

B-7-I 2i% bours/weeka. 2-3 years experience i. outdoor training Test at the end of Perceptual-motor. Prior military and (Physical 30 minute blocks wiuth same experience are.a ahared. training or never. tasy tasks ques- civilian achievement- Training) every worb day. in individual instruc- Feedback dluring the ti nable importance average. Motivation- Not self-parable. tion and "locbatep". period of Instruction. Annually. Failure high. In MOR A meths Ho brealua. Frequent substitution. Go/Ho GO. Instructors not serious. In senvice 6 months Student-Instructor assist anytime. Reading ability-ave. ratio about 20. CounselinR when needed. Motor ability-high.

5_________ _____ Lanxuage ability-ave. -FI Apparently TCs and Platoon Range - appears Only that existing in (Csasnery- scheduled a day Sergeants. Ratio. thus, adequate normal coennd motor-perceptual May have been poorly Subcalibrei at a time, is about 2. structure. aome cognitive trained in inetituCiM Table 1.

Table 2.

ad

Table 3) _________

C-P-K/S-P-V Apparently One Instructor for One or 2 classrooms Ho formal tests. Cognitive predom- Average to Low In (lmsp Reading) scheduled about wrhatever number of and practically Only informal per- Inant but som achievement and an hour at a time trainees can be unlimited outdoor fornance tests, perceptual-motor. mtivation. when priorities assembled. space. Average difficulty permit. Often Inatructors areadimotne

cancelled because "iocbstep" type batanimotce

of other needs. flsbe

C-P-U Constraints on un4 Have some experience Inadequate apace. Limited. Tests given Cognitive : Average Average achievement. i(Gunnery- training time in both "lorbatap" facility shared only at end of unIto, difficulty but lou mtivation. Hem Sit Imparts heavily on and self-pace. with other train- Results delayed 2-3 nary important and personnel of high cble hi. training. 24 Flexible to Ing activities. days. Flexible in failure serious. motor ability, aver- hour- available in instructor asign- instr uctor assignments. age reading and lam- 50 mute p.risds ma-ts. Student- Trainees counseledgugskl. icheduled 2 or 3 instructor ratio when necessary. ugskl.

times per weah. t about 60. ielf-pactng would

be provided In

C-C-U I or 2 hours I loco per classroom Cias.r.on Only that associated Cognitive. LI- achievement, (Race scheduled as required of 30-40 or mre. vt ltomafcielomtvt Relations) by regulation or with cutrt ion.ie to tvt

(so data, other directive Isrcia

following

eat metee.)
Table A.2.1

Descriptions of Contexts

Source of Dots: Fort Carson (nt)_____________________

--- DFINING FACTORS ___________ ____________

Meanagemen t Learners Instructional Instructional IFacitie -tt-* _Cppab tY, Ts Te Chaact rist1, Methnd. Resources

Adequate only. Test, give. every 2-3 Perceptual-sotor. Lot Oll. achievement Contingency manage- Resources available

I subt- Classroom (large and Instructional periods. Average difficulty. Average sotivetion. mst. Adaptive train- and operational but

!i=a small) . Outdoor Returned In 2-3 days. Serious consequences Lo- reading. high ing. Variable curricu- no additional

training areas. Used for learner to mission, motor ability. iot competely resources available.

etASEt- tactical ares. assesmant. Trainee* Average language feasible.

are roucseled. ability.

3. Adequate clossro*-. Little testing, Peceprual-motor and High In achievement Cortingency manage- Resourtes available have indoor areas, out- instructors flexible. crgntio. Diffi- and motivation. sent. Adaptive train- and resonably Oct with door/tactical are" . Tcainee5 ace cult, very ioportant, Hi1gh In reading and ing and variable operational. th I counseled. frequent language. a-erogse curcuits of limited or serious In failure, in motor ability, feasibility.

Usualily Inadequate (this Frequent testing, Cognitive, Easy Low, achievement and Post sm thods feasible. Resources lacking s"ce is apparently refer, to iteuditet scoring, and of average mtivation. Lo but are available. but ness Learn Center). teats used for Importance. Daily language ability. Devices not lived diagnoes, of both requirements for adequately operational. *Sub trainee and Instruction, tank, failure con each other, he seritus .

tructor

tractor More than adequate Tests given only at Perceptual-motor Average achievement Small &tae Devc/slmsltios/f outdoor areas. No end of training or and cognitive, and low motivation, considered feasible, equipment not alized constraints. never. Trainee@ Failure tn perform adequately operational. not counseled, stay be serious . ,20-50

experiorkotep."

Ititute

er.

has @om Inadequate outdoor frequent testing and rrceprual-motor. Average In motivation Contingency management Resources available prieote and tactical train- diagnostic use of Average difficulty. and achievement, and adaptive training and operational. and log areas, test. but slowt. Imp~ortance to mission. Reading ability, motor completely feasibla. *Student- scoring and return. Failure apparently ability, language ratio Troiee n. ot nor serious (F) abtility average.

experience 4outdoor training Test at the end of Perceptual-motor. Prior military and Contingency management. Resources are not experionce areas shared, training or never. Easy tasks ques- civilian achievement- Sell1 steps. Adaptive avsilable. I inatruc- Feedback during the ti onable Importance average. Motivation- training. lockatpm . period of instruction. Annually. failure high. In NOS 1. monthe atirution. GOINO GO. Instructors not serious, in aervice 6 months tractor assist anytime. Reading ablity-ave. 20. Counseling when needed. motor ability-high.

