Some more interesting points of discussion. Unfortunately, since I'm now giving and grading midterms, I don't have time to discuss every point. But here are a few.
[quoting Cornell, 1 Mar 96] I wonder why no one mentioned the parallel between the use of hand-held calculators and the perceived degradation of math skills among us and your own vision of hand-held computers who do linguistically, much the same thing (or might)?
Good point. Math educators have already been facing the issue for several years. As I said in the original paper, reading and writing are just examples, perhaps extreme ones, of human abilities of which computers are becoming capable. Computers (or more generally technology) will be capable of more and more each year. The case of calculators and math skills may be useful to consider though, because many math educators believe that calculators have reduced the exercise of low level math skills, freeing students for higher level problem solving. Is there something "higher level" than reading, which reading machines will free us to spend more time and effort on?
[quoting Naidoo, 4 Mar 96] And I agree that "the problems of the world are varied... and that just like illiteracy, those are very difficult problems to solve." But in South Africa, educators have to often put technology-type solutions in the background with the needs of the learner in the South African context in the foreground.
I'm very interested in hearing what you think those needs are (seriously). My co-author Stan Trollip is South African and, though I shouldn't really speak for him, I recall his saying that South Africa needs many more teachers than its universities can currently produce, so giving each teacher as much technological support as possible is an important part of the solution.
[quoting Thomas, 4 Mar 96] In the case of IBM, their investment in training can and is actually being "used against them" by their competition. Many of their former employees now work for the competition, or their "intellectual property" or expertise is no longer the "property of IBM, "but available in the general marketplace.
This is of course true. But let's analyze this problem a little deeper. IBM can also hire (raid?) employees from THEIR competition. Arthur Anderson in Chicago is also well known for excellent training and they frequently get raided, including by IBM. Let's consider the result of following this concern (being raided by the competition) to the extreme. If all companies decided that training was not worth it, that they should hire already trained people from the competition, then nobody would invest much in training and everyone would soon find that there was nobody left to raid! Now I realize that companies do not "think" like a single entity, but surely management must realize that they can't all depend on someone else doing the training. On the other hand, although it would be nice if all companies did good training, perhaps that would only create MORE of a temptation for a few companies to do no training and just depend on raiding. I admit that this kind of thinking leads into a vicious circle and I don't know the way out. Perhaps a reasonable point of view is that a company should do training equivalent to their competitors and assume that their gains and losses from raiding will cancel out.
...not support a developmental approach, such as "if you're the 'experts' then why do you need so much of my time" or "why do I need to pay for all these revisions, when you didn't 'get it right' the first time," etc., etc., etc. ... I agree that evaluation and revision are desirable, but overall I've found that industrial clients view this cycle as "mistakes that need correcting that they shouldn't be required to pay for..."
Yes, I guess we have all run into that. But again I ask, does that make it right? Automotive industries certainly recognize that your first design of a new automobile will require evaluation and revision. The software industry recognizes this about their software. Why do people assume that we should get training correct on the very first draft? My answer is that they really don't think so, but say what they say in trying to get whatever they can for their money. Part of being an instructional designer is educating the client about the necessity of evaluation and revision (without losing their business, of course).
To "counter" his specific example of "airline pilot" I'd also point out the ongoing debates in military and aviation training related to the issues of "fidelity" and "realism," which are the primary determinants of cost is a simulation-based training method. As an example, a computer-driven mockup of a cockpit (including real switches and gauges) to teach cockpit procedures training costs about 6 to 10 times the amount of an equivalent multimedia-based CBT that simulates exactly the same functionality on-screen. The training has been proven (to most who will objectively analyze the data from extensive tests) to be equally effective. Consequently, most cockpit procedures training now being developed is now being done by CBT, because it is much more cost-effective. (The much more expensive flight simulators are "reserved" for teaching the more complex tasks that require refined psycho-motor skills.)
My main research interest is simulation fidelity. I agree fully that military trainers assumed (in the past) that high fidelity would be better. As a result the military spent many of our tax dollars on overly realistic simulators. And it still goes on! What is needed is to determine the best mix of technologies through the entire course of instruction (see Carter, G., & Trollip, S.R. (1980). A Constrained maximization extension to incremental transfer effectiveness, or, how to mix your training technologies. Human Factors, 22, 141-152.). I don't think this counters my point about airline pilots at all. We should be willing to err on the side of spending too much money training them, rather than too little.
By the way, where did the "one-size-fits all" come from? I didn't recommend one ... Just-in-time" training (JITT) is more of a concept or philosophy, not a specific technology. It focuses on providing the training as close to the point of need as possible, and doesn't identify a specific delivery method or medium. Doesn't this make sense, given what we know about retention, transfer and practice?
I know I shouldn't put words in other people's mouths, but the second paragraph seems like an example of what I meant by "one-size-fits-all." What do I mean? The second paragraph seems to ask: "doesn't JITT always make sense?" My belief is that no, it does not always make sense. Some things take a longer time to learn and JITT is not appropriate for them. I realize Kent didn't say "always", but it seemed to be implied.
An EPSS (which I characterize as a subset of JITT)...
I think EPSSs are great, but I don't consider them a subset of JITT at all. As I said in my original piece, I prefer to see them for review or reference, not initial training. Now, in keeping with my previous paragraph I will amend that a little. If what is to be learned is simple and CAN be learned easily and rapidly, than an EPSS for JITT might be reasonable. But for more complex skills or knowledge, and especially when the consequence of error are severe, I prefer more thorough instruction, distributed practice, and an EPSS for review and reference on the job.