Otoo," Range - appear, Only that eoIsting In Ratio, thus, adequate normal comand Motor-percept ual May hae" been poorly Self-pacing probably MI5 laser io a 2.structure, som cognitive trained in institution. not feasible, problem. Brewster device also. not

81-sy& maintained.

mttor for One or 2 classrooms No formnal tests. Cognitive predom- Average to Low In Small steps/adaptive Needed resources .tmbr of and practicrally Only informal per- inant but sowe achievement and training feasible for exist and oe avail- anbe unlimited outdoor fornance tests, perceptual-motor. motivation, basic skills, able and work. No

0@sae. Average difficulty Contingency manage- apparent constraints.

tyebut feasibility.

eOxperience Inadequate space, Limited. Test@ given Cognitive : Average Average achievement, Small steps fesible. Adequate. 'echstep, Facility shared only at end of units, difficulty but lost motivation, Hiew All others of limited $see. twith other train- Results delayed 2-3 very important and personnel of high feasibility. Unit fog activities. days. rienible is failure serious, motor ability. aver- constraints Impact ant

In ain truc'tor saeignments. age reading and lon- Instructional methods. iTn:, Trie -I- .cuSeled gue skills. Sratio uhen nteesary.

classroom classroo" only that assocfsted Cognitive. L~ow achievement. Croup Interactioe. cpt ormtils

w *aith pliltoru affective Low mtivation Zell-pacing probably Probably limited. Instruction. not feasible.

___ _ _____ __ - A-15

.................................------ m--. -- - 24
T.b10 A.2.2

Deoe, ti st of o et

COIITIX? LFttNINC FACTOIS DEFININGl5 FACTO5S _____

(Sbyjryt .I -- An.1-I-IOFtonl _ Fcttl it 1.11I- - ---- I" ______ _oetlt Ch r ,r tic&

C-F-I ~ ~ ~ n ~ s ~ ( d.... cr..cih ~ ~ e~ n no~o~ In I.,tC (NCO) Cdrte. IProblte . o-gfitt...

l~~e0- do/ Ont~o And tdn- treI dl. IooorOI dot cloltI. .ne1r.lel (1., L. 2nd LT)

IT~ IncflC!OteIt It 's OtheI

C-tI~ hoot ~~~~~~~~~~dq ~ 15 .b .f~ Ib .O~t~~ .odqeo I, Intogttttll "in tt ro el (UO cd.p.,Iod block. teeoecdIn o I i.1.dflut. 7th*-tgh V t Por lestItlI Inj/.edr- tehlbyC. ed oduellodtn~too- dl-_ dopodttletrdytree Ptul ~eltt 3de~. 'Otttt. ProI on.l.Id

tetloq. *hoo 20 hih 5-15t

I~uitnety) lo ! rpteotI :loob Indt! .t Al . .r. OO 1 h.-d~g .IC d t- dlrtult MOSet.on.e

12t h.-e 1 tt.q-.r' 1-2ro y- .eulmttnttu IrrSh-l d-or .. hel endt ~ o tt u t en nt IFr Ifedqnl Ie- lt. nIS

-detlt-It-c firing)to *sdh I cn~p-eCoo

.... . Ine-ecet. p.

Ten) cJf-aol lohttp t 

opoI tre dp nnt Atld nn~ tylnrette* ee.. chp.. I ... 0

.0. olh I'",, Ahd.____: ___. Ioyeyer _ I::e .

Potty 1,, - o tennn of " p to' ' 7

Atetre) erngpuellO. Inotl~ n:ro Se. d norpoot. tctu e-Aoky ey .ten t

No hitch. *looketop2. 

t

. eretet , It... I NCeOene elu otenbt~

tell.it f3.t

Sef- tdenIt-i:' et ...... ehened ...... for Ven ,KS Itedeq t t6-e leo.

____.. I Ice, ________ ebI 

C - -I I- 21 -I 0 mrte Ic 10 1- t t t %e:ttt e y r e r e d q e e 5 endi. by" .e d r 1:, o n lI d h n- . e c P o e er t n l

(bthanec eelepotoo o. l~ ldltde -e.loeero. rt- prod Sete ~ l~ol#.Vey orto.ittI~

ret ID eltoo ....

bloy oe It t old. l e oF nd odol . l olc..I .. ..tr perio Vcr Aoet tg e l'tl. e ' .0 I t

nelnue~~C toneeeded.cd. tglcl.Ane l~~y

Vtt-ndenl-Ineiro. Awot

reilt ettot 30

1531 nir eted ~ lo. f ndlldel moe.0nd- t nd eeoh pIod t-c u, eey teh.1ey ed.org t lSeoee poenid oll. ro'd t t b lell .. etp ...enll , dtgoltptps. ~ iet em I-nt -K 2 CellI Soel-:,g 5 etp iqot Atend *hdd.ecllte n1ie. ooby. Vry ..t In toe

Stud-1nt- toolerh r 

C-F-1 C e I " boor 3-3 y-p.nlncII ee lnedoqoalepte 2-r3n I. seet f..dbPeopre-tr t. Al rccr1

(Wue ry leloh I F - oetdnd~led er.eclcir I 2dy. Clelc eoeodllot. ts w endg t- oe

tnldc I.cottdIo(iteee tnheydel ed. 1 orde or r bd - , A-ee. dinneell y. - 3 ttttte-I

1- w e .lc~ t, - .... . 6.0 .... . . .... - -. T
TO 1. A 212

dcone-t. I~ 

1-,~ of Data -o-J .1o to1i) -- rscloRs Di, ls:rc il~ TORS 1-eroe In- frrrra cn~aioo isy

0 It Va Took ~ ront tr nhd ___ ronn

-Iii. -.- Cain si Catbtliil T

'I. on l boo1ed in aoon.*oia 1.) let LT, 2rtd Lt)

ing son- Ol-cy

- dne pt i tt __..t

~ .. t. r. . T a g t P i r o t i i nr n a l .r ctr i r u t a n d o ~ i ~ h *

.eaid h -. trbaaa -d

-d'in - h. *-1oC.

hatDOU*Od iar~ renob~l I ::: ~ - -- l I I-tngnyi~a. ifar ieor-.0ia

Vir ." -tInS.-y R ... -

I rAg.. - *1P- loonie A-I *fl.l ;a ot.!,.. 4 I nor h is 1I nnhn te

ate anatad. Don I:"" wonita headin

,a.,--hilly tis .. ,banj aga 

on.tn itr in-4 Yn Rendlak Pinr.tntt Pirationt Lmtdnoigny 1aa n nio

rfin., lab 7;a- .=,O;,: peid indr 'r aytna t.;sne e n aiaai.aain n pntat

zt arof an n, , L --j rno jobLg .. V. se

iNed. o peon nade l aes, ay o irai Vninlwpot ant. h- ....woi .. i

Ond. p-l-oae l.n inI 2% rr.alo Icn WilylOt 

aaaat nyI i. tiiaa Ioaqoo natnhiitty.o

ndap~~odenid sle abot 41cM it011 taha. oo, - nn - anaa Ata and Iantst . op . r .Ia. ~ ~ ial: anvtertotathtlory ~ *Il ahnfn -2 .ania ai line ni

I-na. o IP-ndti Dan- S- tih - IantodoCa

Iss tanail . Ith. t w.. -I! naragaIb .

nor .. ... i. ___V___ability.

it r- a. e - .... .h.ero. *ealia tlnlnli. Paytnan algaim ntai nnia, hameaaaim

Pndndt tft anohe frely fotnn 'i'' - Al -. es C-- :, - t,; 't _ __ _ _ _

Pands atad dhgnaicpupnn.dart. taaha. abant. Tni os t ;,=9naib

ra odn n oarooaaa.t Tagtnnl.nr S. wo 11 t. tn imtda ilan

atteo 

'Table mlaodi. 

Cnnln aioanneono. 

mciehlawoh. aato nitg

dlw -tattlini.

rua ppoa re.ani- datotr Int-at. Taught Tiw in -Zi the stove. nartial . and aha..ad. tan .... ni an tes. sothly. V.,7i i ino 2-3 car... ti. aad

pooio ony.1-2 prior jab:. tall. Adaptin.'

FPiuCXMNG PAGE BLAK-iNar

adqaaSoa peton ann attalI. aniinon- Preta-te Al tiwlind conotitefsey in 3 or

ssall aeam 1y t.. an laar oe in. aot Vain a i p=nip1 ml and * pa 0-1.y

n. i t anna. inadqoat anad'fl: 7SV- obitno Vtm 

:q at.~d ________ to-7.Oblt4

-1 t:A-1b

th.-I~ Test po--ona .- Ias.a~ w~a~~ aI _
PpPENDIX B

Parameters and Constraints of Contexts

4
Part 1

The following tables, B.1.1 and B.1.2, are the result of the reduction

of the data presented in Appendix A, Part 1. These tables -- one for variabletime contexts and one for fixed-time contexts -- identify some of the parameters

and constraints of the contexts of instruction as they are constituted at the

institution (Fort Knox).

4)

-.4

)

A

B-2

4
DISCLAIMER NOTICE

THIS DOCUMENT IS BEST QUALITY

PRACTICABLE. THE COPY FURNISHED

TO DTIC CONTAINED A SIGNIFICANT

NUMBER OF PAGES WHICH DO NOT

REPRODUCE LEGIBLY.

BEST

AVAILABLE COPY
-Z1-

UL

to

UC?

KL Li___ _

zr

i> l 07H
~)

77

F1

0 ,ij

t4.~ C

VJI 0J ..

C ~ 6 =

-jk-
-~ --

C I 

C

r -' Kr I~ 

I

z. 

0

d(f ~A

1IE;~ 

4

1~ 

Er

- F, -. 2

zC IhTT 

- I____

Du -- 

I C I:

L

- -' 

- CS

I C.*2-

II,-.v~ C 

-

IsE --

C

- Ct --

C CC~

:3 i I

I, 

I

-j *1

'Ii

__ ~ 1- -~ ~' ~777 -~

Q + ~X, ~ Ui~ U. ~ WCLJ. ~ U. o .. ~ - -r -

Li '- ~-

__ 

U

LU

~r '..

4 ~' 

C cc

C

4
'I:.

VI

H- K I C I

1.

______ ___ 4

______ ___ 

I

N'

I'-,

JLLi~

F ___

~-1~/

, p

Li

4 .*

I ~-

C ~- A 

-

Cl: ii '~-

LL

Ij-~ ~

~ C

.4 V. (U 

-

I

-- w- *-i - - - ~ 

-
Part 2

The following tables, B.2.1 and B.2.2, are the result of the reduction of

the data presented in Appendix A, Part 2. These tables -- one for variabletime contexts and one for fixed-time contexts -- identify some of the parameters

and constraints of the contexts of instruction as they are constituted within

Armor units (Fort Carson and Fort Hood).

4I

t

B-7
7- 7

LL, 7 ,

I L -

k B-8
C: r

-~Z I I

0 z0:

'~ )c 1.0

-'-

~ciKL

IMA I
0

C C

(0

11-1
C~c >(

m -2

rr

(I) -L

HU

zo

V)L 4-
APPENDIX C

Structured Interviews and Observation Instruments

-I C-1

l'L
GROUP INTERVIEW

Classification and Definition of Armor Training Environments

1. Explain purpose of study

- Armor branch plans to continue development of individualized instruction.

- Need to identify sstems of individualized instruction that are appropriate

for Armor training.

-Thus, need to classify and describe Armor training environments (contexts)

in effort to determine what kinds of individualized instruction are

appropriate for them.

2. Explain that immediate task is to classify Armor training environments in

which the training of this unit is conducted.

1. Develop concept of classification system through following illustrations

and questions:

a. Sgt. Brown at Ft. Knox has a shop (a classroom) in which he teaches

automotive maintenance. lie has 10 hours to teach an AIT module.

lie has the equipment he needs, including parts of tanks, devices,

simulators, etc.

Question 1: Would you say that, in a general way, these conditions

describe Sgt. Brown's training environment? F

b. Sgt. Jones at Ft. Hood has a shop (a classroom) in which he teaches

automotive maintenance. He has the equipment he needs, including

parts of tanks, devices, simulators, etc. He also teaches an AIT

module, but he doesn't worry about time, if he needs 20 hours to

complete his module, he can get 20 hours.

Question 2: Is Sgt. Jones' training environment different from

Sgt. Brown's? How?

c. Sgt. Williams at Ft. Carson has a classroom in which he teaches gunnery.

He has GTA's devices and other training aids. He has 20 hours to teach

* an AIT module, no more.

.Question 3: Is Sgt. William's training environment the same as either

Sgt. Brown's environment or Sgt. Jones' environment?

4. Distribute matrix figure.

Question 4: Does this illustrate what we have been talking about?

C-2
GROUP INTERVIEW (continued)

5. If answers to above questions generally indicate understanding and

acceptance of classification system, proceed with classification of

unit contexts. If not, attempt to modify system to gain understanding and acceptance. If this fails, abandon attempt to have respondents

participate in classification.

6. Explain classification of three contexts above by means of matrix

a. - setting instructional indoor

- focus equipment

- time fixed

b. - setting instructional indoor

- focus equipment

- time variable

-. setting instructional indoor

- focus technique

- time fixed

7. Use matrix to classify training environments of this unit. (Record on data

sheets and questionnaires.)

8. On basis of discussion of classification of training environment (contexts),

identify individuals who appear to be most knowledgeable about them and

ask these persons to complete vhe questionnaire after the interview.

9. Conclude interview.

10. Administer questionnaire.

.

C-3

AL
'rime

LL.'

0

-01

juawsdinbg -

00p fO

juplopux -

-C-
INTERVIEW DATA SHEET

Unit __ __Date ____

Classification and Definition of Armor Training Environments (Contents)

I. Classification of a training environment

A. Task(s)/Subject(s) __________________________

1. setting _____ ____________________

2. focus

3. time ________________________________

B. Classification code ________________ __________

I. Anecdotal material ______________________________

c-5
OBSERVATION DATA SHEET

Unit Date

Classification and Definition of Armor Training Environments (Contexts)

I. Classification of training environment

A. Task(s)/Subject(s)

1. setting

2. focus _

3. time

b. Classification code

II. cbservational/Anecdotal by Factor

A. Available time

B. Instructional personnel

C. Facilities

.

C-h

--. 7
OBSERVATION DATA SHEET (continued)

D. Management capability __________________________

E . Task tvl ~ -_____________________________________

F. Learner characteristics ___________________________

G. Feasible instructional methods_____ ________________

H. Instructional resources ___________________________

.

C-7
APPENDIX D

Questijonna ire

D-
QUESTIONNAIRE

Classification and Definition of Armor Training Environment

(Instructional Contexts)

Introduction

if

The purpose of this questionnaire is to obtain descriptive information

about current Armor training environments (or instructional contexts). Once

this information has been gathered, it will be possible to decide which of

the many types of individualized instruction are appropriate for Armor training environments.

This questionnaire contains questions about eight (8) factors thought to

be influential in determining the nature of training environments. As you

answer the questions under each factor, consider how that factor influences

the training environment identified below.

Your answers should be based on how Armor training is now conducted in

the training environment identified below.

Thank you for your help.

TRAINING ENVIRONMENT

Task(s)/Subject (s)

Setting

Focus

Time

iD-.

.. 4

A D-2
Factor 1: Available Time

1.1 How much total time (hours) is now available for training the

above task(s)/subject(s) in this training environment? hours

1.2 How long are the periods of instruction? minutes

1.3 How are the periods scheduled? (Check one)

Lz Consecutively (a solid block of time)

Li Every work day

I Two or three times a week

K_ Weekly

- Other. Specify:

1.4 Would it be possilbe to conduct self-paced instruction within the

overall time available for training In the task(s)/subject(s)?

(Check one.)

D: Yes D No

1.5 If no, please briefly explain why not.

1.6 What major breaks in instruction usually occur during this training?

(Check all that apply)

Holiday or other leave (a week or more)

LJ TDY of several days or more

Holidays or special events of one or two days.

j None.

Factor 2: Instructional Personnel

2.1 How much experience in the task(s)/subject(s) do instructors usually

have before becoming instructors? years

D-3

.. 4I . . , ', , , I ,- .. i -: " ' -- - - . .".. .

A
2.2 How much experience/training has the typical instructor had with

individualized instruction? (Check one)

LII A lot. (Has been an instructor in an individualized situation.)

F Some. (Has had some training or experience in the methods of

individualized instruction or has taken some training in

individualized situations.)

F None.

2.3 How much training has the typical instructor in this environment had

in traditional ("lock-step") instruction? (Check one)

LII A lot. (Has had formal training in a course or school.)

LII Some. (Has been trained on the job by his peers.)

-] None.

2.4 How often do instructors in this environment substitute for or do

the work of other instructors? (Check one)

F- Frequently

n Occasionally

--] Seldom

F- Never

2.5 What is the usual ratio of instructional personnel to trainees in

this environment. (Fill in)

One instructor for every trainees.

(If the ratio varies from one phase of instruction to another, please

explain briefly:

Factor 3: Facilities

3.1 How adequate for present training activities is the space available

in this training environment? (Check one)

D- More than adequate (Not all the available space is actually used.)

q -j Adequate (There is enough but there is none t|,it is not used.)

I, Inadequate (Needed space is not always availatle.)

o-4
3.2 How many different instructional areas or facilities are now available

(whether used or not) for the training in the above task(s)/subject(s)?

If you are not sure, your best guess will be appreciated. Please

tally below in left-hand column.

Number

Available Instructional/training area or facility /

Small classroom(s) (30-40 seats)

Large classroom(s) (more than 40 seats)

Lab(s), shop(s), or simulator area(s)

Independent study area(s)

(with or without bleachers,

Outdoor training area(s) etc.)

Tactical training area(s)

Other. Describe:

3.3 Which of the areas or facilities now available for training in the

above task(s)/subject(s) are also used for other training activities

(other courses or subjects with different instructors)? Please

indicate with a check in the right hand column in Item 3.2 above.

Factor 4: Management Capability

4.1 About how frequently are tests given during the instruction in this

environment? (Check one)

FlI At least once every instructional period.

LI At least every two or three instructional periods.

] Only at the end of units or modules.

nl Only at the end of the training or never.

4.2 How soon are tests usually scored and trainees informed of results?

(Check one)

fl] Immediately

06 During the period of instruction in which the test was taken.

[] Within two or three days.

' .4 L After three or more days.

4D

'i D-5

'A

-p. , .. , • . ' ,-' '--- ,, .r'-. ..,--- ...--- .,,
4.3 For what purpose are tests most commonly used? (Check one)

[7 To identify both what the trainee has learned/needs to learn

and problems in the training system.

Lii To identify what the trainee has learned/needs to learn.

C Only to give the trainee a GO - NO GO or some other form of

grade.

LII Other. Please describe briefly:

4.4 Under what conditions will one instructor do or assist with another

instructor's job? (Check one)

EI Any time he sees or becomes aware of a problem that needs

immediate attention.

] Any time another instructor asks for help.

When the chief or senior instructor tells him to.

SOther. Please describe briefly:

4.5 To what extent are individual trainees counseled on their progress

or lack of it? (Check one)

L Each trainee is regularly counseled.

7 Trainees with problems are counseled when they need counseling.

[ Individual trainees are ordinarily not counseled.

L Other. Please describe briefly:

Factor 5: Task Types

5.1 What kind of tasks are usually taught in this training environment?

(Check only one, but if you disagree with the categories briefly

explain below.)

[7 Motor tasks (Done essentially with the hands or body.)

[ Perceptual tasks (Done mostly by seeing, hearing, touching,

etc.)

[ Perceptual/motor tasks (Done essentially with hands or body in

coordination with seeing, hearing, touching, etc.)

ii ] Cognitive tasks (Primarily mental tasks.)

Disagreement:

w -D-6
5.2 How difficult are the tasks taught in this environment? (Check one)

F] Very difficult

F] Difficult

F1 Of average difficulty

D- Easy

F1 Very easy

5.3 How important are the tasks taught in this environment to mission

performance? (Check one)

F-7 Very important

F- Important

Of average importance

F] Of questionable importance

F] Unimportant

5.4 How frequently are the tasks taught in this environment performed

on the job? (Check one that comes closest.)

F Hourly

F- Daily

7 Weekly

Li Monthly

1- Annually

5.5 How serious would the consequences be if the taskstaught in this

environment were inadequately performed? (Check one)

"]- Very serious

[] Serious

F]7 Not serious

D-7

MAL- Ate
Factor 6: Learner Characteristics

6.1 How would you rate the students who are trained in this environment

in terms of:

High Average Low

6.1.1 Prior military achievement? F EV1

6.1.2 Prior civilian achievement? l 07 Ej

6.1.3 Motivation? El 11 L

6.2 How long has the typical student in this training environment been

assigned to this MOS? months

6.3 How long has the typical student in this training environment been

in the service? months

6.4 How would you rate the typical student's:

High Average Low

6.4.1 Reading ability? El E]I

6.4.2 Motor ability? ED l

6.4.3 Language ability? 0 LL

6.5 How many different jobs has the typical student previously held in

his MOS?

Factor 7: Feasible Instructional Methods

Some general methods, models, or strategies of instruction are probably

more feasible for this training environment than others. Several such methods,

models, or strategies are very briefly described below. Please rate the

feasibility of each for this training environment on the basis of your own

* experience and beliefs.

7.1 Contingency/reinforcement management. If the trainee wants certain rewards --

such as special recognition, choice of assignments, extended breaks, promotion,

etc. -- he must perform in certain ways. That is, he must learn fast, learn

precisely, obey rules, etc.

* (Check one)

LII Completely feasible L Limited feasibility Li Not feasible

'1 im *!
7.2 Small steps with immediate feedback/positive reinforcement. the content

of instruction is broken down into very small steps, and each time a trainee

completes or attempts a step he receives immediate knowledge of results and

reinforcement if his response is correct (an example is a programmed text).

(Check one)

F- Completely feasible E] Limited feasibility ] Not feasible

7.3 Adaptive training model. The difficulty or complexity of a task is

adjusted to individual skill levels; as training progresses and the trainee

learns, the difficulty of the task increases.

(Check one)

0j Completely feasible F Limited feasibility 0 Not feasible

7.4 Variable curriculum - variable time - variable standards model. Because

not all trainees can learn the same things to the same standards in the same

times, content (curriculum), time to learn, or standards are varied to meet

individual needs. For example, Trainee A might study the same content in

the same time as Trainee B, but he would not be required to meet the same

standards.

(Check one)

[j Completely feasible f Limited feasibility 0 Not feasible

7.5 Learner - centered instruction. Objectives and perhaps time to learn

are given, but the individual trainee is free to decide how he will learn.

(Check one)

Completely feasible Li Limited feasibility F- Not feasible

7.6 Principles learning. Instead of learning rules or procedures, the

trainee learns the principles underlying the rules or procedures so that

he can figure out the rules or procedures for himself.

(Check one)

Completely feasible F Limited feasibility Not feasible

Comment:

.Dv.4 D-9

l-- - - ~ .-.---
Factor 8: Instructional Resources

8.1 Does this training environment contain needed instructional resources,

such as manuals, devices, simulators, and equipment? (Check one)

Yes F] No ]

8.2 Are additional resources available if needed? (Check one)

Yes [] No D

8.3 Are devices, simulators, items of equipment, etc., adequately

operational? (Check one) Y I No L]

End of Questionnaire. Thanks again!

1D-10
DISTRIBUTION __________________________

I US AHMY CINC -A. S'JFPURl jmu; lLHSUN'IL *iVISION

I H(U)A aTIN-. P.

I TA,;/TACCEN All --

1 HU. ICATA ATTN. -Pu

e HU )A WlMt~ C" - .JL UFL

I m)j.[TAY OCCIJAT! tLVLLUPMFNI UIV U'tPC-MSP-U* RM 952C HIOFFMAN B3LDG 1

4. OASO (mHA ANI L)

I HU TCATA TEt!"NICAL Ljl-I,-HY

I H(U.)A CHIE1F.* -iU'AA WLSUUNLtS LTVLLUPMENT DIV

I H(Q A ATTN: iAm[-TST

I OSA AVTATI('vS'N TM CUMU AlI~4 : URSAV-Zl'N

I i)S2l CUWALUCm At IN: AMztLL-rA-..a

I HE.AOUUaklt"4S J5 MAW1NIE LUHW5 AIIN: CJUE~ mMIT

I HlEao(Ua&Nt". J- A4.,jN LJwPl. ATTN: CiW) mP128

e lUS AHMY LUJ(Wt A.4 SL dL4Trl AHWY

I 1Sr 1Nt7ANI"Y ,jl4j: ),.a:u I . .-ILEY Alr'\.: AAF2N-D)RT-T

I CHIEF. 'ij,U-,y t'.ANL' I I. uAA.LMSF-tS, -OFFMAN OLU, 11

I OS5 INdtL 4 t ' ,itL-iIy rUMMANO AT TN: IAUPS-TN,

e 4,j TRAi j( F L" . At L I M'Y

I NAvA4 kAj. I ' t I -l N tiTN:. TELHI[CAL LIUWRANY

IM[l jfAW U(C"~T i )-A L PfVLLJ0MFf~l LIV AT TN: VAPC-MSP.5 1 km 9~52C. OFFP4AN t3LI)G I

Ij m ITAL Y VCC"P4 AI ,NAL Il VLLUPM4141 UIV AITTN: UAPC-MSP-U. km 852C,. OFFMAN tiLIN I

I M), ITA'WY UCCIIWATiDr.AL bVtLOMF.'jl UIV ATTN: UAPL-MSP-T, NM 852C, ,UtFFMAN bLDb I

iHT i I NF.ANTP I p ~ l N

i H~ 4 A IANr, FU. r S mANAUrML -T (ifL

I HUl)A ATTN: *-l

1 1240 US ARCOM M- Sw 4V c-tNitk

IF T. IJEjJAMIN IN 4b~it

I US, OUoCES CUMM' N ) AFLo - ULP~j Y LN1HIL 1. STAFF FOR IOGIbTICS>

iiS AHMY AIP OE NSI

I 01T4ECIf)AT- OF THA1II-4NO AiIN: AIZU~-1

I ni-4ECTriNAfF OF L~~A UtVLLUI-'M(4S AIHN: ATZA-O

I MHflAkC(IM MAPINf CORPS LIAISUN Ut (

I IA)AWIT4NT OF biE allm' U.3 ARMY INlELL16(FNCL + SLCUHITY CU)MMANU

i HQ 1) A r H I L F RLTI It b A L I v iTh. I t b

1 JS ' MI S IL F ~A t4I tL H L AU I NESS L UMM A NL J aTN: UR )MI-NTP,

I ARTAUS ATTN: U.4Cl-lob-Tu

i tSi FU,)LIS CUM.l'.N)

iPM TkArLt /

I I) MILITAWY UI1 0N1CT ui- wo~tHIN(,lUN Ui7L OF LUUAL (PPUQTUNITY

I NAVJAL IVII IAN wt-ibONNtL LUM) tiUUlIHFN 6-1- DIV

1) ART LIAISON ()Fl 1 i-:

I ?TU ARMY IWAI41It,U CENILH

i AWAY TWAIN[N6 -)JPR>URT CfN'tR iI.UIVIL)JAL FRAININUi EVAIIIATIoN

I H(JoA. iuCSUPS, I JUIVIUUAL IHAINI.,u

I m.jl)Aq (UCSUPS) l.-iNINU IICIUQUIL

I HU0JA9 iuCSLU(, M INTLNANdL. NANArLMLNT

I HQ0'Aq )(_S S)TUUY jFFICt

L tiSraClJF ATTN.: A'15C-LX-t HiUMAN FALTU.4S

I C)AC14AM9NTU At C/-P.Nh

AI OSI.FAO"'S/ AC SfeNIOR AWAY AUVISUH

I PIN~-iNIV SEii' A4 UN s<MILU FL.Lb * C

I )ASA (00A) Ott' 1 Y FUN ',LikNLL MNU TtC~rjrqIOGy

I()Fr' UF NAVAL wLttACH/

I AF-4WL/i HT

i AF -4RW/ /( L IN h-.L/S

I A114 FOWCIE HUMAN HESOURCL:) LAb ~I:AF"/S I9 61l A..qN/HH

I NA4Y F ;.RSUNNEL A' ND U LE14ER uIHIECTJH )I, PROGRAMS

e O~ OfNAVAL t~AwCH oiLbNNFL ANt) THAjNG WES-EALH PRU6HAMS

E-1
I OFC Of NAVAL RESEARCH ASST. OINL.CTOk PERS + TRAINING PSCH PROGS

I OFC OF NAVAL RESEARCH PROJECT UF41CE~t ENVIRONMENTAL PHYSIOLOGY

I NAVIAL AEROSPACE MEDICAL kbLH LAO ATTN: (CODE L51)

I NAVAL AEROSPACE MEDICAL WSCH LAO AIRdORNE RANGER RESEARCH

1 RUPEAU OF NAVAL PERSONNEL SCIFNTIFIC ADvISOR (PERS-OP)

I NAVAL AEHOSPACL MEDICAL RStLH LAO AEkJSPACE PSYCHOLOGY DEPARTMENT

1 USA TRADOC SYSTEMS ANALYSIS ACTIVITY ATTN% ATAA-TCA

I HEADQUARTERS, C )AST (jDAHU CH-IF9 PSYCHOt UGICAL RSCH R

I USA RESEARCH ANI) TECHNULO'UY LAB ATTN: DAVDL-AS

I USA MO.-dLITY EUtijIMENT P AND U LUMU AITti: UHOME-TQ

I NI';HT VISION LA)( ATTN: UHSEL-NV-SD

I USA TRAINING BOR

I USA MATERIEL SYSTEMS ANALYSIS ACTIVITY ATTN: UNXSY-M

I NAFEC HUMAN EW~i'EERINi, bkANCH

I HATTELI 1-COLUMbi)S LAbUNAJUHILS TACTICAL TECHNICAL W*C

I USA ARCTIC TEST LEN ATTN: AMSTL-PL-TS

I USA A~rTIC TEST CEN ATTN: STEAL-PL-MI

1 OEFENSF LAN'GUAU. INSTITUTE FUPLIbN LAN(,riAGE- CEN

I HU WRAIR DIV UF \hUHOPSYLHIATPY

I USi LLFCTRONIC fARF AHE LAbi CHTLF, INIELIIGENCE MATER (OEVLL UP OfFF

I USi WSCH DEVEL + STANUMNUILA G~q U.K.

I AFFDL/FGR (COIL)

*I USA NATICK RESE,tRC"H AND ULVELUPHENI C'JHMAND CHILF, BFHAV SCIENCES Dlv, FDO SCI LAB

I A~A)), F AND F- (t AND LS) MILITARY ASST FOR TNG * PENS TECHNOL

I NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAINU ATim: AIR-63i

I USACUECEC TECHN\ICAL LIHNHY

I USAARL LlbPARY

I "UAAN QESOtIRCESb HSCH OHb I(UMRRU) L16HAPY

I %EvILLF RESEARHi CORtPUHATIUN

IUSA TWADUC SYST.-MS ANALYSIS ACTIVITY ATTri: AIAA-SL (TECH LIBRARY)

I IuNIFURmED SERVIcILS UNIT U THE HEALTH SCI DEPAR[MENr OF PSYCHIATRY

I HU'AAN DESURCES kSLH ON(, (tUMRPU)

I HiU'4RRU WESTERN LIHRAHY

I HATTELIE REPUNIS LItbRAwY

I WA JO CCIRPORATIUf' ATTN: LIORAWy U)

I .,W)NINftk LIHiNA'4Y ATTN: ATZF-PS-L BL.)G 1313

I CLITER FUH NAVAl- ANALYSIS

I NAVAL "EALTH RSCM CEN LlbkARY

INAVAL PERSONNEL k AND U LLN LIHHARY ATT'j: CODE 9201L

I A1~4 FUPCE HUMAN HESOUNLES LAb ATTN: AFHLJL/OT

I HQ FT. HUACHuLA ATTN: TLCH RFF DIV

I iuSA ACaVEMY OF HEALTH SL-ILNCES :STIMSJN LHj3kAHY (DOCUMENTS)

1 SCHOOL OF SYSTEMS AND LOGISTICS ATTN: ACTT/LSCM

I ERIC PWOCLSSINU AN~D HREF.LNCE FAC ACJUiSITIONS LIHRARIAN

I oEPARTmENT OF J.-E NAVY THAININU ANALYSIS, AND EVALUATION GP

I NArIONAL CFNTER ) R HEALTH STATISTICS /

*I US.,A nEPT OF dEHAVIORAL SCI ANU LEAL)LHSHIP

1 IuS NAVY CNET StPPURT HFSLARLH Llbl4AkY

I tIL) O~MINION UNIVERSITY PtRfURMANCE AbSSsSMLNT LABORATORY

I USA COMMAND ANU L3;NEHAL SIAFt COLLEGE. ATTN: LI8kARY

I OSA TRANSPORTATIONJ SCHOOL USA THANSP TErH INVO AND R'SCH LEN

I NMROC PROGRAM 4ANAGER FUN HUMAN PLRFJRmar4CL

I 1uS4 ADmINCEN 1tLC4NILAL RESEARCH tiRANCH tIWAHY

I 05A FIFLD ARTY '40 /

1 NAT CLFARINGHOUSEt FUR Mr.NTAL HFALTH INUPAkKLAOVN bLiUC,

I ii oF TPXA5 CEN PJR CDMM-U,41CA1JIUN kSC'1

I INSTITiiTL FOR U$FENSE ANALYSES

I USA TRAINING SUPP)RT CkN~tL OEVtL SYSTE-iS TNLU + DEVICES DIRECTORATE

*I 1aFHW4L TECHNOLOGY :)FC (H)

*I PU-'I0UE UNIV DEP'T (OF PSYCHULOGTLAL SCIENCFS

I oSi MONILITY EUIIMENT W AND U LtJMMANJ ATTN: URImqE-IC,

.1 E-2

(:t
I DA US ARMY RETHAI%JING bUE RLSFAC' E VALUATION DIR

I HUMAN PESOURCE 4ANAbLMLNT LEN, SAN UIEGo

1 uSAFA D)EPT OF LIFE AND bLH SCI

I US MILYTAkY ACAUL%4Y LIbNAHY

I USA INIELLIGENLt ,E.N AND SLtl ATTN: SCHIOOL L1t8RAkY

1 USA INTELLIGENCE CLN ANO SLH DEP~T O OROUNU SENSORS

I MAR~INE CORPS INSTITUTE

I NAVAL SAFETY CLNTER /

I US COAST 6LIAkU. TN3 CEN ATTN: FLJOCAT[JNAL SVCS OFFICEP

I USAAVNC AND) FT, HJCKLH ATTN: AILZl-E.S

I US ARMY AVN TNb LIHRARY ATTN: CHIEF LIBRARIAN

1 USA AIQ DEFENSE SCHOOL ATTN. ATSADUT I USAAVNr ATTN< *ATIU-U

U (S MILITARY ACAlUEY DIHkLION 01- INSTITUTIONAL RSCH

I USAAUS-LIbRARY-')U'CUMtNTb

I HQI. USA SERGEANTS MAJOH ALADEMy ATTN: LEARNING HESOURCES CLNTER

I USA~ INFANTRY t3UAH) ATTi'j: ATLb.Ib-TS-rt

1 USA INTELLIGENC CELN ANi) SC9I FUUCATIDNA( ADVISOR

1 US OW, NANCE CLN, AND SCti ATTN: ArS3L-iEM-C

1 054~ Ai -mUW SCHOOL ATTN: AT~b-UT-IP

I I)S1 AkmOR CENTLri DINECIUHATL (Q1 CUMHAI iEVELOPMLNTS

I NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCH ATTN: IoOOLLY KNOX LIBRARY (CODE 1424)

1 USA TkANSPORTATIO'q SCHOOL ULP;IJY ASST. COMMANDANT EUUCA. TLCI4NOLUY

I USA SICNAL SCHOOL ANU T. t70HRtorv ATTV: ATZH-ET

1 USA UUARTERMAShtH bCtI ATTN: AThM-UT-iM-4T

I USA Mu ITAwY POLICE SCH4OOL ATTN;~ Ll~-..Aky

I iS. ARMO0R SCHOOL- EvAL ,iNMNCH, uikLCTJHATE OF INSTRUCTION

ICHIEF OF NAVAL H)JCATIU MNU TNj" /

I USISIOS, STAt-F AN) ACULTY DLV ANU IN6 DIV

i HQ4( ATC/XPTD TN~i~lNU )Y5LMS ,)LVLLOPi4N

I USA, IN<,ITL It h(, M IL I I AY AbbSIIANCE ATTN: ATSU-ID-TA

I LIS ARMY AHMOP SCM3IUL uiHRLLTUAIiL 01. )HAINING

I USA Alw. ULFENSL SCHiOUL AIIN: AIZC-014

I USA UARWTEWMASb-N SCHOOL 0IRECIONATE OF TRA1NINU' ULVFLORNFNTS

I IS COAST bLAPU IACAUEMY AIIN: CAULT CJUNi-FLOH WOICK SLI,4AK)

I USA TWANSPnPTAIIUJ SCHOOL DIRFCI')R OF TWAININ6i

I US4 INFANTRY SL"U:JL IlbHAHY /

L liSA INPzANT.Y 5LAUJL ATTN: AISH.-1-V

I LIS AHMy INFANTRY SCHOOL AiTN: ASIH-Cj

I lISA INPANTPY SLHU)L ATTN; AISH-LJOT

I USA IN17ANTRY SLiU:JL ATTN: ATSH-LV

I USA M1g IJAWY POLICIt SC,-IUL/TWAININL CLT ATTN: ATLN-PTS

I oS M ilTARY POLICL aCHOUL/THAININU, CENT~iq DIR, COMtiAT OEVLLOPMtNT

U LSA MI: ITARY POLIC bCHUUL/THAININb CL.NT~w UIN. TRAININi I)LVLLUIJMgNI

I tfS.\ M ilTARY PULICt SCHUULTHATNIN, CE.NTI- ATTN: ATLN-.ACt

I iiS INSTITuTf OI- AUMINI-NFRATION ATTN: WI-SIOLNT IPAINING MANAbEMENT

I NY LIRRARY

I Uil IFLD ARIILLL4Y SCHOOL MORRiS SwETT LIORARY

I Us., INSTI~TLTE OI AiumiNiTHUTION ALAIjC.M[( LItjRARY

I US A wAuL, LLED.L ATTN: Llt3HAHY

A.1 USI ENINEER S)L.,OL LIliNAHY ANU LLAP"IIN,, HtSUURk-ES CENTEH

I USA ARmOR SCHiOO[ (US,~RMS) ATTN:j LlbWRNY

i S COAST bLARU ALAU)EMY LlbRARY

I US, TRANSP0RTAlIO'4 SCHOOL IkAAIS0RUHTATIOA SCHOOL LlbWiAPY

I (,R;AN17ATIONAL r l-tCl~vtNtSS T~ju CLN # S(-i ATTN: L16PARIAN

I UIS ARMY INTELLI',ENCE Ct-4LH S ',HUUL ATT'4: ATSI-r0

I OS ARMY INTELLIk,ENICE CL'4Itm SCHOOL ATTN: ATSIRM-M

I US ARMY INTELLI1,ENCE CtiqltH * %(.MOOL ATTfj: ATSI-DT-SF-IM

1 US MARINE COPPS OUoCAIIUN CENTLN

i US FIFLU AW71LLth4y SCHOOL UIfL.LTURATE LFCuuwSL oEv * TAINlN-

'4 HRT rlb, LMRASSY IkITl'- OtFtNrt STAFF

e C A jAU IAN JO I NT I40F

E-3
I C~iS (w) LIBRAHY

I FRFNCH MILITARY ATTACHL

I AUSTRIAN EMBASSY MILITARY ANO AIR ATTACHE

3 CANADIAN DEFENCE LIAISUN St1AFF ATTN: CO)uNSELLOR, tjEFFNjCE R AND 0

1 ROYAL NETHERLAN)S EMbAS)SY MILTIARY ATTACHE

I CANADIAN FORCES BASE CURNwALLIS ATTN: PFRSONNEL SELECTION

2 CANADIaN FORCES. PERSONNEL APPL HSCH UNIT

I ARMY PFRSONNEL kESLARCH Lb1AbLISB)MENT

iARMY PFRSONNEL 4ESEAHCH LSTAbLISHMENT Awl SCIENTIFIC COORDINATION OFFICE

bL14RARY OF CON(URESS EXLHANGL AND GI1FT oiV

I IEFENSF TECHNICAL 1NFORMAION CLN ATTN: OTIL-TC

153 LI ARARY OF CONI.WESS UNIT LOCUmLNTS5 EMTPEJITIINU PROJECT

1 FDTTOR* H AND U) MA6ALINL ATTN: LJHCUE-LN

1 0S bOVFRNMENT PI41INTING OFC LIf4NARY, PUH[IC DOCUMENTS DEPARTMENT

I US GOVERNMENT PINTIN(, UK- LIHIkAHY AND STIATUTORY, LIH DIV (SLL)

1 THF ARMY LIBRAHY

E-4I